YALE
DIVINITY SCHOOL
LIBRARY

Gift of
Estate of the
Rev. Orville A. Petty

A COMMENTARY

GEEEK TEXT OE THE EPISTLE OF PAUL

THE GALATIANS.

Ovbe yap Set ra prjjiaTa yvjxva e^eTafciv, eVet 7roXXa e^erat tce afiapTrjfxara,
ovbi ttjp \£$-w Ka6J iavrqv ftaaTafav aXXa ttj biavoiq nrpo<r£xuv T0^ ypa<j>ovTOS.
Chkysost. a<2 Galat* i. 17.
Q#?m met es£ o&scwra cKsserere, manz/^to perstringere, f» tfw&m zmmoran. — Hiehonym.
Prsefat. lib. iii. cap. i. Commentar. in Epist. ad Galatas.
Non hie audeo prsscipitare sententiam, intelligat qui potest, judicet qui potest, utrum majus sit
jwtos creare quam impios jusiificare. — ¦AtrGOSTiN. Tract, lxx.ii. in Joannis Evangelium.
I myself can hardly believe that I was so plentiful in words, when I did publicly expound
this Epistle of Paul to the Galatians, as this book showeth me to have been. Notwithstanding,
I perceive all the cogitations which I find in this treatise, by so great diligence of the brethren
gathered together, to be mine ; so that I must needs confess, either all or perhaps more to have
been uttered by me, for in my heart this one article reigneth, even the faith of Christ, from
whom, by whom, and unto whom all my divine studies daily have recourse, to and fro, continu
ally. And yet I perceive that I could not reach anything near unto the height, breadth, and
depth of such high and inestimable wisdom ; only certain poor and bare beginnings, and as it
were fragments, do appear. "Wherefore I am ashamed that my so barren and simple commen
taries should be set forth upon so worthy an apostle and elect vessel of God. — Luther, Preface
to Commentary on Qalatians, English translation, London 1575.

A COMIENTAB

ON THE

GREEK TEXT OF THE EPISTLE OF PAUL

THE GALATIANS.

BY THE LATE

JOHN EADIE, D.D., LL.D.,
PROFESSOR OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE AND EXEGESIS TO THE UNITED
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH.

SECOND EDITION. ^>tary of ^>
YALE DIYFTY SCHOOL!
EDINBURGH:
T. & T. CLAEK, 38 GEOEGE STREET.
188 3.

MORRISON AND GIBB, EDINBURGH,
PIUNTEHB TO HER MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE.

PREFACE.

rTlHE object of this Commentary is the same as that stated
-*- in the prefaces to my previous volumes on Ephesians
Colossians, and Philippians. Nor do its form and style greatly
vary from those earlier Works. Only it is humbly hoped, that
longer and closer familiarity with the apostle's modes of
thought and utterance may have conferred growing qualification
to expound him. The one aim has been to ascertain the
meaning through a careful analysis of the words. Grammatical
and lexical investigation have in no way been spared, and
neither labour nor time has been grudged in the momentous
and responsible work of illustrating an epistle which contains
so vivid an outline of evangelical truth. To find the sense has
been my first step, and the next has been to unfold it with
some degree of lucid and harmonious fulness. How far my
purpose has been realized, the reader must judge ; but, like
every one who undertakes such a task, I am sadly conscious
of falling far short of my own ideal. While I am not sensible
of being warped by any theological system, as little am I aware
of any deviation from recognised evangelical truth. One may
differ in the interpretation of special words and phrases, and
still hold the great articles of the Christian creed. I have
gone over every clause with careful and conscientious effort to
arrive at its sense, and without the smallest desire to find a
' meaning for it that may not jar with my theology. For
" Theology," as Luther said, " is nothing else than a grammar
and lexicon applied to the words of the Holy Spirit." I am
well aware that scholastic theolosv has done no small damage

VI ITBEFACE.
to biblical interpretation, as may be seen . in so many of the
proof -texts attached to Confessions of Faith. The divine words
of Scripture are " spirit and life," and have an inherent vitality,
while the truth wedged into a system has often become as a
mummy swathed up in numerous folds of polemical dialectics.
Several features of this epistle render its exposition some
what difficult. In some sections, as in the address to Peter,
the apostle's theology is but the expression of his own experi
ence ; brief digressions and interjected thoughts are often
occurring; longer deviations are also met with before he works
round more or less gradually to the main theme. The epistle
is not like a dissertation, in which the personality of the author
is merged ; it is not his, but himself — his words welling up
freshly from his heart as it was filled by varying emotions of
surprise, disappointment, anger, sorrow, and hope. So, what
he thought and felt was immediately written down before its
freshness had faded ; vindication suddenly passes into dogma,
and dogma is humanized by intermingled appeals and warnings,
— the rapid interchange of I, We, Thou, Ye, They, so lighting
up the illustration that it glistens like the changing hues of a
dove's neck. The entire letter, too, is pervaded by more than
wonted fervour ; the crisis being very perilous, his whole nature
was moved to meet it, so as to deliver his beloved converts
from its snares. One result is, that in his anxiety and haste,
thought occasionally jostles thought ; another idea presses upon
him before the one under hand is brought to a formal con
clusion ; his faculty of mental association being so suggestive
and fertile, that it pressed all around it into his service. These
peculiarities show that the letter is an intensely human com
position — the words of an earnest man writing in the fulness
of his soul to other men, and naturally throwing himself on
their affection; while there lies behind, in conscious com
bination, that divine authority which conferred upon him the
apostleship in connection with the appearance and voice of the
Saviour, and that divine training which opened up to him those

PREFACE. vii
sudden and perfect intuitions which he terms Eevelation. The
contents and circumstances of the epistle endeared it to Luther,
for it fitted in wondrously to his similar experiences and trials,
and he was wont to call it, as if in conjugal fondness, his
Katherine von Bora. One may also cordially indorse the
eulogy of Bunyan : " I prefer this book of Martin Luther's
(except the Bible) before all the books that I have ever seen,
as most fit for a wounded conscience." For the epistle un
veils the relation of a sinner to the law which condemns him,
and from which, therefore, he cannot hope for acceptance,
and it opens up the great doctrine of justification by faith,
which modern spiritualism either ignores or explains away.
Its explicit theology is, that through faith one enjoys pardon
and has the Spirit conferred upon him, so that he is free from
legal yoke ; while his life is characterized by a sanctified
activity and self-denial, for grace is not in conflict with such
obedience, but is rather the spring of it — death to the law
being life to God. It is also a forewarning to all time of the
danger of modifying the freeness and fulness of the gospel,
and of allowing works or any element of mere ritual to be
mixed up with the atoning death of the Son of God, as if to
give it adaptation or perfection.
Any one writing on Galatians must acknowledge his obli
gation to the German exegets, Meyer, De Wette, Wieseler, and
the others who are referred to in the last chapter of the Intro
duction. Nor can he forget to thank, among others at home,
Bishop Ellicott, Dean Alford, and Prof. Lightfoot, for their
learned and excellent labours. Each of these English com
mentaries has its distinctive merits ; ana my nope is, that this
volume, while it has much in common with them, will be found
to possess also an individual character and value, the result of
unwearied and independent investigation. Ellicott is distin
guished by close and uniform adherence to grammatical canon,
without much expansion into exegesis ; Alford, from the fact
that his exposition extends to the whole New Testament, is of

Vlll PREFACE.
necessity brief and somewhat selective in his remarks ; while
Lightfoot himself says, that "in his explanatory notes such
interpretations only are discussed as seemed at all events possi
bly right, or are generally received, or possess some historical
interest;" and his collateral discussions occupy longer space than
the proper exposition. I have endeavoured, on the other hand,
to unite grammatical accuracy with some fulness of exegesis,
giving, where it seemed necessary, a synopsis of discordant
views, and showing their insufficiency, one-sidedness, ungram-
matical basis, or want of harmony with the context ; treating
a doctrine historically, or throwing it into such a form as may
remove objection ; noticing now and then the views and argu
ments of Prof. Jowett ; and, as a new feature in this volume,
interspersing several separate Essays on important topics.
Authorities have not been unduly heaped together ; in the
majority of cases, only the more prominent or representative
names have been introduced. The text is for the most part,
but not always, the seventh edition of Tischendorf, to whom
we are indebted for the Codex SinaiticUs N, and for his recent
and exact edition of the Vatican Codex of the New Testament.
My thanks are due to Mr. John Cross, student of Balliol
College, Oxford, for looking over the sheets as they passed
through the press.
And "now, as an earnest and honest attempt to discover the
mind of the Spirit in His own blessed word, I humbly dedicate
this volume to the Church of Christ.

JOHN BADIE.

6 Thornvtlle Terrace, Hillhead,
Glasgow, 1st January 1869.

CONTENTS.

Some of the longer illustrations and separate discussions referred to
in the Preface are noted in the following brief Table of Contents : —

PAGE

Abraham — in him, with him, .

238-240
Accursed, ......
26
Adoption, ......
298
All things to all men, ...
32-33
Allegory, ....
359-363
Antagonism, inner, .....
409-412
Brothers of our Lord, neither step-brethren nor cousins-
-patristic
and modern theories reviewed (a Dissertation), .
57-100
Christ's self-oblation not a mere Jewish image, as Jowett affirms,
12
Clementines, ......
199-200
Cut off which trouble you — meaning of the phrase, .
397-400
Druidism, ......
. xxxiv-xxxix
Dying to the law — living to God,
181-186
Elements, ....
295
Faith, life by, .
244-246
Fault, overtaken in,
431-433
Flesh, works of,
415-420
Four hundred years, .
259-261
Galatia province — its history, .
xiii
Population of, Keltic in blood,
XX
Introduction of the gospel into, .
xxviii
Epistle to — contents of, .
•y-yTfi'-y
,, genuineness of,
xlvii
„ commentators on,
lxii
Hagar — Mount Sinai : allegory,
364-368
Harmony of Paul with the other apostles,
¦
123-135
Israel of God, ....
.
470
James — brother ; relationship discussed,
57-100
James, certain from, at Antioch,
397
Jowett on atonement, reviewed,
12
192-194
Judaism, exclusiveness of,
.
131
CONTENTS.

PAGE
Justification by faith, ..... 166,229-235
Law, meaning of, ... . . 163-164
Law as instrument of death to itself, .... 182
Law 430 years after the promise, . . 259
Law, uses of, etc., .... . 262-269
Law, not under — meaning of, . . . . . 412-415
Law a psedagogue, ...... 279-284
Love the fulfilment of the law, .... 402-406
Letters, large, used by the apostle, .... 454-459
Mediator not of one — God is one, .... 267-275
Names of the Saviour — meaning and varying use, . . 169-170
Paganism, religious truth underlying, .... 312
Paul and Peter at Antioch — long correspondence between Jerome
and Augustine on the subject (a Dissertation),
Putting on Christ, ....
Eevelation, its nature, ....
Righteousness, .....
Sarah, Jerusalem above,
Seasons, sacred — condemnation of keeping them, no argument
against Christian Sabbath-keeping,
Seed — harvest, .....
Seeds — Seed, .....
Sinners, found to be— meaning of the phrase, .
Son, minor, servant — Roman law,
Spirit, fruit of, ....
Thorn in the flesh, the apostle's infirmity in Galatia (a Disserta
tion),  329-345
Visits of the apostle to Galatia, .... xxviii-xxxi
Visits 6f the apostle to Jerusalem (a Dissertation), . . 133-145

198-213
286-287 45
227-236368-369313-317
444-448256-258176-177
290-296421-426

GREEK WORDS AND PHRASES.

PAGE

PAGE
*A/3/3« o wctTYjp, . . . 303
evpds,  417
AdiXdoi tov Kvptau,
57-100
KXTjUx,
53
Aioiy,
14
AoyP^OfABLt £iff,
228-229
'Axofl,
220
Mirctrifairdcci,
19
AftctpTiaiv with avrly
¦Tip),
wrtp7
10
MuKTvipi^aft
445
' L\\a,h.(JM.,
26-28
No]tt0f,
163
-164, 262-269
Atoitto^os f ,
95
OtXiTagj .
453
A.tri'kyiict)
416
OuTt yelp,
35
HaifxuivMy
215
Tlxidety&yds,
282
A/K,
102, 320-325
XlapaootrtSf
41
Atatfyit&W,
253, 254
IlyiXiKoSj
455
AtKaioffuviq, Otxctto&i,
229-235
TllffTlS,
244-246
Aupidv,
196
Tipoifwrov Xafif:
avztv,
120
'Eyxpccriix,
424
TIpeardro»ost
60
Ei$, tvagf
269-274
'2x.d\o'$s, .
335
T&vovof&aij
286
"SWipfiLUj .
255-258
"Epyec vdpiov,
163
'Snyfiu,
472
'Epifaia, .
418
"Stoi^sTcCj
295
aErtpo$} .
22
"STvkos, Jig.
126
Z»kos,
417
Sdw, ew, .
238, 240
Znvt £&»«',
185-190
Xpyiffrorn;,
423
ERR
ATA.
Page ix, line 5 from top, for 298 read 299-300.
,, ix, line 3 from bottom,/or 397 read 150.
,, ix, last line, for 131 read 132.
, , xxiii, middle of page, for Bptii'xis read Bpii'xu.
,, xxiii, line 9 from bottom, for 'Axi^ffins read 'Axixtipus.
,, xxiv, line 14 from top, for Judith ix. 9 read ix. 7.
„ xlix, middle of page, for erhoben werden read erhoben worden.
,, 1, line 2 from top, for come read comes.
, , lxi, line 7 from top, for ypxipn read ypxQn.
,, lxii, line 14 from top, /or Ferguson read Fergusson.
,, 14, line 16 from bottom (and repeatedly), for aluv read ala*.
,, 15, line 10 from top, for Esdras v. 46 read v. 47.
15, line 6 from bottom, for xxrx read xxtcc.
,, 18, middle of page,/or does not here take read here takes.
,, 21, line 10 from bottom, for Winer 50, § 5, read § 50, 5.
,, 22, line 10 from top, for Ps. cxiii. read (Aquila) Ps. cxiii.
,, 22, line 10 from top, for Deut. xxii. 11 read (Symmachus) Deut. xxii. 11.
,, 24, line 15 from bottom, for 1 Sam. x. 8 read x. 9.
,, 27, line 1, for xupiij read xup'uc.
,, 27, line 6 from bottom, for Isa. liv. read xxxiv. -
,, 41, line 4 from top, for Jer. xxxii. 4 read xxxix. 4.
,, 44, last line, for h/uis read Si/iHs.
,, 47, line 9 from bottom, for Acts ii. 15 read iii. 1.
,, 50, line 4 from bottom, for Matt. xxvi. 55 read Matt. xxvi. 55 (Lachmann).
,, 53, line 1,/or 2 Tim. iv. 2 read iv. 1.
, , 56, line 2 from top, for bearing read losing.
XU ERRATA.
Page 62, note 2, for vielleich read vielleicht.
,, 64, line 6 from bottom, for John xix. 23 read xix. 25.
,, 77, line 4 from top, for quidam read quidem.
,, 94, note 2, for Neu read Neues.
,, 95, middle of page, for <rZv read tin.
,, 114, line 13 from bottom, for found in read found as an epithet of.
,, 120, line 15 from top, for Xxp/ixM read Xx/t/ixnit.
„ 122, middle of page, for gleichgultig read gleichgiiltig.
,, 134, line 4 from bottom, for mipopvxZs read v.feptixut.
,, 145, line 2 from top, for Acts xi. read xii.
,, 155, line 2 from bottom, for seines read seiner.
,, 157, line 8 from bottom, for xxxlxfroi read xxxtxpTtv.
,, 166, line 15 from bottom, for sint read sunt.
„ 167, line 4 from bottom, for Winer § 30 read § 49, a, (3).
,, 168, line 7 from top,/or Matt. xxi. 25, 28-32, read 25, 32.
,, 174, line 15 from bottom, for xxrxxpinftivoi read xxrxxpi>i/ti>ci.
, , 177, line 14 from bottom, for 2 Cor. xi. 2 read xi. 15.
,, 177, note, for dann read kann.
,, 179, line 9 from bottom, for (ppo/pArm read irpnqhm*.
,, 185, line 15 from top, for xvpm read xvpln.
,, 185, line 19 from top, for Z$v read Zw.
,, 190, line 9 from bottom, for Winer § 53, 3, c, read 53, 3, (c).
,, 215, line 8 from bottom, for Quinam read Quidam.
„ 219, line 17 from top, for Winer § 47, 2, note, read 47, b.
,, 221, last line, for 1 Sam. ii. 12 read iii. 12.
,, 223, line 12 from top, for kyxtx read xyxSi.
,, 247, line 7 from bottom, for fi/ids read fi/txs.
,, 256, line 16 from bottom, for Winer § 47, 9, read 47, g.
,, 266, line 10 from top, for Winer § 47, 1, read 47, i.
,, 267, middle of page, for Num. iv. 38, 41-45, read 37, 41, 45.
,, 272, line 6 from bottom, for Emptfanger read Empfanger.
,, 288, line ] 6 from top, for S-liXu read 6*\u.
,, 310, line 6 from top, for 1 Cor. viii. 2 read viii. 3.
,, 320, line 6 from bottom, for Josh. x. 9 read x. 14.
„ 324, last line, for v. 10, 11, read v. 20, 21.
,, 332, line 11 from top, for Mannlein read Mannlein.
,, 335, line 17 from top, for axoXonnitrffi read trxoXovntrfft.
„ 348, line 10 from top, for ixfixXXiiv read IxfixXiTv.
,, 349, middle of page, for Winer § 41, 5, 1, read 41, 6, 1 c.
,, 353, line 4 from top, for Cant. viii. 15 ; Isa. xxxiii. 4, read viii. 5 ; xxiii. 4.
,, 364, line 6 from bottom, for Pro read De.
,, 365, line 3 from bottom, for 1 Chron. v. 10, 19, read 19, 20.
,, 372, line 16 from bottom, for Jer. xv. 7 ; xxxi. 4, read xv. 17 ; xxxviii. 4
(Sept.)
,, 397, line 15 from bottom, for A. Buttmann § 185 read p. 185.
, , 406, middle of page, after ' eat down ' insert ' the second is. '
,, 407, middle of page, for Gal. iii. 17 read vi. 16.
,, 418, line 19 from top, for » read « ; for ipiiu* read ipthix.
,, 421, line 5 from top, for i) read el.
,, 423, line 7 from bottom, for Gutigkeit read Giitigkeit.
, , 429, line 10 from bottom, for 2 Mace, read 4 Mace.
, , 439, line 6 from bottom, for teinem read, seinen.
,, 445, line 18 from bottom, for 1 Mace. vii. 34, 39, read 1 Mace. vii. 34 ;
2 Mace. vii. 39.
,, 445, line 5 from bottom, for hpitru read iiplru.
,, 455, line 4 from bottom, for irahis read crihs.
,, 459, line 6 from bottom, for Pro read De.
„ 465, line 17 from bottom, for 1 Mace. xiii. 5, 9, 10, read xiii. 5.
,, 468, line 16 from bottom, for Schoettgen i. 308 read i. 704.
„ 469, middle of page, for AViner § 63, 1, d, read § 63, I., 2, d.

INTRODUCTION.

1.— THE PROVINCE OF GALATIA.
THE Galatia or Gallogrsecia of the " Acts," the region to
which this epistle was sent, was <a central district in Asia
Minor, bounded on the north by Bithynia and Paphlagonia, on
the south by Cappadocia and Phrygia, on the east by Pontus
and Cappadocia, and on the west by Phrygia and Bithynia.
The Eoman province of Galatia was considerably larger than
this territory, and comprised Lycaonia, Isauria, Phrygia, and
Pisidia — the kingdom as ruled by the last sovereign Amyntas.1
Some critics therefore hold that this epistle was sent espe
cially to believers in Lystra and Derbe ; Mynster, Niemeyer,
Paulus, Ulrich, Bottger, and Thiersch arguing that in the
reign of Nero, Galatia included Derbe and Lystra along with
Pisidia, and that therefore in Acts xiii and xiv. there are full
details of the apostle's missionary labours in the province. But
Galatia is not used in the New Testament in this wide Eoman
sense ; it has always a narrower signification. For by its side
occur the similar names of Mysia, Pisidia, and Phrygia. Nay,
Lycaohia, Pisidia, Phrygia — all included in the Eoman province
— are uniformly mentioned as countries distinct from Galatia ; !
the obvious inference being that the terms denote various locali- ,
ties, without reference to political divisions. Thus the author of
1 Galatia quoque sub hoc provincia facta est, cum antea regnum. fuisset
primusque earn M. Lollius pro prmtore adminutravit. Eutrqpius, vii. 8. — TuV
V ' ' Kfimrou -TlXlvTyltravros oil rots rtxtffh xvrov Tfl* xp%kv tfirpsiplv, X.XX is
rijv vwxoov iffriyxyl, xxt syVw xai « Txkxrix f&iTx rr,s Avxxovixs Pufixtov
i.px,'i'x 'Ux,i. Dion Cassius, liii. 3, vol. ii. p. 48, ed. Bekker. See also
Strabo, xii. 5, 1. Pliny puts the Lystreni in the catalogue of the tribes
occupying the Roman province : Hist. Nat. -vii. 42.

XIV INTRODUCTION.
the Acts describes the apostle and his party as going "throughout
Phrygia and the region of Galatia " (Acts xvi. 6) ; and these are
again distinguished from Lyeaonia and Pisidia, Acts xiii. 14,
xiv. 6, 24. Nay, the phrase first quoted — tjjv 4>pvyiav icai rrjv
TaXaTiKTjv -xpipav, " the Phrygian and Galatian country " — -
implies that while Phrygia and Galatia were different, they
were closely connected geographically ; for the Galatian district
was bounded south and west by Phrygia, nay, it had originally
been Phrygian territory before it was conquered and possessed
by the Gauls.1 The towns of Lystra and Derbe, " cities of
Lyeaonia," with Iconium and Antioch, are never regarded as
belonging to the apostolic Galatia, though the Eoman Galatian
province apparently included them. At the same time, in the
enumeration of places in 1 Pet. i. 1, an enumeration running
from east to west, Galatia may be the Roman province men
tioned with the others there saluted.
The compound name raXXoypai/cta — Gallograecia — Greek
Gaul, is connected with the eastward migration of a fragment
of the great old Keltic race which peopled western Europe.
Indeed, Keltai, Galli, Galatse, are varying forms of the same
name. The first of these terms, KeXTou, KeKrai, is probably
the earliest, being found in Hecataeus 2 and Herodotus ;8 while
the other form, TaXaria, is more recent (oi^e), as is affirmed
by Pausanias,4 though it came to be generally adopted by
Greek writers as the name as well of the eastern tribes in Asia
Minor, as of the great body of the people to the west of the
Rhine. It occurs on the Augustan monument in the town of
Ancyra; and being applied alike to the Asiatic and Euro
pean Gauls, there needed occasionally some geographical nota
tion to be added, such as that found in iElian 5 — raXdrat
Ei58o£o? tovs TTj? 'Ema? Xeyet Spdv Totavra ; and it has been
found on an inscription dug out from Hadrian's Wall in the
north of England. Diefenbach 6 shows that this name had an
1 Strabo writes : h %\ ry ftureyxla rm ri ipuy/xv, ?,s Xtrri pipos # ti t»
TxXXoypxixwv Xeyopivv TxXarix : Geog. ii. 5, 31.
2 Fragment. 19, 20, 21, ed. Midler.
3 Hist. ii. 33, iv. 49. Polybius, ii. 13 ; Diodorus Sic. v. 22. See Suidas
sub voce rdxxei, and the Elymologicum Magnum, sub voce TxXarix.
4 Descript. Grcec. i. 3, 5, vol. i. p. 18, ed. Schubart.
s De Nat. Anim. xvii. 19, vol. i. p. 382, ed. Jacobs.
6 Celtica, ii. p. 6, etc., Stuttgart 1839-40.

KELTS, GAULS, GALATIANS. XV
extensive range of application. Ammianus Marcellinus1 says,
Galatas — ita enim Gallos Sermo Grcecus adpellat ; and Appian2
explains, e? ttjv KeXrifcrjv Tr)v vvv Xeyofievrjv TcCkaTiav. Galli
• — TaXXoi,, Gauls — was the current Eoman name, though the
other terms, Kelt and Galatian, are also used by Latin writers
— the last being confined to the people who had settled them
selves in Phrygia. Julius Caesar's3 words are, tertiam qui ipso-
rum lingua, Celtw, nostra Galli appellantur. Livy,4 in narrating
the eastern wars in Galatia, calls the people Galli. TaXXla
is also employed by late Greek writers, and at a more recent
period it almost superseded that of Galatia.5 Theodore of Mop-
suestia has rh<; vvv /caXovfievris TaXXia<; — ad 2 Tim. iv. 10,
Fragm. p. 156, ed. Fritzsche. Diefenbach6 quotes from Galen,
De Antidot. i. 2, a clause identifying the three names : /caXovao
jap avrov? eviou fiev FaXaTa^ evtot Be rdXXovs, crvvrjdecrTepov
Be tcov KeXrcov ovofia. Strabo7 reports some difference of lan
guage among the western Galatee — a statement which may be
at once believed, for, not to speak of Welsh and Erse, such
variations are found in places so contiguous as the counties
of Inverness and Argyle. Appian,8 speaking of the Pyrenees,
says, " that to the east are the Kelts, now named Galatians and
Gauls, and to the west Iberians and Keltiberians." But the
names are sometimes used vaguely, and sometimes also for the
sake of inter-distinction, as in the definition of Hesychius,
KeXrol e6vo<; 'irepov TaXarwv ; in Diogenes Laertius,9 KeXrofc
Ka\ TaXaTaw, and in fine, we have also the name KeXro-
jaXarla. These ethnological statements imply that the know
ledge of ancient writers on the subject was not only vague and
fluctuating, but often merely traditionary and conjectural, and
that the various names — Greek and Eoman, earlier and later,
eastern and western — given to this primitive race, led to great
confusion and misunderstanding. Perhaps it is not far from
the truth to say that Kelt was the original name, the name em-
1 xv. 9. 2 Harm. iv. p. 115, vol. i. ed. Bekker. 3 Bell. Gall. i.
* Hist, xxxviii. 12, 27. For these various names, see also Contzen,
die Wanderungen der Kelten, p. 3, Leipzig 1861 ; Gliick, die bei C. J.
Csssar vorkommende Keltischen Namen, Miinchen 1857.
s Wright's Celt, Roman, and Saxon, p. 325. 6 Celtica, ii. 7.
7 Geog. iv. 1,1. 8 Hisp. i. p. 48, vol. i. ed. Bekker.
0 P. 1, vol. i. ed. Huebner.

XVI INTRODUCTION.
ployed by the people themselves; and that the Greeks, on getting
the name or some peculiar variation of it, represented it by
Galata? ; while the Romans, by another initial change far from
being uncommon, pronounced it Galli — the t or at in Kelt
or Galat being a species of Keltic suffix.1 Not only is the
initial letter of Kelti and Galli interchangeable, but there is a
form KaXarla, KaXarov, allied, according to some, to Cael-
don— the Gauls of the hills— Celadon, Caledonii. The northern
form of the word is Gadhael, Gaidheal, or Gaoidheal, of which
the Scottish term Gael is a contraction. Hence Argyle is ar-
Gadhael, the coast of the Gael, and Argyle has become Argyll,
just as Gael became Gall, Galli. The conflicting mythical
derivations of the name need not be referred to ; it seems to
be allied to the Irish Gal, " a battle," Gala, " arms," and will
therefore mean "armed" — pugnaces, armati? This derivation
is abundantly verified in their history, for they were, as Strabo
says, "warlike, passionate, and ever prepared to fight."" The
essential syllable in the earlier name is found in Celtiber,
KeXrt^Tjp; and the other form, Gall, makes the distinctive part
of Gallicia, a province in the Spanish peninsula, of Galway
and of Galloway, connected with the idea of foreign or hostile ;
hence the old Scottish proverb about " the fremd Scots of
Galloway." The same syllable formed portion of the grand
chieftain's name latinized by Tacitus into Galgacus, into whose
mouth, in his oration before the decisive battle, the son-in-law
of the Roman general puts those phrases which in their point
and terseness have passed into proverbs : omne ignotum pro
niagnijico ; solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.4"
The Celtic races were among the earliest migrations from
the East, and occupied western Europe ; they were as far
west, according to Herodotus, as to be " beyond the Pillars of
Hercules" — "they are near the Kynetas, which are the most
western population of Europe."6 They were also found in
northern Italy, France, and the British Isles. Many Latin
1 T — derivans in nominibus Gallicis vel Britannicis vetustis. Singularis
qccedens ad radicem—ss, Critognatus from gna. Zeuss, Grammatica Celtica,
vol. ii. pp. 757, 758, Lipsise 1853.
2 Do. vol. i. p. 993. . s Geog. iv. 4, 2.
* Agricolm Vita, xxx. p. 287, Op. vol. iv. ed. Ruperti.
6 ii. 33, iv. 49. Plutarch, Vitx, Marius, p. 284, vol. ii. ed. Bekker.

KELTIC EXPEDITIONS. Xvii
terms connected with war are of Keltic origin.1 But the
ocean prevented any farther westward progress, and in their
restlessness the Kelts retraced their steps, and commenced a
series of movements towards the East. After some minor
expeditions, and in the year 390 B.C., a portion of them, under
Brennus or Bran, crossed the Apennines, captured Rome,
and spread themselves over the south of Italy. According to
Livy and Diodorus, these invaders came from the vicinity of
Sens, and were therefore Kelts according to Cassar's account
of the races of Gaul. Others suppose them to have belonged
to the Kymric branch of the Gauls : Kt/j,(3poi — Ki/jLfiepwi.2
About 279 B.C. another body of Gauls, under a leader of
the same name, rushed eastward into Greece, overran Thrace
and Macedonia, found immense wealth, and enriched them
selves for another and more violent expedition, — their forces
being said to consist of 150,000 infantry and 61,000 cavalry.
These hardy hordes — o^ijovoi TtTrjves, late-born Titans — ¦
swarmed thick as snow-flakes — vicpdBecrcrtv eot/core?, as the
poet describes them.3 On pushing their way to Thermopylas
so famed in olden story, they met 20,000 Greeks assembled to
defend the pass, the shore being guarded also by an Athenian
fleet. The Gauls, in spite of their numbers, were beaten
back; and one party of them, crossing the mountains into
.ZEtolia, ravaged the country with incredible barbarity. The
leader then marched in haste on Delphi, gloating over
the rich prize that should fall into his hands — the sacred
treasures and statues and chariots dedicated to the sun-god ;
Nprof anely joking, according to Justin,4 that the gods were so
rich that they could afford to be givers as well as receivers.
But the Delphian Greeks, mustering only 4000, proved more
than a match for Brennus and his impatient troops. The
defenders had an advantageous situation on the hill, and,
aided by a stern and intense wintry cold, they bravely re
pulsed the barbarians. Their general, wounded and carried off
1 Priehard's Eastern Origin of the Celtic Nations, p. 124, Latham's ed.
2 Appian, Celtic, vol. i. pp. 34, 42, ed. Bekker ; Diodor. Sic. v. 32 ;
Arnold's History of Rome, vol. i. p. -524, etc., 3d ed.
3 Callimachus, ad Delum. 175, p. 33, ed. Blomfield.
4 Justin, xxiv. 6. Contzen, Wanderungen der Kelten, p. 193, etc.;
Wernsdorf, De Repub. Galat. vii. ; Pausanias, Descript. Grxc. x. 19.
b

XVlll INTRODUCTION.
the field, was unable to bear his mortification, and committed
suicide ; and the impetuous invaders, on being beaten, fled in
panic — a national characteristic, and a few of them escaping
the slaughter that accompanied their disorderly retreat through
an unknown and mountainous territory, reached their brethren
left behind at Thermopylae. According to Greek legend,
Apollo's help1 led to the discomfiture of the invaders. Justin
says that a portion of these marauders, the tribe called Tecto-
sages, returned with their booty to Tolosa — Toulouse ; but the
story is uncertain, and the fluctuations of these Celtic tribes,
ever in quest of new territories and plunder, cannot be dis
tinctly traced — the hazy reports of their movements hither and
thither cannot be clearly followed. The expedition to Delphi
had bred fierce dissension among the leaders of the force, who,
like all Keltic chiefs, were too self-willed and independent to
maintain harmonious action for any length of time. Two
leaders, named in a tongue foreign to their own, Leonnorius
and Lutarius, had escaped the great disaster by refusing to
join in the march ; they and their followers fought their way
through the Thracian Chersonese to the Hellespont, and after
some quarrels and vicissitudes were carried across into Asia
Minor. Nicomedes I., king of Bithynia, being at war at the
time with his brother Zyboetes, gladly took these foreign mer
cenaries into his service, and by their help gained the victory,
but at a terrible expense of misery to his country. In the
campaign they had acted as it pleased them, and divided
the prey among themselves. According to one statement,
Nicomedes gave them a portion of the conquered country
which was on that account called Gallogrecia. According to
other accounts, the Gauls, disdaining all such trammels as
usually bind allies or hired legionaries, set out to conquer for
themselves, threw themselves over the country west and north
of the Taurus, and either forced it to tribute or parcelled it out
as a settlement. The Syrian princes were terrified into sub
mission for a season ; but their spirit at length revived, and one
of them, Antiochus, got his surname of Soter from a victory over
these truculent adventurers, or rather over one of their three
tribes — the Tectosages. Such, however, was the importance
attached to them, that the princes of various countries subsi-
1 Diodorus, Biblioth. Hist. vol. iii. p. 52, Excerpta Vaticana.

SETTLEMENT IN ASIA MINOR. xix
dized them, and they are found in Egyptian as well as in
Syrian battles. But they were dangerous friends ; for after
helping to gain a battle for Antiochus Hierax, they turned and
compelled him to ransom himself and form a bond with them.
Their spreading over the country like a swarm — velut examen,
and the terror Gallici nominis et armorum invicta felicitas, are
referred to by Justin.1 In this way they became the terror of all
states, an ungovernable army, whose two-edged sword was ever
ready to be drawn to glut their own lust of booty, and which, when
paid for, often cut on either side of the quarrel for which they
had been bought, and was seldom sheathed. They knew their
power, and acted according to their wild and rapacious instincts.
But their unquenchable turbulence became intolerable. Atta-
lus, prince of Pergamus and father of Eumenes, gained a great
victory over them, or rather over the two tribes, the Trocmi
and Tolistoboii ; he refused to pay them tribute, and hemmed
them into the province proper of Galatia, about B.C. 230.2 Yet
we find Attalus employing another horde of the same hirelings
in one of his wars, who, as their wont had been, broke loose
from all restraint, and plundered the countries and towns along
the Hellespont, till their defeat by Prusias, about B.c 216.3
But Rome was about to avenge its earlier capture. Some
Gallic or Galatian troops had fought on the side of Antiochus
at the battle of Magnesia ; and the consul Manlius, against the
advice of the decern legati who were with him, at once invaded
their country, while the native Phrygian hierarchy, trodden
down by the Gauls, encouraged the invaders. The Gauls, on
being summoned to submit, refused — stolida ferocia; but they
were soon defeated, in two campaigns and in a series of battles,
with prodigious slaughter. Certain conditions were imposed on
them, but their country was not wrested from them. They may
by this time have lost their earlier hardihood, and, as Niebuhr
remarks, have become quite effeminate and unwarlike, as the
Goths whom Belisarius found in Italy. Fifty-two Gallic chiefs
walked before the triumphal car of Manlius at Rome, B.C. 189.
In subsequent years they were often employed as indispensable
auxiliaries; they served both with Mithridates and with Pompey
who showed them some favour, and some of them were at
Actium on the side of Antony. Roman patronage, however,
1 Hist. Philip, xxv. 2. 2 Livy, lib. xxxviii. 16. 3 Polybius, v. 11.

XX INTRODUCTION.
soon crushed them. Deiotarus, first tetrarch, and then made
king by Pompey, was beaten at Pharsalia, but he was defended
at Rome by Cicero; the second king of the same name was
succeeded by Amyntas, on whose death Augustus reduced the
country to the rank of a Roman province, B.C. 25, the first
governor of which was the propraetor, M. Lollius. The differ
ence between the limits of Galatia and the Roman province
so named has been already referred to.
The Gauls who had so intruded themselves into Asia
Minor, and formed what Juvenal1 calls altera Gallia, were
divided into three tribes: the names of course have been
formed with Greek terminations from the native terms which
may not be very accurately represented. These three tribes
were the ToXtaro^oyioi, to the west of the province, with
Pessinus for their capital ; the TeicTocrdyes in the centre, with
Ancyra for their chief city which was also the metropolis of the
country ; and the TpoKpot, to the east of the territory, their
principal town being Tavium.2 Each tribe was divided into
four tetrarchies, having each its tetrarch, with a judge and a
general under him ;' and there was for the twelve tetrarchies a
federal council of 300, who met at Drynaemetum, or oak-
shrine — the first syllable of the word being the Keltic derw,
oak (Derwydd, Druid), and nemed in the same tongue mean
ing a temple.3 That, says Strabo, was the old constitution —
irdXat p,ev ovv r)V TOiavrv rt? r\ Stanzft?.4
The previous statements, however, have been questioned,
and it has been denied that those fierce marauders were Gauls.
There are, it is true, contradictions and uncertainties among
the old writers about them, — statements that can neither be
fully understood nor satisfactorily adjusted. The outline is
1 Sat. vii. 16.
2 Memnon in Photii Bibliotheca, pp. 227-8, ed. Bekker. The spelling of
the names varies, and under the Emperor Augustus the epithet ItfiuaTWoi
was prefixed to them. Who would not have thanked Tacitus, if in his
Life of Agricola, instead of his stately Latin terminations, he had spelled
the proper names as nearly as possible according to the pronunciation of the
natives of Pictland or Caledonia? But the Romans looked with contempt on
such an effort. Pliny sneers at a larbara appellatio (Hist. Nat. iii. 4), and
a professed geographer says, Cantabrorum aliquot populi amnesque sunt, sed
quorum nomina nostro ore concipi nequeant. P. Mela, De Situ Orbis iii. 1.
8 Diefenbach, Celtica, i. 160. < xii. 5.

GALATIANS, WHETHER KELTS OR GERMANS ? Xxi
pften dark, and the story is sometimes left incomplete, or filled
in with vague reports, legends, or conjectures. But the wild
wanderers referred to were generally believed to be Gauls
proper from the west, and probably of the great division of
Kymri or Welsh Kelts. Latham, in his edition of Prichard's
Eastern Origin of the Celtic Nations, p. 104, etc., throws out
the conjecture that the Galatians were from Austrian Gallicia,
and therefore of Sclavonic origin ; but his arguments are
neither strong nor strongly put. Others maintain that those
Gauls or Galatians were of a German stock. There are ob
scurities in the distinctions made by Greek and Latin authors
between the German and Gothic races, of which Suidas under
KeXToi is an example; for he says the Kelts are called Germans,
adding, that they invaded Albion, and are also called Senones
— a Gothic race beyond all dispute. Dion Cassius falls into
similar blunders. " Some of the Kelts," he says, " whom we
call Germans, holding the whole of Keltike toward the Rhine,
have made it to be called Germany." x He places the Kelts on
both banks of the Rhine, or rather with this odd distinction, iv
dptarepa fiev rtjv re TaXariav . . . iv Be^ia Be tovs KeXTovs.
He also identifies Kelts and Germans, calling the latter KeXrot,
and the Belgians KeXritcot; nay, vaguely regarding KeXrtKrj
as a Celtic territory bordering on Aquitania, he sometimes gives
it the special meaning of Gallia, and at other times uses it in
the broader sense of Western Europe containing Kelts and Ger
mans.2 Other old writers were apparently quite as bewildered
on the subject, and as various in their references. A know
ledge of the geography and the history of outlying regions
could not be easily obtained in those days, and much of it
must have been the result of oral communication, so liable to
mistake, exaggeration, and distortion. But a distinction was
usually made, though it was not consistently adhered to ; and
the hypothesis that these Gauls were of a Teutonic origin
is quite contrary to the current traditions and the ordinary
beliefs of the earlier times. There are extreme views, on
both sides; such as the theory of Mone,3 that Germany as
1 liii. 12, xxxix. 49.
2 xxxix. 46, 49. See Brandes, das Ethnographische Verhaltniss der
Kelten und Germanen, p. 203, Leipzig 1857.
3 Celtiscke Forschungen, Freiburg 1857.

xxii INTRODUCTION.
well as Gaul was peopled with Celts, and that of Holtzmann,1
that the two peoples named Celts and Germans were both
alike a Teutonic race. Something like national vanity has
been mingled with this dispute, which is not unlike a fierce
and famous quarrel nearer home as to the origin and blood of
the Picts. Thus Hofmann, in his Disputatio de Galat. Antiq.
1726, cries : En igitur coloniam Germanorum in Grcecia — en
virtutem majorum nostrorum quae sua arma ad remotissima loca
protulit. Selneccer (Wernsdorf, De Repub. Galat.) is jubilant
on this account : cum ad Galatas scripsisse Paulum legimus,
ad nostros majores Germanos eum scripsisse sciamus. Germani
ergo epistolam lianc sibi vindicent, ut limredes et posteri? Luther
also says, " Some imagine that we Germans are descendants of
the Galatians. Nor perhaps is this derivation untrue, for we
Germans are not very unlike them in temper." " The Epistle
to the Galatians is addressed to Germans," Olshausen writes ;
" and it was the German Luther who in this apostolical epistle
again recognised and brought to light the substance of the
gospel. It can scarcely be doubted that the Galatians are the
first German people to whom the word of the cross was
preached." Tournefort warms into enthusiasm when his travels
carry him among Keltic affinities. Gleams of the same spirit
are found in Thierry ; and Texier says more distinctly, Pour
nous, nous ne devons pas nous rappeler, sans un sentiment
d'orgueil national, que les Gaulois ont pi-nitre" jusqu'a centre de
V-Asie mineure, s'y sont kablis, et ont laisse dans ce pays des
souvenirs impirissables?
Now, first, the names of these Galatian tribes appear to
be Keltic names. The Tolisto-boii, or perhaps Tolisto-boioi,
are Keltic in both parts of their appellation. For Tolosa is
yet preserved in France and Spain ;4 and the second portion
of the word is Keltic also, the Boii being a well-known Gallic
tribe— a turbulent and warlike race who left Transalpine Gaul,
crossed into northern Italy by the pass of the Great St.
Bernard, fought against the Roman power at intervals with
1 Kelten und Germanen, Stuttgart 1855. See Prof. Lightfoot's Essay,
in his Commentary on Galatians, p. 229.
2 Wernsdorf, De Repub. Galat. 94.
3 Revue des Deux Mondes, 1841, p. 575.
4 Diefenbach, Celtica, ii. p. 339.

PROOFS OF KELTIC ORIGIN. xxill
varying fortunes, but on being at length driven out of the
country, settled on a territory named from them Boien-heim
— home of the Boii — Bohemia.1 The Tectosages bear also a
Keltic designation. A Gallic tribe of the name is mentioned by
Cassar as being also a migratory one, like so many of its sisters :
Germanics loca circum Hercyniam silvam Voices Tectosages occu-
paverunt atque ibi consederunt;2 and Tolosa Tectosagum occurs
in Pom. Mela, ii. 5, as among the cities of Gallia Narbonensis.
The Tectosages are supposed indeed by Meyer and others to have
been a German tribe, called by Caesar Volcse Tectosages ; but
Volcae has no connection with the Teutonic Folk or Volk, for they
were a Keltic race who had conquered a settlement in Germany
and adopted German manners (Caesar says these things not from
his own knowledge), while the great body of the tribe occupied
the basin of the Garonne, with Tolosa (Toulouse) for its capital.
The name of the Trocmi is more obscure. Some, as Strabo,
followed by Texier, derive it from a chief; Bochart took it from
Togarmah;3 others connect it with @pn'iice<;— Thraces ; while
others identify them with the Taurisci — mountain-dwellers.4 —
Secondly, the persons engaged in the expedition into Greece,
and the chiefs noted among them afterwards, have Keltic names
like the Gallic ones in Caesar; ending in rice (chief), like Dum-
norix; Albiorix, Ateporix occur after the lapse of two cen
turies ; or in marus (mar, great), as Virdumarus, and in tarus
or torus, as Deiotarus, tar being equivalent to the Latin trans.
The leader Brennus (king) was called Prausus — terrible
(Gaelic, bras; Cornish, braw). Brennus had a colleague or
Xwdp^cov ; Pausanias calls him .^/a^w/ato?,5 and Diodorus
Siculus Kixcopios. In the Kymric tongue the name would be
Kikhou'iaour, or Akikhou'iaour, which without the augment a
would be Cycwiawr.6 — Thirdly, names of places often end in the
Keltic briga (hili) and iacum.1 — Fourthly, Pausanias refers to
a plant which the Greeks called kokkos, the kermes berry, but
which the Galatians <$>a>vfi ry iirt^wpicci call 5?, or according to
a better reading 150-717, the dye being called vo-ywov.8 Now, the
Kymric has hesgen, a sedge, and the Cornish has heschen.
1 Tacitus, De Germania, c. 28. 2 De Bell. Gall. vi. 24.
3 Phaleg. iii. 11. " Diefenbach, Celtica, ii. 256.
a x- 19. e Thierry, Hist, des Gaulois, i. 129.
7 Zeuss, Celt. Gram. 772. 8 x. 36. Suidas, sub voce.

XXIV INTRODUCTION.
Pausanias1 tells also that one mode of military arrangement
among the invading Gauls was called Tpi(iap>ci<rla, from their
native name for a horse, fiap/eas ; tri or tri being Celtic for
three, and march or marc the name of a steed. In Irish and
Gaelic and Welsh, trimarchwys signifies "men driving three
horses." — Fifthly, the long lance, the distinctive weapon of the
infantry, was the yalaov ; hence the epithet jaiadrat TaXdrai,.2
It is in Irish gad, a lance, gaide, gaisthe, s solitaria often falling
out.3 It is often incorporated into proper names, as Rada-
gaisus, Gaisatorix, hot unlike Breakspear, Shakespear. It is
allied to the Saxon goad, and the old Scottish gad, the name
of a spear and a fishing-rod. The account of the word and
epithet given by Polybius is wholly wrong. Taicro<i occurs in
the Sept., Josh. viii. 18, and in the Apocrypha, Judith ix. 9.
— Sixthly, Jerome is a witness whose testimony may be trusted,
for it is that of an ear-witness. He had sojourned both among
the Treviri for some time when a young man — adolescen-
tulus, and he had journeyed to Galatia, and seen its capital
Ancyra. In a letter to Ruffinus he refers to a pilgrimage —
totum Galatia et Cappadocice iter.4 In the preface to the second
book of his Commentary he says, Scit mecum qui videt Ancyram
metropolim Galatim civitatem.6 Not only does he mention his
being in Gaul, but he writes more definitely to Ruffinus, in
the letter already quoted — quum post Romana studia ad Rheni
semibarbaras ripas eodem cibo, pari frueremur hospitio. In his
second book against Jovinian he tells a story about the canni
balism and ferocity of the natio Scotorum whom he saw in
Gaul;6 and more precisely still, he informs Florentius of a
literary work, librum Sancti Bilarii quern apud Treviros manu
mea ipse descripseramJ Now, Jerome's distinct words are :
1 x. 19.
2 Polybius, ii. 23. Gxsum occurs Bell. Gall. iii. 4. Athenreus, lib. vi.
p. 548, Op. vol. ii. ed. Schweighauser.
3 Zeuss, Celt. Gramm. p. 64. * Op. vol. i. p. 10. 6 Op. vii. p. 430.
6 Vol. ii. p. 335. The tribes called Scots in those days were Irish ; and
Irish wanderers came gradually over to Argyleshire, and founded the old
kmgdom of Dalriada. St. Columba is called utriusque Scotix patronus,
there bemg a Scotia and a Dalriada in Ireland as well as in Britain Pro
bably the name Scot itself is allied to Scyth, the vague title assigned to a
wild and distant race.
7 Op. vol. i. p. 15, ed. Vallars. Venetiis 1766.

PROOFS CONTINUED. XXV
"It is true that Gaul produces orators, but Aquitania boasts
a Greek origin" — et Galatce non de ilia parte terrarum, sed de
ferocioribus Gallis sint profecti. . . . Unum est quod inferimus,
Galatas excepto sermone Grceco quo omnis Oriens loquitur, pro-
priam linguam eandem pene habere quam Treviros} So that
six hundred years after their first settlement in Asia Minor
their old language was spoken by them.
But, according to Meyer, Winer, Jablonski, Niebuhr, Hug,
Hermes, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, Holtzman,2 German
was the language spoken then, as now, in and around Treves.
This statement, however, though partially true, does not prove
the point contended for. For there had been an intrusive change
of population toward the end of the third century. A colony of
Franks had settled in the territory of the Treviri, and natu
rally brought their language with them — Tepfiavov<s ol vvv
<frpdyyoo KaXovvrai.3 Yet the older tongue survived, and might
survive for a long period afterwards, like the Welsh tongue of
the present day, centuries after the annexation of the princi
pality to England. Wieseler argues from the testimony of early
writers as to the Germanic descent and blood of the Treviri.
Tacitus says indeed that the Treviri and the Nervii affected a
German origin, — a confession that they were not pure Germans,
and he proceeds to distinguish them from peoples which were
German haud dubieS Strabo indeed seems to admit that the
Nervii were a German race.6 But the Treviri are called Belgse
and Gauls again and again, as by Tacitus in his Annal. i. 42, 43,
iii. 44. In his Hist. iv. 71, 72, 73, Cerealis addresses them,
Terram vestram ceterorumque Gallorum. . . . Caesar says, Tre
viros quorum civitas propter Germanics vicinitatem . . . ; hcec
civitas longe plurimum totius Galliw equitatu valet . . ¦ ; Gallus
inter Gallos,6 — in which places they are distinguished from
Germans ; and Pom. Mela writes, Clarissimi Belgarum Treveri.7
Their leaders' names are Keltic, such as Cingetorix. Some
doubt is thrown on this by the. way in which Pliny speaks of
them,8 and there may have been, as Thierry allows, some German
1 Op. vol. vii. pp. 428-430. 2 Kelten und Germanen, p. 88.
3 Procopius, Bell. Vandal, i. 3.
4 De Germania 28. 5 Geog. iv. 24.
6 Bell. Gall. viii. 25, v. 3, v. 45, vi. 2, vii. 8. 7 iii. 2.
8 Hist. Nat. iv. 31.

XXVI INTRODUCTION.
tribes mixed up with them, as was the case among the Keltic
Belgians.1 Caesar's statement, De Bell. Gall. ii. 4, may be ac
counted for in the same way, and the apparently Teutonic
names of some of the leaders in the invasion, such as Lutarius
(Luther) and Leonnorius, may be thus explained. Great stress
is laid on the names of these two leaders, and on the name of a
tribe called Teutobodiaci, and a town oddly styled Germano-
polis. Thierry supposes that the Tolistoboii were Teutonic,
because of the name of Lutarius their leader. But the Teu
tonic origin of even these names has been disputed. With
regard to the first word, there is a Keltic chieftain in Caasar
named Lucterius,2 and Leonorius is the name of a Cymric saint.3
The second syllable of the tribal name is found in the name of
the warrior queen Boadicea, in the name Bodotria, and the o
being resolvable into ua, the word assumes the form of budid,
victoria.4 Zeuss also adduces such forms as Tribodii, Catbud,
Budic, etc. Germanopolis, as Prof. Lightfoot remarks, is an
exceptional word, and probably denotes some fragment of an
exceptional population ; or the name may have been one of later
introduction, as the Greek termination may indicate. The name
does not appear till more recent times, it being conjectured
that a foreign colony had been planted there.5 Still more,
the dissyllable German itself, not being the native Teutonic
name of the people, may have a Keltic origin, — according to
Grimm, from garm, clamor, or according to Zeuss, from ger or
gair, vicinus.6
Lastly, Ammianus Marcellinus, writing in former times,
speaks of the tall stature, fair and ruddy complexion of the Gauls,
and the blue eyes of their women;7 and Diodorus8 describes the
white skins and yellow hair of the ' EXXnvoyaXdrai. If any faith
can be placed in national resemblance of form and feature in
1 Hist, des Gaulois, i. p. 225. 2 Bell. Gall. vii. 7.
3 Diefenbach, Celtica, ii. 254. 4 Zeuss, Gram. Celt. vol. i. p. 27.
6 Wernsdorf, De Republica Galat. p. 219.
6 G. C. vol. ii. p. 375. Some deny that the Belgse were Kelts. Cassar
distinguished them from the Celtse and Aquitani ; but it is admitted that
among them were German colonies who had expelled the aborigines and
settled near the Rhine, so that many Germans were mixed up with them.
But the people itself was Keltic, and to them Caesar gave the generalized
name of Belgae— the name being allied to Belg, Fir-bolg in Irish.
7 xv. 12. 8 v_ 28) 32_

ORIGINAL PHRYGIAN ELEMENT. SXvii
two periods so remote, Texier may be listened to : Sans chercher
a se faire illusion, on reconnait quelquefois, surtout parmi les
pasteurs, des types qui se rapportent merveilleusement d certaines
races de nos provinces de France. On voit plus de cheveux
blonds en Galatie qu'en aucun autre royaume de VAsie mineure,
les tites carries et les yeux bleux rappellent le caractere des
populations de Vouest de la France. Cette race de pasteurs
est ripandue dans les villages et les yaela (camps nomades) des
environs de la mitropole.1
All these points enumerated are conclusively in favour of
the old and common belief of the Keltic origin of the Galatians.
The original population of the province indeed was Phrygian,
though in the current name no account is taken of that people,
but of the Greeks who were settled in it, as in all the East
since the period of Alexander's conquests, so that Strabo' calls it
TaXaria 'EXX-qvav? The partial amalgamation of these races
must have occupied a long time. The Phrygian superstition may
have taken hold of the Kelts from some points of resemblance
to their ancestral faith and worship ; and they learned to use
the Grecian language, which was a kind of common tongue
among all the tribes round about them, while neither the
Phrygian nor the Gallic vernacular was wholly superseded.
The Gauls had coins with Greek inscriptions prior to the
Christian era. The consul Manlius, addressing his troops,
says of the Galatians : Hi jam degeneres sunt mixti, et Gallogrceci
vere quod appellantur . . . Phrygas Gallicis oneratos armis? The
Galatian lady who is praised by Plutarch and others for killing
her deforcer, spoke to her attendants in a tongue which the
soldiers knew not. The Jewish dispersion had also been
spreading itself everywhere, and was found in Galatia. The
population was therefore a mixed one, but it was profoundly
pervaded by a Keltic element which gave it character. The
manifestations of that temperament occasioned this epistle, and
are also referred to in it. The TaXaTticd of Eratosthenes has
been lost, and we can scarcely pardon Jerome for giving us no
extracts from Varro and other writers on Galatia, forsooth on
this weak pretence, — quia nobis propositum est, incircumcisos
homines non introducere in Templum Dei.
1 Revue des Deux Mondes, 1841, p. 598. 2 Geog. i. 4.
3 Livy, xxxviii. 17.

xxviii INTRODUCTION.

II.— INTRODUCTION OF THE GOSPEL INTO GALATIA.
It was during the apostle's second great missionary circuit
that he first preached the gospel in Galatia, probably about
a.d. 51 or 52. A mere passing hint is given, a mere allusion
to evangelistic travel, as it brought the apostle nearer to the
sea-board and his voyage to Europe. The simple statement is,
" Now when they had gone throughout Phrygia and the region
of Galatia, and were forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach
the gospel in Asia."1 The apostle had proposed to visit Asia
or Ephesus, but the set time had not come ; and on arriving in
Mysia, he and his party prepared to go north-east into Bithynia,
but " the Spirit of Jesus did not suffer them" — such is the better
reading. Thus checked and checked again, passing by Mysia,
they were guided to Troas, the point of embarkation for Greece.
They could not therefore purpose to preach in Bithynia after
such a prohibition, and probably the prohibition to preach in Asia
suggested the opposite continent of Europe. If the apostle had
any idea of crossing to Europe at this time, the effort to ad
vance into Bithynia may have been to reach Byzantium, and
get to the West by the ordinary voyage and highway.2 These
brief words with regard to Galatia are thus a mere filling
up of the apostle's tour, during which he was guided into a
way that he knew not, and led by a path that he had not
known. When it is said that he went through the Galatian
territory, it is implied that he journeyed for the purpose of
preaching, as is also shown by the contrast that he was for
bidden "to preach" in Asia — preaching being the one aim and
I end of all his movements. In the cities of Galatia, then, the
! apostle preached at this time, and naturally formed associations
of believers into churches. But nothing is told of success or
1 opposition, of inquirers, converts, or antagonists.
The apostle's own reference to this visit is as brief, inci
dental, and obscure as the passage in Acts. " Ye know how,
through infirmity of the flesh, I preached the gospel unto you
at the first:" Gal. iv. 13. The plain meaning of this decla
ration is, that he was detained in the province by sickness, and
that on this account, and not because of any previous plans and
1 Acts xvi. 6, 7. 2 Wieseler, Chronol. p. 32.

SUPPOSED EARLIER VISIT. xxix
arrangements, he preached the gospel at his first visit to Galatia.
The phrase oY daOevetav admits grammatically of no other mean
ing, and irporepov refers to the earlier of two visits. See the
commentary under the verse. But he reminds them of his
cordial welcome among them as " an angel of God, even as
Christ Jesus;" asserts, too, that in their intense and demonstra
tive sympathy they " would have plucked out their eyes, and
given them to him," and that they overlooked that infirmity
which tended from its nature to create loathing of his person and
aversion to his message. See commentary on iv. 14. Their
impulsive and excitable nature flashed out in enthusiastic re
ception of him; and their congratulations of one another on the
message and the messenger were lavished with characteristic
ardour, — all in sad contrast with their subsequent defection.
But we learn, too, from some allusions in his appeals, that in
Galatia as everywhere else, he preached Christ and His cross,
— pictured Him clearly, fully, as the one atoning Saviour, —
and announced as on a placard to them the Crucified One.
That preaching was followed by the descent of the Spirit;
miracles had been wrought among them, and their spiritual
progress had been eager and marked — "Ye were running
well." But the bright morning was soon and sadly overcast.
Some indeed suppose that an earlier visit than the one
now referred to is implied in Acts xiv. 6, which says that Paul
and Barnabas, on being informed of a persecution ripening
against them in Iconium, " fled unto Derbe and Lystra, cities
of Lyeaonia, and unto the region that lieth round about." But
these geographical notations plainly exclude Galatia, as we
have seen in the previous chapter ; and r) irepiyapos, the
country surrounding Lystra and Derbe — cities toward the
south of Lyeaonia, cannot include Galatia which was situated
so far to the north, Phrygia lying between. Such references
as Macknight gives in proof to Pliny and Strabo have been
already disposed of. Koppe maintains that the mention of
Barnabas in Gal. ii. 13 presupposes a personal knowledge of
him on the part of the Galatians, which could only be acquired
through an earlier visit. But Acts xiv. 6 will not, as we have
just seen, warrant any belief in such a visit; nor does the state
ment of the strength of that current of Judaistic influence
which at Antioch carried even Barnabas away, really imply

XXX INTRODUCTION.
any more than that his name, as the apostle's recognised fellow-
labourer, must have been in course of years quite familiar to
them. It is a mistake on the part of Koppe and Keil to affirm
that the visit on the second missionary circuit was one of confir
mation only, which must therefore imply previous evangelical
labour. It is true that Paul and Barnabas resolved on such a
journey, and that, from a difference of opinion as to the fitness
of Mark to accompany them, Paul and his new colleague
Silas carried out the intention. " They went through Syria
and Cilicia confirming the churches," xv. 41 ; then proceeded
to Derbe and Lystra where Timothy joined them ; and the
result of the tour is formally announced thus : " So were the
churches established in the faith, and increased in number
daily." But this daily increase implies that the confirmation
of believers was not the only service in which the apostle en
gaged ; he also preached the gospel so as to gain numerous
converts. The description of this journey ends at xvi. 5, and
the next verse begins a new and different section — the account
of a further journey with a somewhat different end in view,
preaching being the principal aim and work.
During his third missionary circuit, a second visit was paid
by the apostle to the Galatian churches, probably about three
years after the first, or about a.d. 54. As little is said of this
visit in Acts as of the first. It is briefly told in xviii. 23, that
"he went over the Galatian country and Phrygia in order,
strengthening all the disciples." The apostle passed through
Phrygia in order to reach Galatia, and therefore Phrygia pre
cedes in the first account ; but at the next visit he passed
through Galatia in order to reach Phrygia, and Galatia natu
rally stands first in the second account. The results are not
stated, but we know that the effects of this " strengthening"
were soon exhausted. It may be safely surmised that the'
allusions in the epistle to his personal presence among them,
which have in them an element of indignation or sorrow, refer
to his second visit — all being so fair and promising at his first
residence. During the interval between the first and second
visit, incipient symptoms of defection seem to have shown
themselves ; the Judaistic teachers had been sowing their errors
with some success. The constitutional fickleness of the people
had begun to develop itself when novelty had worn off. He

SECOND VISIT. XXXI
did not need to warn them about "another gospel" at his first
visit ; but at the second visit he had felt the necessity of utter
ing such a warning, and that with no bated breath : He, the
preacher of such a gospel, angel or man, let him be accursed.
The solemn censure in v. 21 might be given at any of his visits,
for it fitted such a people at any time ; though perhaps, after a
season of suppression at their conversion, these sins might re
appear in the churches during the reaction which followed the
first excitement. At the second visit, the earlier love had not
only cooled and its effervescence subsided, but estrangement
and misunderstanding were springing up. Such a change is
implied in the sudden interrogation introducing an exposure
of the motives of those who were paying them such court, and
superseding him in their affections: "Am I become your enemy
because I tell you the truth 1" See commentary under iv. 15,
16, 17. The apostle had the fervent and abiding interest of a
founder in the Galatian churches : in the crisis of their spiritual
peril, he travailed in birth for them — suffered the throes of a
first travail at their conversion, and those of a second now,
that " Christ might be fully formed in their hearts."
It is probable that the apostle followed in Galatia his com
mon practice, and preached " to the Jews first, and also to the
Greeks." The historian is silent indeed on this subject, and it
is wholly baseless in Baur, Schneckenburger, and Hilgenfeld
to allege that the reason of the silence is because Paul did
not follow his usual method, there being in fact no Jews to
preach to. Hofmann inclines to the same view, though not for
the same reasons. But the view of Baur assumes a primarily
improbable hypothesis, that Luke constructed his narrative for
the purpose of showing how the gospel was transferred from
the rejecting Jews to the accepting Gentiles. In reply, besides,
it may be stated, that on that ground the accounts of his labours
at Lystra and at Athens must be taken as exceptions, which
certainly show the improbability of the hypothesis. The rea
son alleged by Olshausen for the historian's brevity, viz. that
he wished to bring the apostle over as speedily as possible to
Rome, is nearer the truth; only Olshausen's argument can
scarcely be sustained, that Luke thereby consulted the wishes
and circumstances of his first readers. Nor is it less likely that
the apostle at his first visit, and so far as his feeble health

xxxii INTRODUCTION.
permitted, would labour in the great centres of population —
in Ancyra, Pessinus, Tavium, and Gordium.1 But we have
several indirect arguments that many Jews had settled in the
province and neighbourhood. We find in Josephus a despatch
<5f king Antiochus, in which he says that he had thought proper
to remove two thousand Jewish families from Mesopotamia
and Babylon into Lydia and Phrygia.2 Wherever there was an
opening for gain, wherever traffic could be carried on, wherever
shekels could be won in barter or commercial exchange, there
the Jews were found, earnest, busy, acute, and usually success
ful, — the Diaspora surged into all markets ; yet in the midst
of its bargains, buying, selling, and getting gain, it forgot not
to build its synagogues. Josephus quotes an edict of Augustus
addressed to the Jews at Ancyra, protecting them in their
special religious usages and in the enjoyment of the Sabbath ;
and he ordains that the TJnj(pio-fj,a formally granted by them
be preserved (dvaTeOrjvat,), along with his decree, in the temple
dedicated by the community of Asia in Ancyra.3 Names and
symbols found in the inscriptions lead to the same conclusion.
So that there was to be found in the territory a large Jewish
population, to whom the apostle would prove that Jesus was
the promised Messiah. How many of them received the gospel,
it is impossible to say.
The churches, therefore, were not made up wholly of
Gentiles, as Baur, Schneckenburger, and Hilgenfeld contend.
That there was a body of Jews in them is probable also from
the clauses in which the apostle identifies himself with them :
"we Jews by nature," ii. 15; "redeemed us from the curse
of the law," iii. 13; "we were kept under the law," iii.
23; "we are no longer under a schoolmaster," iii. 25; "we
were in bondage under the elements of the world " 'iv. 3.
Heathen believers are specially appealed to in many placesj
iv. 8-12 ; and to preach to them was his special function^
i. 16, ii. 9 : they are assured that to get themselves circum
cised is of no avail, v. 2 ; and the party who would force cir-
__ * Strabo writes: n^f 8' M, i/trt,a„ rZ, rai ,
xn.5, 3; and Gordmm is described by Livy-id haud magnum quid!
oppidumest, sedplus quam MedUerraneum, celebre et frequens emporium
tria mana pan ferme distantia intervallo habet • xxxviii 18
2 Anti?- ^ 8> 4" 3 Ibid. xvi. 6, 2.

CHURCH MADE UP OF JEWS AND GENTILES. XXXlii
cumcision upon them are stigmatized as cowardly time-servers,
vi. 12, 13. These Gentiles are regarded by Storr, Mynster,
Credner, Davidson, and Jowett as proselytes of the gate ; but
the assertion has no sure foundation. Some may have been
in that condition of anxious inquirers, but in iv. 8 they are
accused of having been idolaters; and the phrase "weak
and beggarly elements," to which again— irdXtv— they desired
to be in bondage, may characterize heathenism in several of its
aspects as well as Judaism. See commentary on iv. 8. But it
is no proof of the existence or number of Jewish Christians to
allege that Peter, i. 1, wrote to elect strangers in Galatia ; for
Biaairopd may be there used in a spiritual sense, and it is certain
that many words in that epistle must have been addressed to
Gentiles : ii. 11, 12, iv. 3. Besides, the apostle makes a free
and conclusive use of the Old Testament in his arguments — a
mode of proof ordinarily unintelligible to a Gentile. Again
and again does he adduce a quotation as portion of a syllogistic
argument, conscious that his proof was taken from what was
common ground to them both — from a source familiar to them
and acknowledged to be possessed of ultimate authority. It is
true that the Old Testament contained a divine revelation pre
paratory to the new economy, and that the apostle might use
it in argument anywhere ; but there is in this epistle a direct
versatility in handling the Hebrew Scriptures, as well as an
uncommon and esoteric application of them, which presupposes
more familiarity with them and their interpretation than Gen
tiles by birth could be easily supposed to possess.
The amazing success of the apostle's first labours in the
midst of numerous drawbacks, might be assisted by various
secondary causes, such as the novelty of the message, and
the unique phenomenon of its proclamation by one who was
suffering from epileptic paralysis. The Celtic temperament,
so easily attracted by novelty, might at once embrace the new
religion, though, on the other hand, nothing could be more
remote than the Phrygian cultus from the purity and simplicity
of the gospel. Yet that gospel, presented in the enthusiastic
eloquence of a man so wildly earnest as to appear " beside
himself," and yet so feeble, so stricken, and so visibly carrying
in himself the sentence of death, arrested and conquered them
with ominous celerity. It is impossible to say what about the

xxxiv INTRODUCTION.
gospel specially captivated them, though there is no doubt that
the cross was exhibited in its peculiar prominence. The appeal
in iii. 1 would seem to imply, that as the public and placarded
presentation of the Crucified One is brought forward to prove
the prodigious folly of their apostasy, it may be inferred that
this was the doctrine by which they had been fascinated, and
which spoke home, as Prof. Lightfoot surmises, to their tradi
tionary faith in the atoning efficacy of human blood.1 That
the blood of bullocks and of goats could not take away sin,
was a profound and universal conviction in old Gaul, if Caesar
may be credited; and man for man appeared a juster and more
meritorious substitution. Might not, then, the preaching of
the man Jesus put to death as a sacrificial victim throw a
wondrous awe over them, as they saw in it the realization of
traditionary beliefs and hopes ?
Still Christianity had nothing in common with the Phry
gian religion, which was a demonstrative nature-worship, both
sensuous and startling. The cultus was orgiastic, with wild
music and dances led by the Corybantes — not without the
usual accompaniment of impurities and other abominations,
though it might have mystic initiations and secret teachings.
Rhea or Cybele (and Rhea might be only another form of
epa, the earth), the mother of the gods, was the chief object
of adoration, and derived a surname from the places where her
service was established. The great Mother appears on the
coins of all the cities, and many coins found in the ruins of
the Wall of Hadrian have her effigy. At Pessinus her image
was supposed to have fallen from heaven, and there she was
called Agdistes. Though the statue was taken to Rome during
the war with Hannibal, the city retained a sacred pre-eminence.
Strabo says that her priests were a sort of sovereigns endowed
with large revenues, and that the Attalian kings built for her a
magnificent temple.2 The Keltic invaders are supposed to have
been accustomed to somewhat similar religious ordinances in
their national so-called Druidism. But the Druidical system,
1 Quod, pro vita hominis nisi hominis vita reddatur, non posse aliter
deorum immortalium numen placari arbitrantur, p'ubliceque ejusdem generis
habent instituta sacrificia.—Bell. Gall. vi. 16. Strabo adds that some of
their human victims were crucified, Geog. iv. 4, 5.
2 Ibid. xii. 5, 3.

DRUIDISM EXAGGERATED. xxxv
long supposed to be so specially characteristic of the Keltic races,
has been greatly exaggerated in its character and results. The
well-known description in Caasar was based on reports which
he harmonized and compacted ; and the value of those reports
may be tested by others which follow in the same Book as to the
existence of a unicorn in the Hercynian Forest, and as to another
animal found there like a goat, which had no knee-joints, and
which was caught by sawing through the tree on which it leaned
when asleep, for it could not rise when it had been thrown
down.1 The statement of Caesar, based on mere unsifted
rumour, was amplified by succeeding writers ; and Pliny,2
Strabo,3 Ammianus Marcellinus,4 and Pomponius Mela5 have
only altered and recast it, while Lucan6 and Tacitus7 added
some new touches. If the Druids held the high and mysterious
rank assigned to them in popular imagination, — if they dis
pensed laws, taught youth, offered sacrifices, possessed esoteric
science, and held great conventions, — how comes it that they
never appear in actual history, but are only seen dimly in the
picturesque descriptions of these Greek and Roman authors,
not one of whom ever saw a Druid ? In all the previous inter
course of Gaul with Rome, no living Druids ever appear on
the scene, and no one notices their presence or influence in any
business — in any consultations or national transactions. Caesar
never alludes to them save in the abstract, — never, in his marches,
battles, or negotiations in Gaul and Britain, comes into contact
with one of them, or even hints at their existence. Tacitus
relates that when the Capitol was burned during the struggle
between Otho and Vitellius, the Druids predicted (Druidce cane-
bant) from that occurrence the fall of the empire.8 The same
author records, indeed, how at the invasion of Mona (Anglesea)
they were seen in terrible commotion, the Druidesses like weird
women or furies screaming and brandishing torches. His pic
ture, however, is coloured for effect, since no genuine informa
tion is imparted by his description.9 Ausonius describes the
Druids as an ancient race, or rather caste, but he has no allu
sion to their sacerdotal character. Descent from them is in
1 Bell. Gall. vi. 12-18, 25. 2 Hist. Nat. xvi. 95.
3 Geog. iv. 4, 4. * xv. 9. s De Situ Orbis, iv. 2.
« Pharsalia, p. 14, Glasguse 1785. r Annal. xiv. 3.
8 Hist. iv. 54. 9 Annal. xiv. 30.

XXXvi INTRODUCTION.
his view a special honour, like that from any of the mythical
deities : stirpe Druidarum satus, sifama non fallit fidem ; stirpe
satus Druidum.1 Lucan also vaguely alludes to them in the
first book of his Pharsalia, and they help to fill up his elaborate
picture.2 Again, if the Druids had possessed the authority
claimed for them, how is it that we never find them in flesh
and blood confronting the first Christian missionaries ? The
early church makes no mention of them, though there was a
continuous battle with heathenism from the second century to
the age of Charlemagne. It is remarkable that in no classic
author occurs the term Druid as a masculine noun and in the
singular number. The forms Druides and Druides do not always
distinctly determine the sex ; but the feminine term undoubt
edly occurs so often as to induce a suspicion that the order
consisted chiefly of females. It is somewhat remarkable that
in the Keltic church of the Culdees in Ireland, the person
holding the office of Co-arb was sometimes a female, and that
office was one of very considerable territorial influence. The
only living members of the Druidical caste that we meet with
are women. JElius Lampridius puts among the omens pre
ceding the assassination of the Emperor Alexander Severus,
that a Druidess accosted him with warning — mulier Dryas eunti
exclamavit Gallico sermone.3 Vopiscus4 tells of Aurelian con
sulting Gallic Druidesses — Gallicanas Dryadas — on the ques
tion whether the empire should continue in his posterity; and
he further relates that Diocletian, when among the Tungrians
in Gaul, had transactions with a Druidess as to futurity : cum
in quadam caupona moraretur, et cum Dryade quadam muliere
rationem convictus colodiani faceret. These Druidesses appear
in a character quite on a level with that of a Scottish spaewife.
Divitiacus the iEduan, a personal friend of Cicero, is said by him
not to be a Druid indeed, but to belong to the Druids, and he
is described as being famous for fortune-telling and guessing
as to events to come.5 The Druids were probably a sacerdotal
caste of both sexes that dealt chiefly in divination. Suetonius
says that Druidism, condemned by Augustus, was put down
1 PP" 86' 92> ed- BiP01lt- 2 P. 14, Glasguse 1785.
Scriptores Historic Augusts:, vol. i. p. 271, ed. Peter, Lipsise 1865.
1 Scriptores Historix Augusts:, vol. ii. pp. 167, 223, do. do.
s De Divinatione, i. 40.

KELTIC HEATHENISM IN SCOTLAND. xxxvii
by Claudius.1 An extirpation so easily accomplished argues
great feebleness of power and numbers on the part of the
Druids, and no one else records it. Yet Tacitus afterwards
describes the seizure of Mona and the cutting down of the
grove. The anecdotes given by Vopiscus — one of which he
had heard from his grandfather (avus meus mihi retulit) — ex
hibit them as late as the third century. The nearest approach
to the apparition of a living pagan Druid fighting for his faith
is that of a Magus named Broichan at the Scottish court of
Brud king of the Cruithne or Picts, who dwelt by the banks
of the Ness. The magic of St. Columba proved more powerful
than his ; and the Magus, if he were a Druid, was not a whit
exalted above the mischievous Scottish witches. In a Gaelic
manuscript quoted by Dr. M'Lauchlan, and which he ascribes
to [the 12th or 13th century, this Magus is called a Druid.2
Dr. M'Lauchlan is inclined to hold that the old Scottish
heathenism had magi, and that these were of the order of the
Druids ; but he does not point out a single element of resem
blance between the Scottish Geintlighecht and the description
of the Druids in the sixth book of the Gallic War, or between
it and the Zoroastrian system to which he likens it. The
oriental aspect of the Scottish paganism is faint, save in super
stitious regard for the sun in some form of nature-worship.
The naming of the four quarters of the heavens after a position
assumed towards the east, the west being behind or after, the
north being the left hand, and the south the right hand, may
spring not from the adoration of the elements, but from univer
sal instinct, as it is common alike to Hebrew and Gaelic.3 The
connection of cromlechs, upright pillars and circles of stones,
with the Druids is certainly not beyond dispute. The Roman
1 Vita Claudii, xxv. But the spelling Druidarum in the clause is
challenged ; and as the interdiction by Augustus referred tantum civibus,
the extirpation may have been also confined to Rome, and may be likened
to the expulsion of Jews from the capital. Indeed the two events are told
in the same breath.
2 Early Scottish Church, p. 35, Edin. 1865.
3 Druid is connected with dru, an oak. The supreme object of
Druidical worship is called by Lucan, Teutatis : Pharsalia, i. 445. Maxi-
mus Tyrius says that the Kelts worshipped Dis, and that his image was
an high oak. The name Teutatis is said to signify strong, and the oak
was the symbol of strength. Max. Tyr. Dissert, p. 400, ed. Cantab. 1703.

Xxxviii INTRODUCTION.
Pantheon was not very scrupulous as to the gods admitted into
it; and if the Druids were extirpated, it must have been for other
reasons than their religion. What kind of theology they taught,
it is impossible to say ; the careless way in which Caesar speaks
of the population of Gaul as being divided into equites and
plebs as in Roman fashion, and in which he gives Roman names
to their objects of worship, takes all true historical value from
his account. Not more trustworthy is Pliny's statement about
the amulet used by the Druids which himself had seen, — a
large egg, to the making of which serpents beyond number
contributed j1 and on his sole authority rests the tradition of
the white robe of the arch-Druid, the misletoe, and the golden
sickle. The Druids, if a sacerdotal caste, were apparently de
voted to astrology or some other kinds of soothsaying, and they
are socially ranked by Cassar with the equites. According to
Strabo2 and Caesar,3 they affirmed that souls were immortal like
the world — that matter and spirit had existed from eternity.
Some liken Druidism to Brahmanism, and Valerius Maximus4
pronounces it a species of Pythagoreanism. But so little is
really known of the songs of the Bards, the ritual of the Ovates,
or the teaching of the Druids — fyCXoaofyoi ical 6eoXoyot,,5 that all
attempts to form a system rest on a very precarious foundation
— "y chercher davantage c'est tomber dans Vhypothese pure"6
They served in some idolatrous worship, and they taught
immortality in the shape of transmigration, though they seem
to have had also a Flaith-innis or Isle of the Blessed. . Their
1 Hist. Nat. xxix. 12 : Angues innumeri xstate convoluti salivis faucium
corporumque spumis artifici complexu glomerantur . . . vidi equidem id ovum
mali orbicidati modici magnitudine. For an interesting dissertation on the
Druids, see Burton, History of Scotland, vol. i. chap, vi., and an article by
the same author in the Edinburgh Review for July 1863. On the other
side, compare The Celtic Druids, or an attempt to show that the Druids were
the priests of Oriental colonies, . . . who introduced letters, built Carnac and
Stonehenge, etc., by Godfrey Higgins, London 1829.
2 Geog. iv. 4, 4. 3 Bdl Gall yl u
4 Memorab. ii. 6, 9. s Diodorus Sic. v. 31.
0 Pressense, Histoire des trois Premiers Siecles de VEglise Chretienne,
deuxieme serie, tome premier, p. 54, in which section a good account of
Druidism is given, with a review of the theories of Henri Martin in his
Histoire de France, vol. i. p. 48, and those of M. Reynaud in his article on
Druidism in the Encyclopedie nouvelle.

PHRYGIAN RELIGION. XXXIX
system might find some parallel in the Phrygian worship, and
be absorbed into it. But in a word, there is no foundation what
ever for what has been apparently surmised sometimes, that so-
called Druidical teaching might have disposed the Galatians to
that immediate reception of the truth which is described in this
epistle. The attempt to prove from a symbolic tree called Esus
figured on an old altar found under Notre-Dame in Paris, that
the Druids worshipped a personal god not unlike the Jehovah
of the Old Testament, is only a romantic absurdity.
The Phrygian system of religion was one of terror, —
Paul's was one of confidence and love ; dark, dismal, and
bloody had been the rites of their fathers, — the new economy
was light, joy, and hope. Perhaps the friendless, solitary
stranger, unhelped by any outer insignia, nervous and shat
tered, yet unearthly in his zeal and transported beyond him
self in floods of tenderness and bursts of yearning eloquence
on topics which had never greeted their ears or entered their
imagination, might suggest one of the olden sages who spoke
by authority of the gods, and before whose prophesying their
fathers trembled and bowed. But apart from all these auxi
liary influences, there was the grace of God giving power to
the word in numerous instances ; for though with so many —
perhaps with the majority — the early impressions were so soon
effaced, because profound and lasting convictions had not been
wrought within them, yet in the hearts of not a few the gospel
triumphed, and the fruit of the Spirit was manifest in their
lives. The Christianity planted in Galatia held its place, in
spite of numerous out-croppings of the national character, and
in spite of the cruelties of Diocletian and the bribes and tor
tures of Julian. In the subsequent persecutions not a few were
found faithful unto death.

III.— OCCASION AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE.
The Judaistshad apparently come into the Galatian churches
before the apostle's second visit (Credner, Schott, Reuss, Meyer),
though at that period the mischief had not culminated. But

xl INTRODUCTION.
the course of defection was swiftly run, and after no long time
the apostle felt the necessity of decided interference. Neander
and De Wette, however, date the intrusion of the false teachers
after the second visit. Who these Judaists were, whether Jews
by birth or proselytes, has been disputed. They might belong
to either party,— might have journeyed from Palestine, like
those who came down to Antioch, and said, " Except ye be cir
cumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved ;" or
some of them might be proselytes, contending for the obligation
of that law to which they had conformed prior to the introduc
tion of the gospel. Most likely what had happened in the
Galatian province was only a repetition of what had taken
place at Antioch, as the apostle himself describes it in the
second chapter. There were myriads of Jews who believed,
and who were all zealous of the law -,1 and an extreme faction
holding such opinions were the inveterate enemies of the apostle
of the Gentiles. It was so far innocent in Judaea to uphold
the Mosaic law and its obligation on Jewish believers, but it
was a dangerous innovation to enforce its observance on Gentile
converts as essential to salvation. For the Mosaic law was not
meant for them ; the rite of circumcision was adapted only to
born Jews as a token of Abrahamic descent, and of their in
clusion in the Abrahamic covenant. The Gentile had nothing
to do with this or with any element of the ceremonial law, for
he was not born under it ; to force it on him was to subject
him to foreign servitude — to an intolerable yoke. Apart from
the relation of circumcision to a Jew, the persistent attempt to
enforce it as in any way essential to salvation was deroga
tory to the perfection of Christ's work, and the complete de
liverance provided by it. Legal Pharisaism was, however,
brought into Galatia, circumcision was insisted on, and special
seasons were observed. To upset the teaching of the apostle,
the errorists undermined his authority, plainly maintaining
that as he was not one of the primary twelve, he could on that
account be invested only with a secondary and subordinate rank
and authority ; so that his teaching of a free gospel, uncon
ditioned by any Mosaic conformity, might be set aside. The
apostle's doctrine on these points had nothing in the least
doubtful about it. The trumpet had given no uncertain sound.
1 Acts xxi. 20.

SUDDEN CHANGE. xii
But while the false teachers were undermining his apostolic pre
rogative, they seem to have tried also to damage him by repre
senting him as inconsistent in his career, as if he had in some
way or at some time preached circumcision. He had circum
cised Timothy, and had been, as his subsequent life showed,
an observer of the " customs," and it was insinuated that he
accommodated his message to the prejudices of his converts.
Since to the Jews he became as a Jew, there might be found
in his history not a few compliances which could be easily
magnified into elements of inconsistency with his present preach
ing. In some way, perhaps darker and more malignant, they
laboured to turn the affections of the Galatian people from
him, and to a great extent they succeeded. We learn from the
apostle's self-vindication what were the chief errors propagated
by the Judaists, and what were the principal calumnies directed
against himself.
These open errors and vile insinuations did immediate
injury. The noxious seed fell into a congenial soil among the
Galatians. Their jubilant welcome to the apostle cooled into
indifference, hardened into antagonism. Their extreme readi
ness to accept the gospel indicated rather facility of impression
than depth of conviction. The temperament which is so imme
diately charmed by one novelty, can from its nature, and after
a brief period, be as easily charmed away by a second attrac
tion. Their Celtic nature had sincerity without depth, ardour
without endurance, an earnestness which flashed up in a
moment like the crackling of thorns, and as soon subsided, —
a mobility which was easily bewitched — witched at one time by
the itinerant preacher, and at another time witched away from
him by these innovators and alarmists. What surprised the
apostle was the soonness of the defection, as well as the extent
of its doctrinal aberrations and its numerical triumph. It had
broken out like an infectious pestilence. The error involved
was vital, as it supplanted his gospel by another " which is not
another," neutralized the freeness of justification, rendered
superfluous the atoning death of the Son of God, set aside the
example of Abraham the prototype of all believers in faith and
blessing, was a relapse to the weak and beggarly elements, and
brought an obligation on all its adherents to do the whole law.
Besides, there was apparently in the Galatian nature a

xiii INTRODUCTION.
strange hereditary fondness for ritualistic practices ; the wor
ship of Cybele was grossly characterized by corporeal maim-
ings. What was materialistic with its appeal to the senses, what
bordered on asceticism and had an air of superstitious mystery
about it, had special fascinations for them — such as the cir
cumcision of Hebrew ordinance in its innocent resemblance to
Phrygian mutilation, or the observance of sacred periods with
expectation of immediate benefit from ritualistic charms. As
the errorists brought a doctrine that seemed to near some of
their former practices, and might remind them of their national
institute, they were the more easily induced to accept it.
Having begun in the Spirit, they soon thought of being made
perfect by the flesh. They were taught to rest on outer ob
servances more or less symbolic in nature, to supplement faith
with something done by or upon themselves, and to place their
hopes of salvation, not on the grace of Christ alone, but on it
associated with acts of their own, which not only could not be
combined with it but even frustrated it. In no other church
do we find so resolute a re-enactment of Judaistic ceremonial.
The apostle bids the Philippians beware of the concision, — of
the mere mutilators, implying that Judaizing influence had
been at work, but not with such energy and success in Europe
as in Asia Minor. Addressing the Colossians, he tells them
that they had been " circumcised with the circumcision made
without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh
by the circumcision of Christ"— a statement of privilege per
haps suggested by some attempt to enforce a physical circum
cision, while other elements of mystical theosophy had been
propagated among them. The Judaism in Galatia is more
Pharisaic, and that of Colosse more Essenic in type. Sepa
ration from social intercourse with heathen believers, and the
observance of Mosaic regulations as to diet, also characterized
the Judaists ; and perhaps they were on this point more readily
listened to, as the people in Pessinus abstained from swine's
flesh. Pausanias gives a mythological reason for the absti
nence. The peril being so imminent, the alarmed and grieved
apostle wrote to them in indignant surprise. He felt that their
defection was all but incomprehensible, as it was in such con-
1 vii. 15, 7.

SELF-VINDICATION. xliii
trast to their early and hearty reception of the gospel and him
self. He was filled with holy anxiety for them, though he has
nothing but angry censure for their seducers who had no true
respect for the law which they were trying to bind on them,
for they did not themselves keep the whole of it, but were only
by a wretched diplomacy endeavouring to escape from perse
cution, that is, by representing to the bigoted Jews that they
made heathen believers Jewish proselytes as a first and indis
pensable step in their change to Christianity.1
And first, and formally, the apostle vindicates his full
apostolic authority: affirming, that his office was primal like
that of the original twelve ; that his gospel was in no sense
of human origin or conveyance, but came to him directly
by the revelation of Jesus Christ; that his change from
Judaism to Christianity was notorious ; that his views as the
apostle of the Gentiles had all along been decided ; that when
false brethren stealthily crept in to thwart him, he had opened
out his teaching fully to James, Peter, and John, who acquiesced
in it ; that he would not circumcise Titus, his fellow-labourer ;
that the apostles of the circumcision acknowledged his mission
and gave him the right hand of fellowship ; and that so averse
to any compromise on the point of a free gospel was he, that
at Antioch he publicly rebuked Peter for his tergiversation.
While his opponents were men-pleasers, his whole conduct
showed that another and opposite motive was ever ruling him, for
men-pleasing and Christ's service were incompatible ; that the
insinuation of his preaching circumcision was met and refuted
by the fact that he was still persecuted ; and that, finally, he
desires to be no further troubled, for his connection with the
Saviour had left its visible traces upon him, as he bears in his
body the marks of Jesus.
Secondly, as to the doctrine of the Judaists, he utterly
reprobates it ; calls it a subversion of the gospel of Christ ;
asserts that justification is not of works, but only of faith in
Christ; identifies this doctrine with his own spiritual experience;
adduces the example of Abraham whose faith was counted
for righteousness ; proves that law and curse are associated,
and that from this curse Christ has redeemed us ; argues the
superiority of the promise to the law in a variety of particulars;
1 See Commentary under vi. 12, 13.

xliv INTRODUCTION.
shows the use of the law as a paedagogue, while during paedagogy,
and prior to the fulness of the time, the heir was a minor, differ
ing nothing from a bond-slave; repeats his sense of their danger;
fortifies his argument by an allegory based on the history of
Abraham, the lesson of which is the spiritual freedom of the
children of the promise, and in which they are exhorted to stand
fast ; utters a solemn warning, that if a man gets himself cir
cumcised, Christ profits him nothing, and that all who seek
justification by the law are fallen from grace ; affirms that cir
cumcision and uncircumcision are nothing in themselves, and
that he who troubled the Galatians, whoever he might be, shall
bear his judgment, exclaiming in a moment of angry contempt,
" I would they were even cut off that trouble you." Toward
the end of the epistle the apostle recurs to the same errors ;
accuses their patrons of being simply desirous of making a fair
show in the flesh, and of wishing to avoid persecution ; and he
concludes by avowing his glorying in the cross, and his belief
that what is outer is nothing, and what is inner is everything.
There are in the epistle some elements of Galatian character
referred to or implied. The Galatians are warned against
making their liberty an occasion for the flesh ; against biting
and devouring one another ; against fulfilling the lusts of the
flesh and doing its works which are specified ; against vain
glory, and mutual provocation, and envy. Exhortations are
also tendered to them against selfishness and conceit ; against
sowing to the flesh, for the harvest is certainly of the same
nature as the seed ; against exhaustion or despondency in well
doing; and they are encouraged, at the same time, as they have
opportunity, to do good.
It may be safely surmised that these advices were not ten
dered at random, but that they were meant to meet and check
certain national propensities detected by the apostle in the
Galatian people. Whatever modifying effect their lono- resi
dence in Asia Minor might have had, however much certain
earlier characteristics may have been toned down, they were
not wholly obliterated. Their fickleness (Gal. i. 4) has been
noticed by several observers. Cassar pictures this feature of
their western ancestors : Partim qui mobilitate et levitate animi
novis imperiis studebant."1 Again he says, Et infirmitatem
1 Bell. Gall. ii. 1.

FEATURES OF KELTIC CHARACTER. xiv
Gallorum veritus, quod sunt in consiliis capiendis mobiles et
novis plerurnque rebus student ;x and he adds some touches about
their anxiety for news, and their sudden counsels on getting
them.2 In another place, where he repeats the sentiment, he
asserts, Ad bella suscipienda Gallorum alacer ac promptus est
animus, sic mollis ac minime resistens ad calamitates perferendas
mens eorum est? Livy observed the same feature : Primaque
eorum prcelia plus quam virorum, postrema minus quam femin-
arum esse.4 Tacitus speaks of one tribe as levissimus quisque
Gallorum et inopia audax.5 Polybius says, Bid to fir) to
irXelov, dXXd crvXXrjfiBnv dirav to yvyvopevov inrb tojv TaXaTusv,
dvfiw fiaXXov fj Xoyicr[iq> fipajSeveadaL.6 Their modern historian
also thus characterizes them : Les traits saillans de la famille
Gauloise, ceux qui la distinguent le plus, a mon avis, des autres
families humaines peuvent se risumer ainsi, une bravoure per
sonnels que rien riigale chez les peuples anciens, un esprit franc,
impitueux, ouvert a toutes les impressions, iminemment intelli
gent ; mais a coti de cela une mobiliti extreme, point de Constance,
une ripugnance marquie aux idies de discipline et d'ordre si
puissantes chez les races Germaniques, beaucoup d' 'ostentation,
enfin une disunion perpituelle, fruit de V excessive vaniti.
The passion of their ancestors for a sensuous religion has
been also marked : Natio est omnium Gallorum admodum dedita
religionibus.6 Diodorus Siculus relates the same characteristic.9
Cicero tells of Deiotarus, that he did nothing without augury,
and that he had heard from his own lips that the flight of an
eagle would induce him to come back, after he had gone a
considerable portion of a journey.10 That the old nation was
impetuous and quarrelsome has been told by several writers,
and there is earnest exhortation in the epistle against a similar
propensity in the Galatian churches. Ammianus brands them
as extremely quarrelsome, and of great pride and insolence —
" their voices are formidable and threatening, whether in anger
1 Bell. Gall. iv. 5. 2 HM- v- 5-
3 Ibid. iii. 19. See Commentary under iii. 1. 4 x. 28.
5 De German, xxix. p. 136, Op. vol. iv. ed. Ruperti.
6 ii. 35 ; Opera, vol. i. p. 204, ed. Schweighauser.
7 Thierry, Histoire des Gaulois, Introd. xii.
8 Csesar, Bell. Gall. vi. 16. 9 v. 27.
10 De Divinatione, i. 15, ii. 36, 37.

xlvi INTRODUCTION.
or in good humour."1 Diodorus affirms their love of strife
and single combats among themselves after their feasts ; their
disregard of life arising from their belief in the Pythagorean
doctrine of transmigration : KaToivot Be wre? K.a& virepfioX^v
. . . ixe6vadevTe<; efc vttvov rj fiavtcoBet,?.2 " The nation," says
Ammianus Marcellinus, " is fond of wine, and of certain liquors
resembling it ; many of the lower class, their senses being
weakened by continual intoxication, run about at random."
The warring against the works of the flesh might also allude
to certain national propensities. Their ancestors were marked
by intemperance and quarrelsomeness — they are forbidden to
bite and devour one another.
What effect was produced by the epistle we know not.
The Judaistic influence may have been neutralized for a time,
but it might not be uprooted. Some of the fathers witness
that the errors rebuked still continued, with more or less modi
fication. Jerome says without hesitation, that the traces of
their virtues and their errors remained to his day.4 They
followed the Jewish reckoning of the paschal feast. One sect
is described as insanientes potibus et bacchantes. Galatia was
the region of later ecclesiastical strifes and heresies. Jerome
gives a catalogue of them in his second preface to his com
mentary on the epistle.5
The epistle consists of two parts — the first doctrinal, and
the second practical ; or it may be taken as consisting of three
sections : the first containing personal vindication, and in the
form of narrative — the first two chapters ; the second, doctrinal
argument — the third and fourth chapters ; and the third, prac
tical exhortation — the fifth and sixth chapters. The autobio
graphical portion is linked on to the dogmatic section by the
language addressed to Peter at Antioch ; and the conclusion at
which he arrives, at the end of the fourth chapter — the freedom
of believers — suggests the admonition to stand fast in that
freedom, and then not to abuse it, but to walk in love and in
the spirit — the works of the flesh being so opposite. Other
counsels follow, connected by some link of mental association.
1 xv. 12. 2 v- 26, 30.
3 xv. 12. Compare Suidas, sub voce "A3w/. ' Vol. vii. 417.
5 See Milman's History of Christianity, vol. ii. 162, London 1867.

PATRISTIC EVIDENCE. xlvii

IV.— GENUINENESS OF THE EPISTLE.
The earlier fathers have no direct citations from the epistle,
but their allusions betoken unconscious familiarity with its lan
guage. Thus Clement writes : " Christ our Lord gave His
blood for us by the will of God"1 — not unlike Gal. i. 4; " His
sufferings were before your eyes"2 — a faint reminiscence of
Gal. iii. 1. Ignatius says : " He obtained the ministry not of
himself, nor by men,"3 like Gal. i. 1 ; " If we still live accord
ing to Jewish law, we confess that we ^have not received
grace,"* borrowed from Gal. v. 3, 4. Though these Ignatian
epistles may not be genuine, they are early productions, and
give us the echoes of a "sub-apostolic writer. In the Syriac
recension, Ignatius, ad Polycarp. enjoins : " Bear all men as
the Lord beareth thee ; bear the infirmities of all men, as thou
saidst;" which may be compared with Gal. vi. 2. Polycarp
is more distinct : " Knowing then this, that God is not mocked,"5
Gal. vi. 7 ; " Built up into the faith delivered to us, which is
the mother of us all,"6 Gal. iv. 26 ; " The Father, who raised
Him from the dead,"7 Gal. i. 1. The allusions taken from Bar
nabas xix. and Hennas, Simil. ix. 13, may scarcely be quoted as
proof. In the Oratio ad Grcecos, ascribed to Justin Martyr,
occurs the quotation from Gal. iv. 12, yivecrde cos iya> otv
Kaym rj^nv w? v/Aet<s ; and the sins named in Gal. v. 20 are
quoted with the apostle's addition : ical rd op-oia toutoi?. In
his Dial. c. Tryph. cap. 90, 96, he adduces two quotations from
the Old Testament like those in Gal. iii. 10, 13, and in the
apostle's version too, which agrees neither with the Hebrew
nor the Septuagint. The first quotation is introduced by the
apostle's marked words, inrb /caTapav. In his Apology, i. 53,
Justin quotes Isa. liv. 1, and works upon it, as does the apostle
in Gal. iv. 27.
1 To at/to. airou 'ilax.ii/ h hTitifictrt &iov. — Ad Corinth, l.
2 Tx 7rad7ipia.Tct ainav %v %po 6(p6xhfiuu vftZt/. — Do. ii.
3 Ovx. a(p' ixvTOu ovle §/' aySpiivati. — Ad Philadelph. i.
4 E/ xxtk nofiov 'lovlaixou Zpftiv, ofiohoyovfiiv xccpiti ^'\ £(?iu<pi»«(. —
Ad Magnes. 8. See Cohortatio ad Grxcos, 40.
6 E/SoVef ovv ot/ 6 ©eoV ov fivxTripi^£rxi. — Ad Philip, v.
6 UiaTW, %Tts ZS71 fifoiip iramuv ijftaii. — Do. 3.
7 Qui resuscitavit eum a mortuis. — Do. 12.

xlviii INTRODUCTION.
Irenaeus quotes the epistle by name : Sed in ea quo? est ad
Galatas sic ait, quod ergo lex factorum, posita est usque quo
veniat semen cui promissum est.1 Allusions are also found in
iii. 6, 5, to Gal. iv. 8, 9,— in iii. 16, 3, to Gal. iv. 4, 5, which is
avowedly quoted from the apostle's letter to the Galatians — in
epistola quce est ad Galatas ; and in v. 21, 1 are quoted Gal. iii.
15, 19, and iv. 4. 'The Alexandrian Clement quotes expressly
Gal. iv. 19, under the formula IIavXo<; TaXaTaK iiricrTeXXaiv?
Tertullian is as explicit in referring to Gal. v. 20 : Paulus
scribens ad Galatas. The Epistle to Diognetus contains the
expression : irapaTrjprjcriv tojv finvav ical tcov r/fiepcbv irotelaOai.'
Melito repeats in spirit Gal. iv. 8, 9.4 Athenagoras cites the
phrase, " the weak and beggarly elements."8 This epistle is
found in all the canonical catalogues, in the Muratorian Frag
ment, and it is included also in the old Syriac and Latin ver
sions. Marcion recognised it, and placed it in pre-eminence —
principalem adversus Judaismum.6 According to Hippolytus,
the Ophites made considerable use of it, and their writings con
tain many quotations : ' r) ava> 'lepovaaXrjp,, Gal. iv. 26, in
Hceres. v. 7 ; and in do. v. 8, Gal. iv. 27 is quoted. The
Valentinians were also well acquainted with the epistle, as
Irenaeus testifies in i. 3, 5. Celsus asserts that the Christians,
whatever their wranglings and shameful contests, agreed in
saying continually, " The world is crucified to me, and I to
the world;" Origen quietly adding, tovto yap fiovov airo tov
IlavXov eoiKe [iep,vrip,ovevKevai 6 KeXao<;.s See commentary
under ii. 11, and the attitude of the Clementine Homilies in
relation to the passage.
The one exception against all critics is Bruno Bauer,5
who regards the epistle as made up of portions of Romans
and 1st and 2d Corinthians, and condemns the compilation as
stupid, aimless, and contradictory. To review his assertions
would be vain ; they are so weak that the merit of perverse
1 Hxres. vii. 7, 2. 2 Strom, iii.
3 Just. Mart. Opera, vol. ii. 474, ed. Otto.
4 Orat. ad Anton. Cxs. Cureton's Spicileg. Syr. pp. 41-49,
5 npM/3s/«, 16. 6 Tertullian, Adv. Marc. v. 2.
7 Pp. 106-114, ed. Miller.
8 Origen, c. Celsum, p. 273, ed. Spencer.
» Kritik der Paulinischen Briefe, Erste Abtheil, Berlin 1850.

OBJECTIONS OF BRUNO BAUER. xlix
or learned ingenuity cannot be assigned to them. The process
is a simple one, to find similar turns of thought and expression
in the same man's letters on similar or collateral themes, and
then, if he write three letters in such circumstances within a
brief space of time, to argue that one of them must be spurious
from its accidental or natural resemblances to the other two.
The shortest, like the Epistle to the Galatians, may be selected
as the one to be so branded. And yet such similarities of thought
and diction as are adduced by Bruno Bauer are the standing
proofs of identity of authorship, for every writer may be
detected by the unconscious use of them. Some of the simi
larities which he arrays throughout his seventy-four pages are
close like those taken by him from Romans where the apostle is
illustrating the same truths as he has been discussing in this
epistle ; but many other instances have no real resemblance —
are only the accidental employment of like terms in a totally
different connection. Baur himself says of this epistle, that to
Rome, and the two epistles to Corinth, gegen diese vier Brief e ist
nicht nur nie auch nUr der geringste Verdacht der Unachtheit
erhoben werden, sondern sie tragen auch den Character paulin-
isclier Originalitdt so unwidersprechlich an sich, dass sich gar
nicht denken lasst, welches Recht je der kritische Zweifel gegen
sie gelten machen konnte.1
The genuineness of the epistle has thus been unanimously
acknowledged — the slight exception of Bruno Bauer not suffic
ing to break the universal harmony. The apostle's mental cha
racteristics are indelibly impressed on the letter. In a doctrinal
discussion or a practical dissertation, in a familiar correspondence
on common things, or in any composition which does not stir
up feeling or invoke personal vindication, one may write without
betraying much individualism ; but when the soul is perturbed,
and emotions of surprise, anger, and sorrow are felt singly or
in complex unity, the writer portrays himself in his letter, for
he writes as for the moment he feels, what comes into his mind
is committed to paper freshly and at once without being toned
down or weakened by his hovering over a choice of words.
The Epistle to the Galatians is of this nature. It is the apostle
self-portrayed ; and who can mistake the resemblance ? The
workings of his soul are quite visible in their strength and suc-
1 Paulus, p. 248.
d

1 INTRODUCTION.
cession ; each idea is seen as it is originated by what goes before
it, and as it suggests what come after it in the throbbings of
his wounded soul ; the argument and the expostulation are
linked together in abrupt rapidity, anger is tempered by love,
and sorrow by hope ; and the whole is lighted up by an earnest
ness which the crisis had deepened into a holy jealousy, and
the interests at stake had intensified into the agony of a second
spiritual birth. The error which involved such peril, and
carried with it such fascination, was one natural in the circum
stances, and glimpses of its origin, spread, and power are given
us in the Acts of the Apostles. Who that knows how Paul,
with his profound convictions, must have stood toward such
false doctrine, will for a moment hesitate to recognise him as
he writes in alarmed sympathy to his Galatian converts, who
had for a season promised so well, but had been seduced by
plausible reactionists — the enemies of his apostolic prerogative,
and the subverters of that free and full gospel, in proclaiming
and defending which he spent his life ?

V.— PLACE AND TIME OF COMPOSITION.
The place and time of composition have been, and still are
disputed, and the two inquiries are bound up together. If the
letter was written at Ephesus, the period was relatively early ;
but if at Rome, it was late in the apostle's life.
Those who hold that the gospel was preached in Galatia
at an earlier epoch than that referred to in Acts xvi. 6
assign a correspondent date to the epistle. Others hold that
it was written before the apostolic convention in Jerusalem
as Baumgarten, Michaelis, Schmidt. Koppe, Keil, Borger'
Paulus, Bottger, Niemeyer, ITlrich, though not for the same
reasons, generally maintain this view. Marcion seems to have
believed, like these critics, that it was the earliest of Paul's
epistles. According to Tertullian and Epiphanius, he set this
epistle first in his catalogue ; but as he places the Epistles to the
Thessalonians after the Epistle to the Romans, no great credit
can be reposed in his chronology, for which, however, Wieseler

OPINION ON DATE OF THE EPISTLE. Ii
contends. Tertullian's words are, principalem adversus Judais-
mum epistolam nos quoque confitemur quae Galatas docet, and
there follows a running comment on the epistle. The epithet
principalis has apparently an ethical meaning, placed first as
being the most decided against Judaism. Epiphanius says of
Marcion's canon, al iirio-ToXal al irap' amm Xeyofieval euri
irprnTn [lev 7roo? TaXaTa?, BevTepa Be Trpbs Kopivdlovs.1 Again :
Avttj yap Trap1 avT& m-pam) iceiT<u. 'Hfieis Be Trjv dvaXoyrjv
tots hvovt]crdp,eQa ov% eb? Trap1 ainm, aXA,' to? e^ei to dirocr-
toXikov pvTov, Trjv irpbs 'Pwp,alov<s Td%avTe<; irpcoT^v.2 But the.
chronology is wrong which dates the apostle's first visit to
Galatia before Acts xvi. 6, and the relative ovtco<; Ta^ew? in i. 6
is rather an indefinite term on which to found a distinct date.
But the epistle is by some supposed to be the last of
Paul's epistles, and to have been written at Rome. The
epigraph iypdcpTj dirb 'Pd>firj<i is found in several MSS., as B2,
K, L, the two Syriac and Coptic versions. The same con
jecture is found, among the fathers, in Eusebius of Emesa,
Jerome, Theodoret, Euthalius, and CEcumenius ; and their
opinion has been followed in more recent times by Flacius,
Baronius, Bullinger, Hunnius, Calovius, Lightfoot, Hammond,
Schrader, Kohler, and Riccaltoun. Theodoret dates the epistle
as the first of the Roman imprisonment ; and Kohler dates it
the last, in a.d. 69, two years before Nero's death. The notion
that the apostle was in prison when he wrote the letter has partly
given rise to the hypothesis. But the language of the apostle in
iv. 20, " I desire to be present with you,'' does not prove that he
was in bonds — does not bear out all Jerome's paraphrase, vellem
nunc prcesens esse si confessionis me vincula non arctarent.
Jerome repeats the same idea under vi. 11 (prohibebatur quidem
vinculis). Theodoret merely gives his opinion in his general
preface, and CEcumenius in his brief prefatory note to this
epistle. On iv. 20, the commentator named Eusebius in the
Catena says, iirei&rj ijvy^ave BeBep,evos Kal /on-e^o/ievo?.3
Riccaltoun says on vi. 17, that " the clause, ' from henceforth
let no man trouble me,' would go near to persuade one that ,
this epistle was written near about the time when he finished
1 Panar. lib. i. torn. iii. ; Hxres. xiii. ps. 566, vol. i. ed. GShler.
2 Panar. lib. i. torn. iii. 68, p. 638, vol. i. ed. CEhler.
3 Catena, p. 67, ed. Cramer. So also Carey.

Iii INTRODUCTION.
his course, and much later than that which is commonly fixed
on ; and the note of being written from Rome, which is allowed
not to be authentic, seems much nearer the true date than any
other which has been pitched upon before he went thither."
The clauses so referred to are otherwise better and more natu
rally explained. See the commentary under them. The con
jecture that the epistle was sent from Rome has therefore no
authority — no warrant from any expression in the letter itself,
is plainly contradicted by the chronology of the Acts, and the
ovtw ra^eto? would certainly be inapplicable to a period so
very late.
Other opinions may be noticed in passing. Beza assigns
Antioch as the place of composition, before the apostle went
up to Jerusalem ; Macknight fixes on the same place, but dates
the epistle after the council ; Michaelis supposes it to have been
written from Thessalonica, and Mill from Troas ; while Lard-
ner, Benson, and Wordsworth hold that the apostle only once
had visited Galatia, and that the epistle was written at Corinth
during his first visit to that city, Acts xviii. 11. These
opinions may be at once set aside. Wordsworth's argument
based on the omission of any direction about a collection for
the poor is exceedingly precarious, especially when viewed in
connection with 1 Cor. xvi. 1.
It has been held by perhaps the majority that the epistle
was written at Ephesus. The apostle, on leaving Galatia, after
his second visit of confirmation, having " passed through the
upper coasts," arrived at Ephesus, and there he remained three
years, from a.d. 54 to 57. In this city he could easily and
frequently receive intelligence of the Galatian churches ; and
if the news of their danger reached him, he would at once
despatch a remonstrant epistle. The o£J™? t«x«b9 fits into
this period, and to any year of it— his surprise that they
were changing so soon after his second visit to them, or so
soon after their conversion or after the intrusion of the false
teachers. The elastic oiirw ra^e'tu? will suit any of these ter
mini, but it would not so naturally suit an epoch very much
later, though perhaps a year or so might make no great differ
ence. In such a conclusion one might be content to rest, the
sojourn at Ephesus being alike probable in chronology and in
circumstances as the place and period of composition. The

SIMILARITY TO OTHER EPISTLES. liii
first Epistle to Corinth was written at this time and from
Ephesus, and in that epistle there is a reference to the Galatian
churches : " Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I
have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye,"
xvi. 1. These words may not mean that the apostle sent a
written order to the Galatians, for they may refer to some
command given by him during his second and recent visit.
But there are other letters written nearly at the same
period which have a generic resemblance to the one before us.
Between it and the first Epistle to the Corinthians there are
no such striking points of similarity as would imply an all but
simultaneous origin. The case is different with the second
Epistle to the Corinthians and that to the Romans ; and it
has been suggested that the resemblances are so close and so
numerous, as to furnish an argument for supposing the three
epistles to have been written about the same period. The
reasoning is quite legitimate. The state of mind under which
one writes in any crisis does not soon subside, especially if
similar topics are presenting themselves for illustration and
similar perils are prolonging the excitement when another
epistle is to be composed. The previous thoughts, if they are
to be repeated, clothe themselves instinctively in the previous
words ; the old allusions recur ; and though there may be much
that is new, — though there may be fuller statement and varying
appeal, — still there is a ground-tone of similarity, like the vibra
tion of a chord which had been already struck a brief period
before. What we refer to is not repetition or mechanical
identity, nor the jejune iteration of characteristic idioms and
turns of expression, nor the formal recalling and employment
of the earlier diction ; but the spirit has been so moved by a
recent train of ideas and emotions as unconsciously to combine
them with newer thoughts and fresher arguments.
In the second Epistle to the Corinthians there are themes
akin to those more briefly handled in Galatians, but with
marked difference of circumstance. The apostle's vindication
of his office as compared with that of the original twelve, while
it is as undaunted in spirit as in Galatians, is not so incisive —
not so autobiographical in character, and is wrapt up with
other elements of his career. The challenge to his enemies
and to the false apostles is laden with touching allusions and

liv INTRODUCTION.
crowded with vehement appeals, wrought out with a self-
depreciation which yet could assert itself in ringing accents,
if its divine prerogatives were impugned or thrust in any way
into a lower place ; for he was " not a whit behind the very
chiefest apostles." But his conversion and his life prior to
that change which involved his call to the apostleship are not
alluded to in the letter to the Corinthians. The hostility to
himself rested on a different ground— still Jewish, but not of
that fanatical pharisaical type which it assumed in Galatia;
and therefore the self- vindication takes another form— not
the assertion of a divine call, but of work done, and especially
suffering endured and pressing anxieties. 2 Cor. xi. 23-33,
xii. 10, 11. The allusions in Galatians to bodily suffering
and to the o-TiyfiaTa of the Lord Jesus are brief, but in second
Corinthians (xi. 21-33) the argument bursts out in a torrent of
overwhelming force and grandeur. In the two first chapters,
and toward the end, the descriptive appeals are so copious, that
they would fill up the half of the Epistle to the Galatians.
In Galatians his enemies are not directly flagellated, save in
their subversion of the gospel, though their hostility is taken
for granted ; but in Corinthians his antagonists are openly
pictured in various attitudes and assailed — " some who think
of us as if we walked after the flesh ;" there are allusions to
his meanness of presence ; there are " false apostles, deceitful
workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ,"
acting like the serpent that beguiled Eve through his subtlety :
xi. 14, 15. In both epistles there is extreme anxiety about his
converts, lest they should be seduced into error and estranged
from himself. In both epistles, also, he is quite conscious of
the power of the adverse influence used against himself, of the
hollow court paid to his converts to wean them from him ; in
both there is a suspicion that his authority has been shaken,
and that the seeds of evil and alienation have been sown.
But in Galatians the sphere of enmity is more limited; the
error threatening to come in a flood is palpable and simple,
though multifarious in result ; the people were passionate
and demonstrative, and are appealed to in terms fitted to awe
and impress them. In Corinthians, on the other hand, the
sources of opposition are apparently numerous and complicated ;
there were rivalries and factions, so that there was a party

SIMILARITY TO SECOND CORINTHIANS. Iv
taking for its motto, " I am of Christ ;" there had been false
philosophies at work denying the resurrection, along with pro
pensities to idolatry, and the sexual impurities connected with
it. Spiritual gifts, such as that of tongues, had been abused,
and had led to scenes of disorder. The apostle is anxious to
impress upon them his unabated love in the midst of his stern
rebukes, and his disinterestedness in all his labours, which some
had apparently called in question, and his care not to build on
another man's foundation, which some had been mean enough
to do. Little of this field of discussion is found in Galatians.
In a word, both epistles are loving letters, not cold and imper
sonal treatises ; and they let out more of the writer's heart — of
his joys, his loves, his griefs, his anxieties, his fears, his hopes,
his physical weakness and trials — than any other parts of his
writings. They are a true cardiphonia, and in them you learn
more of him as a creature of flesh and blood — of like passions
with those about him ; beneath the mantle of inspiration you
find a man intensely human and sensitive — no one more alive
to affront and disparagement, or more keenly desirous to stand
well with those whose spiritual benefit he was spending himself
to promote. Now all these general points of similarity are certainly a token
of identity of authorship, but they scarcely amount to a proof
that both epistles were written at the same period. The diversity
is as great as the resemblance; the crisis was somewhat alike in
both cases ; and though some time elapsed between the dates
of the two letters, such resemblance would be easily accounted
for. But there are other points of coincidence. The points
first adduced by Prof. Lightfoot are not very striking, and
little stress can be laid on them. " Christ redeemed us from
the curse of the law, being made a curse for us,"1 is quite
different, save in general doctrinal import, from " He hath made
Him to be sin for us who knew no sin."2 The image, " What
soever a man soweth, that shall he also reap," 3 is not "reproduced
in almost the same words," " He that soweth sparingly, shall
reap also sparingly;"4 for in the first case it is the certain
identity of the harvest with the seed, and in the second case it
is its amount apart from its character, which is asserted ; in
Galatians it is like quality, but in Corinthians like quantity.
1 Gal. iii. 13. 2 2 Cor. v. 21. s Gal. vi. 7. * 2 Cor. ix. 6.

lvi INTRODUCTION.
There are other and more striking similarities which Prof.
Lightfoot has adduced, though he professes not to lay any
great stress upon them :
Gal. i. 6, " another gospel," and in 2 Cor. xi. 4.
Gal. i. 9, v. 21, "tell you before," and in 2 Cor. xiii. 2.
Gal. i. 10, "persuade men," and in 2 Cor. v. 11, but in a different
SGI1S6
Gal. iv. 17, " zealously affect you," and in 2 Cor. xi. 2, " zealous over
you."
Gal. vi. 15, "a new creature," and in 2 Cor. v. 17.
These are more than fortuitous cases ; they indicate the use
of favourite phraseology. Some words are peculiar to the
two epistles. The figure KaTeaOletv occurs Gal. v. 15 and
2- Cor. xi. 20, dvopov/xai, Gal. iv. 20, 2 Cor. iv. 8; $o-
Povfiai, piyn-w, Gal. iv. 11, 2 Cor. xi. 3, xii. 20, and nowhere
else ; tovvovtiov, Gal. ii. 7, 2 Cor. ii. 7, and nowhere else in
Paul's epistles ; tcvpoco in Gal. iii. 15, 2 Cor. ii. 8, and nowhere
else in the New Testament ; and tcavcbv is found in Gal. vi. 16,
and in 2 Cor. x. 13. These words are not so distinctive or so
numerous as to form a substantial proof, but they have some
weight when taken along with other coincidences.
Prof. Lightfoot adduces one peculiar connection between
the two epistles — the counsel to restore a fallen brother. In
Galatians it certainly comes in abruptly, and seems to have
been suggested by something without, not by anything in the
immediate course of thought. It is surmised that what had
happened at Corinth gave rise to the admonition. A member
of that church had fallen into sin, and the apostle had bidden
the church subject him to discipline. But the church had in
severity gone beyond what was necessary, and the apostle
pleads for his forgiveness and restoration. Such an event so
happening at the time might suggest the injunction, " Restore
such a one in the spirit of meekness," guarding against ex
cessive severity.
The similarity of the Epistle to the Galatians in many
points to that to the Romans has often been remarked. Jerome,
in the preface to his Commentary, says : ut sciatis eandem esse
materiam et Epistolw Pauli ad Galatas et quce ad Romanos scripta
est, sed hoc differre inter utramque, quod in ilia, altiori sensu et
profundioribus usus est argumentis. Similar themes are sur-

SIMILARITY TO ROMANS. lvii
rounded with similar illustrations. There is very much more
material in Romans, both at the beginning and end of the
epistle, but the Epistle to the Galatians is imbedded in it. The
one is like an outline, which is filled up in the other, but with
less of a personal element. The Epistle to the Romans is
more massive, more expansive, and has about it as much the
form of a discussion or a didactic treatise as of a letter. The
presumption then is, that as the likeness between the two
epistles is so close, they were written much about the same
time. Nobody doubts the likeness, though many deny the in
ference, for the plain reason that this similarity will not prove
immediate connection of time, since the inculcation of analogous
truths may, after even a considerable interval, lead to the use of
similar diction. No one can safely or accurately measure the
interval from the nature or number of such similarities. It is
certain, however, that no long time could have elapsed between
the composition of the Epistle to the Galatians and that to the
Romans, and their juxtaposition in point of time may not
exceed the relative limit implied in out<b? renews-.
The points of similarity between Galatians and Romans are,
generally, as follows in this table : —
Gal. ii. 16. Knowing that a man Rom. iii. 20. Therefore by the
is not justified by the works of the deeds of the law there shall no flesh
law, but by the faith of Jesus be justified in his sight : for by the
Christ, even we have believed in law is the knowledge of sin.
Jesus Christ, that we might be jus
tified by the faith of Christ, and not
by the works of the law : for by the
works of the law shall no flesh be
justified. Gal. ii. 19. For I through the law Rom. vii. 4. Wherefore, my breth-
am dead to the law, that I might ren, ye also are become dead to the
live unto God. law by the body of Christ ; that ye
should be married to another, even
to him who is raised from the dead,
that we should bring forth fruit
unto God.
Gal. ii. 20. I am crucified with Rom. vi. 6. Knowing this, that
Christ : nevertheless I live ; yet not our old man is crucified with him,
I but Christ liveth in me : and the that the body of sin might be de-
life which I now live in the- flesh I stroyed, that henceforth we should
live by the faith of the Son of God, not serve sin.
who loved me, and gave himself for

Iviii

INTRODUCTION.

Gal. iii. 5, 6. He therefore that
ministereth to you the Spirit, and
worketh miracles among you, doeth
he it by the works of the law, or
by the hearing of faith ? Even as
Abraham believed God, and it was
accounted to him for righteousness.
Gal. iii. 7. Know ye therefore
that they which are of faith, the
same are the children of Abraham.

Gal. iii. 8. And the scripture,
foreseeing that God would justify
the heathen through faith, preached
before the gospel unto Abraham,
saying, In thee shall all nations be
blessed. Gal. iii. 9. So then they which be
of faith are blessed with faithful
Abraham.

Rom. iv. 3. For what saith the
scripture ? Abraham believed God,
and it was counted unto him for
righteousness.

Rom. iv. 10, 11. How was it then
reckoned ? when he was in circum
cision, or in uncircumcision ? Not
in circumcision, but in uncircum
cision. And he received the sign of
circumcision, a seal of the right
eousness of the faith which he had
yet being uncircumcised : that he
might be the father of all them that
believe, though they be not circum
cised ; that righteousness might be
imputed unto them also.
Rom. iv. 17. (As it is written, I
have made thee a father of many
nations,) before him whom he be
lieved, even God, who quickeneth
the dead, and calleth those things
which be not as though they were.
Rom. iv. 23, 24. Now, it was not
written for his sake alone, that it
was imputed to him ; but for us
also, to whom it shall be imputed,
if we believe on him that raised up
Jesus our Lord from the dead.

Gal. iii. 10. For as many as are
of the works of the law are under
the curse : for it is written, Cursed
is every one that continueth not in
all things which are written in the
book of the law to do them.

Rom. iv. 15. Because the law
worketh wrath : for where no law
is, there is no transgression.

Gal. iii. 11. But that no man is
justified by the law in the sight of
God, it is evident : for, The just
shall live by faith.
Gal. iii. 12. And the law is not of
faith : but, The man that doeth
them shall live in them.

Gal. iii. 15-18. Brethren, I speak
after the manner of men : Though
it be but a man's covenant, yet if it

Rom. i. 17. For therein is the
righteousness of God revealed from
faith to faith : as it is written, The
just shall live by faith.
Rom. x. 5. For Moses describeth
the righteousness which is of the
law, That the man which doeth
those things shall live by them.
Rom. iv. 13-16. For the promise,
that he should be the heir of the
world, was not to Abraham, or to

INSTANCES OF RESEMBLANCE.

Ii

be confirmed, no man disannulleth,
or addeth thereto. Now to Abraham
and his seed were the promises made.
He saith not, And to seeds, as of
many ; but as of one, And to thy
seed, which is Christ. And this I
say, that the covenant, that was
confirmed before of God in Christ,
the law, which was four hundred
and thirty years after, cannot dis
annul, that it should make the pro
mise of none effect. For if the
inheritance be of the law, it is no
more of promise : but God gave it
to Abraham by promise.
Gal. iii. 22. But the scripture hath
concluded all under sin, that the
promise by faith of Jesus Christ
might be given to them that believe.
Gal. iii. 27. For as many of you
as have been baptized into Christ
have put on Christ.

Gal. iv. 5-7. To redeem them that
were under the law, that we might
receive the adoption of sons. And
because ye are sons, God hath sent
forth the Spirit of his Son into your
hearts, cryin g, Abba, Father. Where
fore thou art no more a servant, but
a son ; and if a son, then an heir of
God through Christ.

Gal. iv. 23, 28. But he who was
of the bond woman was born after
the flesh ; but he of the free woman
was by promise. . . . Now we,
brethren, as Isaac was, are the chil
dren of promise.

hisseed, through the law, but through
the righteousness of faith. For if
they which are of the law be heirs,
faith is made void, and the promise
made of none effect. Because the
law worketh wrath : for where no
law is, there is no transgression.
Therefore it is of faith, that it might
be by grace ; to the end the promise
might be sure to all the seed : not
to that only which is of the law, but
to that also which is of the faith of
Abraham, who is the father of us all.

Rom. xi. 32. For God hath con
cluded them all in unbelief, that he
might have mercy upon all.

Rom. vi. 3, xiii. 14. Know ye not,
that so many of us as were baptized
into Jesus Christ were baptized into
his death ? — But put ye on the Lord
Jesus Christ, and make not provi
sion for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts
thereof. Rom. viii. 14-17. For as many as
are led by the Spirit of God, they
are the sons of God. For ye have
not received the spirit of bondage
again to fear ; but ye have received
the Spirit of adoption, whereby we
cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself
beareth witness with our spirit, that
we are the children of God : .And if
children, then heirs ; heirs of God,
and joint-heirs with Christ; if so
be that we suffer with him, that we
may be also glorified together.
Rom. ix. 7, 8. Neither, because
they are the seed of Abraham, are
they all children : but, In Isaac shall
thy seed be called : That is, They
which are the children of the flesh,
these are not the children of God :
but the children of the promise are
counted for the seed.

Gal. v. 14. For all the law is ful
filled in one word, even in this,
Thou shalt love thy neighbour as
thyself.

Rom. xiii. 8-10. Owe no man any
thing, but to love one another : for
he that loveth another hath fulfilled
the law. ... If there be any other

Ix

INTRODUCTION.

Gal. v. 16. This I say then, Walk
in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil
the lust of the flesh.

Gal. v. 17. For the flesh lustetb.
against the Spirit, and the Spirit
against the flesh : and these are
contrary the one to the other; so
that ye cannot do the things that
ye would.

commandment, it is briefly compre
hended in this saying, namely, Thou
shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Love worketh no ill to his neigh
bour : therefore love is the fulfilling
of the law.
Rom. viii. 4. That the righteous
ness of the law might be fulfilled in
us, who walk not after the flesh, but
after the Spirit.
Rom. vii. 23, 25. But I see another
law in my members warring against
the law of my mind, and bringing
me into captivity to the law of sin
which is in my members. ... So then
with the mind I myself serve the law
of God, but with the flesh the law
of sin.

Gal. vi. 2. Bear ye one another's Rom. xv. 1. We then that are
burdens, and so fulfil the law of strong ought to bear the infirmities
Christ. of the weak, and not to please our
selves.
These resemblances are very striking, and would seem to indi
cate nearness of period in the composition. But Dean Alford in
terposes thus: "It may be that the elementary truths brought out
amidst deep emotion, sketched, so to speak, in rough lines in the
fervent Epistle to the Galatians, dwelt long on St. Paul's mind,
even though other objects of interest regarding other churches
intervened, and at length worked themselves out under the
teaching and leading of the Spirit into that grand theological
argument which he afterwards addressed, without any special
moving occasion, but as his master-exposition of Christian
doctrine, to the church of the metropolis of the world." The
statement is true, but it does not on this point bring out the
whole truth. For the resemblances are closer, more definite,
and in every way more characteristic than the objection allows.
Not only is the Galatian outline preserved in Romans, but its
minutiae, its sudden turns, its rapid logic beating down opposi
tion, its peculiarities of quotation and proof are rewritten ; the
smaller touches are reproduced as well as the more prominent
courses of argument ; forms of thought and imagery suggested
and sharpened by personal relations and direct collision in the
shorter letter, are reimpressed on the longer and more impersonal

COMMENTARIES ON THE EPISTLE. lxi
production, without any immediate necessity. The parallel is
about as close in many sections as between Ephesians and Colos-
sians. See our Introductions to these epistles. There are also
words peculiar to the two epistles, such as /cwfioi, fiatcapio-/j,6<;,
fie07j, BovXela, /3ao-Ta^et,v, eXevdepoco, 'IBe, Kardpa, KaTapdadat,,
ofetXeTr]?, Trapaf3dTrj<; ; and phrases also, as ri eVt; irap' o, oi rd
TotavTa TrpdacrovTe<;, tI Xiyet r\ ypdcpv ; So that Prof. Light-
foot's argument becomes very plausible, and, to use his own
words, " The reasons given certainly do not amount to a demon
stration, but every historical question must be decided by striking
a balance between conflicting probabilities ; and it seems to me
that the arguments here adduced, however imperfect, will hold
their ground against those which are alleged in favour of the
earlier date." He ingeniously concludes that the epistle may
have been written between the second Epistle to the Corin
thians and the Epistle to the Romans, and on the journey
between Macedonia and Achaia. This view is adopted by
Bleek,1 and virtually by Conybeare and Howson, who date the
epistle from Corinth, while Grotius and De Wette do not
definitely commit themselves to it.
Looking, in a word, at both sides of the question, we feel
it still to be impossible to arrive at absolute certainty on this
point, and critics will probably oscillate between Ephesus and
Greece. The opinion that Greece was the place where the
epistle was written has certainly very much to recommend it,
though we may not be able to reach a definite and indisputable
conclusion.

VI.— COMMENTARIES ON THE EPISTLE.
There are the well-known commentaries of Chrysostom,
Theodoret, CEcumenius, and Theophylact, with some extracts
.from Eusebius Emesenus, Severianusj and Theodore of Mop-
1 Einleitung in das Neue Testament, p. 418, Berlin 1862. Storr has a
good essay with this heading, Prolusio de consensu Epistolarum Pauli ad
Hebrxos et Galatas {Comment. Theol. ed. Velthusen, Kuinoel, et Ruperti,
vol. ii. p. 394), Lipsiae 1795.

Ixii INTRODUCTION.
suestia in Cramer's Catena. Extracts from Gennadius and
Photius are found in CEcumenius. Among the Latin fathers
may be named Marius Victorinus (Abbe Migne's Pat. Lat.
viii.), the pseudo- Ambrose or Hilary, Jerome, Augustine,
Pelagius, Primasius, and others of less note. Mediaeval writers
may be passed over. Luther follows, with Calvin, Beza, Eras
mus, Musculus, Bullinger, Calovius, Zanchius, Crocius, Coc-
ceius, Piscator, Hunnius, Tarnovius, Aretius, Wolf, etc. ; and
the Catholic commentators, Estius and a-Lapide. Wetstein,
Grotius, and the writers in the Critici Sacri and Fratres Poloni
are well known, and so are the collectors of annotations, as
Eisner, Kypke, Krebs, Knatchbull, Lcesner, Alberti, Kiittner,
Palairet, Heinsius, Bos, Keuchenius, Doughtaeus, and Hom-
bergk. There are also the older English expositors, Ferguson,
Dickson, Hammond, Chandler, Whitby, Locke, Doddridge,
etc. etc. We have also the general commentaries of Koppe,
Flatt, Morus, Rosenmiiller, Jaspis, Hyperius, Cameron, and
Reiche 1859.
The following more special commentaries may be noted
Luther, 1519 ; Pareus, 1621 ; Wesselius, 1756 ; Semler, 1779
Schulze, 1784 ; Mayer, 1788 ; Krause, 1788 ; Carpzov, 1794
Borger, 1807 ; Paulus, 1831 ; Riickert, 1833 ; Matthies, 1833
Usteri, 1833; Schott, 1833; Zschokke, 1834; Sardinoux, 1837
Olshausen, 1841 ; Windischmann, 1843 ; Baumgarten-Crusius.
1845; Peile, 1849; Conybeare and Howson, 1850; Jatho, 1851
Hilgenfeld, 1852 ; Brown, 1853 ; Jowett, 1855 ; Bagge, 1856
Trana, 1857 ; Ewald, 1857 ; Bisping, 1857 ; Winer, 4th ed.
1859; Wieseler, 1859 ; Wordsworth's New Test. P. hi., 1859
Webster and Wilkinson, do. vol. ii., 1861; Meyer, 1862,
Schmoller, Lange's Bibelwerk, viii., 1862 ; Kamphausen^
Bunseris Bibelwerk, viii. Halb-band, 1863 ; Hofmann, 1863 ;
Gwynne, 1863; Ellioott, 3d ed., 1863; Alford, New Test.
vol. iii., 4th ed., 1865; Matthias, 1865; Lightfoot, 1865;
Vomel, 1865 ; Carey, 1867 ; Larsen (Kjobenhavn), 1867.
Reference may be made also to Bonitz, Exam. Gal. iii. 20,
1800; Hauk, Exeget. Versuch uber Gal. iii. 15, 22, Stud. u.
Kritik. 1862 ; Hermann, de P. Epist. ad Galat. tribus primis
capitibus, 1832 ; Elwert, Annot. in Gal. ii. 1-10, 1852 ; Keerl
in Gal. vi. 1-10, 1834; Holsten, Inhalt, etc., des Briefes an
die Galaten, 1859, enlarged and reprinted, 1868; Fritzsche,

COMMENTARIES ON THE" EPISTLE. lxiii
de nonnullis ad Galat. Epistolcs locis, Opuscula, p. 158, etc.,
1838. Of a popular and practical nature are — Perkins, 1609 ;
Riccaltoun, 1772; Barnes, 1840; Haldane, 1848; Anacker,
Leipzig 1856 ; Twele, Hannover 1858 ; Kelly, 1865 ; Bayley,
1869. Exegetical remarks on portions of the epistle may also
be found of a rationalistic nature in Holsten's Zum Evangelium
des Paulus und des Petrus, Rostock 1868 ; and of an opposite
character in CErtel's Paulus in der Apostel-geschichte, Halle
1868. When Buttmann, Matthiae, Kiihner, Winer, Scheuerlein,
Bernhardy, Madvig, Schmalfeld, Kriiger, Schirlitz, Green, A.
Buttmann, and Jelf are simply named, the reference is to their
respective Grammars ; and when Suidas, Hesychius, Rost und
Palm, Wahl, Wilke, Bretschneider, Robinson, Cremer, Liddell
and Scott are simply named, the reference is to their respective
Lexicons. The references to Hartung are to his Lehre von den
Partikeln der griechischen Sprache, Erlangen 1832.

COMMENTAKY ON GALATIANS.

CHAPTER I.
THE apostle's standing had been challenged by a faction in
the Galatian churches, in order that his distinctive teach
ing might be disparaged or set aside. To undermine his doc
trine, they denied or explained away his apostleship. It seems
to have been alleged against him, that as he had not been a
personal disciple of Jesus, he could not claim the inspiration
enjoyed by those on whom He breathed, as He said, " Receive
ye the Holy Ghost;" that his gospel had been communicated
to him through a human medium, and therefore was not
primary and authoritative truth ; and that his position in the
church was only of secondary or intermediate appointment, and
on that account quite subordinate in rank and prerogative.
Or there may have been an impression that the first number
could not be augmented; and as it bore a relation to the twelve
tribes of Israel, no one could be regarded as equal in office and
honour to the BooBe/ca, ov? ical dtrocrToXovi wvofiacrev (Luke vi.
13). The number was hallowed as a sacred one (Rev. xxi.
14). Justin also speaks significantly of the twelve : avBpe<;
BeicaBvo tov dpiOptov (Apol. i. 39, Opera, vol. i. p. 216, ed.
Otto). If the Clementines be taken as embodying to some
extent the traditionary opinions and prejudices of the Jewish
Christians, then Paul's official standing would be disallowed,
as being unattested by credentials from the twelve ; his doc
trine denied, as unsanctioned by James, called " the Lord's
brother," and the head of the church in Jerusalem ; and his
apostleship ignored, because he had not "companied" with
Jesus and the twelve in the days of His flesh (ffomilia;, xi. 35,
xvii. 19, pp. 253, 351, ed. Dressel. 1853). In the Recognitiones

2 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
it is more distinctly stated : neque propheta neque apostolus in
hoc tempore speratus a vobis aliquis alius prceter nos. . . . Ipse
enim est annus Dei acceptus nos apostolos habens duodecim
menses (iv. 35). Besides, Paul's official affinity with the Gentiles,
and his characteristic assertion of their freedom — their non-
obligation to submit to the Mosaic law, excited suspicion and
hostility against him on the part of all — tyjXcoTal tov vo/j,ov —
who held that it was to be rigidly enforced on heathen converts,
who were to be permitted only through the gate of virtual prose-
lytism to enter into full communion with the church. Perhaps
this depreciation arose also from some false view of his connec
tion with Barnabas, and of their relation to the prophets of the
church at Antioch, by the laying on of whose hands both had
been separated and designated to missionary work. The apostle
therefore enters at once on self-vindication — non superbe sed
necessarie (Jerome) — not because of the mere slander, BiaftoXtfv
(Theodoret), or because they held him cheap, i^nvreXi^ov
(CEcumenius) ; but because the slight cast upon him was not
only a denial of Christ's authority to rule in His own church,
and to choose and endow any one to serve in it, but was also
a preliminary step to the promulgation and advocacy of a mass
of errors, which detracted from the fulness of His atoning work
by suspending Gentile salvation on the observance of Gentile
Jewish ritual. True, indeed, he was not one of the original
twelve, but he claims a parity of rank, as his call was as real as
theirs though posterior to it : wo-rrepel to i/cTpw/uiTi co(f>0v Kapioi
(1 Cor. xv. 8). The same Jesus who summoned the twelve
by the Lake of Galilee, did, after being taken up into heaven,
appear in glory " above the brightness of the sun," and make
him " a minister and a witness," and send him to the Gentiles.
He saw "that Just One, and heard the voice of His mouth,"
and therefore had a commission as divine, distinct, and inde
pendent as any one of those whom he calls ol irpb ipoi) diroa-
toXol. So that he opens by a sharp and resolute assertion of
his full apostolic prerogative ; and the first verse contains, not
exactly what Jowett calls " the text of the whole epistle," but
an assertion of official dignity, which underlies the grand'ques-
tion discussed in it.
Ver. 1. IIavXo<;, aTroo-ToXo? ovk aTrdvepwircov ovBe Si dvdprn-
irov—" Paul, an apostle, not from men nor by man." There

CHAP. I. 1.

needs no participle to be inserted after d-rroaToXo'i, as Borger,
Bloomfield, and others suppose, its relations being sufficiently
marked and guarded by the following prepositions. In most of
the other epistles the same assertion is made, though in quieter
and more general terms. For its different forms, see on Phil.
i. 1 ; and for the meaning of " apostle," see on Eph. iv. 11, and
this epistle, i. 19, in the essay at the end of this chapter. But
now, the reality of his apostleship being impugned, and that for a
selfish purpose, he at once asserts its divinity with bold and un-
mistakeable emphasis. Sometimes, when the opposition to him
was not so fierce, he uses other arguments : " the seal of mine
apostleship are ye in the Lord ;" " truly the signs of an apostle
were wrought among you;" "I am not a whit behind the
chief est of the apostles ;" but the antagonism to him in Galatia
demanded a more incisive vindication. The statement is made
by a change of prepositions and a change of number. The use
of two prepositions in successive clauses is indeed quite charac
teristic of the apostle's style ; and a7ro and Bid are not to be con
founded, as if the whole meaning were, that in no sense did Paul
receive his apostleship from a human source. On purpose he
puts the fact very distinctly : he was an apostle, not from men,
a7ro, referring to remote or primary source ; nor by man, Bid
referring to medium or nearer instrumental cause. Winer,
§ 47 ; Bernhardy, p. 222. Some expositors, as Koppe, Borger,
Usteri, and Gwynne, neglecting the change of preposition, lay
the strep on the change of number. Gwynne denies the
distinction between diro and Bid, but without foundation in
any of the instances alleged by him. Nor does he see, in the
case of a7ro, how the literal so naturally and necessarily passes
into the ethical meaning of a particle, or how " remotion from"
comes to signify origination. The oi/Be implies a difference of
relation in the second clause from the first. Aid may not
always denote instrument in the strict sense, for means may be
blended in conception with source, especially when God is spoken
of, as in Rom. xi. 36 : " for of Him (e£ avTov) and by Him
(oY amov) are all things," being His alike in origin and agency,
Himself the worker of His own will or purpose — one or both
aspects of relationship being equally applicable to Him (com
pare Heb. ii. 10 ; 1 Cor. i. 9, viii. 6). It is true that Bid is used
with both nouns in the following clause ; but here, as in contrast '

4 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
with d7ro, it has its distinctive meaning, and is the first step in
the argument. Bengel's distinction, therefore, is baseless, that
his call (vocatio) is referred to in a7ro, and instruction (institutio
immediata) in Bid. But it is wrong in Hofmann to say that
any distinction of meaning between the two prepositions serves
no purpose. Borger errs far in supposing that a7ro and Bid
are both used for biro which points to an active and more
immediate cause. In the decaying stage of a language, the
precise distinction of similar particles, with the more delicate
shades of relation indicated by them, ceases to be felt ; and thus,
as Winer remarks, a7ro is frequently used for vito after passive
verbs in Byzantine Greek, and the two prepositions are often
exchanged both in classical and New Testament codices (§ 47, b).
On the difference of meaning, see also Poppo, Thucydides,
vol. i. p. iii. p. 158 ; Stallbaum, Plato, vol. iii. p. 137. The
apostle's office flowed from no body of men, nor was it given
him through an individual man, either by himself or as repre
senting any body of men and acting in their name. He was
no delegate of the original twelve, and was in no way dependent
on them ; nor even did he stand in any official subordination
to James, Cephas, or John — ot Sokovvt€<; cttvXoi etvai. Or if
dvQpdmov be taken as the abstract, the clause may mean that
his was no dependent charge delegated to him from any party
of men, nor was it an independent charge conveyed to him
through mere humanity. It may, however, be doubted whether
it be the abstract, or whether any direct personal allusion is
intended; for the change to the singular forms a designed
antithesis to the following clause, while it denies the interven
tion of human agency in any form and to any extent. It does
not seem likely that, in this vindication of his independent
standing, the apostle alludes to the false teachers as having no
divine commission (Jerome, De Wette, and Lightfoot) ; for to
have brought himself into any comparison with them would
have been a lowering of his plea. Rather, as we have said,
these Judaizers, the more thoroughly to controvert his doctrine
and undermine his influence, denied his true apostleship. He
might, in their opinion, be a BovXo<s, Bid/covo?, evwyyeXio-T^, but
not an apostle ; for they seem to have maintained that there
was the taint of a human element in his commission, and they
•assigned him a far lower platform than the original twelve.

CHAP. I. 1. 5
But Christ had called him immediately, ovpavodev i/cdXecrev ovk
dv6pd>iT<p 'xpno-dpievo'i virovpyA (Theophylact) ; and he was not
therefore like Silas or Timothy in his relation to Christ and
the ruling powers in the churches. What the apostle asserts
of his office, he afterwards as distinctly asserts of his doctrine
(vers. 11, 12, etc.). Negatively, his apostleship was not from
men as its causa principalis, nor by man as its causa medians ;
but positively, AXXa Bia 'Irjcrov XpicrTov /cal ©eov iraTpbs tov iyeipavTO?
avTov etc veicpcov — " but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father
who raised Him from the dead." Had the apostle consulted
mere rhetorical fulness, he might have repeated a7ro before @eov
7raT/)o's. But both nouns are governed by the same preposition
Bid, and are included under the same relation. For, to his
mind, so much were Christ and God one in purpose and act,
that the Bid not only implies the 0.77-0, but absorbs it, primary
source in God being identified with mediate agency in the
appearance and call of the Lord Jesus. The phrase is there
fore placed first, as being nearest his thought at the moment,
and as it was the relation expressed by Bid which formed the
question in dispute. The apostleship might be admitted as
being from God, and yet not by Him as its immediate agent ;
a.7ro does not of itself prove Bid, but Bid certainly implies 0.77-0.
Aid is not used therefore for the sake of shortness, as Olshausen
says, and as Ellicott partly allows ; but it points to the direct
agency of God, manifested in raising His Son from the dead.
By Jesus Christ was the apostle selected and directly called,
and by God the Father acting in and through Him whom He
had raised from the dead ; for it was the risen and glorified
Saviour who bestowed the apostolate on him. See above on
the prepositions, and Fritzsche on Rom. i. 5. In ver. 3, again,
the usage is reversed, and diro is employed with both names.
Both nouns here want the article, and @eo? iraTrjp has all the
force of a proper name (Gal. i. 3 ; Eph. vi. 23 ; Phil. ii. 11 ;
1 Pet. i. 2). The genitive veicpav wants the article, too, as
usually when preceded by iic (Winer, § 19), the quotation in
Eph. v. 14 being an exception, and there being in Col. ii. 12
various readings with authorities almost balanced. God is called
iraTrip, not generally as Father* of all (De Wette, Alford), nor
specially as our Father (Usteri and Wieseler), nor directly as

6 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
Christ's Father, as is the opinion of Meyer, Ellicott, and the
rendering of tlie Syriac ; but the name is probably inclusive of
all those relations. Because He sustains such a relation to Christ
and Christ's, because of His foremost place in the gracious
economy, and His fatherly manifestations in it and through it,
may He not receive the characteristic and almost absolute name
of Father ? The relation of Christ and believers to the Father
is often indicated by a following genitive (i. 4 ; Eph. i. 2, 3 ;
Col. i. 2, 3 ; 1 Thess. i. 3, iii. 11, etc.).
The predicate is, tov eyelpavTO^ avTov eic ve/cpcov. Why this
addition, for it must have some connection with the apostle's
self -vindication ? The addition is not a vague one, as if the
act asserted had become an attribute of God (Jowett) ; nor
is it the mere token of almighty power (Olshausen), nor an
affirmation of His resurrection against Jews (Chrysostom), nor
chiefly a refutation of the objection that he had not seen Christ
(Semler, Morus), nor a passing historical notice that he had been
called by the risen Saviour, nor a recognition of the Father as
the Urheber, originator of Christ's redeeming work (De Wette,
Usteri), nor only the historical confirmation of the ical &eov
iraTpo'i (Meyer) ; nor is it principally to exhibit the resurrection
as awaking faith in the Risen One and in God as our reconciled
Father in Him (Wieseler) ; but it is the proof that Jesus who
died could call him, though He had not called him at the period
when the twelve were commissioned in the days of His flesh,
and that the apostleship was one of the gifts which specially
belonged to Him as the ascended Lord. Eph. iv. 11. It may
be said generally, the Father raised Him from the dead, so
that all His apostles could proclaim the truth of which His
resurrection was the primal evidence and a distinctive tenet
(Rom. i. 4, iv. 24 ; Eph. i. 20 ; Phil. ii. 9) ; and specially, God
the Father entrusted Paul with the apostleship, and did it
through Jesus, whom He had raised from the dead : so that
the risen Saviour invested with supreme authority, added, by
a direct and personal act, one to the number of the twelve,
with every element of qualification and prerogative which had
been conferred upon them. There is no need to say, with
Luther, that the clause condemns justitiam operum. It would
be at the same time laying too great stress on the words,
to suppose, with Augustine, Erasmus, Beza, and Calvin, that

CHAP. I. 1. 7
the apostle is claiming a superiority over the other apostles,
inasmuch as he alone had been called by the risen Saviour, but
they by Him adhuc mortali. But the clause plainly implies
that he possessed all the qualifications of an apostle ; that he
had been commissioned immediately by Jesus Himself, having
not only heard Him but seen Him, and could be a witness of
His resurrection equally with any of the twelve ; and that he
possessed the gift of the Holy Ghost in such fulness and adap
tation as fitted him for all spheres of his work (1 Cor. ix. 1, 2).
It is a strange lection which is ascribed by Jerome to Marcion,
which omitted the words &eov iraTpcx;, and seems to have read
I. X. tov iyelpavTO<; eavTov iic veicpcov, for it is opposed to the
uniform teaching of the Pauline theology. The Greek fathers
lay no little stress on the fact that I. X. and @eo? irarrip
have a common bond of connection in Bid. Chrysostom speaks
of it as " fitted to stop the mouths of the heretics who deny
Christ's divinity, and to teach us not to prescribe laws to the
ineffable nature, nor to define the degrees of Godhead which
belong to the Father and the Son." Theodoret presses the
inference to prove ovBefiiav <pvcrea)s Biacpopdv between Father
and Son. But such a theological pressure upon the passing
phrase cannot be sustained in all its weight, though the words
do imply economic unity of will and operation, and show that
to the mind of the apostle Christ and the Father were one in
authority and prerogative. Nay more, I. X. is placed in direct
opposition to dvOpmirov, as if, in Augustine's phrase, He were
totus jam Dens.1 The reason why Crellius and Le Clerc and
others insist on inserting drrrb before @eov is, that they may
impugn the equality which the common vinculum of Bid implies.
Brown inclines very needlessly to their exegesis, though cer
tainly not for their doctrinal grounds. In a word, this self-
assertion of the apostle is in no way opposed to what he says
elsewhere in self-depreciation, as when he calls himself " the
least of the apostles," "not meet to be called an apostle,"
1 Cor. xv. 8, 9, for these are the utterances of conscious
personal unworthiness. Nor is the statement before us in con
flict with the record in Acts xiii. 1-3. Paul was an apdstle,
as himself felt and believed, prior to this scene in tfie church
1 This phrase is guarded and expftined in his Retractationes, Opera, vol.
i. p. 74, ed. Paris, 1836.

8 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
of Antioch. Acts xx. 24, xxii. 14, 15, xxvi. 16-20. Was
not the formal apostolic commission given in the hour of
his conversion — idvav, et? oft? iya> ae diroo-TeXXw % See also
Gal. i. 12, 15, 16, 22, 23; 1 Tim. i. 12, 13. The fasting,
prayer, and imposition of hands were not, as Hammond,
Wake, Wordsworth, and the Catholic commentators Bisping
and Windischmann,1 argue, a consecration to the apostleship,
but a solemn designation of Saul and Barnabas to a special
missionary work, which on their return is said to have been
" fulfilled." Even Calvin speaks of the call of the apostle as
being followed by the sollennis ritus ordinationis; see under
Eph. i. 1. But if ecclesiastical ordination was essential to full
apostleship, what becomes of the ovBe St' dvOpdnrov 1
After this decided assertion of his apostleship — an assertion
necessary in the circumstances, at once for his own vindication,
and the confirmation of the gospel which he preached, as also
to give their due weight to the censure, counsels, warnings, and
teachings which were to form the contents of the epistle — he
passes on to say —
Ver. 2. Kal ol crirv ifiol irdvTes dBeXxf>oi — " and all the bre
thren who are with me." This phrase, designating a number of
persons beyond such names as Timothy, Sosthenes, and Silvanus,
found in some of the other epistles, cannot refer exclusively, as
Brown after Beza supposes, to official colleagues, nor generally,
as Schott, Victorinus, Jatho, Schmoller, Jowett, take it, to
the brethren or community in the place from which the epistle
was written. It denotes an inner circle of friends, in special
companionship with the apostle — at one with him in opinion at
the present moment ; -jravTei emphatic — referring not so much
to number, though it must include several, as to unanimity, —
no exception among them, all of them in the crisis sympathizing
with the Galatian churches, and sharing his anxiety to deliver
them from imminent jeopardy. In fact, in Phil. iv. 21, 22,
the apostle distinguishes " the brethren with him" from " all
the saints." The question as to who might be included in the
77-aWe? is answered in various ways, according to the opinion
adopted about the place where the epistle was written — in
Ephesus or Corinth. Wherever they were, they joined in the
salutation ; but their position arifd unanimity added no authority
1 Estius is an exception.

chap. i. 3. 9
to the epistle (Chrysostom, Luther, Calvin, Olshausen, Meyer,
and De Wette, hold the opposite view), though probably they
might strengthen its appeals, as showing how wide and warm
an interest was felt in the Galatian defection. Tit. iii. 15. The
authority of the epistle rests exclusively on the official preroga
tive of Paul himself, singly and apart from the dBeXcpoi. For
the association of other names with the apostle's own in his
salutations, see under Phil. i. 1.
The epistle is not sent to one community in a town, but
Tah iictcXncrlai<i ttj? TaXarias — " to the churches of Galatia"
— the letter being therefore a circular. Acts xvi. 6, xviii. 23 ;
1 Cor. xvi. 1 ; 1 Pet. i. 1. It has been often remarked, that
itacXncriaK; occurs without any qualifying element or additional
clause ; and it has been explained since the time of Chrysostom,
that, on account of their defection, the apostle could not give
them any title of honour or endearment. Usteri denies this, and
appeals to both epistles to Thessalonica ; but there the words iv
©em iraTpl are added. In both epistles to Corinth, tov ©eov is
annexed to eKtcXnaia, passages strangely referred to also by Hof
mann and Sardinoux, as if proving that Paul had felt, in writing
to these churches, as he did in writing to those of Galatia. It
is quite baseless on the part of Theophylact, to find in the plural a
reference to divisions — eVet Be ical BiecrTaaia^ov. For the places
where those churches were probably situated, see Introduction.
Ver. 3. Xdpi<; v/uv ical elprjvq dirb ©eov iraTpos ical Kvpiov
rjfiojv ,Inaov XpiaTov — " Grace be to you and peace from God
the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ." The pronoun q/t&v is
placed after Kvpiov on good authority, though A and K, with
some of the Latin fathers, insert it after Tra-r^o?, as in other
salutations. Rom. i. 7 ; 1 Cor. i. 3 ; 2 Cor. i. 2 ; Eph. i. 2,
etc. As Sta in the first verse, so a7ro in this verse governs
both the genitives, as both are sources of divine blessing, ac
cording to the aspect in which each is viewed, primarily indeed
from God and proximately from Jesus Christ. This con
tiguous use of two prepositions, each of them in application
both to the Father and to Christ, shows that to the apostle
God and Christ were so much one in will and operation (" God
in Christ"), that no sharp dogmatic distinction of origin and
medium needed to be drawn between them in such a prayer
offered for the churches. See under ver. 1.

10 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
For the meaning of the benediction, see under Eph. i. 2,
and also the note of Wieseler. As the West embodied its wishes
in xapt?, and the East in £ff?f — elpr\vn, — so the apostle, in
catholic fulness, uses both terms in their profoundest Christian
significance : no ordinary greeting, or " as the world giveth,"
but a prayer for all combined and fitting spiritual blessings.
In connection with Christ, and as an unusual addition to his
salutations, he now describes His distinctive work in its blessed
purpose and in its harmony with the divine plan ; for the pass
ing statement presents a truth in direct conflict with the errors
prevailing in the Galatian churches. Thus the first and fourth
verses contain in brief the two themes of the epistle, — a vindi
cation of his apostleship and of the free and full salvation by
faith without works of law, which he rejoiced to proclaim.
Ver. 4. Tov Bovto<; eavTov irepl twv dpiapTiwv r/fiav — " who
gave Himself for our sins." The virep of the received text is
found in B and K3, and some of the Greek fathers, but irepl
has the authority of A, D, F, K, X, several minuscules, and is
apparently the preferable reading. The correction to virep
might appear to be more in the apostle's manner (Meyer).
The two prepositions, so similar in meaning, are often ex
changed in New Testament mss. Meyer holds that they are
not different in meaning.
The act here ascribed to Christ Himself is often ascribed to
God, as in Rom. viii. 32 ; sometimes it assumes the form of a
simple statement, as in Rom. iv. 25, v. 8; but here, as also in
other places, especially in the pastoral epistles, it is regarded as
the spontaneous act of the Self-offerer, as in John x. 18, 1 Tim.
ii. 6, Tit. ii. 14, Eph. v. 2 where a compound verb is used.
(Rom. v. 6, 8, etc.; 1 Mace. vi. 44.) Wetstein quotes in illustra
tion from Xiphilinus, the abbreviator of Dio Cassius (in Othone,
p. 193), the following clause : Sort? ovk vp,a$ virep eavTov, dXX'
eavrbv virep vfiwv SeSwice. Meyer says, and so far correctly, that
the idea of satisfaction lies not in the meaning of the preposition,
but in the whole Sachverhaltniss ; quoting also Iliad, i. 444 :
<&o//3p ff hpYjti exctrofiPnu
pi%tu imip AcevaZv S<Pp' iTux.ts6fi.Hj8a avetXTa.
Wesselius cites the versiculus notissimus of Cato :
" Ipse nocens cum sis, moritur cur victima pro te ?"
Ilepl, as might be expected from the meaning of the words in

CHAP. I. 4. 11
such a connection, is often used with the thing, and virep with
the persons : 77-ept dfiapTiSv, virep dBiicwv (1 Pet. iii. 18 ; Sirach
xxix. 15). But the usage is not uniform, as Heb. v. 3, Trepi
tov Xaov, . . . irepl eavrov, . . . virep dpMprioov ; and in the first
verse also of the same chapter, virep dpiapTia>v. In 1 Cor. xv.
3, virep is used with d/uipTicov, but fjp,wv is a personal quali
fication. In Matt. xxvi. 28 we have irepl iroXXav, but the
personal design is introduced, et? afaciv dpapTUov ; and in the
parallel passages, Mark xiv. 24, Luke xxii. 19, virep occurs,
and the personal explanatory clause is wanting. In 1 Thess.
v. 10 the various reading is Trept — virep, and a personal purpose
follows. The preposition virep denotes a closer relation — "over,"
or " for the benefit of," " on behalf of," personal interest in,
that interest being often an element of conscious recognition
(Gal. ii. 20; 1 Cor. v. 20 ; Rom. xiv. 15), and has a meaning
verging very close on that of dvrl, " in room of," as the con
text occasionally indicates (chap. iii. 13 ; Eph. v. 2 ; Philem.
13). See Fritzsche on Rom. v. 7, 8 ; Poppo on the phrase virep
eavTov, which he renders suo loco, virep pro dvTi, Thucydides,
part iii. jrol. i. p. 704 ; Euripides, Alcestis, 690 ; Polybius, i.
67, 7 ; Matthiae, § 582 ; Rost und Palm, sub voce. Ilepl is
more general in meaning, and may denote " on account of," " in
connection with," bringing out the object or motive of the act :
Jesus Christ gave Himself for our sins — on account of them,
or in such a connection with them — that He might deliver
us. See under Eph. vi. 19. The distinction between the two
prepositions is often very faint, though frequently 77-epi ex
presses only mentis circumspectionem, virep simul animi propen-
sionem (Weber, Demosth. p. 130). See also Schaefer's full note
on the phrase of Demosthenes, ov irepl 86l;r}<; ovS' virep p,epov$,
Annot. yol. i. p. 189 ; and the remarks of Bremi, Demosthenes,
Orat. p. 188. The two prepositions may, as commonly employed,
characterize the atonement or self-oblation of Christ ; the first
in its object generally, the second specially in its recipients,
and the benefits conferred upon them. Christ gave Himself
for us, on account of our sins, that expiation might be made,
or on behalf of sinners, that by such expiation they might
obtain forgiveness and life. See more fully under Eph. v. 2,
25. 'AvtI is more precise, and, signifying "in room of,"
points out the substitutionary nature of Christ's death. Matt.

12 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
v. 38; Luke xi. 11; 1 Cor. xi. 15; Jas. iv. 15; Matt. xvii.
27, etc.
The meaning is, that He gave Himself to death (not volenti
diabolo, Ambrosiast.), or, as in other places, gave His life.
Matt. xx. 28 ; Mark x. 45. Sometimes a predicate is added, as
dvTiXvTpov, 1 Tim. ii. 6 ; irpoo-fopdv, Eph. v. 2. Such a predi
cate is here implied in the clause defined by 7rept, and in the
purpose indicated by oVw?. The freeness of the self-gift is
prominent, as well as its infinite value — Himself. We pause
not over theological distinctions as to the two natures of the
Mediatorial person in this act : He gave Himself — a gift im
possible without incarnation — a gift valueless without a myste
rious union with divinity, as is at least indicated by the common
vinculum of Bid in the first verse, and of 077-0 in the second
verse. The rjfiwv refers primarily to the apostle, the brethren
with him and the persons addressed by him in Galatia, but
does not by its use define in any way the extent of the atone
ment, either as limiting it to "us" believers, as some have
argued, or extending it to " us" " mankind sinners," as others
contend. The doctrine taught is, that Jesus Christ did spon
taneously offer Himself as the one propitiation, so that He is
the source of grace and peace ; and the inference is, because
He gave Himself, the oblation is perfect as also the deliverance
secured by it, so that obedience to the Mosaic law as a means
of salvation is quite incompatible with faith in Him.
The self-oblation of Jesus is surely no mere Jewish image,
as Jowett represents it, something now in relation to us like a
husk out of which .the kernel had fallen. True, as he says,
" [he image must have had a vividness in the days when sacri
fices were offered that it may not have now;" but the truth
imaged has not therefore faded out. Take away all that is
Jewish in the presentation of that truth, yet you alter not its
essence and purpose ; for through the death of Christ, and its
relation to or influence on the divine government, God is just
while He is justifying the ungodly. The teaching of Scripture
is something more than that " Christ took upon Him human
flesh, that He was put to death by sinful men, and raised men
out of the state of sin — in this sense taking their sins upon
Him :" that is, in no true sense bearing our guilt. For not
only expiation or propitiation, but reconciliation, justification,

. CHAP. I. 4. 13
acceptance, redemption from the curse, are ascribed to His
death. Men are raised out of a state of sin when their guilt
is forgiven, and the power of sin is destroyed within them ; and
both blessings are traced to the Self-sacrifice of the Son of God.
The sinfulness of the men that put Him to death is not incom
patible with the voluntariness and atoning merit of His death ;
for it was more than a tragedy or a martyrdom, though it is
not without these aspects. The figures, as Jowett says, are
varied ; but such variation does not prove them to be " figures
only," and the truth underlying them has varying and connected
phases of relation and result. " The believer is identified with
the various stages of the life of Christ;" true, but his life
springs from Christ's death, and is a life in union with the risen
Lord. Gal. ii. 20. The definite doctrine of Scripture is, that in
dying, Christ bore a representative or a substitutionary relation
to sin and sinners, as is expressed by dvri, and implied in 77-ept
and U7rep. This teaching of Scripture in the age of the apostles
is the truth still to us, even though its imagery may be dimmed.
Moulded for one age, and given primarily to it, it is adapted to
all time as a permanent and universal gospel. The palpable
terms fashioned in Jewry ray light through the world. The
apostolic theology, though bodied forth by Hebrew genius, and
glowing with illustrations from Hebrew history and ritual, is
all the more on that account adapted to us, for it speaks in no
dull monotone, and it is no exhibition of such abstract and
colourless formulas as would satisfy the scanty creed of modern
spiritualism. The purpose of the self-sacrifice is
"Ottcu? iijeXijTai 17/Aa? etc tov al(5vo<; tov eWo-TWTO? irovrjpov
— " that He might deliver us out of the present world — an evil
one:" nequam, Vulg. ; malo, Clarom.; maligno, Aug. Perhaps
this is the better reading, and it is supported by A, B, K1. The
received text places eVeoTcSTO? before alwvos, omitting the article,
and is also well supported by a large number of mss., some ver
sions and fathers. The verb, from its position, is emphatic, and
irovTjpov is virtually a tertiary predicate. "Iva is the apostle's
favourite term, and the relative particle 6'77-w? — "in such manner
that" — is rarely used by him. In the New Testament it is con
strued with the subjunctive, sometimes with dv, but it is found
with other moods in classical writers (Kriiger, § 54, 8, etc. ;
Klotz-Devarius, vol. ii. pp. 629, etc., 681, etc., in which sections

14 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
'iva and oVw? are distinguished in meaning and use). The verb
igaipeio-Oai (eriperet, Vulgate) occurs only here in Paul's epistles.
In other passages of the New Testament it has the sense of
rescue from peril by an act of power, as of Joseph (Acts vii.
10) ; of the Hebrews out of slavery (Acts vii. 34) ; of Peter
from the hand of Herod (Acts xii. 11) ; of Paul from the mob
in Jerusalem (Acts xxiii. 27) ; and it is the word used by the
Divine Master to the apostle in reference to his frequent de
liverances from danger (Acts xxvi. 17). Compare Gen. xxxii.
11, Isa. xiii. 22, Ps. cxl. 1. The noun aldtv connected with
del, Latin cevum, and the Saxon aye (" God shall endure for
aye"), means "duration;" its adjunct determining whether
that duration reach indefinitely backwards or forwards, as in
a.7r' or iic atwpo? in the one case, and et? tov al&va in the other.
The latter is a common meaning both in the classics and in the
New Testament : Ast, Lexicon Platon. sub voce. With a more
restricted duration, it often means in the New Testament, the
age or present course of time, with the underlying idea of
corruption and sinfulness, though, as having a temporal sense in
more or less prominence, it is not to be identified with Koo-p,o<;.
Luke xvi. 8 ; Rom. xii. 2 ; Eph. i. 21, ii. 2. In rabbinical
usage, there was the njn cbty, the present or pre-Messianic
age, and Nan DPiy, the coming age, or period after Messiah's
advent. Allusions to such use would almost seem to be in
Matt. xxiv. 3, Heb. vi. 5, ix. 26. The alwv fieXXav, however,
of the New Testament is not so restricted as the corresponding
rabbinical phrase, Matt. xii. 32, Mark x. 30, Luke xviii. 30,
Eph. i. 21. The noun, in Christian use, and in both refer
ences, acquires a deeper significance. The 6 vvv alwv of the
pastoral epistles, 1 Tim. vi. 17, 2 Tim. iv. 10, Tit. ii. 12— o al&v
ovros, Rom. xii. 2 — has a pervading element of evil in it, in
contrast to the o alwv fieXXcov, 6 al&v 6 ip^bfievoi, which is
characterized by purity and happiness (Mark x. 30; Luke
xviii. 30). The at<5i> is this passing age — this world as it now
is— fallen, guilty, and corrupt, in bondage to a " god " (2 Cor.
iv. 4), and to ap%oz/Te? who are opposed to God (1 Cor. ii. 6 ;
Eph. vi. 12). We often use the word "world" very similarly, as
signifying a power opposed to Christ in its maxims, fashions,
modes of thought, and objects of pursuit, and as continually
tempting and often subduing His people ; the scene of trial

CHAP. I. 4. 15
and sorrow, where sense ever struggling for the mastery over
faith, embarrasses and overpowers the children of God. See
Cremer, Biblisch-theolog. Worterb. sub voce, Gotha 1866.
The participle eVecrrw? has two meanings, either time pre
sent actually, or present immediately — time now, or time im
pending. The first meaning is apparent in Rom. viii. 38,
ovTe iveo-T&ra ovre fieXXovTa, " nor things present, nor things
to come " — present and future in contrast. Similarly 1 Cor.
iii. 22, vii. 26 ; Heb. ix. 9. Instances abound in the classics
and Septuagint, Esdras v. 47, ix. 6, tov iveaTSna ^eifi&va ;
3 Mace. i. 16 ; frequently in Polybius, i. 60, 75, xviii. 38 ;
Xen. Hellen. 2, 1, 6 ; Joseph. Antiq. xvi. 6, 2 ; Philo, de
Plantat. Noe, Opera, vol. iii. p. 136, Erlangaa 1820. Phavo-
rinus defines it by irdpovra, and Hesychius gives it as o
rij? feu??? %poi/o?. The Syriac renders it " this age," and the
Vulgate prcesenti seeculo. Sextus Empir. divides times into
tov irap(pj(r]iMevov ical tov eveo-T&Ta ical tov p,eXXovTa, Advers.
Phys. ii. 192, p. 516, ed. Bekker. It is also the term used by
grammarians for " the present tense;" thus iveo-Taxra peToyf) —
the present participle. Theodore of Mopsuestia, in loo., defines
the term by irapwv, and explains it as the period stretching
on to the second advent, ed. Fritzsche, p. 121. "Compare
Clement. Horn. ii. 40, Ignat. ad Eph. xi., Corpus Ignatianum,
ed. Cureton, p. 29. While there may be a few passages in
which it will bear the sense of impending (Polybius, i. 71-
4), or ideally present, as good as come or seen as certainly
coming, it is questioned whether it has such a meaning in
the New Testament, even in 2 Thess. ii. 2, compared with
2 Tim. iii. 1. See Schoettgen's Horos on this place. But
this view is taken by Meyer, Bisping, and Trana, the phrase
denoting, according to them, impending timej — the evil time
predicted as coming and preceding the second advent. 2 Pet.
iii. 3 ; 1 John ii. 18 ; Jude 18 ; 2 Tim. iii. 1. Matthias, a
recent annotator (Cassel 1865), holds the same view, and would
punctuate alavos, irovrjpov tcard — that is, the evil is allowed
by God to culminate just before the second advent, that it may
be effectually and for ever put down. The first interpretation
is preferable. It accords with the simple meaning of the pas
sage, which states, without any occult or prophetic allusion, the
immediate purpose of Christ's death ; and such is, in general,

16 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
the theme of the epistle. Nor does there seem to be anything in
the context to suggest to the apostle's mind the idea of the last
apostasy, or to deliverance from it as the design of the atone
ment. His thoughts, so soon to find utterance, concern pre
sent blessing through Christ, and Him alone ; the reception of
such blessing being prevented by looking away from Him, and
putting partial or complete trust in legal observances.
The phrase "this present evil world" cannot therefore
mean merely the Mosaical constitution (Locke, Krause), or the
entire system of things defective and unsatisfactory connected
with it (Carpzov, Gwynne), — an exegesis too technical and nar
row, and which comes far short of the meaning of the apostle's
pregnant words. The meaning of the verse is, that the purpose
of Christ's self-sacrifice was to rescue believers out of (e'/e) a
condition fraught with infinite peril to them — the kingdom of
darkness — and bring them into a condition safe and blessed —
" the kingdom of His dear Son." This change is not, in the
first instance, one of character, as so many assert, but one of
state or relation having reference rather to justification than
to sanctifi cation, though change of relation most certainly
implies or entails change of character (De Wette, Meyer,
Hofmann). Believers are rescued out of " this present age,"
with all its evils of curse, corruption, sense, and selfishness,
not by being removed from earth, but being translated into
another " age " — accepted, blessed, adopted, regenerated. John
xvii. 15, 16. Not that redemption is confined in any sense
to the present age, for its recipients are at length received
up into that glory which lasts et? tou? alavas twv alwvcov.
Chrysostom and Jerome are anxious to guard against the
Manichaean heresy, that the age or world is essentially and
in itself evil, for it is only made so by evil irpoaipecrei<; ; the
latter dwelling on the delir amenta of the Valentinians, and the
mystical meanings which they attached to the Hebrew D^IJf, as
written with or without the 1, and as meaning eternity in the first
case, and the space reaching to the year of jubilee in the other.
KaTa to 6eXr)p,a tov ©eov ical 77-aTpo? ijpi&v — " according
to the will of God and our Father." Theophylact distinguishes
8eXr)fia from eirnayr), and identifies it with evBoKia. (See under
Eph. i. 1 1 .) Is rjfi&v connected only with 77-07730?, or is the proper
rendering "our God and Father?" It is rather difficult to

CHAP. I. 4. 17
answer. The article is omitted before iraTpo<i, according to
usage. Middleton, p. 57 ; Winer, § 19, 4. The /cat' seems to
have its ordinary connecting force. The phrase @eo? ical
iraTr/p occurs with a genitive following in several places, Rom.
xv. 6, 2 Cor. i. 3, Eph. i. 3, Col. i. 3, 1 Pet. i. 3 ; and in these
places the dependent genitive is tov Kvpiov r)fiu>v I. X. See
under Eph. i. 3. A simple rjp,a>v follows the phrase, Phil. iv.
20, 1 Thess. iii. 11, 2 Thess. ii. 16 ; and it stands alone in
1 Cor. xv. 24, Eph. v. 20, Jas. i. 27. That yp.cov is con
nected only with irarp6<; is probable, because not- only, as
Ellicott says, is the idea in 0eo? absolute, and that in Trtmfp
relative — the relation being indicated by the pronoun — but
also because iraTrjp has often, in the apostle's usage, a genitive
after it when it follows @eo?: Rom. i. 7, 1 Cor. i. 3, 2 Cor. i. 2
— " God our Father." The places last quoted, however, have
not the conjunction. Nor will the article before ©eov indicate
that both clauses are connected with r/fiaiv, for it is usually in
serted in such a connection of two predicates. Winer, § 19, 3,
footnote 2. The rendering, then, is, "According to the will
of. God who is also our Father " — He who is God is also our
Father — the article not repeated before the second noun, as
both are predicates of the same person. In fine, this statement
underlies the whole verse, and is not in mere connection with
tov SoWo? (Chrysostom, Wieseler), nor with the clause before
it — oVctf? (Meyer, Schott) ; nor is deXijfia the elective will of
God in the rescue of certain individuals (Usteri). But Christ's
Self-sacrifice, with its gracious and effective purpose, was no
human plan, and is in no sense dependent on man's legal
obedience. Its one source is the supreme and sovereign will
of God, and that God is in relation to us a father who wins
back his lost child. Luke xv. 11. The process of salvation
stands out in divine and fatherly pre-eminence, and is not to
be overlaid by man's devices which would either complicate or
enfeeble it. In harmony with the eternal purpose, the Son of
God incarnate gave Himself for us, and for our rescue. This
redemptive work was no incident suddenly devised, nor was it
an experiment made on the law and government of God.
Alike in provision and result, it was in harmony with the
highest will, and therefore perfect and permanent in nature
— an argument against the Judaists. B

18 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
Ver. 5. TL r) Botja et? tov<; atwfo? tJov altovcov dfirjv — " To
whom be the glory for ever. Amen." Most probably the verb
ein is understood (1 Pet. i. 2 ; 2 Pet. i. 2 ; Jude 2), not ecrrt,
which some editions and versions present (the Vulgate having
cui est gloria), and which is preferred by Lightfoot and Hof
mann ; nor ecrTw, though it be found in 2 Chron. ix. 8. It is
more natural to regard the verse as a wish than as an affirma
tion, it being the devout aspiration suggested by the blessed
and wonderful assertion of the previous verse, and quite in the
apostle's style. Rom. ix. 5, xi. 36 ; 2 Cor. ix. 15 ; Eph. iii. 20.
In such doxologies Bo%a usually has the article, when, as here,
it stands alone. Rom. xi. 36, xvi. 27, Eph. iii. 21, Phil. iv.
20, 2 Tim. iv. 18 ; but Luke ii. 14, xix. 38, are exceptions.
Occasionally it wants the article when other substantives are
added to it (Rom. ii. 10, which, however, is not a doxology ; 1
Tim. i. 17 ; Jude 25) ; but it has the article in 1 Pet. iv. 11,
Rev. i. 6, vii. 12. A6%a, translated " praise" in the older
English versions, does not here take the article, not as being an
abstract noun (Matthies ; Middleton, v. 1) ; but the meaning
is, the glory which is His, or which characterizes Him and is
especially His due. The doxology is based on the previous
statement : To Him, for His gracious will that wrought out
our deliverance through His Son's self-sacrifice, be the glory
" to the ages of the ages." This last expression is not a pure
Hebraism. Winer, § 36, 2. See under Eph. iii. 21. These
ages of ages — still beginning, never ending — are as if in con
trast to " this present age, an evil one," out of which believers
are rescued. And this blessed change is not of law or of works
in any sense, but solely from His will as its source, and by the
self-oblation of Christ as its intermediate and effective means
— means which have this rescue for their direct object — volun
tas Filii Patris voluntatem implet (Jerome).
The Hebrew t»K, " truly," is sometimes transferred in the
Septuagint — dfirjv, sometimes rendered by yevoiTo in praise and
response, while Aquila translated it by ireirio-Ta>fievm<;. " So
ought it to be, so let it be, so shall it be " (Brown).
Ver. 6. ©avfidtp, ori ovtw To^eea? fieTaTidecrOe dirb tov
icaXicravTO'} vfid<s iv %dpiTi XpiaTov — " I marvel that you are
so soon turning away (are removing yourselves) from Him
who called you in the grace of Christ." The apostle now

CHAP. I. 6. 19
rushes, as one may say, on the main subject of the epistle, dis
closing in a moment the feeling of disappointment which he
could not repress or modify. By a sharp and sudden Oavfidfo
he shows his surprise, not unmingled with anger and sorrow.
The result had not been as he had fondly anticipated ; nay, it
was so contrary to previous manifestations on which he seems
to have trusted, that his censure and chagrin are expressed by
his amazement. Rebuke lurks under his surprise. The verb
often from the context gathers into itself the ethical notion of
what is culpable — surprise excited by what is object of censure.
Mark vi. 6. Sometimes it is followed by et, when what is
thought of is matter of doubt, and by ort, as here, when it is
matter of fact. 1 John iii. 13. Sturz, Lex. Xen. sub voce.
MeTaTideaOe, the present middle — not the aorist — will not
bear the rendering, " ye are removed," nor, as Dr. Brown gives
it, "ye have removed yourselves;" but, "ye are removing your
selves." Gal. iv. 9, 11, v. 10. The falling off was in process,
not completed, as Chrysostom says : ovk elire fieredeaOe, dXXa,
fieTUTiOecrOe ; ovBeirco iricrTevco ovBe i)yovfiai dirnpTiafievnv elvai
ttjv dirdTTjv. The verb cannot be aoristic in sense, for it is not
a historical present (Matthies). Bernhardy, p. 372. Nor is it
passive, as Beza, Erasmus, and others take it — ut culpam in
pseudapostolos derivet. The Vulgate gives also transferimini.
The verb signifies to transfer or put in another place locally,
as Heb. xi. 5, Sept. Gen. v. 24 ; and then tropically, to put
to another use, or to change place ideally. Jude 4. In the
middle voice it signifies to change what belongs to one — to
elpnfieva, Xen. Mem. iv. 2, 18, or Trjv yvw/irjv, Joseph. Vita,
§ 33, Herodotus, vii. 18 ; then to fall away from one party —
iic or airo, 2 Mace. vii. 24 — to another, et? or 7rpo?, Polybius,
iii. 118, 8, and often in the Sept. 1 Kings xxi. 25. Dionysius
of Heraclea, who became an Epicurean from being a Stoic,
rejoiced to be called MeTadefievo<; — transpositus sive translatus
(Jerome). Athenaeus, vii. p. 25, vol. iii. ed. Schweighaiiser ;
Rost und Palm, sub voce.
There was special surprise that this changing of sides was
going on ovtco Ta^ea?, " so quickly." These words have been
taken either in a positive or a relative sense. In the first sense,
or as referring to manner, they have been supposed to signify
ovtco el/coXm (Koppe), parum considerate (Schott, Chrysostom),

to

20 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
"gewiss zu rasch" (Ruckert), or "so readily," "so rashly"
(Lightfoot, Gwynne, and Hofmann). But relatively they
have been taken as signifying " so soon " after —
1. The last visit of the apostle to them, as Bengel, Hilgen-
feld, and Wieseler. No chronological inference can indeed be
based on this exegesis, for it. is untenable. The idea of his
own visit is not in his mind, so far as his language implies, for
KaXeaavTo<; does not refer to him ; —
2. Or " so soon " after their conversion, as Usteri, Ols
hausen, Meyer, Alford, Trana, Bisping, Jatho. This is no
doubt true ; but such a terminus does not seem directly in the
apostle's eye. The points before his mind are : the one from
which they are changing away — "Him who called them;"
and that into which they were sinking — "another gospel." His
mind turns at once to the false teachers, and their seductive
influence ; and therefore the meaning may be,
3. "So soon" after the intrusion of the false teachers among
them. Chrysostom describes it as iic irpdyrrp; irpoafSoXrjs (De
Wette, and Ellicott). The apostle refers at once to these men,
and to their disturbing and dangerous power. The Galatians
had not the courage or constancy to resist the fascination of
these unscrupulous Judaizers. But if the false teachers came
among them after the apostle's recent visit (Acts xviii. 23),
these two last opinions may so far coalesce. Their conversion,
however, was a point further back, and connected with an
earlier visit. But though, if one adopt the relative sense, the
last opinion be preferable, yet probably the apostle had no
precise point of time in his reference. The unexpectedness of
the apostasy — involving, it is true, some latent temporal refer
ence — appears to be his prominent element of rebuke. Taking
in the whole crisis, so sudden and speedy, — so contrary to
earlier auspicious tokens, — he might well say, without any
distinct allusion to a precise date, ovtq) ra^e'co?. While the
remark Of Jerome, Galatia translationem in nostra lingua sonat,
is without basis, this fickleness was quite in keeping with the
Gallic character. See Introduction.
'.47ro tov KaXecravTo<i vfia<; iv %optn Xpiarov — " from Him
that called you in the grace of Christ." The words are not
to be construed thus, dirb tov icaXecravTo<; — Xpio-Tov ("from
Him that called you— Christ"), as the Syriac, Jerome, Calvin,

CHAP. I. 6. 21
Bengel, a-Lapide, and Brown. As Meyer remarks, however,
against Schott and Matthies, the absence of the article would
be no objection to this exegesis. Rom. ix. 5 ; 1 Pet. i. 15.
The calling of believers is uniformly represented as the work
of the Father in the Pauline theology, Rom. viii. 30, ix. 24,
1 Cor. i. 9, Gal. i. 15, 1 Thess. v. 24 ; and therefore tov
tcaX. cannot be understood of the apostle, as Piscator, Balduin,
Paulus, Bagge, Olearius, Gwynne, and even Doddridge. Their
defection was all the more sinful, as the calling was from God.
He alone effectually summons the soul to forgiveness and life, for
He has access to it, and as His love yearns over it, His power is
able to work the blessed change. God called them, and there is
emphasis in the omission of ©eov ; as they needed not to be told
who the Caller was, their defection was no sin of ignorance.
It would be very strange if the apostle should in this place
arrogate to himself what everywhere else he ascribes to God.
Reuss, Theol. Chret. ii. 144. His own special work is thus
characterized by him — evrjyyeXiadfieOa.
'Ev %dpni X. — " in the grace of Christ." XpioTov is want
ing in F, G, and in some of the Latin fathers, and is wrongly
rejected by Griesbach. The phrase iv %aptrt is neither to be
identified with Sta %dpiTo<;, nor et? ydpvra; Vulgate, in gratiam,
that is, "to a participation of that grace," as Borger and Riickert
explain it. The preposition iv denotes the element — that ele
ment here viewed as possessing instrumental power. Eph. ii.
13, vi. 14. It may thus be the instrumental adjunct (Wunder,
Sophocles, Philoct. 60 ; Donaldson, § 47, 6), but the instru
mentality is here regarded as immanent. Jelf, § 622. In some
other passages with KaXeco the preposition has its usual force.
1 Cor. vii. 18; 1 Thess. iv. 7. It is only or chiefly after verbs of
motion that iv as result combines the sense of et? (Winer, 50,
§ 5), though originally they were the same word, related to each
other; as p.e/9, fiev — Set?, Bev. Donaldson, New Cratylus, p. 318.
They were called "in the grace of Christ;" for the call of God
works only in that grace, never apart from it. Rom. v. 15.
That call, sphering itself in Christ, and thus evincing its power,
is on this account opposed to the v6fio<;, to the entire substance
and spirit of the Judaizing doctrine. This grace of Christ, so
rich and free, crowned in His atoning death and seen in all
the blessings springing out of it, seems to be suggested by, or

22 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
connected in the apostle's mind with, the phrase just used —
" gave Himself for our sins." But they are falling off —
Et? erepov evayyeXiov—" to a different gospel" — the ruling
element of which was not the grace of Christ, nor was its
leading doctrine that "He gave Himself for our sins." No
moral feature is expressed by the adjective, though it may be
implied — not corruptum et adulterinum, as Calvin has it. The
adjective erepov marks distinction, oXXo? indicates addition.
2 Cor. xi. 4. This signification of difference is seen in such
compounds as erepoyX(oo-ao<;, Ps. cxiii. 1 ; erepoyevrj<;, Deut. xxii.
11 ; erepo^vyos, Lev. xix. 19. It represents the Hebrew Vhn,
" new," in Ex. i. 8, and "if, alienus, in Ex. xxx. 9, " strange in
cense." It is found with an ethical sense also, Ex. xxi. 2, Num.
xiv. 24 ; often as applied to false divinities, Dan. vii. 5, 6, 8.
The adjective thus generally denotes distinction of kind. Even
in Matt. xi. 3, adduced by Ellicott to show that erepov does not
always keep its distinctive meaning, it may signify not simply
another individual, but one different in position and function.
But aXXo? is used in the parallel passage, Luke vii. 20. Titt-
mann, De Synon. p. 155. The Judaizing gospel, for it might
be named gospel by its preachers and receivers too, was of a
totally different genus from that proclaimed by the apostle, dif
fering from it as widely as vo/io? and %opt?, epya and Trto-Tt?,
bondage and liberty, flesh and spirit. But the apostle at once
checks himself, lest the phrase erepov evayy. should be misinter
preted, on the plea that by its use he had admitted the possibility
of another and different gospel. Therefore he abruptly adds,
Ver. 7. A0 ovk ecrnv aXXo, el firj — " which is not another,
save that :" it is no new or additional gospel — ovk, the negative
being emphatic,— there is only one gospel. The evayyeXiov
expressed after eVepoi> stands vaguely and imperfectly, as the
Judaizers might so name their system, but the evcvyy. implied
after aXXo is used in its strict and proper sense. The connec
tion with the following clause is variously understood.
1. Schott, preceded by a-Lapide, connects et /irj with 6av-
fid'Cfo, making the previous clause a parenthesis : " Miror vos
tarn cito deficere ad aliam doctrinam salutarem (quanquam hcec
alia salutaris nulla est) nisi nonnulli sint." But such an
utterance requires idavfia&v dv: "I should have wondered"
that you fell away so soon, unless there had been some troubling

CHAP. I. 7. 23
you. The sentence also becomes disjointed, and would make
the apostle give only a hypothetical statement of the cause of
his surprise. 2. Some make the whole previous sentence the antecedent
to o, such as Calvin, Grotius, Winer, Riickert, Olshausen: Your
defection to another gospel is nothing else but this, or has no
other source but this, that some are troubling you. But why
should the apostle, after the censure implied in the last verse,
really lift it by throwing the entire blame on the Judaizers %
It would be to blame them in one breath, and make an apology
for them in the next ; and to refer KaXeaavro'; to Paul himself,
as Gwynne does, does not remove the difficulty.
3. Others, again — and this has been the prevailing opinion
— take evayyeXiov as the antecedent: "which is no other gospel,
because indeed there can be no other." So the Greek fathers,
wifh Luther, Beza, Koppe, Borger, Usteri, De Wette, Hilgen-
f eld ; the Peschito, (JLjZli| ]Jj }rj], "which does not exist;"
-n i o 7
and the Genevan, " seeing there is no other." 1 But it seems
plain that erepov and oXA,o?, occurring together, must be used
with some distinctiveness, for the one sentence suddenly guards
against a false interpretation of the other.
4. The antecedent is, as Meyer, Hofmann, Wieseler, and
others suppose, erepov evay. : which different kind of gospel is
no additional or co-ordinate gospel. The apostle does not say,
it is not gospel ; but it is not a second or other gospel, which
may take a parallel or even subordinate rank with his. And
he adds, El firj — " save that." By this phrase, not equivalent to dXXd,
as Dr. Brown argues in support of his exegesis, an exception is
indicated to a negative declaration preceding, and it signifies
nisi, " unless," " except," even in Matt. xii. 4, 1 Cor. vii. 17.
Klotz-Devar. ii. p. 524 ; Herodotus, iv. 94, dXXov ©ebv, el fir/ ;
Xen. Cyrop. ii. 2, 11, ri S' aXXo, el fir] ; Aristoph. Eq. 615, ri
S' aXXo ; el firf ; Poppo, Thucyd. vol. iii. P. 1, 216 ; Gayler,
Partic. Neg. p. 97. The Vulgate has, quod non est aliud nisi.
The meaning is, this gospel is another, only in so far as
1 The Gothic of Ulfilas reads, " which is not another." Vomel trans
lates, Welches anderartige Evangelium in nichts anderem besteht als,
Frankfurt 1865.

24 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
Tii/e? elcriv ol rapdcraovres v/ids — " there are some who are
troubling you." In this participial phrase, as Winer says, the
substantivized participle is a definite predicate to an indefinite
subject. A. Buttmann, p. 254. The apostle says of the Ttz>e'?,
that it was their function or their characteristic to be disturb
ing the Galatian converts. Luke xviii. 9 ; Col. ii. 8. Bern-
hardy, p. 318. Tives neither marks insignificance, dvmvv/ioi
(Semler), nor infelices (Bengel), nor yet paucity, pauci duntaxat
sunt (Winer). Though not named, they were well known, -
but the apostle would not further characterize them. An
extraordinary interpretation of nve? is given by Wordsworth,
who takes it as the predicate : " unless they who are troubling
you are somebody," persons of some importance. The exe
gesis is not sustained by any of the examples which he has
adduced, for Tti>e? in them is marked by its position as a
predicate, and the use of ri is not to the point. Nor would
the clause so misunderstood bring out any self-consistent mean
ing. The verb rapdacrco, used physically (John v. 7), signifies
to put in fear or alarm (Matt. ii. 3), then to disquiet (John
xii. 27), to perplex (Acts xv. 24). The apostle adds of those
disturbers, what their desire or purpose was :
Kai 6eXovre<; fieracrrpetyai rb evayyeXiov tov Xpiarov —
" and desiring to subvert the gospel of Christ." The verb
fierao-Tpi(pco is to change, to change into the opposite (Acts
ii. 20 ; Jas. iv. 9), or to change to the worse. Aristot. Rhet.
i. 15, p. 60, ed. Bekker ; Sept. 1 Sam. x. 8 ; Sirach xi. 31.
The genitive tou Xpiarov may either mean the gospel which
is Christ's as proclaimed by Him, or that which has Him for
its object. One might say that the former is preferable, as
then the different gospel preached by the Judaizers would
stand in contrast to that proclaimed by Christ Himself. Still
there would in the latter exegesis be this contrast, that as the
gospel preached by them was conformity to the Mosaic ritual,
it was in antagonism to that gospel which has Christ for its
theme, for by its perversion it would render " Christ of none
effect." Whatever would derogate from the sufficiency of
Christ's gospel, or hamper its freeness, is a subversion of it, no
matter what guise it may assume, or how insignificant the addi
tion or subtraction may seem. Bengel's oft-quoted remark, Re
ipsa non poterant, volebant tamen obnixe, is true in result. Yet

, CHAP. I. 8. 25
they in their preaching revolutionized the gospel, and such is
the apostle's charge against them.
V er. 8. AXXa Kal idv rjfiels rj dyyeXos e| ovpavov evayye-
Xityjrai vfiiv trap o evrjyyeXiadfieOa vfiiv, dvdde/ia ea'rco — " But
if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you any other
gospel different from what we have preached to you, let him
be accursed." There is some difference of reading. K, Theo
doret, CEcumenius, have evayyeXi^erai; while A, K, and others,
have evayyeXianrai. There are also variations with regard to
vfiiv. F and K omit it; B, H, place it before the verb; the ma
jority of mss. place it after the verb; while D1 has fyta?. "But"
be the Tti>e'? who they may who seek to subvert the gospel, they
incur an awful peril. The ical belongs to idv, " even if." The
case put so strongly is one which may never have occurred ;
but its possibility is assumed, though it may be very impro
bable. Hermann, Opuscula, iv. p. 95 ; Hermann, Vigerus, vol.
ii. 664, London 1824; Jelf, § 861. On the difference of et
ical and Kal el, see under Phil. ii. 17; Kiihner, § 824; Har-
tung, vol. i. pp. 139, etc. The ^p,et? — not himself alone, the
pronoun being expressed and emphatic — may take in, though
not necessarily, dBeXcpol avv ifiol of ver. 2, or perhaps Silvanus
and Timothy, fellow-preachers (Hofmann).1 He was speaking
by divine commission when he preached, and he had no right
to alter the message. If it should ever by any possibility hap
pen that he did so, on him should fall the anathema. " We or
an angel from heaven" — no fallen spirit who might rejoice
in falsehood, but one e'f ovpavov; the phrase being joined to
0776X09, and not to the verb (2 Cor. xi. 14), which agrees with
dyyeXof. An angel from heaven is highest created authority,
but it cannot exalt itself against a divine commission. An angel
preaching a Judaizing gospel would be opposing that God
who had " called them in the grace of Christ." Chrysostom
supposes allusion to other apostles. The verb evayyeXi^nrai
is here followed by the dative of person : iv. 13 ; Luke
iv. 18; Rom. i. 15; 1 Cor. xv. 1; 1 Pet. iv. 6. The variety
of construction which it has in the New Testament — it being
found sometimes absolutely, sometimes with accusative or dative,
often with accusative of thing and dative of person — may have
1 Against the view of Hofmann, see Laurent, Neutestam. Studien, p.
120, Gotha 1866.

26 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
originated the variations connected with vfiiv, though Light
foot, from these variations, regards the word as doubtful. The
spurious preaching is characterized as
Ilap' b evayyeXio-dfieda ifiiv — " contrary to that which we
preached to you" (Ellicott), or "beyond" it (Alford). The
irapd can bear either meaning. Bernhardy, p. 259. The
Vulgate has prceterquam, and some of the Greek fathers give
the same sense, so Beza also ; while " against," contra, is the
interpretation of Theodoret, Winer, Riickert, Matthies, De
Wette, Jatho, Turner, Estius, Windischmann. Thus Rom. i.
26, irapd <pvaiv; Acts xviii. 13, irapd vofiov; Xen. Mem. i. 1, 18.
Examples may be found in Donaldson, § 485. What is speci
fically different from it, must in effect be contrary to it. Rom.
xi. 24, xvi. 17. Usually Catholic interpreters take the sense
of " contrary to" (Estius, Bisping) ; and Lutherans adopt that
of " beyond," or " in addition to," as if in condemnation (aus
blinder Polemik, Bisping) of the traditions on which the Romish
Church lays such stress. But the apostle refers to oral teach
ing only, and the preposition irapd glancing back to erepov,
naturally signifies " beside," that is, in addition to, or different
from, the gospel, — or what is really another gospel. But the
gospel is one, and can have no rival.
'AvdOe/ia ecrrco — "let him be accursed" (v. 10). 'Avddefia:
the earlier classical form was dvddnp-a, Attikw<; (Moeris).
Lobeck, Phrynichus, p. 249. Thus iiride/ia, iiridrjfia ; evpefia,
evpnfia.1 The general sense is, " laid up," set apart to God :
tg> ©em dvariQkfievov (Suidas). The meaning of the word
in the New Testament is derived through the Septuagint,
where it represents the Hebrew &"in, something sq set apart to
God as to be destroyed or consecrated to divine vengeance. The
other form, dvddiffia, retained its original meaning, compre
hending all gifts to the gods. Xen. Anab. v. 3, 5. Such gifts
were often ornamental, and Hesychius defines it by Kocrfinfia ;
but the other form, dvdQefia, he identifies with iiriKardpaTO<;.
The distinction begins to appear in the Septuagint, though
differences of reading prevent it being fully traced and recog
nised. In Lev. xxvii. 28, 29, the living thing devoted to God
is to be surely put to death : ILdv avdOefia ayiov dyicov ecrrai
1 Uavm irtfy'hoyoi iiri^a. xa\ «.va8y{i«. Uyovati/. Cramer, Anecd.
Grxca, vol. i. 165, Oxon. 1835.

CHAP. I. 8. 27
toj Kvpiw . . . Qavdrco OavaTwdrjcrerai : the city of Jericho,
and all in it, was declared dvdQefia Kvpica XafiacbQ. Josh. vi.
16, 17. This consecration of Jericho to utter ruin was in
obedience to the command, Deut. xiii. 14-16, dvaOe/iari dva-
OefiaTielre avrrjv, and was a reproduction of an older scene
(Num. xxi. 1-3), where a city was devoted, and then truly
named npnn, dvdQefia. Comp. Josh. vii. 11. In the case of
Jericho, portion of the spoil was set apart for the sacred trea
sury, and part was to be utterly destroyed — two modes of con
secration to God, for divine blessing and for divine curse — God
glorified in it, or glorified on it. Trench, Syn. p. 17, 1st ser.
In Ezek. xliv. 29, the offering of a dedicated thing given to the
priests (the same Hebrew term) is rendered dcpopicr/ia in the
Septuagint, but dvddrjfia by Aquila, Symmachus, and Theo-
dotion. Orig. Hex. torn. ii. p. 321, ed. Montfaucon. In the
Apocrypha the distinction appears to be preserved : 2 Mace. ix.
16, KaXXicrTois dvadrjfiaai Kocrfirjcreiv ; 3 Mace. iii. 14; Judith
xvi. 19 ; also in Joseph. Antiq. xv. 11, 3, Bell. Jud. ii. 17, 3.
So in the New Testament, Luke xxi. 5, the temple adorned
with goodly stones, Kal dvadrjfiacri, " and gifts." But the other
form, avdQefia, occurs six times, and in all of them it has the
meaning of accursed. Acts, xxiii. 14 ; Rom. ix. 3 ; 1 Cor. xii.
3, xvi. 22 ; and Gal. i. 8, 9. Theodoret, on Rom. ix. 3, recog
nises this BiirXijv Bidvoiav, which he gives to dvddvfia ; also on
Isa. xiii., and on Zeph. i. See also Suidas, sub voce ; Chrysos
tom on Rom. ix. 3 ; and Suicer, sub voce. Among the ecclesi
astical writers, dvdQefia came to signify excommunication, the
cursing and separation of one put out of communion. Bing
ham, Antiquities, Works, vol. v. p. 471, London 1844. Such a
use of the word was natural. Council of Laodicea, Canon xxix.
But to justify this use by any appeal to the New Testament is
vain. Nowhere has it this meaning, but a darker and a more
awful one. Nor does Enn in the Old Testament ever signify
ecclesiastical separation ; it is synonymous with dircoXeia, Isa.
liv. 5; i&XoQpevfia, 1 Sam. xv. 21; d<pdvicr/ia, Deut. vii. 2. On
the various forms of the Jewish curse, see Selden, De Syned.
viii. ; Opera, vol. i. p. 883, etc. The idea of excommunication
cannot be adopted here (Grotius, Semler, Flatt, Baumgarten-
Crusius, Hammond, and Waterland) ; for it is contrary to the
usage of the New Testament, and could not be applicable to

28 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
an " angel from heaven." Excommunication is described in
very different terms, as in John ix. 22, xii. 42, xvi. 2, or Luke
vi. 22, 1 Cor. v. 2, 13. Winer, sub voce. How tame Grotius,
cum eo nihil vobis sit commercii ; or Rosenmiiller, excludatur e
ccstu vestro. The preacher of another gospel exposes himself
to the divine indignation, and the awful penalty incurred by
him is not inflicted by man : he falls " into the hands of the
living God." See Wieseler's long note.
Ver. 9. 'fl<; irpoeiprJKafiev — " as we have said before." The
reference implied in 7rpo. is doubtful. By a great number —
including Chrysostom, Bengel, Winer, Neander — the reference
is supposed to be simply to the previous verse : "As we have just
said, so I repeat it." 2 Cor. vii. 3 ; 2 Mace. iii. 7 ; and Winer, §
40. Others, as the Peschito, Borger, Usteri, Hilgenfeld, Meyer,
Wieseler, suppose the allusion to be to a previous visit of the
apostle. The use of the perfect, though not decisive, and the
antithesis of opTt in the following clause, favour this view. The
language would have been different had the apostle wished to say
nothing more. See v. 21; 2 Cor. xiii. 2; 1 Thess. iv. 6. This
opinion is confirmed by the sameness of tense of the two verbs,
as if they referred to the same event. The re-asseveration in
v. 2, 3 is no case in point to be adduced as an objection ; for
it has no verb compounded with 7rpo, and the statement in ver.
3 is far from being a repetition of the second verse. Evayye-
Xiad/ieQa, irpoeiprJKa/iev — Kal dpri mark a more distinct lapse of
time than a recurrence to what had just been written, and the
change from evayyeXtcrafieQa to irapeXafiere points to the same
conclusion: As he had said when among them by way of
affirmation and warning.
Kal dpri iraXiv Xeyco — " and now again I say." The change
from the plural irpoeiprJKa/iev to the present Xeyco is significant.
The previous warning was uttered by the apostle and his
fellow-labourers, but the following sentence is based on his sole
apostolical authority. This is not, as Ruckert makes it, part
of the protasis or preceding sentence: "As I said before, I now
say again." The meaning is : As we said before, so now I say
again, — 7TaXtz> referring to repetition of the same sentiment,
and apTt in contrast with 77-po. in composition with the verb.
The first of these opinions preserves, as Ellicott says, the
classical meaning of aprt, for it refers to a time just passed

CHAP. I. 10. 29
away. Matt. ix. 18. Tempus quodque proximum, dpri et
aprtaj? significant" Lobeck, Phryn. pp. 18r20. But later
writers use it as it is employed in this clause, " now," or in this
next sentence. Matt. iii. 15 ; John ix. 19, 25, xiii. 7 ; 1 Cor.
xiii. 12. The statement is :
Et Tt9 iyxo? evayyeXlfysrai trap b irapeXafHere — " If any man
is preaching to you a gospel different from what ye received,
let him be accursed." The Rheims version tries to preserve
the original in both verses : " evangelize to you beside that
which we have evangelized to you." The statement is now
made merely conditional, or the fact is assumed by et with the
indicative. The case is put as one that may be found real.
Donaldson, § 502. See also Tischendorf, Prcef. p. Ivii. 7 ed. ;
Klotz-Devarius, vol. ii. 455 ; Luke xiii. 9 ; Acts v. 38, 39. The
verb evayy. is here followed by the accusative of person, vfids,
emphatic from its position. No other example occurs in the
writings of the apostle. But we have the same construction in
Luke iii. 18, Acts viii. 25, 40, xiii. 32, xiv. 15, 21, xvi. 10,
1 Pet. i. 12. Phrynichus, ed. Lobeck, 266, etc. ; Winer, § 32.
For Trop' o, see on previous verse. The verb irapaXafi/3dvo},
followed either by 077-0 or by irapd, pointing to the source, is to
receive, to take into the mind, what is given by instruction, and
corresponds to the vfiiv of the preceding verse. In this verse the
evangel, which is the theme of the verb, goes out on them as its
direct objects — vfid<;; in the other it is given to them, or for their
benefit — ifiiv — and they received it. The change may have been
intentionally suggestive. For dvdQefia earco, see previous verse.
Ver. 10. ''Apri yap dvQpcoirov? rretQco, rj rbv ©eov ; — " For
do I now conciliate men or God ?" or, " Now, is it men I am
conciliating, or God ?" The emphatic apTt of this verse must
have the same sense as that of the preceding verse — " now," at
the present moment, or as I am writing. It cannot contrast
vaguely the apostle's present with his previous unconverted
Jewish state, as is held by Winer, Riickert, Matthies, Bisping,
Olshausen, Neander, and Turner. For, grammatically, we can
not well sever the second apTt in meaning and reference from
the first ; and historically, the favour of men was not a ruling
motive with the apostle in his pharisaic state. Phil. iii. The
connection is somewhat more difficult, as expressed by 7op.
It might mean, "Well, now, am I pleasing men?" Klotz-

30 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
Devarius, ii. 245. But it rather states an argument. It is
no apology, as Dr. Brown takes it, for the preceding language ;
nor, as Alford similarly asserts, " softening the seeming harsh
ness of the saying." It states the reason idiomatically why he
pronounces anathema on the Judaizers, — that he did it from
divine sanction, or in accordance with the divine will. His
fidelity was so stern, that it might be unpalatable to his ene
mies ; but he was securing through it the friendship of God.
There is some probability that he is rebutting a calumny of
his opponents (Usteri, Lightfoot), based on a misconstruction
of some previous portion of his career, such as the circumcision
of Timothy. The verb trelQco, to persuade, signifies, by a
natural transition, to conciliate by persuasion or to make friends
of. Acts xii. 20, xiv. 19. Josephus," iretaai rbv ©eov, Ant. iv.
6, 5 ; Znvbs rjrop eireiae, Pindar, 01. ii. 80, ed. Dissen ; Bcopa
©eov<s irelQei, a portion of a line ascribed by Suidas to Hesiod ;
Plato, De Repub. iii. 344, 390 E, do. Opera, vol. iii. pp. 146,
231, ed. Stallbaum; similarly Euripides, Medea, 960. There is
no occasion to attach to the verb the idea of conatus as distinct
from effectus : " For am I, at the moment of uttering such an
anathema against perverters of the gospel, making friends of men
or of God ? " What but faithfulness to my divine commission
can prompt me to it ? It was no human passion, no personal
animosity, no envious or jealous emotion at being superseded
in the affections of the Galatian churches : it was simply duty
done in compliance with the ruling motive of his soul, and to
enjoy and secure the divine complacency. The noun dvdpcbirovs,
wanting the article, is "men generally," while ©eov has it,
as if to specialize it by the contrast. The connection of irelQco
with rbv ©eov is no formal zeugma, though the sense is neces
sarily changed with such a change of object. What fully ap
plies to men can only in a vaguer reference apply to God ; but
it has suggested several improbable forms of exegesis. Calvin
goes the length of interposing a Kara before the two nouns,
owing to what he calls the ambiguity of the Greek construc
tion ; and nothing, he adds, is more common with the Greeks
than to leave Kara understood : " Do I persuade according to
men or God?" Webster and Wilkinson apparently follow
Estius, non apud homines judices, sed apud tribunal Dei causam
hanc ago, but without any warrant or adduced example. Pis-

CHAP. I. 10. 31
cator renders, " Do I persuade you to believe men or God 1 "
Utrum vobis suadeo ut hominibus credatis an ut Deo ? Luther,
Erasmus, Vatablus, and others give, Num res humanas suadeo
an divinas ? But irelQco governing a person is distinct in mean
ing from irelQco governing a thing or object; irelQeiv riva being,
as Meyer remarks, quite distinct from irelQeiv ri. The mean
ing is more fully explained in the following clause, where the
apostle adds more broadly :
' H tyjTco dvQpcoiroi<; dpecrKeiv ; — " or am I seeking to please
men ? " the stress being on dvQpcmroi<i. To please men was not
his endeavour or pervading aim : it was no motive of his ; for
he adds :
Ei en dvQpcoiroi<i rjpecTKOv, Xpiarov BovXo<; ovk dv rjfinv —
" If still men I were pleasing, Christ's servant I should not be."
The leading nouns, dvQpcoiroi<s and Xpiarov, are in emphatic
contrast. The received text reads et 7«p ert, after the slender
authority, D2' 3, E, K, L, the Syriac and Greek fathers; whereas
A, B, D1, F, G, a, the Vulgate, and many Latin fathers want
it. The asyndeton, however, is the more powerful. Tischen-
dorf, indeed, says, a correctore alienissimum est; but the 7<xp seems
really to be a natural emendation, as if giving point to the argu
ment by it as a connecting particle. There is no conatus in the
imperfect, as Usteri, Schott, Bagge, and others hold. He says,
not, "if I were studying to please;" but, "if," the study being suc
cessful, " I were pleasing men." The result implies the previous
effort. The particle en, " still," gives intensity to the declara
tion, and looks back to oprt. Baumlein, Griech. Part. p. 118.
If, after all that has happened me, my devoted service to Christ,
and the deadly hostility I have encountered, I were yet pleasing
men, — if yet such a motive ruled me, Christ's servant I should
not be. The form of the imperfect rjfvnv is peculiar, being used
' EXXvvikco*;, according to Moeris. It occurs in the later writers,
and is used by Xenophon, Cyro. vi. 1, 9, and Lysias, Areopag.
p. 304, ed. Dobson. Its use is not confined to its occurrence
with dv. Lobeck, Phryniohus, p. 152. It is quite common in
the New Testament : Matt. xxv. 35, John xi. 15, Acts x. 30,
xi. 5, 17, 1 Cor. xiii. 11, — all without dv. After et with a
past indicative in the protasis, dv in the apodosis points out
an impossible condition. Donaldson, § 502. The apostle calls
himself BovXos in various places. Compare John xiii. 16, xv.

32 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
15, 20 ; Rom. i. 1 ; Tit. i. 1 ; Phil. i. 1 ; Col. iv. 12 ; 2 Tim.
ii. 24. Here he may refer to the inner nature of all Christian
service, which admits of no compromise between the Master
and the world, and especially to such service embodied and
wrought out in the varied spheres and amidst the numerous
temptations of his apostleship. See under Phil. i. 1. The
Greek fathers, followed by Koppe, Paulus, Riickert, take the
words in a historical sense : If my object had been to please
men, I should not have become a servant of Christ. But, as has
been remarked, ovk dv iyevofir/v would have been more fitting
words to express such an idea. Besides, such a contrast does not
seem to be before the apostle's mind, nor could such a refer
ence be in harmony with the supernatural and resistless mode
in which he had become a servant of Christ. It is better to
take the words in an ethical sense : " I should not be Christ's
servant:" man-pleasing and His service are in direct conflict.
No one can serve Him who makes it his study to be popular
with men. For to His servant His will is the one law, His
work the one service, His example the one pattern, His ap
proval the continuous aim, and His final acceptance the one
great hope. 1 Cor. iv. 2-4 ; 2 Cor. xi. 23. This declaration
of the apostle as to his ruling motive is not opposed to what he
says of himself in 1 Cor. ix. 20, x. 33 : " To the Jews I became
as a Jew;" "all things to all men;" "to please all men in
all things." There he is referring to his versatility of accom
modation to national and individual humours and failings in
cases where no principle was involved. Though he claimed
entire liberty, he would not, by acting it out, wound unneces
sarily the feelings of a " weak brother." To please himself, he
would not stir up prejudices in fellow-believers. To conciliate
them he "made himself the servant of all," by continuous
self-denial in things indifferent. He might, but he did not ;
he could, but he would not. He had a claim of support from
the churches, but he preferred at Corinth to labour with his
own hands for his maintenance. He believed that an idol was
"nothing in the world," and that one could without sin sit down
to a repast in a Gentile's house ; but if his liberty were chal
lenged by a scrupulous conscience, he should at once abstain.
Without a grudge he yielded his freedom, though he felt the
objection to be frivolous, for he sought "the profit of the

CHAP. I. 11. 33
many." But while there was such wise and tender forbear
ance in minor matters which were naturally left open ques
tions among believers, many of whom could not rise to the
realization of "the perfect law of liberty," his adherence to
principle was uniform and unyielding towards all classes, and
on all occasions. These two modes of action are quite coales-
cent in a mind so upright, and yet so considerate, — so stern,
and yet so unselfish, — so elevated, and yet so very practical, as
was that of the apostle of the Gentiles.
The apostle in the first verse had asserted the reality and
divine origin of his apostleship, — that it came from the one
highest source, Jesus Christ ; and then, in vers. 8, 9, he had
maintained, in distinct and unmistakeable phrase, that the
gospel preached by him was the one true gospel. He now
takes up the apologetic part of the epistle, and proceeds to
explain and defend his second position, for both were livingly
connected. The gospel preached by him was in no sense human,
as his apostleship rested in no sense on a human basis. He
had not been one of the original twelve, and he had not com-
panied with Christ ; and this posteriority had been apparently
laid hold of to his disadvantage, as if his gospel were but
secondary, and he had been indebted for it and his office to
human teaching and authority. But the truth proclaimed by
him and the office held by him, not only sprang from a pri
mary relationship to Christ, but had even no human medium of
conveyance. The apostle therefore argues this point, that his
gospel had Christ for its immediate source, and revelation for
its medium of disclosure to him ; that he was not indebted to
the other apostles for it ; that he had held no consultation with
them as his tutors or advisers, for his apostleship rested on a
basis of its own but identical with theirs ; and that, in fine,
they recognised it not as a derived and dependent office, or as
in any way holding of them, but as a distinct, collateral, and
original commission. Therefore he says :
Ver. 11. Tvcopitp Be vfiiv, dBeXcfrol — "Now I declare unto
you, brethren." Instead of S4, which is found in A, D2's,
K, L, X, Chrysostom and Theodoret, and in the Coptic and
Syriac versions, 7<zp is read in B, D1, F, X1, and by Jerome,
the Vulgate, and Augustine. Tischendorf has yap in his second
edition, but Se in his seventh ; and the reading" is adopted by
c

34 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
Scholz, Griesbach, Lachmann, and the Textus Receptus.
Authorities are thus nearly balanced. Possibly the apologetic
nature of the section might suggest to a copyist to begin it
with 7op, argumentative ; whereas Be is only transitional to
another topic, or to some additional illustration of it. It may,
however, be replied, that the insertion of Be by copyists was in
fluenced by its occurrence with this verb in 1 Cof . xv. 1, 2 Cor.
viii. 1. The topic has been twice referred to, in 1 and 9 ; so
that this verse does not spring by direct logical connection out
of the last verses, but rather gathers up the pervading thought
of the previous paragraph. Tvcoplfyo is a term of emphatic
solemnity with the apostle (1 Cor. xii. 3, xv. 1 ; 2 Cor. viii. 1),
as if he were obliging himself to repeat, formally and fully,
what had before been so explicitly made known. They are
called aBeXcpoi — still dear to him, in spite of their begun aber
ration, as in iii. 15, iv. 12, v. 13, vi. 1. What the apostle
certified them of was :
To evayyeXiov to evayyeXiaQev vir ifiov ori ovk ean Kara
dvQpioirov — "As to the gospel preached by me, that is not
after man." This clause may characterize his gospel wherever
preached, b Knpvaaco iv Tot? eQvecri (ii. 2) ; but the pointed lan
guage of vers. 6-9 specializes it as the gospel preached by him in
Galatia. The attraction here is a common one, especially after
verbs of knowing and declaring, the principal clause attracting
from the dependent one, as if by anticipation. 1 Cor. iii. 20,
2 Cor. xii. 3 ; Winer, § 66, 5 ; Kriiger, § 61, 1. The noun
and participle give a fulness and impressiveness to the state
ment, as if referring back to vers. 8 and 9 (compare i. 16,
ii. 2). The gospel preached by me is not Kard dvQpcoirov—
" after man." The phrase does not express origin, as Augus
tine, a-Lapide, and Estius assert, though it implies it. The
Syriac renders ^o, " from," as it does dirb in ver. 1, and
irapd in ver. 12. It means " after man's style." Winer, § 49.
Xen. Mem. iv. 4, «ot' dvQpcoirov vofioQerov ; Sophocles, Ajax,
747, fir) Kar' dvQpcoirov tppovei; CEdip. Col. 598, r) Kar dvQpco
irov voaeis. For in form, quality, and contents, it was not
human or manlike ; it was Godlike in its truths, and in their
connection and symmetry. It was God's style of purpose and
thought— in no sense man's, and all about it, in disclosure and

CHAP. I. 12. 35
result, in adaptation and destiny, proves it to be " after" Him
whose " Ways are not our ways." Turner presses too much
upon the phrase, when he gives as its meaning, " in character
with human weakness and infirmity."
Ver. 12. OvBe yap iyco irapd dvQpcoirov irapeXafiov avrb —
" For neither did I receive it from man." Tap assigns the
ground : The gospel I preach is not according to man, for
man did not teach it to me. Through no human medium did
I get it, not even from James, John, or Cephas, who are
reckoned " pillars." I got it from the same source as they —
from the one Divine Teacher. I was no more man-taught
than they were, for I had apocalyptic intercourse with the Lord
as really as they had personal communications ; and I received
what they received. This side-glance at the other apostles is
plainly implied in the emphatic position or relation of the
first three words, ovBe yap iyco. OvBe yap is different from
the absolute ov yap, and also from ovBe iyco yap, which
might give a different turn to the thought. The pronoun
expresses emphatic individuality, and yap occupies its usual
place. It is not ovBe for oi (Schirlitz, § 59) ; nor is the
meaning nam ne ego quidem (Winer), " not even I, who might
have been expected to be man-taught." OvBe, as Hartung
remarks, is in negative sentences parallel to Kal yap in positive
sentences (vol. i. p. 211) ; Herodot. i. 3 ; JEschylus, Agam.
1501. This implied reference in ovBe is common : ut aliquid
extrinsecus aasumendum sit, cui id, quod per ovBe particulam
infertur, opponatur. Klotz-Devar. ii. 707 ; Kiihner, Xen. Mem.
p. 94 ; and Borneman, Xen. Conv. p. 200, says truly that ovBe
yap and ov yap differ as neque enim and non enim. Lightfoot ob
jects that this interpretation is not reflected in the context; but
surely the following paragraph plainly implies anxiety on the
apostle's part to free himself from a charge of human tuition,
and thus place himself in this matter on an equality with the
twelve. Matt. xxi. 27; Luke xx. 8; John v. 22, viii. 11,
42 ; Rom. viii. 7. The reference cannot be, as Riickert and
Schott make it, to those taught by himself, quibus ipse tradi-
derit evangelium; for that is in no sense the question in
volved. The source denied is, 7rapa dvQpdmov, " from man," with the
notion of conveyance, 7rapo denoting a nearer source than diro.

36 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
It might have been dirb X., and yet 7rapo dvQpcoirov — ultimately
from Jesus, yet mediately to him from a human source. But
man was not the nearer source of it, as some had apparently
insinuated ; it was to him no irapdBocris. The distinctive mean
ings of irapd and dirb — for this verb may be used with either
— seem in some cases almost to blend. The apostle in a matter
of revelation which excludes all human medium, may drop the
less distinction of near or remote. He adds :
Ovre iBiBd^Qvv — "nor was I taught it." The reading
ovBe is found in A, D1, F, N, and is but ill supported, being
probably an unconscious assimilation to the previous particle
commencing the verse. The adverb ovre often occurs simi
larly, and, as Winer says, divides the negation (§ 55-6). The
ov&e belongs only to the previous clause, and its connection
with the foregoing verse. The ovre is not co-ordinate with
ovBe, but subordinate. Hartung, vol. i. 201 ; A. Buttman, 315 ;
Klotz-Devarius, ii. 709. The difference between the verbs in
this denial is, that the first may refer to truth presented in an
objective or historical form (1 Cor. xi. 23), while the other
may refer to his subjective mastery of it in a doctrinal or sys
tematic connection, the first verb being, as Bengel says, to learn
sine labore, and the second to learn cum labore. The verbs do
not differ, as Brown following Beza maintains, as if the first>
denoted reception of authority to preach, aposlolatus onus Paulo
impositum, and the other referred to instruction ; for avrb goes
back distinctly to evayyeXiov. See Mark vii. 4 ; 1 Cor. xv. 1-3;
Phil. iv. 9.
'AXXa Bi diroKaXv-tyecos 'Inaov Xpiarov — "but through
revelation of Jesus Christ." 'AXXd is strongly adversative.
The one medium was revelation, and that revelation came from
Christ; the genitive being that of author as in formal con
trast to irapd dvQpcoirov, denoting origin. But one may say,
that a revelation from Jesus Christ is also a revelation of
Jesus Christ, Himself being theme as well as source ; and
thus the phrase, though not grammatically, yet really and
exegetically, includes a contrast also with Kara dvQpcoirov,
and virtually asserts of his teaching what he had declared of
his apostleship, that it was ovk air dvQpcoircov ovBe St' dvQpm-
irov (i. 1). See under ver. 16.
The apostle now proceeds to give an autobiographical proof

CHAP. I. 13. 37
of his position : that his gospel came from direct communica
tion with Christ; that it was as original and trustworthy as
those of the others who were apostles before him ; that for a
long period after his conversion he had no communication with
any of them ; that three years elapsed before he saw one of
the twelve, and then he saw Peter only for a fortnight ; and
that fourteen years additional passed away ere he had any
interview with the pillars of the church. His gospel was
therefore in no sense dependent on them, nor had his first
spheres of labour been either assigned or superintended by
them. He had felt no dependence on them, and was con
scious of no' responsibility to them. Separate and supreme
apostolical authority, therefore, belonged to him ; and it sealed
and sanctioned the message which it was the work of his life
to publish. Ver. 13. ' HKOvaare yap rrjv ifirjv dvaarpocprjv irore iv ra>
'IovBaicr/ico — " For ye heard of my manner of life in Judaism."
Tap formally commences the historical proof, and the verb
rJKovaare beginning the sentence has the stress upon it : Ye
heard, not have heard, referring to an indefinite past time.
It was matter of rumour and public notoriety. His mode
of life or his conduct he calls dvacrrpocprj, — literally and in
Latin, conversatio, " conversation " in old English. He uses
in Acts xxvi. 4, in reference to the same period of his life, rrfv
fiicoaiv fiov. Comp. Eph. iv. 22, 1 Tim. iv. 12, Heb. xiii. 7, Jas.
iii. 13, 2 Mace. ii. 21, viii. 1. The word in its ethical sense
belongs to the later Greek. Polybius, iv. 82, 1. The position
of 7roTe is peculiar, no article as rfjv is attached to it, and it
occurs after the noun. It is used with the verb in Eph. ii. 3,
and in Eph. iv. 22 the phrase occurs, Kara rrn> irporepav dva
arpocprjv. In the same way, words are sometimes separated
which usually come in between the article and the substantive
(Winer, § 20). The apostle places 7roTe as he would ;f he had
used the verb. Such is one explanation. Similarly Plato, De
Leg. 685 D, r) rrj<; Tpoia? aXwo-t? to Bevrepov, where Stallbaum
says that to Bevrepov is placed per synesin ob nomen verbale
dXcocri<;. Opera, vol. x. p. 290 ; Ellendt, Lex. Sophoc. sub voce.
The entire phrase contains one complete idea, as the absence
of the article seems to imply. Winer, § 20, 2b. As the verb is
followed by iv, denotive of element, in 2 Cor. i. 12, Eph. ii. 3,

38 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
so the noun is here closely connected with a similar iv ; and,
according to Donaldson, the position of 77-07-e is caused by the
verb included in the noun. The element of his mode of life
was — 'Ev reo 'IovSa'iafico — " in Judaism," not Mosaism, not ex
actly the old and primitive Hebrew faith and worship, nor the
modern or current theology, but rather ritualism and the mass
of beliefs and traditions held by Pharisaism. The abstract noun
is specialized by the article, and it occurs in 2 Mace. ii. 21, xiv.
38, 4 Mace. iv. 26, and the correspondent verb meets us in Gal.
ii. 14. Similarly he says, Acts xxvi. 5, tjj? rjfierepa<; QprjaKeias,
this last noun being more special and referring to worship or
ceremonial. Judaism is here the religious life of the Jews or
Pharisees, in its varied spheres of nutriment and service. See
under Phil. iii. The apostle now honestly adduces one charac
teristic of his previous life in Judaism —
' On KaQ' virep/3oXrjv iBicoKov rr/v iKKXncriav rov ©eov, Kal
iirbpQovv avrrjv — " how that beyond measure I was perse
cuting the church of God, and was destroying it." The con
junctive on, frequently used after aKovco without any inter
vening sentence (Madvig, § 159), introduces the first special
point in the apostle's previous life in Judaism which he wishes
to specify. The imperfects iBlcomv and iirbpQovv are to be
taken in the strict sense (Schmalfeld, § 55). The second verb
has been often rendered, " was endeavouring to destroy." So
Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, give it this sense — cr(3iaai
iire%elpei. The imperfects represent an action carried on during
his state of Judaism, but left unfinished owing to his sudden
conversion. He was in the very act of it when Jesus called
him on the road to Damascus, and that mission to lay waste
was not carried out. Nor is the meaning of the verb to be
diluted, as is done by Beza, Winer, Schott, and Usteri, the
last of whom says that Winer is right in denying that it
means evertere, but only vastare. But Passow, Wahl, and
Bretschneider give it the meaning which these expositors would
soften. Examples are numerous. It occurs often in the
strongest sense (Homer, II. iv. 308), is applied to men as well
as cities (Lobeck, Soph. Ajax, p. 378, 3d ed.), and is some
times associated with Kaieiv (Xen. Hellen. v. 5, 27). Com
pare Wetstein, in he. What the apostle says of himself is

CHAP. I. 14. 39
abundantly confirmed. Saul, — " he made havoc of the church,"
etc., Acts viii. 3 ; " yet breathing out threatenings and slaugh
ter against the disciples of the Lord," ix. 1 ; his mission to
Damascus was, "that if he found any of this way, whether
they were men or women, he might bring them bound to
Jerusalem," ix. 2 ; "is not this he that destroyed them which
called on this name in Jerusalem?" ix. 21 ; "I persecuted
this way unto the death," xxii. 4; "I imprisoned and beat
in every synagogue them that believed on Thee," xxii. 19 ;
" when they were put to death, I gave my voice against
them, being exceeding mad against them," xxvi. 10, 11. No
wonder, then, that he uses those two verbs, and prefixes to
the first KaQ* virepfioXrjv, one of his favourite phrases. Rom.
vii. 13 ; 1 Cor. xii. 31; 2 Cor. i. 8, iv. 17. It was no partial
or spasmodic effort, either feeble in itself, or limited and inter
mittent in operation. It was the outgrowth of a zeal which
never slept, and of an energy which could do nothing by
halves, which was as eager as it was resolute, and was noted
for its perseverance no less than for its ardour. And he
distinctly sets before his readers the heinousness of his pro
cedure, for he declares the object of his persecution and fierce
devastation to have been
Trjv eKKXrjcrlav rov ©eov — " the church of God." 1 Cor.
xv. 9. The possessive genitive rov ©eov points out strongly
the sinfulness and audacity of his career. It may be added
that the Vulgate reads expugnabam; and F has iiroXe/iovv.
This Greek was probably fashioned from the Latin. The Vul
gate has, Acts ix. 21, expugnabat for 6 iropQrjcra<;, without any
various reading in Greek codices. The object of this statement
is to show that the apostle, during his furious persecution of the
church, could not be in the way of learning its theology from
any human source ; its bloody and malignant enemy could not
be consorting with the apostles as a pupil or colleague.
Ver. 14. Kal irpoeKoirrov iv reo 'IovBaicrfitp virep iroXXov<;
o-wnXiKicbra? iv t& yevei fiov — "and was making progress in
Judaism beyond many my equals in my own nation." The
tropical sense of the verb is, " to push forward," and intransi
tively " to make advancement," followed by ev, and sometimes
with a different reference by iiri or a simple dative, as in Luke
ii. 52. His progress in Judaism was

40 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
'T7rep itoXXoik; avvr/XiKicora<; — " beyond many contempo
raries." Such compound terms as o-wnXiK., which the apostle
uses only here, belong to the later age ; the simple noun suf
ficing at an earlier and fresher stage. Diodor. Sic. i. 53, in
which place, however, several codices have the simple term.
So, too, Dionysius Halicar. x. 49. The persons referred to are
those of similar age and standing, — fellow-pupils, it may be, at
the feet of Gamaliel. And they were his countrymen —
'Ev reo yevei fiov. Compare Acts xviii. 2, 2 Cor. xi. 26,
Phil. iii. 5. Numerous contemporaries of pure Jewish blood,
and not simply Jews from Tarsus, were excelled by him. His
zeal pervaded every sphere of his life and labour. He could
not be lukewarm, either in persecution or in study. His
whole soul was ever given to the matter in hand ; for he thus
assigns the reason of his forwardness and success in the follow-
ing clause :
Hepiac7orepco<s ^j/Xwt^? virdp^cov rcov irarptKcov fiov irapa-
Socreaw— " being more exceedingly a zealot for the traditions of
my fathers." This participial clause may be modal, as Meyer
and Ellicott take it (virdp^cov, "as being"), but it may be
causal : He excelled his contemporaries, inasmuch as he was
more exceedingly zealous than they were. In irepicraorepco's
the comparison is not surely, as TJsteri explains, mehr als
gewohnlich, but more than those contemporaries to whom he
has just referred. Strange and unfounded is the notion of
Gwynne, that the comparison in irepiao-orepco<; is not between
Paul and his contemporaries, but between " the precepts and
ordinances of the law of Moses of which his appreciation was
not so high, nor his zeal for them so fervid as for his ancestral
traditions." Such a comparison comes not into view at all. The
noun %rjXcorrj<i signifies one filled with zeal for what is contained
in the following genitive— rov ©eov, Acts xxii. 3 ; rov vbfiov,
Acts xxi. 20 ; irvevfiarcov, 1 Cor. xiv. 12 ; koXwv epycov, Tit.
ii. 14 : the genitive of person being sometimes preceded by
virep; 2 Cor. vii. 7, Col. iv. 13. The noun is not here used in
the fanatical sense attaching to the modern term zealot, though
it came also to denote a fanatical party in the last days of the
Jewish commonwealth. The object of his intense attachment
was — T&v irarpiKwv fiov irapaBbcrecov—" for the traditions of my

CHAP. I. 14. 41
fathers," the genitive being that of object, as in the places
already quoted. The noun irapdBocn<;, traditio, " giving over,"
is literally employed as with iroXeco<; (Thucydides, iii. 53;
Josephus, De Bello Jud. i. 8, 6 ; Sept. Jer. xxxii. 4 ; Esdras
vii. 26) ; then it signifies handing over or down an inheritance
(Thucydides, i. 9), and by a natural trope it is used of narra
tion. Josephus, contra Apion. i. 6. So it came to denote in
structions delivered orally, as Hesychius defines it by dypdcpov?
BiBao-KaXia^. It is used of apostolical mandate, 1 Cor. xi. 2,
2 Thess. ii. 15, iii. 6 ; and especially of the Jewish tradition,
Matt. xv. 2, 3, 6, rr)v irapdBocriv rcov irpeafivrepcov, rr\v irapd-
Bocriv v/mov, in opposition to the written divine law. Mark vii.
3, 9, 13 ; Col. ii. 8. So in Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 10, 6, and 16,
2. Thus the term seems to denote not the Mosaic law itself,
but the accretions which in course of ages had grown around it,
and of which the Mishna is an example. Luther and Calvin
think that the term denotes the Mosaic law — ipsam Dei legem,
as the latter says ; and many suppose that the law is included,
as Estius, Winer, Usteri, Schott, Hilgenfeld, Olshausen, and
Brown. The law may be included, in the sense that a com
mentary includes the text, or that a legal exposition implies a
statute. But the terms, from their nature, cannot primarily
refer to it or formally comprehend it, for the law written with
such care, and the sacred parchment kept with such scrupulosity,
could not well be called traditions. In Acts xxii. 3 the phrase
is rov irarpaiov vbfiov — " the law of my fathers" — and refers
to traditionary pharisaic interpretation ; but the traditions are
here called irarpiKai fiov. The adjectives irdrpio<;, irarpiKos,
irarpcoo'}, generically the same in meaning, are supposed to
have been used with specific difference, though what the pre
cise difference was has been disputed. Ellendt, Lex. Soph, sub
voce; Kiihner, Xen. Anab. iii. 2, 17; also Schoemann, Isaeus,
p. 201 ; and Hermann, Opuscula, vol. iii. 195. The apostle,
however, uses in these two places the two adjectives irarpiKo^
and irarpcoo^ with much the same reference. We cannot
agree with Meyer, followed by Alford, Ellicott, and others, in
saying that the adjective and pronoun limit these traditions to
the sect of the Pharisees, Paul being cpapiaalos, wo? cbapicraiov,
" a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee." We rather think, with
Wieseler, that the reference must be as wide as in the phrase iv

42 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
tco yevei ; that the traditions described as handed down from
his fathers are viewed as national and not as sectarian ; and
that though in effect they were pharisaic, still, as the Pharisees
were the mass of the nation, they are regarded as having cha
racterized the people to whom Paul belonged. It cannot
therefore be supposed that the apostle would be learning Chris
tianity during the period when his progress in Judaism was so
marked, when his zeal for patristic traditions so far outran that
of his contemporaries, — a zeal in utter and burning antagonism
to the new religion. He had kept from all contact with it,
save the contact of ferocity with the victim which it immo
lates. Luther touchingly applies this verse to his own previous
history. Ver. 15. "Ore Be evBoKijcrev 6 0eo?, 6 dcpopiaas fie e'« KoiXtat;
fivrpb'; fiov — " But when God was pleased, who set me apart
from my mother's womb." The o @eo'? of the received text has
for it, D, K, L, X ; but B, F, G, omit it. The Greek fathers
are doubtful, but the Vulgate and Jerome have it not. The
words are left out by Tischendorf and Alford; but if they are a
gloss, they are an old one. Ellicott refers to 0. preceded and
followed by 'O, as the probable source of omission. One may
say, on the other hand, that the supposed demands of syntax
might seem to warrant the insertion of the words; yet the
phraseology of the following clauses is so precise, God's desti
nation and call of the apostle, the revelation of His Son in him
with his commission to preach to the Gentiles, that though in
the hurry and glow of thought the nominative was omitted,
nobody could doubt what it was. " I persecuted the church of
God, yet He was pleased to select me,"— all the more solemn
from the omission of the name. Comp. i. 6, ii. 8 ; Rom. viii. 11 ;
Phil. i. 6. He, provoked as He might have been, evSoKifcrev—
"was pleased" of His own sovereign grace. The verb is, as usual
with Paul, followed by an infinitive, though it is found in other
constructions with a simple accusative. Heb. x. 6. It occurs
with an accusative and et? in 2 Pet. i. 17 ; and with iv and a
dative in Matt. iii. 17, and probably in 2 Thess. ii. 12.
The verb dcpoplcra^ is not used here in a mere physical
sense (Aquinas, Cajetan, Paulus), as if iK were local, but is
ethically "to set apart," and is followed by et'?, pointing to
the end, as in Acts xiii. 2, Rom. i. 1. Instead, however, of

CHAP. I 16. 43
being followed here by et?, the construction leads on to an
infinitive of purpose, but connected with the previous verb. The
e« points out the time from which his destination is to be
reckoned (Winer), and the phrase is an imitation of open
Hebrew speech. Judg. xvi. 17 ; Ps. xxii. 11, lxx. 6 ; Isa. xliv.
2, xlix. 1, 5 ; Matt. xix. 12 ; Acts iii. 2, xiv. 8. It is equiva
lent in sense to e/e yeverfj<;, John ix. 1, and does not glance in
any way at pharisaic separatism (Wessel). The apostle means
to say that God destined him from his birth to his vocation,
no matter how wayward and unlikely had been the career of
his youth. The words do not mean from eternity (Beza),
though, indeed, every act of God is but the realization of an
eternal purpose; nor do they mean, before he was born. To
support this sense, advocated by Jerome, Grotius, Sender,
Riickert, Wieseler, and Hofmann, reference is made to Jer.
i. 5 ; but there the language is different, irpb rov fie irXdaai ere
iv KoiXia. It is therefore only an inference, but not the sense,
to say, If he was chosen from the womb, he was chosen in it.
His being set apart from his birth was of God's sovereign
good pleasure. The phrase may imply also, in an undertone,
that his education had been, under God, adapted to his high
function. Not only from his birth was he a designated apostle ;
but he adds :
Kal KcCXecra'i Bid rrj<; ftdpiTos avrov — "and called me by His
grace." Designation was not enough : he brings out another
essential link — that of vocation — as a second step in his pro
gress. The participles are closely connected, no article being
before the second one — the designation showed itself in the
KXr)crt,$. The Bid is instrumental — by means of His grace
(1 Cor. xv. 10) ; and the call came to him near Damascus.
This is the plain historical sense and allusion. The apostle
refers to the period of his conversion, and to its medium, as
not of merit but of grace. Now he proceeds to show how his
call to the apostolate was connected with qualification for it.
Ver. 16. ' AiroKaXvyfrai rbv Tibv avrov iv ifiol — "to re
veal His Son in me." The infinitive is not connected with one
or both of the participles, but with evBoKijcrev, and its aorist
form denotes the past and completed act. The phrase iv e/iol
is " in me," — in my soul, in my inner self. It cannot mean
" to me ; " nor is it to be taken for the simple dative (Calvin,

44 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
RosenmuUer, Koppe, and Flatt), for what then should be the
force of the preposition? In Matt. xi. 27, 1 Cor. ii. 10, Eph.
iii. 5, Phil. iii. 16, the simple dative following the verb has a
different meaning. Winer, § 31, 8, § 48a ; Bernhardy, p. 213.
As little can the phrase mean "through me," as Jerome, Pela
gius, Grotius, Estius, Lightfoot, and Bagge. Nor can it mean
coram me (Peile), or "on me" (P.Lombard, Seb. Schmidt),
as if it were a manifest token of divine power.1 CEcumenius
says, iv ifiol Be eiire Beigai QeXcov ov Xoyco fiovov fiaQovra avrov
dXXd Kal vco Kal KapBla. Lightfoot's objection to the natural
meaning is only a hasty anticipation of the following clause,
which tells the purpose of the revelation.
The object of this divine revelation was " His Son ;" not the
truth about Him, or His work, or His death, or His glory, but
Himself — Himself including all. His person is the sum of the
gospel. See, for some remarks on " Son," under Eph. i. 3, 17.
This revelation may have been in some sense subsequent to
the direct call, or it may refer also to the appearance of the
Redeemer near Damascus qualifying him for the apostleship.
1 Cor. ix. 1. It gave him full and glowing views of the Re
deemer's person, including His various relations to God and
to man, — such views as fixed the apostle's faith upon Him,
centred his love in Him, and enabled him to hold Him out in
his preaching as the one living and glorified Saviour. It was
by no process of reasoning that he came to such conclusions,
by no elaborate and sustained series of demonstrations that he
wrought out his Christology. God revealed His Son in him,
divine light was flashed in upon him, so that he saw what he
had not seen before, fully, suddenly, and by a higher than
intuitive suggestion. He had not been taught, and he did not
need to be taught, by any of the apostles. The purpose of this
revelation is then stated :
'Iva eiiayyeXi^mfiai avrov iv rot? eQvecriv — "in order that I
should preach Him among the Gentiles." The Son of God
was the living theme of his preaching, and the good news about
Him was what is stated in the fourth verse — that " He gave
Himself for our sins " — the theme which- the apostle elsewhere
characterizes thus, "We preach Christ crucified." The en
lightenment of the apostle was not for his own individual
1 Even Blomfield says, h kpiv pro tit tifiiis vel rtfdv. — Agamemnon, 1425.

CHAP. I. 16. 45
luxury ; it was to fit him to make known what had been so
conveyed to him. Acts xxii. 15, 21, xxvi. 17-19. The iva points
out the purpose, and the present tense of the verb describes
the work of evangelization as no passing or isolated act, but an
enduring function. And the sphere of his labours is distinctly
avowed — " among the heathen." Rom. i. 5, 13, xi. 13, xv. 16 ;
Eph. iii. 8 ; 1 Tim. ii. 7. The verb evayyeXl^co has already
been used with the simple dative, ver. 8, and with the accu
sative, ver. 9 ; here it is followed by iv — among the heathen
peoples or all other races beyond the chosen seed. He forgot
not his own people — they were ever dear to him ; but his
characteristic work — to which he had been set apart, called,
qualified — was to be the apostle of the Gentiles ; and this, so
specially his own office, he magnified.
Revelation is opposed to knowledge gained by prolonged
and patient thought. It is unlike the common process by
which an intellectual conclusion is reached, the inference of
one syllogism forming but the premiss of another, till by a
series of connected links, primary or abstract truth is reached.
For it is sudden and perfect illumination, lifting the receptive
power into intensest susceptibility, and so lighting up the whole
theme disclosed, that it is immediately and fully apprehended
in its evidence and reality. We know not, indeed, what the
process is, what the waking up of the higher intuition is, or
what the ecstasy which throws into momentary abeyance all
the lower faculties. It may resemble that new sphere of vision
in which genius enjoys gleams of unutterable beauty, or that
" demonstration of the Spirit" which gives the truth new
aspects of richness and grandeur to the sanctified soul in some
mood of rapt meditation. But still it is different and higher
far both in matter and purpose. It was God's revelation of
His Son, — not glimpses of the truth about Him, but Himself ;
not merely summoning his attention to His paramount claims,
so as to elicit an acknowledgment of them, — not simply pre
senting Him to his1 intellectual perception to be studied and
comprehended, — nor even shrining an image of Him in his
heart to be loved and cherished, — but His Son unveiled in
living reality; and in him — in his inner self, not in any distinct
and separate realm of his being, — with the conscious possession
of all this infallible and communicable knowledge which was

46 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
given perhaps first in clear and vivid outline — irapeXaf3ov —
and then filled in surely and gradually — iBiBdxQnv.
EvQeco<; ov irpoaaveQefinv crapKi Kal a'lfian — " immediately
I conferred not with flesh and blood ;" "I communed not of
the matter with flesh and blood" (Tyndale). It would almost
seem that the apostle meant to write evQeco<s . . . dirrjXQov et?
'Apafiiav — I went at once into Arabia ; but other explanations
of a negative kind struggle first for utterance (Jowett). Still
eiiQew;, standing emphatically, may qualify the whole para
graph, as Chrysostom hints. What he describes happened imme
diately after his conversion, — non-conference, non-visitation of
Jerusalem, departure for Arabia, — all told in the same breath.
The construction is close ; for the intermediate negative state
ment, " neither did I go off to Jerusalem," is connected by
ovBe as a denied alternative with the first clause, and then by
the directly adversative dXXd with the last clause, eiQeco<;
underlying all of them but specially pointing to, " I went off
to Arabia." Riickert, after Jerome, against all mss., would
join evQecos to the previous clause, and so Credner, Einleit.
p. 303. The adverb might stand at the end of the clause.
See some examples not wholly analogous in Stallbaum's note,
Phaedrus, p. 256 E, or vol. iv. p. 134. The phrase erdp£ Kal
ai/ia, EH] 1E>3, here denotes human nature, or man generally,
not specially in contrast with higher powers, as in Eph. vi. 12 ;
nor in his more earthly nature, as in 1 Cor. xv. 50 ; but man
as in contrast with divine agency, the contrast suggesting, how
ever, the idea of inferiority, Matt. xvi. 17. The verb irpocrave-
Qefinv is classically "to add a burden to," or "on one's own self;"
and then, as here, " to make address to," or " hold communion
with." The non acquievi of the Vulgate is not the correct
rendering, though it may be so far according to the sense. In
the double compound, the first preposition indicates " direction
towards" (Meyer), and not addition, prceterea (Beza, Bengel).
" I did not address myself to," or " did not take counsel with,"
— two successive phases of the one idea, " I did not consult."
Diodorus Sic. xvii. 116; *S2 Zev . . . ifiol irpocravdQov, Lucian,
Jup. Tragced. i. Opera, vol. vi. p. 223, ed. Bipont. ; Suidas,
sub voce. The phrase " flesh and blood" does not refer to the
other apostles (Chrysostom), nor is it a contemptuous allusion
to them, as Porphyry insinuated; nor does the apostle mean

CHAP. I. 17. 47
himself (Koppe, Gwynne), for the verb would not be in har
mony; nor does it include the apostle and the others, with
whom conference is denied (Schott, Winer, Matthies). The
reference, as is held by the majority of expositors, is simply to
others, as the spirit of the context also shows, his object being
to prove that he was in no sense dvQpcoiroBlBaKTo<s. The apostle
is not alluding to any self-denial or any victory over his own
desires and preferences, but is only stating the fact that, after
his conversion, he had studiously shunned all human conference.
The non acquievi has been unduly pressed. Tertullian speaks of
some who held that flesh and blood meant Judaism, and that
the apostle is to be thus understood : " Statim non retulerit ad
carnem et sanguinem, id est, ad circumcisionem, id est ad Juda-
ismum, sicut ad Galatas scribit." De Resurr. Carnis, cap. i.
p. 534 ; Opera, vol. ii. ed: Oehler. Primasius writes, " Con-
tinuo non acquievi, continuo non fui increduluS ccelesti visioni
quia non carnis et sanguinis voces audivi."
Ver. 17. OvBe dirrjXQov et? 'lepoaoXvfia 7rpo? rovs irpb i/iov
diroaroXovi — "Neither did I go away to Jerusalem to them
who were apostles before me." The dvrjXQov of the received
text is very well supported, having in its favour A, K, L, X,
Chrysostom, and the Latin, both Vulg. and Clarom.; while
dirrjXQov is found in B, D, F, the Syriac, and in Basil. The
form dvrjXQov is the one usually employed, — going up to Jerusa
lem, not only as the capital city, but as one built on high land,
— and may be fairly supposed to be a correction of the more
general dirrjXQov. It may be indeed replied, as by Tischen
dorf, that it is improbable that Paul should have written
dirrjXQov twice consecutively; but we find eXdftere . . . iXdf3ere
in Rom. viii. 15 ; Heb. ii. 16. There was no temptation to
change dv. into o7r., but to change air. into dv., so as to har
monize it with general usage. Acts ii. 15, xxi. 15, xxv. 1.
In the ovBe there is reference to the previous negation, while
another more definite is added, so that there is something
more than the fortuitus concur sus given by Klotz-Devar. ii.
707, and acquiesced in by Ellicott. Generally he held con
ference with nobody, with no members of the church in Damas
cus ; and specially, as the contrary might have been expected
or insinuated, he did not go off to Jerusalem, and consult
the elder apostles. Rom. xvi. 7. He did not rehearse his

48 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
experience to them, , or receive either authority or instruc
tion from them. In fact, he carefully kept aloof from them ;
and so far from journeying to Jerusalem, and to the leaders
in the mother church, he went away in quite a different
direction —
'AXX' dirrjXQov et? 'ApafSiav — " but I went away into
Arabia." The dXXd is found in its full form in A, B, D, F,
L, and X ; and as introducing an affirmative after a negative
statement, it has its strong adversative force. Arabia may
mean Arabia Deserta, a portion of which comes so near Damas
cus.1 Not to speak of wider geographical descriptions of the
name, as in Herod, ii. 12, Xen. Anab. i. 5, Plin. Hist. Nat.
vi. 32, Justin Martyr says, AafiaaK.b<; t?J? 'Apaflncrjs yrj<; rjv
Kal ea-Tiv. Dial. c. Tryph. Op. vol. ii. p. 268, ed. Otto,
1843 ; and Tertullian repeats the account, Adv. Marcion. iii.
13, Adv. Jud. 9. Or if Arabia be used more strictly, as in
iv. 25, then, as some have fancied, he may have visited, like
Elijah, the grand scene of the old legislation. But probably,
had he done so, there would be some allusion to such a pil
grimage of honour in a letter in which he unfolds the rela
tions of a law which he was accused of rashly undervaluing
and setting aside.2 The point cannot be determined ; and in
the brief narrative of the Acts the journey is omitted. Nor
can the definite motive of the apostle be ascertained. It does
not seem to have been to preach the gospel (Meyer, Wieseler,
Ewald), though he would not decline such work if oppor
tunity offered, but rather to prepare himself for his coming
labour. Jerome thus allegorizes the matter: "The Itus ac
reditus mean nothing in themselves ; but Arabia, the country
of the bond slave, is the Old Testament, and there he found
Christ ; reperto illo, he returned to Damascus, ad sanguinem
et passionem Christi," — a play upon the Hebrew meaning of
the first syllable ; and " so strengthened, he went up to Jeru
salem, locum visionis et pads," — an allusion again to the sig
nification of the name. At all events, the journey to Arabia
is here adduced, not as an illustration of his early preaching
of Christ among the heathen, but as a proof that he had
1 Conybeare and Howson, vol. i. 104.
2 There was at that time a large and flourishing kingdom of Jews in
Arabia Felix. Milman, History of the Jews, vol. iii. p. 85, 4th ed. 1866.

CHAP. I. 18. 49
held no consultation with flesh and blood ; so that probably
he retired to enjoy solitary thought and preparation, sounding
the depth of his convictions, forecasting possibilities, receiving
revelations and lessons, — truth presented inviting him to earnest
study, — divine communications viewed on all sides and in all
lights, till they were mastered in sum and detail, and became
a portion of himself ; a lifetime in awfulness and intensity of
thought and feeling crowded into a few months. He in this
way followed the Master, who, after enjoying the divine mani
festation at His baptism, was led of the Spirit into the wilder
ness. It is not likely that Paul's object was to find safety
from Jewish persecution under king Aretas in some part of
Arabia (Thiersch).
Kal iraXiv virearpe^a et? AafiacrKov — " and again returned
to Damascus." The phrase implies through iraXiv that he had
been in Damascus before he went into Arabia. His work on
his return to Damascus, was " proving that this is very Christ ;"
and he " confounded " the Jews by his arguments, antici
pating every objection, removing every scruple ; remembering
how himself had felt and reasoned, and diffusing that new
light which had been poured into his soul. A conspiracy was
formed against him, but he escaped by night and by a peculiar
stratagem, as himself tells, 2 Cor. xi. 33. Thus early did he
begin to realize what was said to Ananias, " I will show him
how great things he must suffer for my name's sake."
Ver. 18. "Etreira fiera errj rpia dvrjXQov et? 'IepocroXvfia —
" Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem." What
must have been his emotions as he passed the scene of his con
version, or if he entered the holy city by the gate through which
he had left it ? The adverb eireira, " then " — after his return
to Damascus— is a connecting link in his narrative. The point
from which the three years are to be computed is fixed by some
at the return from Arabia (Borger, Riickert, Jatho). The majo
rity, however, date them from his conversion. That event had
just been referred to by him, in its origin, nature, and design.
God had set him apart, called him and qualified him, and
this event of events to him stood out so prominently in its soli
tary grace and grandeur, that he reckons from it without any
formal reference. The o 0eo? evSoKvaev dominates the whole
paragraph. How much of this time was spent in Arabia, and
D

50 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
how much in the two sojourns at Damascus, is a question for
the solution of which we have no proper data. The first stay
seems to be indicated by the words rjfiepai nvh, and the second
bv &>? Be iirXr/povvro rjfiipai iKavai, in Acts ix. 19, 23. This
last phrase is indefinite, but coupled with the verb seems to
denote a considerable space. Eichhorn, Howson, Anger, sup
pose the three years to have been wholly spent in Arabia. The
fierd err/ rpla are in contrast with the eiQiax; of ver. 16, and
avrjXQov refers back to the previous dirrjXQov. The object of
the visit to Jerusalem was
'laroprjcrai Kvcpav — " to make the acquaintance of Cephas."
The reading Herpov of the received text is well sustained,
having in its favour D, F, K, L, X3, the Vulgate, and many
of the fathers ; while Kncpdv has A, B, X1, three mss., Syriac,
Coptic, and .ZEthiopic. The rarer name is to be preferred.
The verb laroprjcrai, occurring only here, has sometimes in
earlier Greek the sense of knowing through inquiry, or of
asking ; Hesychius defines it by ipcorav. In later Greek
it denotes " to visit " as applied to places or things, and to
persons in the sense of *making the acquaintance of — coram
cognoscere. It differs from IBeiv in that it implies that what
is to be seen is worthy of a visit of inspection. See Kypke, in
foe, and so Chrysostom illustrates it. Thus laroprjaai 'EXed-
crapov, Josephus, Antiq. viii. 25 ; similarly, Bell. Jud. vi. 1, 8,
he says of Julian the Bithynian centurion, bv iyco larbpncra;
and often in the Clementines, as adduced by Hilgenfeld :
Homilies, i. 14, ix. 22, ix. 6, etc. But these instances, as
usual, refer to things, not persons.
Paul did not go to consult Cephas, or get any information
essential to the validity of his office and work, but to visit him
as a noted apostle, — one whom it would be gratifying to know
through private and confidential intercourse.
But even this first visit to Jerusalem, three years after his
conversion, was a very brief one :
Kal iirefieiva 77-po? avrov rjfiepas BeKairivre — " and I abode
with him fifteen days." ITpo? so used does not differ in mean
ing from irapd with a dative. Matt. xxvi. 55; John i. 1; 1 Cor.
xvi. 6, 7-10. A similar construction is often quoted from
iEschyl. Prom. 351 ; Eurip. Ion, 916. Fritzsche on Mark vi. 3
warns, however, that there are many cases in which, though

CHAP. I. 19. 51
somewhat similar, 77-po? cannot have this meaning — quae ali-
quam motus significationem habeant, — cases which even Wahl
has not distinguished satis feliciter. Luke xvi. 20, xxii. 56 ;
Acts v. 10, xiii. 31.
It is needless to lay special stress on the eVt in iirifieiva,
for it seems to be neither distinctly local nor intensive. It may
denote rest (Ellicott), and thus give a fuller meaning to the
compound verb than the simple one would have borne. The
verb is followed in the New Testament by iirl, Acts xxviii. 14 ;
by iv, Phil. i. 24; by 77-po?, 1 Cor. xvi. 7; and by a simple dative,
Rom. vi. 1, xi. 22, 23, Col. i. 23, 1 Tim. iv. 16. In the latter
case there is a difference of meaning, qui in aliqua re manet
et perseverat. Winer, De verborum sum prcep. compos, ii. 11.
The form BeKairevre is for the more classical and the fuller
irevTeKalBeKa. Kiihner, § 353. The later form occurs often
at an earlier period, as in the Tabulce Heracleenses (Light
foot). Jerome, finding a hidden meaning in the number
fifteen, supposes it to mean here plena scientia. Why the visit
was so brief is told in Acts ix. 29. The Hellenists with whom
he had been disputing "went about to slay him," and the
brethren, on becoming aware of the conspiracy, " brought him
down to Caesarea, and sent him forth to Tarsus." A simul
taneous reason is assigned by himself. He was praying in the
temple, and fell into a trance, — identified on slight grounds by
Schrader and Wieseler as the rapture described in 2 Cor. xii. 2,
— and the Master appeared and said to him, " Make haste, and
get thee quickly out of Jerusalem, for they will not receive thy
testimony concerning me." He pleads now for Jerusalem as a
field of labour, because his history was so well known to the
Hellenists whose prejudices he understood from experience.
The excuse is not listened to : not Hellenism but heathenism
was again formally assigned to him as his field of labour.
" Begone," was the reply, " I will send thee far hence unto the
Gentiles." Acts xxii. 17-21.
Ver. 19. "Erepov Be rcov diroaroXcov ovk elBov, el fin 'IaKco-
fiov rbv dBeXcpbv tov Kvpiov — " And another of the apostles I
did not see, except James the Lord's brother;" or, "None
other of the apostles did I see, save James the Lord's brother."
The adjective erepov is simply numerical, not qualitative.
Two different meanings have been assigned to the verse.

52 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
Victorinus, Grotius, Fritzsche (on Matt. xiii. 55), Bleek, and
Winer supply simply elBov after et firj — "none other of the
apostles did I see, except that, or but, I saw James the Lord's
brother;" — the inference being, that this James was not an
apostle. In this case et fir) still retains its exceptive force,
which is, however, confined to the verb. Thus in Matt. xii. 4
it is rendered "but only;" Luke iv. 26, 27, "save," "saving;"
Rev. xxi. 27, " but." Others more naturally supply rbv
dirbo-roXov — " none other of the apostles did I see, except the
Apostle James, the Lord's brother;" or, "none other of the
apostles saw I, save James the Lord's brother ;" — the inference
plainly being, that the Lord's brother was an apostle. Thus
1 Cor. i. 14, ovBeva v/icbv iftdirriaa, el fir) Kplcrirov Kal Taiov —
" none of you I baptized, save Crispus and Gaius :" I baptized
them, and they were vficov — " of you." The et fir/ being sug
gested by erepov, thus refers to the whole clause. See under
i. 7, ii. 16.1
Ver. 20. AA Be ypdcpco vfiiv — " but as to the things which I
am writing to you," — the reference being to the assertions just
made — his visit to Jerusalem, and his brief residence, with Peter,
and that during that fortnight he saw only him and the Lord's
brother. Some, as Calvin, Winer, Matthies, refer the decla
ration to the whole paragraph from ver. 12, or from ver. 15
(Estius and Hofmann), some of the elements of which were
not, however, matter of dispute. The apostle becomes fervent
in his affirmation, and calls God to witness :
'IBoii ivcoiriov rov ©eov on ov yjrevBofiai — "behold before
God that I lie not." The construction is broken. Schott
denies it, ypdcpco being supplied — quce vobis scribo, ecce coram
Deo- scribo, siquidem non mentior. So generally Jerome and
Ambrose. The ellipse is striking, and IBov ivcoiriov r. ©. is a
virtual oath. 'IBov, as Lightfoot remarks, is never used as a
verb, so that here it cannot govern on. The word to be sup
plied to resolve the ellipse has been variously taken : ypdcpco by
Meyer ; Xe'7&> by De Wette, Olshausen, and Bisping ; o/ivvfii
by Usteri ; fiaprvpcb by Hilgenfeld ; and eo-rt by Riickert and
Bengel— i.e. it is before God that I lie not. In 2 Cor. xi. 31
we have o @eo? . . . olBev . . . on ov tyevBofiqi. In 1 Tim. v. 21,
Biafiaprvpofiai occurs with ivcoiriov r. ©. ; Biafiaprvpofievo'; with
1 See note at end of chapter.

CHAP. I. 21. 53
ivcoiriov rov Kvpiov in 2 Tim. ii. 14; similarly 2 Tim. iv. 2.
This verb might therefore be the most natural supplement, if any
supplement be really necessary. But the ellipse, abrupt, terse,
and idiomatic, needs not to be so diluted, and probably no sup
plementary term was in the apostle's mind at all as it suddenly
threw out this solemn adjuration. Besides, a similar construc
tion occurs in the Sept. : t'Se ort t«? eWoXo? gov rjydirncra, Ps.
cxix. 159 ; IBe Kvpie on QXif3ofiai, Lam. i. 20. " Behold before
God " is equivalent to saying, I call God to witness that, on
(Lightfoot). There might be no human proof, but there was
divine attestation. Augustine, in loc., enters into the question
of the lawfulness of swearing. One can scarcely suppose that
the apostle would have used this solemn adjuration, unless the
statement had been liable to be questioned, or a different
account of his early Christian history had been in circulation.
It would seem that a totally different account of his visits to
Jerusalem after his conversion, and of the relation he sustained
to the elder apostles, had been in use among the Judaists, to
undermine his independent authority and neutralize his teach
ing. And because what he now tells would contradict received
opinion as to his earlier actings and journeys, he confirms what
he says by a virtual oath, though the phrase as in Hebrew,
niiipjQpj is not formally always used of oaths.
Ver. 21. "Eireira fjXQov et? rd KXlfiara rrj<; Hvplas Kal tj}?
KtXt/cto? — " afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and
Cilicia." The noun KXlfiara, found also in Rom. xv. 23, 2 Cor.
xi. 10, originally means inclination or declivity, such as that
of a hill ; then a space of the sky, so named from the inclina
tion of the heaven to the poles — KXlfia fiear/fifipivbv, Dion. H.
Ant. i. 9; fdbpeiov, Aristot. De Mund. Opera, vol. iii. p. 133, ed.
Bekker, Oxford 1837 ; 797? /ttepo? rj KXifia ovpavov, Herodian, ii.
11, 8 ; — then a tract of earth, so called in reference to its incli
nation towards the pole — Tot? 77-po? fiecrijfifiplav KXifiacri, Polyb.
v. 44 ; touto to KXifia . . . t^9 'IraXias, ib. x. 1 ; — and then, as
in Joseph. De Bell. Jud. iii. 7, 12, approaching the modern sense
of climate. Thus Athenaeus, evBaifioviav rov a~vfiiravTo<; rovrov
KXifiaTO<;, referring to Siris in the south of Italy, lib. xii. p. 445,
vol. iv. p. 444, ed. Schweighaiiser. Lobeck (Paralip. 418)
shows that the true accentuation is KXifia, a properispomenon
like Kpifia which is long in iEschylus, Supp. 397; Lipsius,

54 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
Gramm. Untersuch. iiber die Bibl. Grcecitat, pp. 40, 41, Leipzig
1863. Codices A, L, have KXrjfiara. Syria is naturally Syria
proper, which he reached from Caesarea, — not Caesarea Philippi
(Eichhorn, Olshausen), and not the country formerly called
Phoenicia (Usteri, Schott) : the supposition of such a near vici
nity is not in harmony with the apostle's argument. Cilicia was
his native province; and Barnabas soon after found him in
Tarsus, and brought him to Antioch. According to the narra
tive in Acts, he seems to have sailed from Ca3sarea to Tarsus.
Cilicia was more allied to Syria than Asia Minor, and both
countries are collocated vaguely by the rd KXlfiara. The apostle
is not stating his tour with geographical precision, but is merely
showing how far he travelled away from all Judaean influence
and recognition.
Ver. 22. "Hfir/v Be dyvoovp,evo$ reo irpoacoirco Tat? eV/cX^ertai?
t?)? 'IovBalas Tot? iv Xpiarco — " and I was unknown by face
to the churches of Judaea which are in Christ." The first
words are a strong form of the imperfect, equivalent to "I
remained unknown." Jelf, § 375, 4. The reo irpoacoirco is the
dative of reference, carrying in it that of limitation or the defin
ing or qualifying element which characterizes this case. Winer,
§ 31, 6 ; Bernhardy, p. 82 ; Donaldson, § 459. The apostle
was known to these churches in many aspects, but he was un
known in this one thing — in person or face. The churches in
Judaea did not know him personally, and they are thus distin
guished from the churches in Jerusalem, many of whom had a
knowledge of his person, and could recognise him if they saw
him, for he had been " going in and out" among them, "speak
ing boldly and disputing," having sojourned fifteen days with
Peter. Acts ix. 28. The object of Hilgenfeld, following Baur
and others of the same school, in maintaining that the church
in Jerusalem is here included, is to bring the statement into
conflict with the Acts, so as to ruin the credibility of the nar
rative. But compare John ii. 23 with John iii. 22, Acts i. 8,
x. 39, xxvi. 20 ; and for an analogous foreign example, Acts
xv. 23. The churches in Judaea are characterized as rot? iv
Xpiarco, " that are in Christ," — in Him as united to Him, the
Source of life and power, and having fellowship with Him,-^so
included in Him as the members are organically united to the
head. It is not certain that this definition is added because

CHAP. I. 23. 55
unconverted Jewish communities might be called churches of
God (Lightfoot). Is there any example in the New Testa
ment ? The apostle was hurried away to Caesarea, where he
took shipping for Tarsus, and thus had no opportunity of be
coming acquainted with the Judaean churches ; nor had they,
for the same reason, any opportunity of gaining a personal
knowledge of him. He is not showing that he could not
learn the gospel from Judaean Christians, as CEcumenius and
Olshausen suppose, nor, as Chrysostom thinks, that he had
not taught circumcision in Judasa. For these are not topics in
dispute. The apostle means to affirm, that so little intercourse
had he with the apostles, that the church in Judaea, having
constant correspondence with those apostles, did not know him,
so wholly was he away from their home sphere of labour. The
notion of Michaelis is 'out of the question, that the church of
Jerusalem is included among those that did not know him per
sonally, because, though known to a few individuals of them,
he was not known to them as a body, since his labours were
principally among his unconverted brethren.
Ver. 23. Mbvov Be aKovovres rjaav — not audierant (Estius),
nor "they had heard" (Luther, Brown), — "only they were
hearing," they continued hearing : fresh and pregnant reports
were brought from time to time. The Be contrasts this clause
with the previous rjfivv dyvoovfievo<;. 'AKovovres, not the
iKKXvcriai formally, but the members of them. Such con
structions Kara avveaiv are not uncommon. Winer, § 21,
§ 58, § 67; A. Buttmann, p. 113. The "resolved imperfect"
conveys the idea of duration more fully than the simple tense.
The usage is found in classic writers (Kiihner, § 416, 4;
Winer, § 45, 5), but with a closer connection with the subject
than in the freer style of the New Testament, which may in
this case be influenced by Aramaic usage. In the Sept. it is
chiefly employed in clauses which in Hebrew have a special
significance, ubi etiam in Hebraico non sine vi sua adhibita erat,
as Gen. iv. 17, Ex. iii. 1, where the Hebrew has the same con
struction of substantive verb and participle, or where there is
only a participle, Gen. xviii. 22. The periphrasis occurs often
with the future. Thiersch, de Pent. Vers. p. 163. What they
were hearing was startling to them :
"On 6 Bicokcov r]fid<s irork — " that he who once persecuted

56 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
us," that is, our former persecutor, — the participle with the
article bearing its temporal significance and becoming a sub
stantive. Schmalfeld, § 222 ; Winer, § 45, 7 ; Schirlitz, § 47.
The participle Bkokcov is not for Bicbl;a<; (Grotius, Riickert), nor
is 6Vt superfluous (Koppe). The ttotc is out of its usual place.
According to Schott, Matthies, Hilgenfeld, and Trana, the on
is recitative ; and it might be so if the following clause be re
garded as a quotation. They might say one to another, "that
our former persecutor is now become a preacher." This use
of on is limited in Paul to quotations from the Old Testament:
iii. 8, Rom. iv. 17, viii. 36, ix. 17 ; somewhat differently, 2
Thess. iii. 10. The address here passes in r}fid<; from the
oblique introduced by on, to the direct form in the pronoun,
as in Acts xiv. 22, xxiii. 22, 1 Cor. xiv. 23, 25. Kriiger, § 65,
11, Anm. 8, gives examples from classical writers, so that the
diction here is neither so lax nor inaccurate as Gwynne sup
poses it. It seems a mere refinement on the part of Meyer to
deny the passing of the indirect to the direct form, by alleging
that Paul might now as a Christian include himself among the
rjfids, and call himself " our former persecutor." He —
Nvv evayyeXl^erai rr)v irlanv rjv rrore iirbpQei — " is now
preaching the faith which he once was destroying." Some
MSS., the It., and Vulg., with many of the Latin fathers, have
iiroXefiei. The present and the imperfect are to be taken in
their full and proper meaning.
Ilto-Tt? has an objective reference, but not in the later
ecclesiastical sense. It was the distinctive pervading element
of the new evangel, and soon gave its name to it. Its facts
and truths claim faith ; its blessings are suspended on faith ;
its graces are wrought by faith; its Lord and Saviour is the
object of faith ; and its disciples are called faith-ful— believers.
In the New Testament, the word seems always to carry in it
reference to the inner principle, the governing power in the
soul, for "we walk by faith." On iirbpQei, see ver. 13.
The result of their knowledge of this momentous and noto
rious change was —
Ver. 24. Kal iBbga&v iv ifiol rbv ©eov—" And they glori
fied God in me." The iv ifiol is not St' i/U (Photius), " on
account of me " (Brown), as if it were »3 for </?» (Beza), or de
me, vel propter me (Estius). The preposition marks the sphere

NOTE ON CHAP. I. 19. 57
in which the action takes place. Winer, § 48, 2, a ; Bernhardy,
210; Ex. xiv. 4, ivBo^aaQrjaofiai iv $apaw; Isa. xlix. 3, Kal iv
aol Bo^aaQrjaofiai. To glorify God is a favourite Pauline
phrase : Acts xi. 18, xxi. 20 ; Rom. i. 21, xv. 9 ; 1 Cor. vi. 20;
2 Cor. ix. 13. " In him " — and the change wrought within
him, with its marvellous and enduring effects — they glorified
God. Not only did his conversion give them occasion to glo
rify God, but they glorified God working in him, and in him
changing their malignant and resolute persecutor into a bold
enthusiastic preacher. They were thankful not simply because
persecution had ceased, but they rejoiced that he who did the
havoc was openly building up the cause which he had laboured
to overthrow. On hearing of a change in so prominent and
terrible an adversary — a change not leading merely to a momen
tary check or a longer neutral pause, but passing into unwearied
activity, self-denial, and apostolical pre-eminence — they glorified
God in him, for in him God's gracious power had wrought with
unexpected and unexampled might and result. They did not
exalt the man, though they could not but have a special interest
in him ; but they knew that by the grace of God he was what
he was. If the churches even in Judea were so grateful to God
for His work in Paul, were they not a rebuke to the Judaizers,
who now questioned his apostleship and impugned his teaching?
Eph. iii. 7, 8 ; 1 Tim. i. 16. Chrysostom adds, he does not say
on eQavfiatpv fie, iirrjvovv fie, i^eirXr/Trovro, dXXa to irav ttj?
j(apiTO<i eoeigev ov. . . .

NOTE ON Chap. i. 19.
'l&Kaifiov rbv abe\(p6v rov Kvpiov — " James the Lord's brother."
What, then, is meant by the phrase, "the Lord's brother ?"
If, as here implied, he was one of the apostles, was he one of
the twelve— James, son of Alphaeus ? or if he did not belong
to the twelve, why is he ranked among the apostles ?
First of all, who are these dBeXcpol, brothers of our Lord,
to whom this James belonged ? One may surely discuss this
theme without incurring the censure of Calvin : Certe nemo

58 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
unquam hac de re questionem movebit nisi curiosus, nemo vero
pertinaciter insistet nisi contentiosus rixator. — On Matt. i. 25.
For, after all, it is simply an attempted answer to the question,
Are there two only or are there three Jameses mentioned in
the New Testament ? What, then, from the simple narrative
may be gleaned about the dBeXcpoil They are referred to nine
times in the four Gospels, once in the Acts, and once in the
first Epistle to the Corinthians. From these incidental notices
we learn the following: — 1. The "brothers" are a party
distinct from the apostles. Thus, John ii. 12 : " After this
He went down to Capernaum, He, and His mother, and His
brethren, and His disciples;" Matt. xii. 46, 47 : "While He
yet talked to the people, behold, His mother and His brothers
stood without, desiring to speak with Him. Then one said,
Behold, thy mother and thy brothers stand without, desiring to
speak with thee." Mark iii. 31 ; Luke viii. 19. Again, the
men of " His own country " cried, " Is not this the carpenter's
son ? is not his mother called Mary ? and his brothers, James,
and Joses, and Simon, and Judas ? and his sisters, are they not
all with us ?" Matt. xiii. 55. "Is not this the carpenter, the
son of Mary, and brother of James and Joses, and of Judas
and Simon ? and are not his sisters here with us ? " Mark
vi. 3. " His brothers said to Him, Depart hence, and go into
Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest.
For neither did His brothers believe on Him. But when His
brothers were gone up, then went He also up unto the feast."
John vii. 3, 5, 10. Four times do this party, so nearly related
to Him, pass before us in the gospel history : immediately after
His first miracle ; as wishing an interview with Him ; as sneer-
ingly referred to by His fellow-townsmen ; and as not yet be
lieving on Him. The same distinction is still marked after
the ascension : " These all (the apostles) continued with one
accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary
the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers."1 Acts i. 14.
The plea of the Apostle Paul is : " Have we not power to lead
about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the
brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?" 1 Cor. ix. 5. 2. The
1 Strange is the view of Guerieke— " with His brethren," i.e. with His
other three brothers, besides James that had just been named. Einl.
p. 156.

THE LOED'S BROTHERS. 59
brothers appear always in connection with Mary, save in John
vii. — the scene and expression of their unbelief, and she could
not be entangled in that unbelief ; and she is always found in
company with them, save in Luke ii. 42, Joseph being then
alive, and in John xix. 25, where she was commended to John
and not to one of them. Four times is she — a widow probably
by this time— connected with them as their parental head. 3. As
a family they are once named as consisting of four brothers —
" James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon " — and of at least
two sisters, as the word " all " (irdaai dBeXcpal) would seem to
imply. 4. We have in the verse before us "James the Lord's
brother," not to distinguish him from the son of Zebedee, as
Hug supposes, for then his patronymic Alphaei would have been
quite sufficient. He was therefore one of these dBeXcpol.
Now, had there been no theological intervention, — no pecu
liar views as to the perpetual virginity of Mary, or at least no
impression that the womb chosen for the divine infant was so
sacred — so set apart in solitary honour and dedication, that it
could have no other or subsequent tenant, — the natural or
usual domestic meaning would have been the only one given
to the previous quotations, and Jesus, His brothers, and His
sisters would have been regarded as forming one household
having the common relationship of children to Mary their
mother. The employment of the anomalous double plural
" brethren," x instead of " brothers," in all these places of the
Authorized Version, lessens or diverts the impression on the
English reader ; for " brethren " now never denotes sons of the
same parents, but is official, national, functional, or congrega
tional in its use. But the simple and natural meaning of dBeX-
cpol has not been usually adopted, and two rival explanatory
theories have had a wide and lasting prominence.
The theory so commonly held among ourselves is, that the
.brothers of our Lord were His cousins — either children of the
Virgin's sister, wife of Clopas, or children of Clopas, Joseph's
brother.2 The first hypothesis is real cousinhood ; the second
1 Bruder, Briider (Brither, Breether, Scoltice),—u -en " belonging to
another plural form, as in ox, oxen. Latham calls these last forms
" collectives," rather than true plurals, English Language, p. 503.
2 Clopas, not Oleophas, is the proper reading of John xix. 25, and is
so given in the margin. Cleopas is the name in Luke xxiv. 18.

60 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
is only legal and unreal in reference to Him who was not
Joseph's son.
Jerome, who is identified with the theory of cousinhood, as
being the first who gave it an elaborated form, refers (under
Gal. i. 19) to his Adversus Helvidium de perpetua Virginitate
Beatce Marios, written about 382, — an essay which he wrote, as
he says, dum Roma? essem, impulsu fratrum. Now, to hold,
according to the title of this tract, the perpetual virginity of
Mary, forecloses the discussion as to the question of full and
natural brotherhood ; and Jerome's avowed and primary object
was to show that no theory about the dBeXcpoi was permissible
which brought the perpetual virginity under suspicion or
denial. But the dogma has no scriptural support, so that it
cannot demand acceptance as an article of faith. For,
I. What does irpcorbroKo^ imply ? We read, Matt. i. 25,
ical ovk iylvcoaKev avrrjv ecu? ov eVe«e rbv vlbv avrrj<; rbv irpco-
totokov — " and knew her not till she brought forth her first
born son." Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Tregelles exclude
irpcorbroKov, but only on the authority of B, Z, and X, and on
the suspicion that the phrase was taken from Luke ii. 7. It
may be replied, however, that this intense belief in the per
petual virginity formed a strong temptation to leave out the
epithet; for from it, as Jerome bitterly asserts, some men
perversissime suspected that Mary had other and subsequent
children. The epithet, however, occurs in Luke ii. 7, where
there is no difference of reading. Now, in ordinary language,
" first-born" implies that others are born afterward ; and Jesus
could have been as easily called her only as her first-born son.
The force of this argument is somewhat neutralized by the
opinion, that the word " first-born " may have had a technical
sense, since in the Mosaic law it might be applied to the first
child, though none were born after it, — " the firstling of man
and beast being devoted to God." Ex. xiii. 2 ; Luke ii. 23.
Thus Lightfoot says : " The word is to be understood here
according to the propriety and phrase of the law," and he
instances 1 Chron. ii. 50, where " Hur is called the first-born
of Ephrath, and yet no mention made of any child that she
had after."1 But " first-born " occurs generally in these
genealogical lists in its relative sense ; and as sons are usually
1 Works, vol. iv. 194, ed. Pitman.

MEANING OF FIEST-BORN. 61
registered only, might not Ephrath have had daughters ? The
Hebrew law, as originally ordained, was a present enactment
with a prospective reference as regards the first child or son,
whether an only child or not, and the statute was easily inter
preted. The same principle is applicable to the term " first
born " as belonging to the Egyptian families that suffered
under the divine judgment, and to Jerome's objection that the
law of redemption applying to the first-born would, if the
word be taken in its relative sense, be held in suspense till the
birth of a second child. But Jerome's definition is true only
in a legal sense : Primogenitus est non tantum post quern alii,
sed ante quern nullus.1 For the diction of law and history are
different. The law ordained the dedication of that child by
the birth of which a woman became a mother, and called it
the firstling or first-born irrespective of any subsequent chil
dren, and at its birth the redemption must be made. But in
writing the history of an individual many years after his time,
it would be strange to call him a first-born son, or to say of his
mother that she brought forth her first-born son, if there were
in that family no subsequent births. A biographer would in
that case most naturally call him an only son. Epiphanius
must have been greatly at a loss for an argument to prove
" first-born " to be the same as " only," when he bases it on
the position of ouriy? in Matt. i. 25 : rbv vlbv avrfj<; . . . Kal ovk
eiire rbv irpcorbroKov avrrjs . . . dXXd irpcororoKOV fiovov, as if
avrrj<; did not belong to both words.
Besides, the epithet " first-born " is used by an evangelist
who in subsequent chapters speaks of brothers and sisters of
Jesus ; and what could he suppose would be the natural infer
ence of his readers when they brought irpcoTOTOKos i/to? and rj
firjrnp Kal ol dBeXcpol avrov together, there being no hint or
explanation that the relations indicated are other than the
ordinary and natural one of blood? The epithet, too, does
not seem to have an absolute sense as used in the New Testa
ment: irpcorbroKov iv 77-oXXot? dBeXcboi^, Rom. viii. 29. Com
pare Col. i. 15, 18; Heb. xi. 28; Rev. i. 5. The inference
of Eunomius is a natural one : et irpcoTOTOKO'i ovKen fiovoyevns.
Helvidius, who, as is well known, holds the natural kinship,
1 Opera, vol. ii. p. 214, ed. Vallars.
2 Panaria, vol. ii. pp. 431-2, ed. (Ehler, Berlin 1861.

62 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
and against whom Jerome fulminated in the tract already re
ferred to, argues, as might be supposed, in the same way ; and
Lucian says : el fiev irpcoro<;, ov fibvos, el Be fiovo? ov irp&ros.
II. No definite argument can be based on the particle ei»9
in the same verse, for it does not always mean that what is
asserted or denied up to a certain point of time is reversed
after it. In 2 Sam. vi. 23, where it is said " she (Michal) had
no child till the day of her death," the meaning cannot be mis
taken. But the sense must be determined by the context, whether
what is asserted as far as eo>? ceased or continued after it.2 See
Fritzsche on Matt, xxviii. 20 ; Meyer on Matt. i. 25.
This verse undoubtedly affirms the virginity of Mary up to
the birth of Jesus, and this prior virginity is the principal
fact ; but it as plainly implies, that after that event Mary lived
with Joseph as his wife. Even prior to the birth she is called
" Mary thy wife," and her virginity is stated as if it had been
a parenthesis in her wifehood. Basil himself, while asserting
that her virginity before the birth was necessary, and that the
lovers of Christ cannot bear to hear that she, rj QeoroKO'}, ever
ceased to be a virgin, admits that the phrase eco<s ov ereKev
creates a suspicion, virbvoiav, that afterwards this prenuptial
condition ceased : to vevopnafieva rov ydfiov epya fir) dirapvrj-
o-afievr)'} Trjs Mapla?.3 The theory of Jerome, on the other
hand, was intended, in fact, to conserve the perpetual virginity
both of Joseph and Mary. It is beside the point, and a mere
assumption, to say, with Olshausen on Matt. i. 25, Joseph
might justly think that his marriage with Mary had another
purpose than that of begetting children. " It seems," he adds,
" in the order of nature, that the last female descendant of
1 Demonax, 29 ; Opera, vol. v. p. 245, ed. Bipont.
^ 2 Isidore the Pelusiot, repeated by Suidas, says : to 'iai mKH«.x.,t **«'
sot toS liwtxat h ty, hiu. ypoiQri tupiexofitv xtip.em!l. Theophylact, on
Matt. i. 25, gives as the result, oi,U vm «.vri>v iySa. Strauss quotes from
Diogenes Laertius, iii. 1, 2 (p. 195, vol. i. ed. Huebner), the case of Plato's
iather, of whom it is said, in consequence of a vision of ApoUo, oh»
xccOixpth, ytyn cpv-Kila, 1^ rr,t «Sxo*W!}««f, and Plato had brothers. But
when Strauss says of Mary, that she had children younger than Jesus-
jungere undvielleich auch altere, "younger, and perhaps older also "-the
audacious assertion makes the x^roVo^ a falsehood. Das Leben Jesu
vol. i. p. 246.
3 Opera, vol. ii. p. 854, ed. Gaume, Paris 1835.

JAMES THE LITTLE. 63
David, in the family of which the Messiah was born, closed
her family with this last and eternal scion." This is only
sentiment without any proof, though I confess that one natu
rally clings to such a belief. The perpetual virginity cannot,
however, be conclusively proved out of Scripture ; but an
inference decidedly against it may be maintained from both
the terms irpcorbroKov and eW in Matt. i. 25.
If the dBeXcpol were only cousins, the perpetual virginity
becomes at least possible. Jerome's first argument on behalf
of cousinhood is, that in Gal. i. 19, James is recognised as an
apostle, and must therefore be James son of Alphaeus, one of
the twelve. If not, he reasons that there must have been
three Jameses, — the son of Zebedee, the son of Alphaeus or
James the Less, and this third one ; but the epithet rov fiiKpov
given to the one James implies that there were only two ; so
that the imagined third James is identical with the son of
Alphaeus. Mark xv. 40. But in reply, first, James the Lord's
brother was not, in our view, one of the twelve, so that such
an argument forms no objection ; and, secondly, the compara
tive minor, " the Less," is not the proper rendering of the
positive o /ttt«po? ; and though it were the true rendering, it
might still be given to James the Lord's brother, to distin
guish him from James the son of Alphaeus. Probably the
epithet is absolute, and alludes to stature and not to age;1 at
all events, the other James is never called James the Great.
Gregory of Nyssa, indeed, gives him that title because he was
among the apostles; the Lord's brother, on the other hand,
being called "Little" as not being among them, — a conjecture
on a par with that of Lange, that James was named " the
Less" from his later entrance into the apostolic college in
comparison with the other James. It is highly probable, too,
that " the Little " was not the epithet he bore at the period of
the resurrection, but was his individualizing epithet when the
Gospel was written.
1 Aristophanes, Ranrn 709, names the bathkeeper Kleigenes, 6 fuxpdt,
having just styled him itifaxot, an ape ; fiixxot y» p&xot olrot are used
similarly, Acharn. 909. In Xenophon, Mem. i. 4, 2, we have the phrase
vpot ' ' Apmrolnfioi) tov Mixpov Wixahovpuiw ; and the meaning is apparent,
for the diminutive atheist is called epixpit in Plato, Symp. 173 B, vol. i. p.
8, ed. Stallbaum.

64 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
2. The other steps of Jerome's argument are : Alphasus
father of James, was married to Mary sister of the Virgin ;
so that James was the Lord's cousin, and might be called
His brother according to Jewish usage. That is, Mary
the mother of James the Little is asserted to be wife of
Alphaeus his father, — it being assumed, first, that James the
Little is the same with the son of Alphaeus ; secondly, that
this Mary is the wife of Clopas and the Virgin's sister ; and
thirdly, that Alphaeus and Clopas are the same person. Yet
Jerome says in his very tract against Helvidius that he does
not contend earnestly for the identity of Mary of Clopas with
Mary mother of James and Joses, though one should say that
it was the key to his whole argument. Nay, in his epistle to
Hedibia he writes : Quatuor autem fuisse Marias, in Evangeliis
legimus, unam matrem Domini Salvatoris, alteram materteram
ejus qucs appellata est Maria Cleophcs, tertiam Mariam matrem
Jacobi et Jose, quartam Mariam Magdalenam. Licet alii
matrem Jacobi et Jose materteram ejus fuisse contendunt.1
But Clopas and Alphaeus cannot be identified with cer
tainty. The names are not so like as some contend. In Matt.
x. 3, Mark iii. 18, Luke vi. 15, Acts i. 13, we have James the
son of Alphaeus, and in Mark ii. 14 we have Levi the son of
Alphaeus ; but whether these two Alphaeuses are the same or
different, it is impossible to decide.2 Then we have KXioira<;
(Clopas) in John xix. 23, and KXeoira<; (Cleopas) in Luke
xxiv. 18, the proper spelling of the two names in the Greek
text. The original Syro-Chaldaic form, as given in the Syriac
version, is ..An, Chalphai,3 and is found in the five places
where 'AXcpaio'; occurs, but it gives JaalXo for the two
names Clopas and Cleopas in John and Luke. The names are
1 Ep. exx., Opera, vol. i. p. 826.
2 The Greek Church has a feast for St. James the Just, October 23d ; -
and another on the 9th of the same month for St. James son of Alphasus,
" and brother of Matthew the publican and evangelist." The Syrian and
Coptic Churches observe the same festivals. Chrysostom also makes
. Matthew and James brothers : on Matt. x. 3.
3 The name x«x<p/ occurs in 1 Mace. xi. 70, and represents, perhaps,
such a Hebrew form, ifipn.

MARY OF KLOPAS. 65
thus evidently regarded as quite different by the author or
authors of this oldest version. Clopas therefore is not, as is
often affirmed, the Aramaic form of Alphaeus ; and to assert
that Alphaeus and Clopas are varying names is opposed to
philological analogy. The Syriac Cheth may pass into the
Greek 'A with the spiritus lenis, as in 'AXcpaios, for the
Hebrew n is so treated by the Seventy, rnn becoming Eva,
though often it is represented by the Greek X or K. But
would 'A have any alliance with the consonantal Kuph in
Clopas or Klopas ? At least the Hebrew Koph seems never
to be represented by a vowel in the Septuagint, but by K, X,
or T. Frankel, Vorstudien, etc., p. 112. In fine, it cannot be
safely held that by James the Little must be meant the son of
Alphaeus, for, as Hegesippus says, " there were many Jameses."
Nor can any solid assistance for this theory of cousinhood
be got from John xix. 25, for it cannot be proved that the
words " His mother's sister" are in apposition with "Mary the
wife of Clopas." The punctuation of the verse is, probably,
not tov 'Irjcrov rj firjrnp avrov, Kal r) dBeXcprj rrjq finrpb'; avrov
Mapla rj rov KXcoird — "Mary His mother, and His mother's
sister Mary wife of Clopas ; " but there should be a comma
after finrpb'i avrov, so that Mary of Clopas becomes a third
and different person, the " sister's " name not being given :
" His mother and His mother's sister, Mary wife of Clopas and
Mary Magdalene." The Peschito inserts "and" before Mapla
7
— iOj^iDO ; and in the Greek the four clauses are arranged in
7
couplets, as in Matt. x. 2-4. This punctuation is preferable,
for it is not very likely that two sisters in one family should
have the same name, and there is no parallel case in Scrip
ture; for the name of Herod, an example adduced by Mill,
comes not, as being a royal name repeated in the family,
into comparison. But again, there is no certainty that rj tov
KXcoird is " wife of Clopas ;" for it may be either wife, mother,
or daughter of Clopas, as the context may determine. Thus
a Mary is called mother of James and Joses in Matt, xxvii.
56, Mapla rj tov 'IaKcbfiov Kal 'Icocrrj firrrnp; but in Mark
(xv. 47) she is named simply Mapla 'Icoarj, and in Luke (xxiv.
10), Mapla 'IaKcbfiov. Why may not these two last places
guide us to interpret Mapla rj rov KXSura as " Mary mother of
£

66 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
Clopas ? " It cannot, then, be demonstrated, either that Alphaeus
and Clopas are the same person, or that Mary of Clopas is
necessarily his wife, and to be identified with Mary mother of
James and Joses. But it has been triumphantly asked, If a
Mary, not the Virgin, is called for distinction's sake " mother
of James," what James can be meant but the most famous of
the name — James of Alphaeus called the Lord's brother, and
in the early church James the Little, and 'therefore the cousin
of our Lord ? But be James the Little who he may, his position
does not seem of sufficient prominence to distinguish his mother,
for the name of another son, Joses, is added, as if for such a
purpose, in Mark xv. 40. The combination of both names was
apparently required to point out the mother, so that it is natural
to infer that this James, like his brother Joses, was of small
note in the church, and could not therefore be the son of
Alphaeus. And to show what confusion reigns on this point,
it may be added that not a few identify Mary mother of James
with Mary mother of our Lord. This is virtually done in the
apocryphal gospel Historia Josephi, cap. iv., by Gregory of
Nyssa, by Chrysostom, by Theophylact, by Helvidius, by
Fritzsche, and by Cave who makes Alphaeus another name of
Joseph. The James and Joses who had this Mary as their
mother could not, therefore, be the brethren of our Lord, as the
four would most likely have been mentioned together ; and it is
not possible either that " mother " should have a vague signi
ficance, or that her maternal relation should be ignored, and
two other sons or step-sons placed in the room of her First-born.
Again, if the brothers were merely cousins, sons of Alphaeus,
how could they be called again and again d8ek<j>ol1 Jerome
replies, Quatuor modis fratres dic'i, natura, gente, cognatione
affectu ; natura, Esau, Jacob ; gente qua omnes Judcei inter se
fratres vocant ; . . . cognatione qui sunt de una familia, id est
patria, Abraham, Lot,—Laban, Jacob ; affectu . . . Christiani
fratres, etc. Then he asks, Were these cousins fratres juxta
naturam ? non ; juxta gentem ? absurdum ; juxta affectum f verum
si sic, qui magis fratres quam apostoli? . . . Restat igitur fratres
eos intelligas appellatos cognatione} But in these examples re-
1 Theophylact also says, tXtuav i, ypaipij rout avyytms diihQwt i»o-
/*.«.&». Monod's reference to Matt. i. 11, in defence of the same opinion,
cannot be sustained.

NATURAL MEANING OF BROTHER. 67
ferred to, the context prevents any confusion of sense. Lot is
called a brother of Abraham, and Jacob of Laban, they being
only nephews, and specially beloved for the original fraternal
relation. These indefinite terms of relation are found in the
oldest book of Scripture ; but there is no instance of this laxity
in the New Testament found with dSeX^o? in reference to kin
ship, nor with dBeXcprj unless it is used tropically, Rom. xvi. 1.
The New Testament has special terms, as avyyeveis, dve^jri6<; :
Mark vi. 4 ; Luke i. 36, ii. 44 ; Col. iv. 10. Even in the old
books of the Old Testament, when relation is to be marked,
there is perfect definiteness in the use of nx, as in Gen. xxxvii.
10, 1. 8, Lev. xxi. 2, Num. vi. 7, Josh. ii. 13. When it is em
ployed along with father, mother, or sister, it evidently bears
its own proper meaning. In the same way, in those clauses of
the New Testament already referred to, dBeXcpbs is used along
with pijrnp avrov ; and it would be strange if in such a con
nection, where the maternal relation is indicated, the fraternal
should not correspond, — if along with "mother" in its true mean
ing, " brother" should be found in a vague and unusual sense.
Do not the phrases, "His mother and His brothers," "thy
mother and thy brothers," suggest that Mary stood in a common
maternal relation to Him and to them ? And if these brothers
were only first cousins, sons of Mary's sister and Alphaeus, why
are they always in the evangelical history associated with the
mother of Jesus, but never with their own mother, while they
are uniformly called His brothers ?
It is also held by many, though not by Jerome, that along
with James Alphaei there were among the twelve two other
brothers, a 'IovBa<; 'IaKcof3ov, " Jude brother of James," and a
Simon called the Zealot ; the proof being that in the lists of
Luke and Acts, James is placed between these two, as if he
had belonged to the same family. See Matt. xiii. 55, Luke
vi. 16, and Jude 1. That is, His "brothers" are James,
Joses, Simon, and Judas ; and these being cousins, three of
them are found among the primary apostles. But if in the
same list 'Io«<u/3o? 'AXcpalov be James son of Alphaeus, why
should 'Ioi/Sa? 'IaKcbfiov not mean Jude son and not brother of
James, especially as brotherhood is marked by dBeXcb6<; in a
previous part of the catalogue in Luke vi. 16? Son is the
more natural supplement, as in the Peschito, and the opinion is

68 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
adopted by Luther, Herder, Jessien, Dahl, and Wieseler. As
Lightfoot has remarked, " Had brotherhood been intended, the
clause would have run as in other cases, such as that of the
sons of Zebedee,— < James the son of Alphaeus, and Jude his
brother,' or 'James and Jude, sons of Alphaeus.'" Simon Zelotes
is never called brother of James ; and Jude is termed Lebbseus
whose surname was Thaddaeus in Matt. x. 3, in Mark iii. 18
simply Thaddaeus, and Judas not Iscariot in John xiv. 22. It
is likewise passing strange, that if three out of the four
brothers were apostles, not one of them should be ever desig
nated by that honourable appellation. Nor is there any proba
bility at all that Jude and Simon are two of the four ; nor is
the case different with James and Joses, for if Joses be not one
of the so-called brethren, neither was his brother James. One of
the Lord's brothers is called by the Nazarenes, in Matt. xiii. 55,
'Icoarjcb (Joseph), according to the best reading ; but the son
of a Mary is called 'Icoarjs (Joses), making a genitive ' Icocrrjro<;,
in Matt, xxvii. 56, according to the highest authorities. These
Greek words may represent different Syro-Chaldaic forms, and
the Syriac has for Joses IcdOj, the other form being ¦ <^roo-».
But no great stress can be laid on such variations, unless we
had faith in the minute exactness of copyists. Schneckenburger's
identification of Joses with Joseph Barsabas surnamed Justus
in Acts i. 23, is for many reasons quite a gratuitous conjec
ture. Levi (Matthew) is called "of Alphaeus," Mark ii. 14:
was he another son of Alphaeus, or is the father of Matthew
a different person of the same name?
But further, after this disposal of the names individually,
we may ask, If three out of the four of Christ's " brothers"
were among His called and consecrated, how could they come
with His mother desiring to speak with Him ; how could they
as a party be always named as distinct from the apostles;
and especially, how could it be said of them at a period so
far advanced in our Lord's ministry, that they did not
believe on Him? For it is declared of them: oi3Se 7op ol
dBeXcpol avrov iirlcrrevov et? avrov, — " for neither were His
brothers believing on Him." John vii. 5. They certainly
could not be His apostles and yet be unbelievers in Himself
or in His divine mission. Jerome indeed holds that James was

UNBELIEF OF BROTHERS. 69
a believer, and his theory allowed him to single out James ; but
the brethren are plainly spoken of as a body. Nor would this
alleged faith of James serve Jerome's purpose, or warrant
James' enrolment among the twelve ; for the brethren, even
after they did believe, are described as a party quite distinct
from the apostles, Acts i. 14, 1 Cor. ix. 5. It is remarkable,
too, that our Lord's reply to His brothers is the same as that to
His mother, John ii. 4, " My time is not yet come," — as if He
had detected in them a similar spirit to hers at the marriage,
when, the wine being done, she ventured to suggest His imme
diate interposition. The force of this argument from the un
belief of the brothers has been sometimes set aside, as by Ellicott
after Grotius, Lardner, and Hug, who assert that the verb iiria-
revov may be used in an emphatic sense, as if it meant, did
not fully believe on Him. The context is against such a view ;
for whatever their impressions and anticipations about Him
and His miracles, they wanted faith in Him, and spoke either
in selfish or satirical rebuke : " Depart hence, and go to Judaea,
that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest."
Ellicott refers, in vindication of his statement, to John vi. 64,
" There are some of you — fiaQnral — that believe not ; " but
there the assertion is an absolute one, — and in proof we are told
in the 66th verse, that "many of them went back, and walked
no more with Him." The 67th verse, by the question, " Will ye
also go away ? " does not, as Ellicott alleges, imply any doubt,
for it was only a testing challenge proposed to draw out the
noble response of Peter for himself and his colleagues. See
Meyer, Liicke, in loc. Further, to say, in opposition to what
has been advanced, that two at least of the dBeXcpol were among
the apostles, assumes the correctness of the theory that they
were cousins, but the phrase ot oSeX^ot avrov seems to include
the domestic party as a whole ; and there was no need, as Pott
and Monod imagine, for inserting ttoVtc? in order to get this
sense. The exegesis of Lange on this passage is quite un
tenable, and is no better, as Alford calls it, than " finessing." x
He says that the unbelief of the Lord's brother is parallel to
(auf eine linie mit) the unbelief of Peter, Matt. xvi. 23, and of
Thomas, John xx. 25. " The evangelist does not," he adds,
" speak of unbelief in the ordinary sense, which rejected the
1 Article Jacobus in Herzog's Encyclopxdie.

70 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
Messiahship of Jesus ; but of that want of trust, compliance,
and obedience, which made it difficult for His disciples, apostles,
and even also His mother, to find themselves reconciled to His
life of suffering and to His concealment of Himself." Now
the phrase introducing the statement is ovBe yap, " for neither
did His brethren believe on Him," — the relative oi3Se bringing
a previous party into view, that is, the Jews, who sought to
slay Him, — the worst form of unbelief ; or if otJSe be taken
absolutely, " not even," it still brings out a very strong asser
tion of unbelief. The unbelief ascribed to Peter and Thomas,
on the occasions to which Lange refers, was a momentary
stagger, — the first at the idea of the Master enduring the
sufferings which Himself had predicted, and the other was
a refusal to admit without proof the identity of the appari
tion which the ten had seen with Him who had been crucified.
The phrase iriareveiv et? avrov has but one meaning in the
narrative portion of John, as in ii. 11, 23, iv. 39, vii. 31, 39,
ix. 36, x. 42, etc. ; and that simple and' natural meaning does
not bear out the ingenious exegesis by which Ellicott and
Lange would exculpate the Lord's brethren. Nay more, the
evangelist records the saying in vi. 69, " We believe and are
sure that Thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God,"—
and this is said of the apostles as a body ; but when he says a
few verses farther on, vii. 5, " Neither did His brothers believe
on Him," the contrast is surely one of full significance. In
fine, the dBeXcpol distinctly, and one would almost say taunt
ingly, exclude themselves from the wider party when they
name them ot fiaQvral crov. They went up to the feast sepa
rately from Jesus and the apostles. Other shifts have been
resorted to in order to take its natural significance of fraternal
unbelief from the passage. While Chrysostom (on John vii. 5)
distinctly places James among the brethren— the James of Gal.
i. 19 ; Grotius and Paulus imagine that the same persons are
not always represented by the dBeXcpol, some of whom believed,
and some did not. Pott and Gabler conjecture more wildly
that the dBeXcpol were brothers of James who was only a
cousin, and not comprehended therefore in this position of un
belief. But why should James the "Lord's brother" be put
into a different category from the Lord's brothers, one of
whom is called James? It may be added in a word, that the

TRACTATE OF JEROME. 71
unbelief of the Lord's brothers so incidentally stated, becomes
a proof of the veracity of the evangelists. They hesitate not to
say that His nearest kindred opposed Him, and they did not
deem the unlikely fact to be derogatory to His character. Their
unbelief proves, at the same time, that there was no inner
compact, no domestic league, to help forward His claims. He
did not first win over His family, so as to enjoy their interested
assistance as agitators and heralds. The result then is, that the
theory which holds that these brothers of our Lord were His
first cousins seems very untenable, as is shown by this array
of objections viewed singly and in their reciprocal connection.
The tractate of Jerome, who first argued out at length the
hypothesis of cousinhood, and of the identity of James the
Lord's brother with James son of Alphaeus, was an earnest
vindication against Helvidius of the dei-irapQevla of the blessed
Virgin as a dogma not to be questioned without presumption
or impugned without " blasphemy." So much is his soul
stirred by the daring outrage, that he begins with invoking
the assistance of the Holy Spirit ; and of the Son that His
mother may be defended ab omni concubitus suspicione ; and of
the Father, too, that the mother of His Son may be shown to
be virgo post partum quce fuit mater antequam nupta. What he
defended was to him a momentous article, the virginity of
Mary after the Lord's birth being as surely held and revered
as her virginity prior to it. He professes to be guided solely
by Scripture : Non campum rhetorici desideramus eloquii, non
dialecticorum tendiculas, nee Aristotelis spineta conquirimus. He
shows no little ingenuity in his interpretation of various phrases ;
is especially exultant on the meaning of donee or usque in the
clause donee peperit filium, and of primogenitus in connection
with the Hebrew priesthood1 and the destruction of the first
born in Egypt ; cries out on Helvidius, who thought that Mary
the mother of Jesus is she who is called mother of James
and Joses among the women at the cross;2 then develops
his theory of cousins-brothers, and thinks that he has obtained
1 He pictures a Hebrew as saying to himself, Nihil debeo sacerdoti nisi
et ille fuerit procreatus per quern is qui ante natus est, incipiat esse primo
genitus. Advers. Helvid. p. 215, vol. ii. ed. Vallars.
2 Yet, as we have said, Gregory of Nyssa, Chrysostom, Fritzsche, and
Cave, hold the same view.

72 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
a decided victory by a cornuta interrogatio, when he winds up
a paragraph by affirming that in the same way as Joseph was
called His father, they were called His brothers.1 He next
passes into a eulogy on virginity, not forgetting, however, that
the saints in the Old Testament had wives, nay, that some had
a plurality of them ; but proceeds to a very spirited picture of
the woes of married life, — the wife painting before the mirror,
and busied in dusting, knitting, and dressing, infants scream
ing, children kissed, cooks here and dressmakers there, accounts
to be made up, correction of servants, scenes of revelry, — Re-
sponde quosso inter ista ubi sit Dei cogitatio ? Any house other
wise ordered, must, he adds in his celibate wit, be rara avis.
At length he1 ventures to go so deeply into the privacies of
the matter that we forbear to follow him. His tone towards
his opponent is one of utter contempt and savage humour : he
brands him as hominem rusticanum and vix primis quoque imbu-
tum Uteris, — cries on one occasion, doleamne an rideam, nescio;
upbraids his style, — vitia sermonis, quibus omnis liber tuus scatet;
salutes him as imperitissime hominum; accuses him of a love of
notoriety madder and incomparably more flagitious in result
than his who set fire to Diana's temple at Ephesus, for he had
done a similar outrage to the temple of the Lord, and had
desecrated the sanctuary of the Spirit ; compares his elo
quence to a camel's dance, — risimus in te proverbium, camelum
vidimus saltitantem ; and ends by assuring him that his censure
would be his (Jerome's) highest glory, since he would in that
case suffer the same canina facundia as did the mother of the
Lord. This sternness of rebuke and outpouring of scorn and
indignation on the subject, are an index to that general state
of feeling which Helvidius was so luckless and daring as to
offend, solus in universo mundo ; and yet he was all the while
so obscure an individual that his respondent, living in the same
city with him, knows nothing of him, and cannot tell whether
he be fair or dark of visage,— albus aterve sis, nescio— quis te,
oro,^ ante ham blasphemiam noverat, quis dupondii supputabat ?
It is at the same time to be borne in mind, that Jerome, in
the midst of this fury, claims no support from the ecclesi-
1 Chrysostom, on Matt. i. 25, gives the same opinion. He asks, How
are James and the others called His brothers? and his reply is, Z><nrtp xxi
ctMs hofilCeto iuiip t% Map/a? o 'lavy/p

THE PERPETUAL VIRGINITY. 73
astical writers before him, quotes no one in his favour, appeals
to no father of an earlier century, even while he admits that
Tertullian held his opponent's views, and curtly dismisses him
as not belonging to the church.
The general purpose of his treatise was to prove the per
petual virginity, and to root up and scatter to the winds the
argument against it, that Mary had other sons besides her
"First-born." Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr,
and "many other apostolic and eloquent men," are appealed
to by him as holding the general opinion, hcec eadem sentientes ;
but he does not aver that they held his special hypothesis that
the brothers were cousins, though certainly he does not inti
mate that he and they differed on the point. Jerome refers to
this treatise ten years afterwards in an epistle to Pammachius,
and vindicates the doctrine of virgo perpetua mater et virgo,
by bringing such strange analogies in proof as — Christ's sepul
chre "wherein was never man yet laid;" His entrance into the
chamber, "the doors being shut ;" and the prophetic utterance
about the gate, " No man shall enter in by it, because the Lord
the God of Israel hath entered in by it ; therefore it shall be
shut."1 Ezek. xliv. 2.
Now, Jerome's object being to prove Mary virgin post as
well as ante partum, it was quite enough for his purpose to
show that .the brethren of Joseph were not her true and
proper sons. Ambrose, ten years afterwards, contents himself
with this simpler declaration : Potuerunt autem fratres esse ex
Joseph non ex Maria. Quod quidem si quis diligentius prose-
quatur inveniet. Nos ea persequenda non putavimus, quoniam
fraternum nomen liquet pluribus esse commune.2 Jerome, how
ever, in his zeal, and from the impulses of an ardent and
impetuous temperament, deliberately preferred a theory in
conflict with the well-known tradition on the subject, which
he scouted as being taken from the deliramenta Apocryphorum.
He was thus well aware of the alternative ; for in his note on
Matt. xii. 49, he says : quidam fratres Domini de alia uxore
Joseph fiilios suspicantur ; — again, in De Viris Illustribus :
Jacobus qui appellatur frater Domini, ut nonulli existimant,
Joseph ex alia uxore, ut autem rnihi videtur, Maria? sororis
1 Ep. xlviii. vol. i. p. 234.
2 De Institut. Virg. vi. Opera, vol. ii. p. 317, ed. Migne.

74 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
matris Domini cujus Joannes in libro suo meminit, filius.1
So Pelagius and Isidore Hispalensis, who says, Jacobus Alphcei
sororis matris Domini filius. — Tom. v. p. 153, ed. Migne. The
view of Jerome, which was a comparative novelty among the
Western churches, was not at first adopted by his great contem
porary Augustine. In his note on Gal. i. 19, he says : Jacobus
Domini frater vel ex filiis Joseph de alia uxore vel ex cognatione
Maria? matris ejus debet intelligi. These words indicate no
fixed opinion ; but otherwise he appears to maintain a view not
unlike that of Jerome. Thus, in a spiritualistic interpretation
of the second verse of Ps. cxxvii., he describes the brethren
as cognati consanguinitate.2 Again, Non mirum est dictos esse
fratres Domini ex materno genere quoscumque cognatos, cum
etiam ex cognatione Joseph did potuerint fratres ejus ab illis qui
ilium patrem Domini esse arbitrantur? Further : Unde fratres
Domini1? Num enim Maria iterum peperit? Absit. Inde ccepit
dignitas virginum. Cognati Maries fratres Domini, de quolibet
gradu cognati.4 He does not in these places call them cousins,
though he repeats in some of them the stock argument about
the brotherhood of Abraham and Lot, Laban and Jacob. He is
content with the more general terms, consanguinei et cognati, —
their cognatio, however, being derived through Mary, not through
Joseph. The same opinion had, however, some few advocates
in the Eastern church. Chrysostom, on Gal. i. 19, calls James
son of Clopas oirep Kal b evayyeXicrTr)? eXeyev, thus identifying
Clopas with Alphaeus and regarding James as an apostle. But
Chrysostom is far from being consistent with himself ; since, as
he identifies Mapla 'IaKwfSov (on Matt, xxvii. 25) with the Lord's
mother, he must have held either that James was full brother, or
at least step-brother. In other places he does not place James
among the twelve at all, as on 1 Cor. xv. 7, but calls him an
unbeliever with the rest of the Lord's brethren, and says that
they bore this name as Joseph was the reputed husband of
Mary (on Matt. i. 25). Theodoret says explicitly that James
was brother,— not, however, ovre fir,v w? ™es vireiXrj<paai rov
'Icoarjcp vlbs irvyxavev, tov eK irporepcov ydficov yev6fievo<;, dXXd
1 Tom. ii. p. 829.
2 Opera, vol. iv. p. 2058, Paris 1835.
3 On Matt. xii. 55, Opera, vol. iii. p. 1669.
4 lb. i. pp. 1793, 1998 ; Opera, vol. viii. 594, and v. 934.

BROTHERS-COUSINS. 75
tow KXcoird fiev rjv ut'09, rov Be Kvpiov dve^nb<s (on Gal. i. 19).
But this view did not obtain wide currency in the East.
The theory of mere cousinhood thus won its way into the
Western churches, and became the common one among our
selves. Professor Lightfoot has said that Jerome "did not
hold his theory staunchly and consistently," and that in his
comment on this verse he speaks like " one who has committed
himself to a theory of which he has misgivings." Certainly
Jerome did not hold his view at a future period so tenaciously,
or with so keen and impatient an opposition to others, as he
did at its first promulgation. Thus in the Epistle to Hedibia
he says : " There are four Maries : the mother of our Lord ;
another her aunt, Mary of Clopas ; a third, the mother of James
and Joses; and a fourth, Mary Magdalene; though others con
tend that Mary mother of James and Joses -was the Virgin's
aunt." (See Latin on p. 64.) Again, on this verse, he refers
to his treatise written when he was a young man, and then,
curtly dismissing it, advances a new argument, that James was
called the Lord's brother propter egregios mores et incomparabilem
fidem sapientiamque non mediam, and that for the same reason
the other apostles also were called fratres Domini. But where
do they get this distinctive appellation ? The first of these
quotations is virtually an abandonment of his whole theory, at
least of its principal proof, and the second is the occupation
of entirely new ground ; but there is no preference indi
cated for the other hypothesis, that of step-brothers, as Pro
fessor Lightfoot would infer. Lastly, in his commentary
on Isa. xvii. 6, Jerome formally admits fourteen apostles :
duodecim qui electi sunt et tertium decimum Jacobum qui appel-
latur frater Domini et Paulum. . . .
This theory of Jerome, whose adherence to it did not grow
with his years, does not however appear to be the absolute novelty
which some would assert it to be. The opinion of Clement is
somewhat doubtful, and we can only guess at it from extracts,
some of which may not be genuine. Cassiodorus quotes from
his Hypotyposeis thus : " Jude, who wrote the catholic epistle,
being one of the sons of Joseph and the Lord's brother, a man
of deep piety, though he knew his relationship to the Lord, yet
did not say he was His brother ; for this is true, he was His
1 Vol. iv. p. 194.

76 EPISTLE TO THE GALATLANS.
brother, being Joseph's son." It is hard to say whether the
last explanatory words are those of Clement, or are inserted
by the Ostrogothic statesman Cassiodorus, his Latin translator,
who may not have held the theory of Jerome.
But Eusebius, speaking of the Lord's brother, gives other
extracts from Clement of quite a different character : " Peter,
James, and John, after the ascension of the Saviour, were not
ambitious of honour ; . . . but chose James the Just Bishop
of Jerusalem."1 James the Just was therefore a different
person from the three apostolical electors ; and if the first
James is the son of Zebedee, the last is James son of Alphaeus.
For the historian adds another illustrative quotation: "The Lord
after the resurrection imparted the gnosis to James the Just,
and John, and Peter. These delivered it to the rest of the
apostles, and the rest of the apostles to the seventy, of whom
Barnabas was one. Now there were two Jameses — one the
Just, who was thrown from a battlement of the temple, and
the other who was beheaded."2 These extracts from Clement
favour the theory of Jerome ; for James the Just, as seen in
this statement, which admits two persons only of the name of
James, cannot be a son of Joseph, but must be the son of
Alphaeus, and not a half-brother, though he may be a cousin.
There is no room to doubt the genuineness of the epithet rm
AiKalco in the beginning of the second excerpt, in order to
make the triad the same in the first and second quotations ; for
it is in connection with James the Just that the second quota
tion is made, and it is introduced by the words en Kal ravra
irepl avrov cpr/crlv.
Nor, on the other hand, was the opinion of Helvidius so
great a novelty as Jerome represents it. Victorinus of Petavium
is said to have taken the word " brethren " in its natural sense,
but Jerome denies it. Tertullian, who was claimed by Helvidius,
is rudely thrown out of court by Jerome because he did not
1 rierpo* yap (pwt xxi 'lixb^av xxi ' laauuyv fitrd. ttjv avxhrrtyui nv
"Sonypot . . . Ixxafiou ran Aixxiou kiriaxovrov 'Itpaao^ufiav 'ihiaixi.
2 'laxafiid Tii A;W«) xxi 'laxvvyxxl XlWpa fitrx t$» xvxarxatu wxpi-
luxt n)v yrfmv 6 Kup,of . . . Aio oi ytyivxaiu 'lixafioi, tis 6 Alxxtot 6 xxrx
nu nnpvyiov pKnttls . . . htpot Is xxpxntfiyfclt. These extracts from the
sixth and eighth books of Clement's Hypotyposeis are found in Euseb. Hist.
Eecles. lib. ii. 1, vol. i. pp. 93, 94, ed. Heinichen.

TERTULLIAN'S STATEMENTS. 77
belong to the catholic church. In discussing the reality of the
incarnation, Tertullian seems to employ mater et fratres in their
ordinary sense, evidently regarding that sense as essential to his
argument : Et Christum quidam virgo enixa est, semel nup-
turapost partum, ut uterque titulus sanctitatis in Christi censu
dispungeretur, per matrem et virginem et univiram.1 Again, in
his treatise against Marcion, and on the assertion, inquiunt,
ipse (Christus) contestatur se non esse natum, dicendo quo? rnihi
mater et qui mihi fratres ? among other elements of reply, he
asks : Die mihi, omnibus natis mater adivit ? omnibus natis ad-
generantur et fratres ? non licet patres magis et sorores habere vel
et neminem ? . . . et vere mater et fratres ejus foris stabant, — si
ergo matrem et fratres eos fecit qui non erant, quomodo negavit eos
qui erant?2 Tertullian thus took mater and fratres in their
natural sense, and the opinion is strengthened by Jerome's
treatment of him. Helvidius had quoted Tertullian as being in
his favour, and Jerome does not deny it, but tartly says : nihil
amplius dico quam ecclesios hominem non fuisse. Now Ter
tullian does not regard his view as an uncommon one, and the
likelihood is that it was widely held ; for if so pronounced an
ascetic as he was did espouse it, it must have been by the com
pulsion of undeniable evidence. Still we do not find any ex
press testimonies on the subject in other quarters ; nor do we
know any sufficient grounds for Neander's assertion, that many
teachers of the church had in the preceding period maintained,
that by the brothers of Jesus mentioned in the New Testament
were to be understood the later-born sons of Mary — spater
geborne Sohne der Maria. Vol. iii. p. 458, Engl. Trans.
The other theory which Jerome scouted, maintains equally
with his that the dBeXcpol were not relations in near blood or
uterine brothers, but were children of Joseph by a former
marriage. This hypothesis seems to have been, if not origi
nated, yet perpetuated by the grammatical necessity of giving
dBeXcpb? its natural meaning on the one hand, and the theo
logical necessity, on the other hand, of maintaining the post
nuptial virginity of Mary. Cousinhood would suffice for the
dogma, but not for the philology. " Brothers," in the position
which they repeatedly occupy in the Gospels, could not well be
1 De Monogam. viii. Opera, vol. i. p. 772, ed. CEhler.
2 Advers. Marcion. xix. Opera, vol. ii. pp. 206-7.

78 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
relatives so distant as cousins ; but they might be earlier chil
dren of Joseph, yet related in no degree of blood to Jesus as
the son of Mary. Indeed, had they been the children of Mary
herself, they were only through her related to Jesus, who in
fatherhood was separated by an infinite distance from them.
This view is presented by Theophylact in a peculiar form
• — to wit, that they were the children of Joseph by a levirate
marriage with the widow of his brother Clopas who had died
childless.1 But was Joseph husband of the widow of Clopas
and of Mary mother of Jesus at one and the same time ? and
if this widow were the Mary wife of Clopas supposed by so
many to be the sister of the Virgin, what then would be the
nature of such a marital connection ? Or was Mary widow
of Clopas dead before he espoused the Virgin Mary ? Or are
the two women, unrelated in blood, called sisters because
married to two brothers ? There is no proof that such a con
nection would warrant a designation of sisterhood.
Now, first for the theory of step-brotherhood, there is no
explicit evidence in Scripture — no hint or allusion as to
Joseph's age or previous history. Nor are the dBeXcpol ever
called the sons of Joseph, as if to identify them more parti
cularly with him ; nor are they ever associated with him,
save remotely in the exclamation of the Nazarenes. Nor,
indeed, are they called the children of Mary, — through her
they are always associated with Jesus. Dr. Mill, however,
says that the theory "imparts a meaning to the Nazarenes'
wondering enumeration of those (now elder) brethren, which
on the other supposition is senseless." This is mere hypo
thesis. No question of comparative age has anything to do
with the sceptical amazement at Nazareth. The ground of
wonder was, how one member of a family still among them
selves, and with whom they were or had been so familiar,
could start into such sudden pre-eminence, — displaying such
wisdom and putting forth such unearthly power. As for the
1 His7ordsare: xlA<povS xxi xlfhtpd; uXiv 6 Kipwt nvs tow 'Imytp
Trxilxt ov; 'inxtv ix t% toS xh^ipou xvnv Khanx yuuxixii. ToS yxp
KXairx clTrxiiot rt-htutiiaxinot »' 'lwytp frx/ii xxrx rov p6fiov -ryu yuvxixx
xunu— the sequel being, that he begat by her six children— four sons and
two daughters, one of whom was Mary called daughter of Clopas accord
ing to the law, and the other Salome. — On Gal. i. 19.

JOSEPH'S CHILDREN. 79
" tone of authority " ascribed by Dr. Mill to the dBeXcpol, we
find it not ; the phrases, " desiring to speak with Him," and
in a spirit of unbelief urging Him to go up to the feast,
are certainly no proof either of it or of superior age on
which they might presume. For any appeal on this point
to Mark iii. 21 cannot be sustained : Kal aKovaavre<; ol irap
avrov etjrjXQov Kparrjaai avrov eXeyov yap, 'On efjearr).
Now the persons called here ot 77-ap' avrov, ol oIkbioi (diffe
rent, certainly, from ot 77-ept avrov (Mark iv. 10)), who wished
to seize Him under the impression that He was " beside
Himself," could not be exclusively the dBeXcpol who are
formally mentioned in a subsequent part of the same chap
ter, Mark iii. 31. Meyer, indeed, and many others identify
them. Nor can the phrase mean, " those sent by Him," or
the apostles ; nor can it denote the Pharisees ; — a most absurd
conjecture. Nor does it characterize a wider circle of disciples
(Lichtenstein, Lebens-geschich. d. Herrn. p. 216). Least of
all were they guest-friends who were with Him in some house
of entertainment (Strauss). Nor is it necessary, with Lange,
to include among them the apostles. The persons called ol
irap' avrov were relations of Jesus, either of near or remote
kinship. Bernhardy, p. 256; Susann. v. 33 ; Fritzsche, in loc.
The phrase ot 77-ap' avrov is plainly the nominative to eXeyov,
and 0^X09 cannot be the nominative to e^karr), as if they had
told Him that the multitude was mad against Him. The argu
ment of Hilary and Epiphanius, that if the brothers had been
sons of Mary herself, her dying son would have commended
her to one of them rather than to John, is just as strong
against the supposition that the brothers, though not her own
children, were Joseph's. Lange's theory, that Joseph had
undertaken the charge of his brother Clopas' children after
their father's death, so that the " brothers " were only foster-
brethren, is no less a hypothesis unsupported in Scripture than
the opposite one of Schneckenburger, that Joseph dying at
an early period, Mary became domiciled in the house of her
sister, wife of Clopas or Alphaeus, so that his children, brought
up under the same roof with Jesus, might be called His
brothers. Quite as baseless is the statement of Greswell, that
while the brothers were full brothers, the sisters of our Lord
were probably only His cousins, because they are said to be

80 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
living in Nazareth, while the brothers are supposed to have
their abode in Capernaum. But the notices in the Gospels
are too indistinct to warrant the opinion of such a separation
of abode ; and as the brothers were married (1 Cor. ix. 5),
why might not the sisters be married and settled in Nazareth?
If, then, the ordinary meaning of the term dBeXcpol is not to
be retained, or rather, if it is allowed to fifyrnp but inconsistently
refused to dBeXcpol in the same connection— an inconsistency
which would be tolerated in the biography of no other person ;
if mere cousinhood cannot be satisfactorily vindicated, — if it is
opposed to the natural sense, and rests on a series of unproven
and contradictory hypotheses ; and if the other theory of mere
affinity, unsupported by any statements or allusions in the
evangelical narrative, was yet the current opinion among the
fathers, — we may now inquire as well into their statement and
defence of it, as into the source whence they got it. If they
had it from tradition, was that tradition at all trustworthy ? If
Scripture is silent on some historical points, these points may
be found in some old tradition which details minuter or more
private circumstances of which inspiration has taken no cog
nisance. But if the general character of that tradition be
utterly fabulous and fantastic ; if its staple be absurd exag
geration and puerile legend ; if its documents are forgeries
composed in furtherance of error, pious frauds or fictions
ascribed in authorship to apostles or evangelists ; and if some
fragments are coarse and prurient as well as mendacious, —
then, as we cannot separate the true from the false, the reality
from the caricature, we must reject the entire mass of it as
unworthy of credit, unless when any portion may be confirmed
by collateral evidence. No one can deny, indeed, that there must
have been a real tradition as to many of those points in the
first century and in Palestine. The first two chapters of Luke,
with the exception of the exordium, are so Hebraistic in tone and
style, so minute in domestic matters and so full and so character
istic in individual utterances, that they must have been furnished
from traditions or from documents sacredly preserved in the
holy family. The relationship of the dBeXcpol must also have
been known to the churches in Galilee and Judaea ; and had it
been handed down to us on assured authority, we should have
accepted it without hesitation. But we have no such reliable

APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS. 81
record, nay, none earlier than the second century. One class
of documents very minute and circumstantial in detail as to
the family of Nazareth is utterly unworthy of credit, and
many of them were composed in defence of serious error.
The Clementine Homilies and Recognitions — dating somewhere
in the second century — support a peculiar form of Ebionitism ;
the "Gospel according to Peter"1 was Doketic in its doctrines
and aims, — so much so, that Serapion was obliged to denounce
it ; the Protevangelium of James is a semi-Gnostic travesty of
many parts of the sacred narrative, and might be almost pressed
into the service of the immaculate conception of Mary; the
" Gospel of St. Thomas " was Doketic also in its tendencies,
— filled with silly prodigies done by the boy Jesus from His
very cradle ; the " Gospel according to the Hebrews," or " the
Twelve Apostles," was translated into Greek and Latin by
Jerome : some fragments, however, which have been preserved
show that it has little connection with our canonical Matthew,
but was the work of early Jewish converts, manufactured from
some older narrative — perhaps from one of the products of the
many, iroXXol, who, according to Luke, had " taken in hand to
set forth in order a declaration of the things most surely be
lieved." If the tradition be uniform on any point, it deserves
attention, though one must still inquire whether any impres
sions or opinions might help to create and sustain such a be
lief, and what is its real value and authority ; for its authors,
instead of being independent witnesses, may be all of them
only repeating and copying without investigation what a pre
decessor had originated and diffused. Besides, if we find the
" brothers " called simply sons of Joseph, it is open for us to
question who their mother was. Might not the phrase, sons of
Joseph, mean children by her who is so familiarly known as
his wife in the sacred narrative ? We should maintain this
inference in any other case, if no other mother be distinctly
stated ; and the canonical Gospels are silent as to any earlier
conjugal relation of Joseph.
We may observe in passing, that it is remarkable that in
the genuine Gospels Joseph is not mentioned by name as father
1 Evangelia Apocrypha, ed. Tischendorf, 1853. See also the Testi-
monia et Censurx prefixed to each of the books by Fabricius in his Codex
Apocryphus Novi Test. 1763 F

'82 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
of Jesus, though it must have been the current belief on the
part of all who were ignorant of the supernatural conception,
or did not credit it. Mary indeed says, "Thy father and I ;"
but how else could she have alluded to the relation ? The con
temptuous exclamation was, " Is not this the carpenter's son ? "
or, " Is not this the carpenter ? " and then His mother Mary is
named in the same connection. Probably Joseph was dead by
that time, though his age cannot be certainly inferred from any
period assigned to his death. The sinister purpose of Strauss
is apparent in his explanation : " Joseph had either died early,
or had nothing to do with the subsequent ministry of his son.
But it is not improbable that, on dogmatic grounds, the person
who was not to be supposed to be the real father of Jesus was
removed from the traditions about him." Yet we cannot but be
struck with the fact, that while the inspired Gospels have so
little about Joseph, many of the apocryphal Gospels are full of
him, and give him a primary place, in the same way as they
abound with romance about the unrecorded infancy and early
years of Jesus. Such legends must be discarded ; and though
they are so closely interwoven, it is hard to discover in them
any thread or basis of genuine tradition. To proceed :
Origen is quite explicit in his belief that the brethren were
children of Joseph by a former wife. In his note on Matt.
xiii. 55, he states this opinion, says it was held by some
though not by all, and adopts it as his own.1 " And I think it
reasonable, that as Jesus was the first-fruit of purity and chas
tity among men, so Mary was among women; for it is not
seemly to ascribe the first-fruit of virginity to any other woman
than her." Again, on John ii. 12, "They were," he says,
" Joseph's children e'/c irpoTeQvt)Kvla<; yvvaiKo<;,hj a predeceased
wife.'' In the first quotation he ascribes this opinion to some
only, <f>acrl 7-11*9,— a minority perhaps is naturally designated
by the term. But what opinion was in that case held by the
majority ? Was it not- very probably that of uterine brother
hood rather than that of cousinhood? for the last upheld
1 Kxl oTftx, -kiyov Ixtn &»lp~uu ^ wdxprnnros rr,; h xyutix inap^v
yeyowx, «» Imouv, yuvxixw li ri, Mxpixfc. ... See Commentarii, vol.
l. p. 223, ed. Huet. No small amount of this kind of traditional lore
maybe found in Hofmann's Das Leben Jesu nach den Apocryphen, etc.,
Leipzig 1851. . f w » >

THE PASTORAL OF EPIPHANIUS. 83
the perpetual virginity equally with the view which Origen
espoused. If he took the same side, chiefly or solely, as he says
the persons referred to did, " to preserve the honour of Mary
in virginity throughout," and because of his own belief in the
same dogma, is it rash to infer that the other opinion, because
it denied it or set it aside, was rejected by him ? Origen traces
the opinion held by the "some," and advocated by himself,
only to the " Gospel of Peter, as it is called," or " the book of
James,"1 and does not claim for it a clear uninterrupted tradi
tion. He could have no great respect for those uncanonical
books, and he does not allude to any remoter relationship. Nor
does he hold his opinion consistently or firmly, for in one place
he assigns a wholly different reason, and in another place he
affirms that James was called the Lord's brother not so much
" oto to 7rpo9 aifiaro<; crvyyeve<;, as " oto to r)vo<; Kai rov
Xoyov" — " not so much on account of blood-relationship as on
account of his character and discourse." Contra Celsum, i. 35,
ed. Spencer. Origen had plainly made no investigation into the
matter, perhaps shrunk from it on account of his belief in the
perpetual virginity, and was ready to adopt any opinion of the
origin of the name that did not come into conflict with this belief.
Epiphanius wrote a treatise on the subject against the
Antidikomarianites, who, as their name implies, refused certain
honours to the blessed Virgin, — a sect, he says, " who from
hatred to the Virgin or desire to obscure her glory, or from
being blinded with envy or ignorance, and wishing to defile the
minds of others, dared to say that the holy Virgin, after the
birth of Christ, cohabited with her husband Joseph." At one
point of the treatise he incorporates an address which he had
formerly written against the sect, and dedicated 6fioirlo-Toi$
dpQoBbgois. The pastoral abounds in wailings, censures, and
expressions of astonishment at the audacity, profanity, and
ignorance of these heretics. " Who ever," he exclaims, " used
the name of the holy Mary, and, when asked, did not imme
diately add, the virgin?" But we still use the same epithet,
though with reference specially to the miraculous conception.
James, he adds, is called the Lord's brother, oitfi Kara cpvaiv
dXXd Kara %dpiv, — and Mary only appeared as the wife of
Joseph, fir) eypvcra irpbs avrov crcofidrcov avvdcpeiav. Joseph,
1 Tov kiriyiypxftfLivov xarx Tiirpo, svayyihiov xxi rijj /3//37iow Ixxufiov.

84 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS".
he goes on to say, was fourscore or upwards when the Virgin
was espoused to him, his son James being then about fifty ; and
his other sons were Simon, Joses, and Jude, and his daughters,
Mary and Salome,— these two names, he strangely avers,
being warranted by Scripture— rj ypacprj. In the Historia
Josephi they are called Asia and Lydia. His conclusion is :
ov yap avvrjcpQr) en irapQevos, fir) yivoiro. He then resorts to
another style of argument taken from cpvaioXoyitov cr^eaei^;
one of them being, that as the queenly lioness, after a gestation
of six-and-twenty months, produces a perfect animal which by its
birth makes physically impossible that of any second cub, so
the mother of the Lion of Judah could be a mother only once.
Joseph was old — irpeafivrov Kal virepf3dvTo<; rov %povov — at
the birth of Jesus with all its prodigies ; and though he had
been younger, he would not have dared to approach his wife
afterwards — ivvfiptfjeiv acbfia dyiov iv co KarcpKlaQr) @eo?.2 His
argument in a word is virtually this, that the cohabitation of
Joseph with Mary was on his part a physical and ethical im
possibility. Besides, - he maintains that as Jesus was irpcorb-
to/co? of the Father in the highest sense, dvco irpb irdar)<i Krlaeco<;,
and really alone in this relation— fiovoyevrjs ; so it was and
must have been also oh earth between Him and His mother.
And not to dwell upon it, the good father thought that he was
holding an even balance when he proceeds in his next section
to oppose the Collyridians, — a sect which offered to the Virgin
divine honours and such kind of meat-offering as was often
presented to Ceres. The theory of Epiphanius is quite clear
in its premises, but he finds difficulty in defending it out of the
simple evangelical narrative, and is obliged to guard it by proofs
taken from apocryphal legend and ascetic theology. Nay, he
has doubts of the Virgin's death;3 such is his extravagant
opinion of her glorification.
Hilary of Poitiers holds a similar view;4 and so does Hilary
1 Panaria, vol. ii. p. 428, etc.
2 E/ yxp xxi wpoatloxxro i) %xp6ivot ra ' Iwijtp ti; av,x<Psix, at oili iirt-
iixsro hx ri ynpx^h,. . . Again, vat dpx iroKpx ovi/x(p6ii,xi rri roaxuryi xxi
TOixury xyix rrxp&tvw Mxpix. . . — lb.
3 Oil 'hkyu on xdxvant 'iftttuM, «XX' oSrt lix(hs(Sxiovfixi ti nfoyxei/. — 76.
4 Verum homines pravissimi hinc presumunt opinionis sux auctoritatem
quodplures Dominum nostrum fratres habuisse sit traditum,—s.uc\ argues that

PROTEVANGELIUM OF JAMES. 85
the deacon or Ambrosiaster, on Gal. i. 19, one of his argu
ments being, that if these were His true brothers, Joseph was
His true father — si enim hi viri fratres ejus, et Joseph erit verus
pater ; while those who hold the opposite view, that is, of their
being veri fratres, are branded with insanity and impiety.
Gregory of Nyssa, brother of Basil the Great, also maintained
that Mary is called the mother of James and Joses as being
only their step-mother.
Now, as all these fathers held the perpetual virginity, they
were therefore shut up to deny the obvious sense of dBeXcpol.1
The theory of Joseph's previous marriage suited their views,
and they adopted it. It was already in existence, and they
cannot be accused of originating it to serve their purpose.
The theory of cousinhood was equally valid to their argument,
but they make no reference to it. Either they did not know
it, or they rejected it as not fitting in to the sacred narrative,
or as not coming up to what they felt must be the sense of the
term dSeXcpb?.
The apocryphal sources of these beliefs are well known.
The Protevangelium of James2 enters fully into the matter :
recounts the prodigies , attending the Virgin's birth, she being
the predicted daughter of Joachim and Anna ; describes the
wonders of her infancy, she being brought up in the temple
and fed by an angel ; tells how, when she was twelve years of
age, all the widowers among the people were called together
by the advice of an angel, each to bring a rod in his hand, —
that Joseph, throwing his hatchet down as soon as he heard
the proclamation, snatched up his rod, — that the rods were
they are children of Joseph ex priore conjugio, because Jesus on the cross
commended His mother to John and not to one of them. On Matt. i. —
Opera, vol. i. p. 922, ed. Migne.
1 Origen says explicitly : ol Se rxvra 'hiyontt to xi,iuy.x ryt Mxpix; i,
irxphnix rnpth piffli reXov? /Sofaovrxi. Comment, vol. i. p. 223, ed. Huet.
See Basil. Opera, vol. ii. p. 854, Paris 1839.
2 An old Syriac version of several of these documents may now be
thankfully read in the excellent edition of Dr. Wright, London 1865 ; and
see also, for another recension of some of them, in the Journal of Sacred
Literature, 1865. Ewald, in reviewing Dr. Wright's work, characterizes the
tract called Transitus Marix, or Assumption of the Virgin, as the source —
derfeste Grundfur alle die unselige Marienverehrung und hundert aberglau-
bische Dinge. . . . Der ganze Mariencultus der Pdpstlicher Kirche beruhet

86 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
received by the high priest, who, having gone into the temple
and prayed over them, returned them to their owners, — that
on the reception of his rod by Joseph a dove flew out of it and
alighted on his head, and that by this gracious omen he was
pointed out as the husband of Mary. But Joseph refused,
"saying, I am an old man with children;" and he was also
ashamed from so great disparity of years to have Mary regis
tered as his wife.1 The other incidents need not be recounted.
The pseudo-Matthew's Gospel is very similar, mentioning in
chap, xxiii. Joseph's four sons and his two daughters. In Codex
B, Tischendorf's edition, p. 104, Anna, mother of the Virgin,
is said on Joseph's death to have married Cleophas, by whom
she had a second daughter, named also Mary, who became the
wife of Alphaeus, and was mother of James and Philip, and
who on the decease of Cleophas married a third time, her
husband being Salome, by whom she had a third daughter,
named also Mary, who was espoused to Zebedee, and became
mother of James and John. It is needless to refer to the
other legends, unequalled in absurdity and puerility.
The Apostolical Constitutions do not give a decided testi
mony ; but they uniformly assert that the brother of our Lord
was not James the apostle, and reckon, with the addition of
Paul, fourteen apostles. James is severed alike from apostles,
deacons, and the seventy disciples. They speak in one place
of the mother of our Lord and His sisters (iii. 6) ; — James
more than once calls himself Kayco 'Ja/cwySo? dBeXcpb? fiev Kara
adpKa rov Xpiarov. viii. 35, etc. Constitut. Apostolicce, pp. 65,
79, 228, ed. Ueltzen. As the perpetual virginity is not in
sisted on in these writings, perhaps these extracts favour the
aufdiesem Buche. . . . Gutting, gelehrte Anzeigen, 1865. This statement is
true, though Pope Gelasius would not admit the document among the
canonical writings ; but the further truth is, that the appearance of this
tract, probably during the second half of the fourth century, shows that
the worship of Mary already existed. It did not originate the Marien-
cultus, but it is an index of that state of feeling out of which it had grown,
and by means of which it attained a rapid development, — the worship tsjj
¦xavxyix; hlo%pv horowv xxi dzmxpUvov Mxpix;. A Greek edition of the
same tract, Koipwit "j? Qsoroxov, is now also printed in Tischendorf's
Apocalypses Apocryphx, p. 95, Lipsise 1866.
1 An excellent edition of several of these Gospels may be found in
Hilgenfeld's Novum Testamentum extra Canonem receptum, Lipsise 1866.

TESTIMONY OF HEGESIPPUS. 87
idea that sisters and brothers are taken in their natural and
obvious meaning. The Clementine Homilies and Recognitions
give James the chief place among the apostles, as o Xe%Qel<;
dBeXcpol tov Kvpiov (Horn. xi. 35); which may either mean, one
who ordinarily went by that appellation, or one so called without
any natural right to the name, — called a brother as he was one,
or called a brother though not really one. As James, however,
was universally known by the title, the clause may be thought
to express real brotherhood. Recognit. i. 66, etc.
The testimony of Hegesippus has been variously under
stood. One excerpt preserved by Eusebius runs thus : "There
were yet living of the family of our Lord the grandchildren of
Jude called the brother of the Lord according to the flesh."1
Eusebius calls this same Jude " the brother of our Saviour
according to the flesh, as being of the family of David." The
participle Xeyofievos is doubtful in meaning; it may, refer to a
reputed brotherhood, or it may mean simply that such was the
common and real designation. Whatever be the meaning of
dBeXcpo<; — real or reputed brother — it cannot mean cousin.
Hegesippus supplies no hint that he did not believe the brother
hood to be a full and not simply a step-brotherhood. Again,
Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. ii. 23) inserts a long extract from
Hegesippus which gives a graphic account of James' death,
and in which he says " the church was committed, along with
the apostles, to James the brother of the Lord, who, as there
were many of the name, was surnamed the Just by all from
the Lord's time to our own." 2 In a subsequent excerpt from
Josephus, the same appellation is given to James, " the brother
of him who is called Christ." The meaning of another extract
1 "Et; Si irtpirioxv oi x%d yhov; nu Kvpiov vlauol 'lovhx tow xxrx oxpxx
teyofcipov xvmv xhthtyov. — Hist. Eccles. iii. 19, 20.
2 Aix^k%trxi ti rr\v ixx'hnaix, ptrx rati x%oarohav , 6 «Ss7i<pos rov Kvpiov
'Ixxufiot o ouof&xafalt uiro irxoruv Aixxiot in tZii toS Kvpiov %po,a, ftixpt
xxi ifiaa. Jerome's translation of ptrx by post, in the phrase pttrx tZi/
xmoarokuv, is wrong ; but Stier adopts it, as he holds that James AlphaBi is
referred to in Gal. ii. 9-12, and that he was the first head of the church
in Jerusalem, James the Lord's brother being his successor. Lange's
interpretation of fttrx rZ, xnroarohuv (in his article in Herzog) is quite
fallacious. The phrase plainly implies that James was not a primary
apostle ; but Lange argues that he was an apostle, and that only in hold
ing episcopal office was he distinct from the other apostles. The state-

88 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
from Hegesippus has been keenly disputed. He says : " After
James the Just had been martyred, as also the Lord was on
the same charge (or for the same doctrine), his uncle's son,
Symeon son of Clopas, is next appointed bishop, whom all
put forward as second, being a cousin of the Lord."1 The
meaning is, not that Symeon was another son of his uncle, or
another cousin in addition to James, as Mill and others con
tend, but that the second bishop was Symeon, son of Christ's
or James' paternal uncle Clopas ; that is, James is brother, but
Symeon is only cousin of the Lord. Hegesippus in another
place calls him o e/e Qelov rev Kvpiov 6 irpoeiprjfievo's Hvfiecov
i/ios KXcoird. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. iii. 32. Hug, Schnecken-
burger, and Lange suppose him to be the Apostle Simon the
Canaanite, who in the two lists of Luke is mentioned imme
diately after James Alphsei. See Bleek, Einleit. p. 544.
Hegesippus thus calls Symeon second bishop and cousin of
the Lord, and he carefully distinguishes between the rela
tionship of Symeon and James; for though Symeon was a
cousin, he never calls him the Lord's brother. Eusebius him
self does not speak distinctly on the subject when he says,
" James called the Lord's brother, because also He (oj5t<j?) was
called the son of Joseph, Joseph being thus regarded as the
father of Christ."2 He does not seem to mean that James
was called the son of Joseph, but that Jesus was so called.
There is, however, another reading, and the words do not
clearly assert what James' natural connection with Christ was.
If he was Christ's brother as Joseph was His father, then
there was no relationship in blood, and he might only be a
cousin ; or if outo9 refer to James, then James was a real as
ment that the superintendence of the church was committed to him along
with the apostles, excludes him from the number ; but Lange draws an
opposite inference, quoting in support of his exegesis, 6 Usrpot xxi xnaa-
n'Kot, Acts v. 29, which is a very different form of phrase. See Alford's
Prolegomena to the Epistle of James.
1 Mtrx to ftxpTvpwxt 'IxxufZov to, Aixxio,, at xxi o Kvpiot iirl r£ xvra
\iya, 7rxXi, o ix roil Dtiov xiirou ~2.v(j.su, a nv KXairx xxSiarxrxt ixioxoirot,
or irpoehrro %x,rt; o'rrx xreipior nv Kvpiov livrspo,. — Hist. Eccles. iv. 22,
p. 382, vol. i.
2 Tots Sjjt« xxi ' Ixxafio, ror nv Kvpiov Keyofieiio, xfe'KCpor, or/ Si) xxi
oun; nu 'Iawijip aiiofixon irxl;, nu li Xpitrrou vxrip o'laoitf). — Hist. Eccl.
ii. 1.

OBJECTIONS. 89
Jesus was a reputed son of Joseph ; and if a real son of Joseph,
why not by Mary? Eusebius {Comment, on Isaiah, xvii. 6),
in a mystical interpretation of the " gleaning of grapes" and
" shaking of the olive-tree," " two, three berries left on the top
of the uppermost bough, four, five on the outmost branches,"
makes out from the addition of those numbers that James was a
supplementary apostle as Paul was, counting fourteen apostles in
all.1 But the apocryphal theory of step-brotherhood was current
in that age, and Eusebius may be supposed to have held it, as
he does not formally disavow it. Cyril of Jerusalem distin
guishes James from the apostles, calls him ra eavrov dSeXcpco,
and the first bishop rij? irapoiKwi^ ravrr\<i — " of this diocese."
Catechesis, xiv. 11, p. 199 ; Opera, ed. Milles, Oxon. 1703.
Hippolytus may be passed over ; and the Papias who is some
times referred to, is, as Prof. Lightfoot has shown, not the
bishop of Hierapolis. The extract sometimes taken from this
Papias of the eleventh century may be found in Bouth's Reliq.
Sac. vol. i. p. 16.
If, then, the theory of step-brethren or cousins be sur
rounded with difficulties, and rest on many unproved hypo
theses ; if the one theory can be made the means of impugning
the other ; if the first has its origin in apocryphal books filled
with silly legend and fable, and the second has no true basis
in the evangelical narrative ; if both have been held from the
earliest times avowedly to conserve the ecclesiastical dogma of
the perpetual virginity ; and if there be nothing in Scripture
or sound theology to upset the belief that gives our Lord's
"brothers" the natural relationship which the epithet implies, —
what should hinder us from taking dBeXcpol in the same sense
as firjrnp 1
There are indeed objections, but none of them are of any
serious moment. One objection that weighs with many is thus
stated by Jeremy Taylor : " Jesus came into the world without
doing violence to the virginal and pure body of His mother ;
He did also leave her virginity entire, to be as a seal that none
might open the gate of that sanctuary." Life of Christ, § 3.
Bishop Bull also asserts, " It cannot with decency be imagined
that the most holy vessel which was thus once consecrated to
1 Similarly also Jerome, as before quoted. Compare also what he says,
Opera, vol. iv. p. 280.

90 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
be a receptacle of the Deity, should afterwards be desecrated
and profaned by human use." Bishop Pearson adds, " Though
whatever should have followed after could have no reflective
tendency upon the first-fruit of her womb, yet the peculiar emi-
nency and unparalleled privilege of that mother . . . have per
suaded the church of God to believe that she still continued in
the same virginity." Spanheim holds it as admodum probabile
sanctum hoc organum ad tarn eximium conceptum et partum a
Deo selectum non fuisse temeratum ab homine. Dubia Evang.
i. p. 225. Mill himself admits, " They hold themselves free to
include this doctrine as a matter of pious persuasion, but by
no means of the same gravity or indispensable necessity as the
belief of the immaculate conception." Mythical Interpretation
of the Gospels, p. 269. So also some Lutheran confessions,
Artie. Smalcald. p. i. art. 4, and in the Formula Concordia?.
Numerous persons of opposite views on many other points, as
Zwingli and Olshausen, Lardner and Addison Alexander of
Princeton, agree on this theme. Both Taylor and Pearson
quote Ezek. xliv. 2, the first as an argument, and the second
as an illustration of the dogma under review. The words of
the prophet are : " Then said the Lord unto me, This gate
shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter
in by it ; because the Lord, the God of Israel, hath entered
in by it, therefore it shall be shut." But these utterances
have no connection with the subject in any way. Still I
suppose that every one feels somewhat the force of the senti
ments contained in the previous extracts. They may be super
stitions, but they are natural even to those who by force of
evidence are not able to make the perpetual virginity an article
of faith. It is not, however, a belief basing itself on Scrip
ture even by one remote inference. That Jesus should be
born of a virgin, fulfilled prophecy ; still, whether virginity was
essential to immaculate conception is open to question, for the
mere suspension of male instrumentality would not remove the
sinfulness of the mother. But divine agency wrought out its
purpose in its own way, and the child of the Virgin was a
" holy thing." The supernatural origin of the babe did not
depend for its reality on her virginity, but very much for its
visible proof and manifestation. A second-born child might,
for anything we know, be born by immediate divine power,

GLORIES OF THE VIRGIN. 91
but the absence of human intervention would not so palpably
present itself. Jesus, virgin-born, was thus set apart in unique
and awful solemnity from all mankind, — as born pure, not
purified, — divine, not deified, — " the second Adam, the Lord
from heaven."
That the Virgin had no other children is the impression of
many who do not believe in the perpetual virginity. Thus
Lange says : " We must not forget that Mary was the wife of
Joseph. She was according to a ratified engagement depend
ent upon her husband's will. ... As a wife, Mary was subject
to wifely obligations ; but as a mother, she had fulfilled her
destiny with the birth of Christ. . . . And even for the very
sake of nature's refinement, we cannot but imagine that this
organism which had born the Prince of the new iEon would
be too proudly or too sacredly disposed to lend itself, after
bringing forth the life of Christ, to the production of mere
common births for the sphere of the old iEon." Life of Christ,
vol. i. 425, English Trans. But the theory of natural brother
hood throws no shadow over the glories of Mary, ever blessed
and pre-eminent in honour. It does not in any way lessen the
dignity of her who was so " highly favoured of the Lord " and
" blessed among women." For though one may shrink from
calling her QeoroKo? — Deipara,1 — an unwarranted epithet that
draws after it veneration and worship, — yet her glories, which
are without parallel and beyond imagination, and which are hers
and hers alone, are never to be veiled. For she was the elected
mother of a child whose Father was God, — her son " the only-
begotten of the Father;" through her parthenic maternity the
mystery of mysteries realized — " God manifest in flesh ;" her
offspring the normal Man, and the Redeemer of a fallen race
by His atoning blood, — the Man of Sorrows and the Lord
of all worlds, — crowned with thorns, and now wearing on His
brow the diadem of universal dominion, — the object of praise to
saints, to angels, and to the universe; for of that universe He
is the Head, in that very nature of which, through and in Mary
the mother-maid, He became a partaker.
It is therefore unfair on the part of Mill to allege against
the natural and obvious interpretation of the term dBeXcpol,
that it " aims at no less than the error of the grosser section of
1 James has also been called o xh'xcpoho;.

92 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
the Ebionites, who held that Jesus was in the same manner
her son as all the rest are supposed to have been." The two
beliefs have no natural alliance. Equally futile is it in the
same author to tell us that Helvidius was the disciple of an
Arian Auxentius, and that Bonosus is said to have impugned
the Divine Sonship. Mythical Interpretation of the Gospels,
pp. 221, 274. For whatever errors may have been held along
with the theory of natural relationship, and whatever the cha
racter of such as may have espoused it, it stands out from all
such adventitious elements of connection. One may hold it
and hold at the same time the supreme divinity of the Lord
Jesus Christ with most perfect consistency. It does not con
cern the cardinal doctrine of His divinity, nor the equally pre
cious doctrine of His true and sinless humanity. It impugns
not His immaculate conception, or His supernatural birth, He
being in a sense peculiar to Himself the seed of the woman,
the child of a virgin — Immanuel, " God with us." It refers
only to possibilities after the incarnation which do not in any
way affect its divineness and reality. It leaves her first-born in
the solitary glory of the God-man. Jesus indeed passed among
the Jews as the ordinary son of Joseph and Mary, yet this
belief was very erroneous ; but the ground of the error does
not apply to this theory. The first chapter of Matthew tells
the mystery of the incarnation, and the event is at once taken
out of the category of all ordinary births ; but if Mary had
other children, no such wonder surrounded them, and no mis
take could be made about them. The Jewish misconception as
to the parentage of Jesus could not be made regarding subse
quent members of His family, whose birth neither enhances
nor lessens the honour and the mystery of His primogeniture.
It was a human nature which He assumed ; they were persons
born into the world. Neither, then, in theology nor in piety,
in creed nor in worship, can this obvious theory of natural
relationship be charged with pernicious consequences. It is
vain to ask, Why, if there were births subsequent to that
of Jesus, are they not recorded? The inspired narrative
keeps steadily to its one primary object and theme — the life
of the blessed Saviour, first-born son of Mary and the Son of
God. Another objection against the natural interpretation of aSeX-

" STABAT MATER" ' 93
$o? is the repetition of names in the family of Mary and in
the company of the apostles; — James, Joses, Simon, and Judas,
brothers, — and two Jameses, two Simons, two Judes, among the
apostles. Or, identifying Clopas and Alphaeus, there would be
James and Joses as cousins ; and if the 'IovBas 'IaKcof3ov, Luke
vi. 16, Acts i. 13, be rendered " Jude brother of James," there
would be two sets of four brothers having the same names. It
is not necessary, however, to render the Greek phrase by
" brother of James," and the sons of Alphaeus are only James
and Joses. But surely the same names are found among
cousins every day, and would be more frequent in a country
where a few favourite names are continually repeated. There
are in the New Testament nine Simons, four Judes, four or
five Josephs ; and in " Josephus there are twenty-one Simons,
seventeen named Joses, and sixteen Judes." Smith's Diet.
Bible Antiq., art. " Brother."
A crowning objection against the view we favour is, that
Jesus upon the cross commended His mother to the care of
the beloved disciple. This objection, says Lightfoot, "has
been hurled at the Helvidian view with great force, and, as it
seems to me, with fatal effect ;" and Mill has also put it in a
very strong form. Hilary adopts the same argument, as also
Ambrose, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, and Jerome. That is to
say, if Mary had children or sons of her own, her first-born
would not have handed her over to a stranger. The objection
has never appeared to us to be of very great force ; for we
know nothing of the circumstances of the brothers, and there
may have been personal and domestic reasons why they could
not receive the beloved charge. They might not, for a variety
of reasons, be able to give Mary such a home as John could
provide for her. As we cannot tell, it is useless to argue. We
are wholly ignorant also of their peculiar temperament, and
their want or their possession of those elements of character
which wpuld fit them to tend their aged and widowed parent.
Especially do we know, however, that up to a recent period
they were unbelievers in her divine first-born ; and though He
who did not forget His mother in His dying moments fore
knew all that was to happen, still their unbelief might dis
qualify them for giving her the comfort and spiritual nursing
which she required, to heal the wounds inflicted by that "sword"

94 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
which was piercing her heart as she contemplated the shame
and agony of the adored Sufferer on the cross. Every atten
tion was needed for His mother at that very moment, and He
seized that very moment to commend her to John, who had
been to Him more than a brother, and would on that account
be to her more than a son. John was " standing by," and so
was His mother ; so that perhaps his ministrations to her had
already commenced. The close vicinity of the two persons
whom He most loved on earth suggested the words, " Woman,
behold thy son," who will supply, as far as possible, my place ;
"Son, behold thy mother:" be what I have been' to her.
" And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home."
The brothers might not be there, or might be unfitted, as poor
and unbelieving Galileans, for doing what John did, — for
immediate obedience to such a command. Nay, if the com
mendation of His mother to John in the words, " Behold thy
mother," be a proof that Jesus had no brothers, might it not
prove, on the other hand, that John had no mother ? Besides,
if James were either a cousin or half-brother, and therefore a
blood-relation, why in that case pass over him ? So that the
objection would tell against the theory of cousinhood, though
not so strongly as against that of brotherhood. Wieseler,1
indeed, contends that Salome was a sister of Mary, so that the
sons of Zebedee were cousins of our Lord, and that as Salome
was present at the crucifixion, John might designate her as the
"sister of Mary," just as he calls himself "the disciple whom
Jesus loved." No conclusive argument can thus be drawn from
this last scene of Christ's life as to the relation of the dBeXcpol
to Himself. Far from us, at the same time, be the thought of
Strauss, that the esoteric tendency of the fourth Gospel sets
aside the real brothers of Jesus as unbelieving, " in order to
enable the writer to transfer under the very cross the place of
the true son of Mary, the spiritual brother of Jesus, to the
favourite disciple."2
Nor has Benan's opinion anything in its favour. He ima
gines that the Virgin's sister, named Mary also, was wife of
Alphaaus ; that her children, cousins-german of Jesus, espoused
1 Die Sohne Zebeddi Vettern des Herrn. Studien und Kritiken, 1840
p. 648. 2 Neu Leben Jesu, § 31.

APOSTLES BEYOND THE TWELVE. 95
His cause, while His own brothers opposed Him ; and that the
evangelist, hearing the four sons of Clopas called brethren of
the Lord, has placed their names by mistake in Matt. xiii. 55,
Mark vi. 3, instead of the names of the real brothers who have
always remained obscure. Vie de Jisus, p. 25, 11th ed. The
statement is only a piece of gratuitous wildness, devoid even
of critical ingenuity. It has no basis, — is but a malignant
dream. But apart from these theories as to relationship, it seems
plain, for many reasons, that James the Lord's brother was
not one of the twelve, though he is virtually called an apostle
according to our exegesis of the verse. The name apostle was
given by Jesus specially to the twelve, Luke vi. 13 ; but it is
not confined to them. In 2 Cor. viii. 23 certain persons are
called diroaroXoi iKKXnaicov, and in Phil. ii. 25 Epaphroditus
is called vficov dirbaroXov. In these instances the word is used
in its original or common signification, and is not implicated in
the present discussion. But the title (see under i. 1) is given
to Barnabas, though Acts xiii. 2, 3 is not an account of his
consecration to the office, but of his solemn designation to
certain missionary work. In Acts xiv. 4, 14, he is called an
apostle, in the first instance more generally : crvv roit diroa
roXoi1;, that is, Paul and Barnabas ; and in the second, the
Words are ot diroaroXoi Bapvdfias Kal UauXo?. Compare
1 Cor. iv. 9, ix. 5 ; Gal. ii. 9. Besides, why should it be said
in 1 Cor. xv. 5, 7 that Jesus appeared " to the twelve," and
then "to all the apostles," if the two are quite identical in
number? Paul also vindicates himself and his fellow-
labourers, " though we might have been burdensome to you a>?
Xpiarov diroaroXoi," 1 Thess. ii. 6 — Silas being in all proba
bility the person so referred to by the honourable appellation
(Acts xvii. 4). In none of these cases, however, is any person
like Barnabas or Silas called an apostle directly and by him
self, but only in connection with one or other of the avowed
apostles. Again, in Rom. xvi. 7 Andronicus and Junia are
thus characterized : o'lnve<; elaiv eirurnfioi iv Tot? diroaro
Xoi'}, — rendered in our version, " who are of note among the
apostles." The meaning may either be, " highly esteemed in
the apostolic circle" (Reiche, Meyer, Fritzsche, De Wette),
or, " highly esteemed among the apostles," reckoned in some

96 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
way as belonging to them. Such is the more natural view,
and it is taken by the Greek fathers, by Calvin, Tholuck,
Olshausen, Alford. On the stricter meaning of the term dirba-
roXo<;, see under Eph. iv. 11. We cannot, however, agree with
Chrysostom, that the phrase " all the apostles," in 1 Cor. xv.
5-7, included such persons as the seventy disciples ; nor with
Calvin, that it comprehends discipulos etiam quibus evangelii
prcedicandi mnnus injunxerat ; since some distinction is appa
rently preserved between ordinary preachers and those who
in a secondary sense only are named apostles. For, as it is
pointed out by Professor Lightfoot, Timothy and Apollos are
excluded from the rank of apostles, and the others not of the
twelve so named may have seen the risen Saviour. Eusebius
speaks of very many apostles — irXelarcov.1 The Lord's brother,
then, was not of the primary twelve. He is placed, 1 Cor.
xv. 7, by himself as having seen Christ ; or rather, Cephas
is mentioned, and then " the twelve," of which Cephas was
one ; James is mentioned, and then " all the apostles," of
which James was one. One cannot omit the beautiful legend
founded apparently on this appearance : " The Lord after His
resurrection went to James and appeared to him, for James
had sworn that he would not eat bread from that hour in
which he had drunk the cup of the Lord until he had seen
Him risen from the dead. Then He said, Bring hither a
table and bread. Then He took bread, and blessed it, and
brake it, and gave it to James the Just, and said to him, My
brother, eat thy bread, for the Son of man has risen from
the dead." This scene is taken by Jerome from the Gospel
according to the Hebrews, which he translated into Greek and
Latin. De \iris lllustr. ii. Some for biberat calicem Domini
read Dominus, and render " before the Lord drank the cup,"
or suffered. The Greek has ireircoKei to irorrjpiov b Kvpiov
which is also the more difficult reading. The other readme-
Domini, would imply that the Lord's brother had been present
at the Lord's Supper. The writer of the legend did not, how
ever, regard him as one of the twelve.
James appears as the head of the church in Jerusalem
and is called simply James in Acts xii. 17 and in Acts xv. 13.
Such was his influence, that his opinion was adopted and em-
1 Hist. Eccles. i. 12, p. 77, ed. Heinichen.

OBJECTIONS OF LANGE. 97
bodied in the circular sent to " the churches in Antioch, and
Syria, and Cilicia." Acts xv. 13. Paul, on going up to the
capital to visit Peter, saw James also, as we are told in Gal.
i. 19 ; and on his arrival at Jerusalem many years afterwards,
he at once " went in with us unto James " — 7rpo? 'IdKco/3ov, —
a. formal interview. Acts xxi. 18. In Gal. ii. 9, too, we read,
" James, and Cephas, and John, who were reputed to be
pillars," — most naturally the same James, the Lord's brother,
referred to in the first chapter ; and again in the same chapter
reference is thus made — " certain came from James." James
was thus an apostle, though not one of the twelve.
The original apostles were, according to their commis
sion, under the necessity of itinerating ; but the continuous
residence of James in the metropolis must have helped to
advance him to his high position. Lange, indeed, objects,
that " on such a supposition the real apostles vanish from the
field," and quite correctly so far as the book of Acts is con
cerned. For the assertion is true of the majority, or of eight
of them; and a new apostle like James — he of Tarsus — fills the
scene. Another of Lange's objections is, " the utter unten-
ableness of an apocryphal apostolate by the side of that insti
tuted by Christ."1 But his further inference, that the elevation
of James to a quasi-apostolate lifts Jude and Simon, too, to a
similar position, is without foundation as to the last. The
apostleship of Paul, however, is so far of the same class ; only
he became through his formal call equal to the twelve in rank,
— his grand argument in that paragraph of the epistle out of
one statement of which the previous pages have sprung. Jude
and James were not regarded as primary apostles, and could not
claim such a standing, though they received the general name.
True, the book of Acts is silent about James Alphaei, and in
troduces without any explanation another James. But if this
James had been the son of Alphaeus, he would probably have
been so designated, as, indeed, he is everywhere else. One
may reply, indeed, that the paternal epithet is omitted because
by this time James son of Zebedee had been slain, and there
remained but one of the name. Still, it would be strange that
he is not formally called an apostle, when there is nothing said
1 Die vbllige Unhaltbarkeit eines apokryphischen Apostehtandes neben
dem von Christus gestifteten Apostolat. G

98 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
to identify him. A James unidentified is naturally taken to be
a different person from one who is always marked by a patro
nymic. And to how few of the apostles is there any reference
made at all in the Acts ! Luke's habit is not to identify for
mally or distinguish persons in the course of his narrative. It
is therefore worse than useless on the part of De Wette to
insinuate that Luke has exchanged the two Jameses in the
course of his history, or forgotten to distinguish them. The
apostles at the period of Paul's visit were probably absent from
Jerusalem on missionary work. Peter and John happened to
be there; but James was the recognised or stationary head.
The difficulty, too, is lessened, if, with Stier,1 Wieseler,2 and
Davidson,3 we take the James whose opinion prevailed in the
council, and who is mentioned in Gal. ii. 9, to be the apostle,
son of Alphaeus ; but the view does not harmonize with the
uniform patristic tradition.
The relation which James bore to Christ must also have
invested him with peculiar honour in the eyes of the Jewish
church. Nor was his character less awful and impressive; he was
surnamed " the Just." According to Hegesippus, he was holy
from his mother's womb, and lived the life of a Nazarite, —
neither shaved, nor bathed, nor anointed himself ; wore linen
garments ; was permitted once a year to enter the holy of
holies ; and was so given to prayer, that his knees had become
callous like a camel's. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. ii. 23. Much of
this, of course, is mere legend. Yet, though he was a believer,
he was zealous of the law, — a representative of Jewish piety,
and of that peculiar type of it which naturally prevailed in
the mother church in Jerusalem, still the scene of the temple
service, and the centre of all sacred Jewish associations. In
his epistle the same elements of character are exhibited. The
new dispensation is to him vbfio<s, but vbfios rrj<; iXevQeplas.
He was a stranger to all the practical difficulties which had
met Paul and Peter who had to go and form churches among
the uncircumcised ; for his circle was either of Jews or cir
cumcised proselytes. He was the natural head of the " many
thousands of Jews who believed, and who were all zealous of
1 Andeutungen, i. 412.
2 Ueber die Bruder des Herrn. Studien und Kritihen, 1st Heft, 1842.
3 Introduction to New Testament, vol. iii. p. 310.

JAMES THE JUST. 99
the law " (Acts xxi. 20) ; and he was able to guide the extreme
party, for they had confidence in his own fervent observance
of " the customs." l
Such was his great influence even in distant places, that
when " certain came" from him to Antioch, Peter dissembled,
and even Barnabas succumbed. His shadow overawed them
into a momentary relapse and inconsistency. His martyrdom,
recorded by Hegesippus, and by Josephus in a paragraph the
genuineness of which has been questioned, was supposed by
many 2 to have brought on the siege of Vespasian as a judg
ment on the city. St. James is glorified in the Clementines as
" lord, and bishop of bishops."3 In the Chronicon Paschale he
is called apostle and patriarch of Jerusalem, and is said to have
been enthroned by Peter on his departure for Rome (vol. i.
460, ed. Dindorf). So strangely do opinions grow into ex
tremes, that Victorinus the Rhetorician, a man mentioned
cautiously by Jerome,4 but extolled by Augustine,5 denies
James to be an apostle, affirms him to be in hceresi, and
reckons him the author of those Judaistic errors which had
crept into the Galatian churches. His interpretation is : "I
saw James the Lord's brother (habitus secundum carnem) ; as
if Paul meant thereby to affirm, ' You cannot now say, " Thou
deniest James, and therefore rejectest the doctrine we follow,
because thou hast not seen him." But I did see him, the first
promulgator of your opinions — ita nihil apud me valuit.'' " " The
Symmachians make James," he adds, "a supernumerary apostle,
quasi duodecimum, and all who add the observance of Judaism
to the doctrine of our Lord Jesus Christ follow him as master."6
On a question so difficult, critics, as may be supposed, are
much divided. Against the theory put forward in the pre
vious pages are Baronius, Semler, Pott, Schneckenburger,
1 What the name 'n/3A/«?, given him by Hegesippus, means, it is im
possible to say, for no solution is satisfactory. See Heinichen's note,
Routh's Reliquix Sacrx, vol. i. p. 233, 2d ed. ; Fuller's Miscellanea Sacra,
lib. iii. cap. i. ; Suicer, sub voce ; Schaff, Kircheng. § 35.
2 As Hegesippus, in Euseb. Hist. Eccl. ii. 23.
3 T5 xvpia xxi Wusxoica, inrnxortq, ~hii<xo,ri \i ri, lipovox'h'/iii xyixv
"E/ipxiav ixx'Kno-iav.—Homilix, p. 10, ed. Dressel.
4 De Viris Illust. cap. 101.
5 Confessionum, lib. viii. cap. 2, vol. i. p. 252, Paris 1836.
6 Mai, Script. Vet. Nova Collectio, vol. iii.

100 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
Guericke, Steiger, Olshausen, Lange, Hug, Friedlieb, Lich-
tenstein, and Arnaud ; on the other side are De Wette, Rothe,
Herder, Neander, Stier, Niedner, Winer, Meyer, Ewald,
Gresswell, Wieseler in a paper Veber die Briider des Herrn,
Stud, und Kritik. 1 Heft, 1842 ; Blom, Disputatio de roif
dBeXcpois Kal rat? dBeXcpai? rov Kvpiov, Lugduni Batav. 1839;
Schaff, das Verhaltniss des Jacobus Bruders des Herrns zu
Jacobus Alphcei auf Neue exegetisch und historisch untersucht,
Berlin 1843. In a later work (Church History, § 95, 1854),
Dr. Schaff has modified his view of some of the proofs adduced
by him, saying that he had made rather too little of the dog
matic argument against the supposition that Mary had other
children, and of the old theory that the brothers were sons of
Joseph by a former marriage (vol. ii. p. 35, English transl.).
See also an essay of Laurent, Die Briider Jesu, in his Neu-
testamentliche Studien, Gotha 1866.

CHAPTER II. 1-10.
AFTER his conversion, the apostle had held no consulta
tion as to his course or the themes of his preaching
with the other apostles; and in proof he still continues his
narrative. He had been in Jerusalem once, and had seen Peter
and James, but he had stayed only for a brief period. The
apostles whom he met did not question his standing, neither
did they sanction his commission nor add to his authority. He
now in his historical argument refers to another visit to Jeru
salem, when he saw the cHief of the apostles ; but met them
as an equal, on the same platform of official status, and took
counsel with them as one of the same rank and prerogative.
Nay more, at a subsequent period he confronted the eldest,
boldest, and most highly honoured of them, when he was in
error ; did not privately warn him or humbly remonstrate with
him as an inferior with a superior, but solemnly and publicly,
as one invested with the same authority, rebuked Cephas, the
apostle of the circumcision.
Ver. 1. "Eireira Bid Bexareacrdpcov ircov iraXiv dvefinv et?
'IepocroXvfia fierd Bapvdfia, avfiirapdXa/3d>v Kal Tirov — " Then
after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barna
bas, having taken along with me also Titus." "Eireira marks
another step in the historical argument, as in vers. 18 and 21 of
the previous chapter, — another epoch in his travels and life.
The period is specified by Bid BeKareaadpcov ircov — "after four
teen years." It is vain to disturb the reading, as if it might be
read reaadpcov (Bid IB1 ircov changed into Bid 8 ircov), as is
maintained by Semler, Capell, Guericke, Rinck, Winer, Reiche,
and Ulrich in Stud. u. Kritik. 1836. The Chronicon Paschale,
sometimes adduced, is no authority, nay, very probably it also
read fourteen years, as it computes them from the ascension —
a7ro 7-779 dvaXrjyjrew;. Vol. i. p. 436, ed. Dindorf. See Anger,
101.

102 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
Wieseler, and the reply of Fritzsche, Fritzschiorum Opuscula,
p. 160, etc.
The phrase Bid BeKareaadpcov ircov is rightly rendered
" after fourteen years," Bid denoting through the whole period,
and thus emphatically beyond it or at the end of it ; post in
the Vulgate, Acts xxiv. 17, Mark ii. 1, 4 Mace. xiii. 21, Deut.
ix. 11 ; Xen. i. 4, 28 ; Winer, § 47 ; Bernhardy, p. 235. Thus
Sta xpbvov, "after a time," Sophocles, Philoct. 285, wrongly
rendered by Ellendt " slowly," — nor is the translation of
Wunder and Ast more satisfactory ; Bid ypbvov, Xen. Mem. ii.
8, 1, and Kiihner's note ; Bi erovi, in contrast with ififirjvov<;,
Lucian, Paras. 15, vol. vii. p. 118, ed. Bipont. Hermann, ad
Viger. 377, remarks, Bid yjpbvov est interjecto tempore. Schaefer,
Bos, Ellips. p. 249, ed. London 1825. In Deut. ix. 11, the
unmistakeable Hebrew phrase J*i?p, " at the end of " forty days,
etc., is rendered by the Sept. Bid reaaapaKovra rjfiepcov. Others
give Bid a different sense, the sense of intra: at some point
within the fourteen years, in which I have been a Christian.
CEder, Rambach, Theile, Schott, and Paulus take this view.
The preposition apparently may bear such a sense, though
Meyer denies it, Acts v. 19, xvi. 9. But with such a meaning,
we should have expected the article or the demonstrative pro
noun. Nor would the expression with such a sense have any
definite meaning, as it would afford no distinct date to give
strength and proof to the apostle's statement of self-depen
dence. But the main question is, From what point does the
apostle reckon the fourteen years ?
1 . Many date it from the journey mentioned in i. 18, as
Jerome, Usher, Bengel, Winer, Meyer, Usteri, Riickert, Trana,
Reiche, Jatho, Bisping, Hofmann, Prof. Lightfoot, Kamp-
hausen in Bunsen's Bibelwerk, and Burton, Works, vol. iv. p. 45.
2. Some date it from his conversion, as Estius, Olshausen,
Fritzsche, Hilgenfeld, Windischmann, Wieseler, Meyer, Ebrard;
also in former times, Baronius, Spanheim, Pearson, and Light
foot. 3. Others date it from the ascension, as the Chronicle re
ferred to, Peter Lombard, and Paulus. This last opinion may
be discarded, and the difficulty lies between the previous two.
It does seem at first sight in favour of the first view, that
the apostle has just spoken of a previous journey; and now when

CHAP. II. 1. 103
he writes eireira . . . iraXiv, you may naturally infer that he
counts from it. And then, as it is part of his argument for his
independent apostolate to show, how long a time he acted by
himself and in no concert with the other apostles, the dating of
the time from his first journey adds so much more weight to
his declaration, so much longer an interval having elapsed ; and
he also places Bid BeKareaadpcov in the position of emphasis.
Yet the second opinion is the more probable. The grand
moment of his life was his conversion, and it became the point
from which dates were unconsciously measured, — all before it
fading away as old and legal, all after it standing out in new
and spiritual prominence. His conversion divided his life, and
supplied a point of chronological reference. As he looked
back, it faced him as a terminus from which he naturally
counted. Not only so, but in the commencement of this vindica
tion he recurs to his conversion and its results, for it severed his
former from his present self, and it was not till three years after
it that he went up to Jerusalem. He lays stress on the lapse
of so long a time, wishing it to be noted that he speaks of
years, and so he writes fierd err) rpla, the emphasis on err/ ;
but now, the idea of years having been so emphatically ex
pressed, when he refers again to them, their number becomes
prominent, and he writes, as if still reckoning from his conver
sion, Sta BeKarecradpcov ircov. Had this verse occurred imme
diately after i. 18, we might have said that the fourteen years
dated from the first visit to Jerusalem ; but a paragraph inter
venes which obscures the reference, and describes some time
spent and some journeys made in various places. It is natural,
therefore, to suppose, that after a digressive insertion, the
apostle recurs to the original point of calculation — his conver
sion. The second eireira of this verse thus refers to the same
terminus a quo as the first in i. 18, and he now uses Bid, not a
second fierd, as if to prevent mistake.
IldXiv dvef3r)v — " I again went up." On the question, with
which of the visits of the apostle to Jerusalem recorded in the
Acts of the Apostles this visit is to be identified, see remarks
at the end of this section, after ver. 10. The iraXiv does not
qualify fierd Bapvdf3a, as if, according to Lange, a previous
journey with Barnabas had been alluded to. Paul on this
journey was the principal person, Barnabas being in a subordi-

104 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
nate, and Titus in a still inferior relation. Acts xv. 2. There
had, indeed, been an intermediate visit (Acts xi. 29, 30) ; but
the apostle makes no allusion to it, either because he was sent
up on a special errand of beneficence, or because, as under the
Herodian persecution the apostles might be absent, he did not
see any of them (Spanheim). The record of this visit was not,
on that account, essential to his present argument, and the mere
use of iraXiv will not prove that this second visit is the one
intended. Compare John xxi. 1, 14.
$vfiirapaXa(3cbv Kal Tlrov — "having taken with me also
Titus : " " also," as he is going to speak of him immediately,
and he is thus singled out from the nva<; dXXov; of Acts xv.
2. Compare Job i. 4. The precise circumstances attending
this visit are minutely dwelt on, as corroborating his statement
that he was an accredited apostle, working and travelling under
a parallel commission with the others for a lengthened period.
Therefore he adds —
Ver. 2. , Avkf3rp> Be Kara airoKaXv^riv — " But I went up by
revelation." Jerusalem stood on a high plateau ; but to " go
up " refers, as with us, to it as the capital. 1 Kings xii. 28 ;
Matt. xx. 17, 18 ; Mark iii. 22 ; Acts xv. 2, etc. See C. B.
Michaelis, Dissertatio Chorographica notiones superi et inferi
evolvens, etc., § 37, in vol. v. of Essays edited by Velthusen,
Kuinoel, and Ruperti. Lest the visit should be misunderstood,
the dvefinv is repeated and put in emphasis, while the iterative
and explanatory Se at once carries on the argument, and has a
sub-adversative force : I went up, as I have said, " but I went
up according to revelation." Klotz-Devarius, ii. 361 ; Har-
tung, i. 168. The nature of that divine revelation we know
not. The apostle was no stranger to such divine promptings.
He had received the gospel by revelation, and in the same way
had often enjoyed those divine suggestions and counsels which
shaped his missionary tours. Acts xvi. 6, 7, 9. The apostles
did not summon him to account, asking why he had assumed
the name and professed to do the work which so specially be
longed to them. Granville Penn renders Kara diroKaXv^riv
" openly," palam, as if opposed to Kar' IBlav, privately, — a use
less departure from usage.1 Schrader, Schulz, and Hermann
render the same phrase in the words of the latter : explicationis
1 Morehead proposes to put a comma after x%oxxKv^i, : " I went up

CHAP. II. 2. 105
causa, ut patefieret inter ipsos, qua? vera esset Jesu doctrina.
The preposition itself may bear such a meaning (Winer, § 49),
but this phrase cannot ; for it would be contrary to the New
Testament use of the noun, and would be1 in the face of the
apostle's very argument for his independent position. Nor is
Kara nva diroK. required for the common interpretation. See
Eph. iii. 3 ; also, Gal. i. 12, 16. The apostle does not specify
the individual revelation, but affirms absolutely that it was under
revelation that he went up, and not under human suggestion
or control. He went up " by revelation," not by a particular
revelation. Yet the turn given to the words by Whitby is
inadmissible: "according to the tenor of my revelation, which
made me an apostle of the Gentiles." What happened in
Jerusalem is next told :
Kal dveQefivv avrois to eva/yyeXiov b Knpvaaco iv Tot? eQveai
— " And I communicated to them the gospel which I preach
among the Gentiles."
'AveQifinv is rendered in the Vulgate eontuli cum eis. Com
pare Acts xxv. 14 ; 2 Mace. iii. 9 ; and Wetstein in he. It
does not exactly mean, "to leave in the hands of" (Green,
Gr. Gram. p. 82), but to tell with a view to confer about it.
Jerome adds : inter conferentes cequalitas est. The noun im
plied in avroi\ is to be found in the term 'IepoaoXvfia — no un
common form of antecedent. Matt. iv. 23, ix. 35, xi. 1, xii. 9 ;
Luke v. 14 ; Aets viii. 5 ; Winer, § 22, 3, a ; Bernhardy, p. 288.
The avToi? are the Christians in Jerusalem, not the elders, as
is held by Winer hesitatingly, and by Matthies decidedly —
auf die Vorsteher und Aeltesten in der Gemeinde ; nor yet the
apostles (Calvin, Schott, and Olshausen), — a view which would
not only make a distinction among the apostles, but also a dif
ference in the mode and extent of the communication, as if he
had told as much as he chose to the apostolic college, but
opened himself more fully and unreservedly to a select com
mittee of them. The gospel propounded by him was —
A0 Knpvaaco iv tok eQveaiv — the present indicating its
continuous identity and his enduring work ; that conference
made no change upon it. The gospel so characterized was,
indeed, the great scheme of mercy, but especially in the free
and communicated according to revelation," or, according to his own full
light, his gospel to them. — Explanation of Passages, etc., Edin. 1843.

106 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
form in which he presented it, — unhampered by legal or Mosaic
restrictions, unconditioned by any distinctions of race or blood
— rb Y»pt? irepirofir}<;, as Chrysostom describes it — its charac
teristic tenet being justification without works of law. Though
he was speaking in the heart of Judaism, and among Jewish
believers who were zealous of the law, he did not modify his
vocation in describing it, or present it as his exceptional work.
Where it was most suspected and opposed, where it was sure
to provoke antipathy, he gloried in it. But, as if correcting
himself, he suddenly adds —
Kar IBlav Be roi<; BoKovaiv — "but privately to them of
reputation." These words seem to qualify the auTot? and to
confine them to a very particular class, though to state the
persons communicated with, first so broadly and then with
pointed restriction, seems peculiar. Some therefore suppose
that there were two conferences — a first and more public one,
and a second and more select one. Such is the view of De
Wette, Meyer, Windischmann, Ellicott, Bisping, and many
others. But why should the apostle first to all appearance
proclaim his gospel publicly, and then afterward privately — first
to the mass, and then to a coterie ? The doctrine of reserve
propounded by the Catholic Estius is not to be admitted. We
prefer the view of Chrysostom who admits only one confer
ence ; and he is followed by Calovius, by Alford apparently,
and Webster and Wilkinson. There is no occasion, however,
to mark the clause with brackets, as is done by Knapp. Going
up under revelation, the apostle made known his gospel "to those
in Jerusalem, privately, however, to them who were of repu
tation." The reason, as given by Theodoret, is, that so many
were zealous for the law — £i7rep rov vbpiov tyjXov e^ovre^. That
there was a public meeting and discussion is true, as recorded
in Acts xv. ; but the apostle does not allude to it here in defi
nite terms. He seems to state the general result first, and
then, as if referring to the revelation under which he acted, he
suddenly checks himself, and says he communicated with them
of reputation. Thus he may have distinguished his general
mission, which is perhaps alluded to in Acts xv. 4, from the
special course of conduct which his revelation suggested. The
church at Antioch deputed the apostle in consequence of the
Judaizers; the Judaizers in Jerusalem thought their cause

CHAP. II. 2. 107
betrayed by the favourable reception given to Paul, and their
agitation in the metropolis seems to have necessitated the pub
lic conference. But " the revelation" may have referred more
to the matters which were treated of in confidence with the
noted brethren.
The phrase Kar' IBlav is "privately." Matt. xvii. 19, xx.
17, xxiv. 3; Mark iv. 34. It does not mean "especially"
(Baur), or "preferably," as Olshausen and TJsteri give it.
The margin of the common version has " severally," and the
Genevan reads " particularly ; " but the Syriac correctly,
,001^0 ¦ - i • *">, " between me and them." It corresponds to
t'Sta in the classics as opposed to Koivy or Bnfioala. The pecu
liar phrase roi<; BoKovai is rightly rendered, " to them which
are of reputation" — eVio-i^tot? (Theodoret), or, as Hesychius
defines it, ot evBo^oi. There needs no supplied insertion of n
after the participle, as Bagge supposes. Thus JElian says
of Aristotle, crocpb'} dvrjp Kal eov Kal elvai Bokcov, Hist. Var.
xiv. ; dBogovvrcov is in contrast with Bokovvtcov, in reference
to the weight of their word or opinions. Euripides, Hecuba,
294, 295. Pflugk in his note refers to Pindar, Nem. vii. 30,
dBoKnrov ev Kal BoKeovra ; to Eurip. Troad. 608, and Heracl.
795. See Pindar, 01. xiii. 56, and Dissen's note. Borger quotes
from Porphyry a clause in which rd irXtjOi) is in contrast to ot
Bokovvtb?. Similarly the Hebrew 3BTI. See Fiirst, Lex. sub voce.
Wycliffe's version is wrong in rendering "to those that semeden
to be summewhat." And there is no ground for the supposition
of Cameron, Riickert, Schott, and Olshausen, that the phrase
was chosen as one often in the mouths of the party who pre
ferred them as leaders. Nor is there any irony in it, for the
apostle is making a simple historical reference — Tot? Kopvcpaloi<;
(CEcumenius) — to his intercourse with them and its results, — all
as confirmatory of his own separate and independent commission.
Mrj irco<s et? Kevbv rpeyto rj eBpafiov — " lest I might be run
ning or have run in vain." The figure of the two verbs is a
common one. Phil. ii. 16 ; 2 Tim. iv. 7 ; Gal. v. 7 ; and also
1 Cor. ix. 24, Heb. xii. 1. The meaning of et? Kevbv, "in
vain," may be seen, 2 Cor. vi. 1, Phil. ii. 16, 1 Thess. iii. 5,
Sept. Isa. lxv. 23 ; Kypke, in loc. It is surely prosaic in
Jowett to refer eBpafiov to the journey to Jerusalem, which he

108 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
had already accomplished. Homberg, Gabler, Paulus, and
Matthies connect this clause with Tot? BoKovaiv — qui putabant
mum forte in vanum currerem. Wieseler says that he mentions
this connection simply as a philologische Antiquitdt.
Allied to this view is one originally held by Fritzsche (Con-
jectanea), by Green, and similarly by Wieseler, that firj irco<s
may mean num forte. In such a case the verb is in the present
indicative. Green renders it thus : " I laid my gospel before
them, that they might judge whether I was running or had
run in vain" (Gr. Gram. pp. 80-83). But firj irco<; is ne forte,
and is dependent on dveQe/ir)v. Hofmann also regards the clause
as a direct question to which a negative answer is anticipated ;
but the question in such a case would, as Meyer says, be made
by et 77-a>?. CEcumenius proposes also to take it Kar ipcornaiv,
but as containing a confirmatory result, that he had not run in
vain. Gwynne, finding that all his predecessors have mistaken
the real meaning, thus puts it : "I submitted the gospel which
I preach among the Gentiles, so that I run not now, nor was
then running in vain;" but it is simply ungrammatical to
make firj irco<; signify adeo non, and his doctrinal arguments
rest on a misconception. At the same time the inference of
Augustine is too strong, that if Paul has not conferred with
the apostles, ecclesia illi omnino non crederet. Contra Faust.
lib. 28. The verb Tpe%a> is subjunctive, 1 Thess. iii. 5, and
eBpafiov indicative. Stallbaum, Plato, Phced. p. 84, E, vol. i.
127-8. It does not require that the first should be indica
tive because the second is, for the use of the mode depends
on the conception of the writer. Kriiger, § 54, 8, 9. The
first verb in the present subjunctive, where perhaps an opta
tive might have been expected, describes Paul's activity as still
lasting; and the past eBpafiov is regarded by Fritzsche in a hypo
thetical sense — proposui . . . ne forte frustra cucurrissem,— that
is to say, which might perchance have been the case if I had
not held this conference at Jerusalem. Or the change of mood,
causing also change of tense, may mark that the event appre
hended had taken place. Winer, § 56, 2, and examples in
Gayler, Partic. Negat. p. 327 ; A. Buttmann, p. 303. There was
fear in the apostle's mind of something disastrous, and that
generally is expressed : " whether I be running or had run in
vain," — the idea of apprehension being wrapt up in the idiom.

CHAP. II. 2. 109
Matt. xxv. 9 ; Rom. xi. 21. But to what does or can the apostle
refer ?
1. The et? Kevbv cannot refer to his commission, the validity
of which depended not on human suffrage, and of which he
never could have any doubt, nay, which he was employed at
that moment in justifying.
2. Nor can the phrase refer to the matter of his preaching.
He had received it by revelation, and its truth was independent
altogether of the results of any conference or the decisions of
any body of men. Chrysostom asks, " Who would be so sense
less as to preach for so many years without being sure that his
preaching was true?1' Some Catholic expositors hold, however,
that his preaching needed the sanction of the other apostles or
of the church. See Corn. a-Lapide, in loc, who stoutly con
tends against all Novantes or Reformers who do not act like
Paul, and consult mother church.
3. Nor can the words mean that he doubted the efficacy
or success of his labours. So many sermons preached, so many
sinners converted, so many saints blessed and revived, so many
churches founded, so many baptisms administered by himself
or in connection with his apostleship and followed so often by
the visible or palpable descent of the Divine Spirit, were surely
manifold and unmistakeable tokens that he had not run in vain.
And these realities were unaffected by the opinions of any parties
in Jerusalem. Tertullian is bold enough in hitting Marcion
to barb his weapon by the supposition, that the apostle was in
doubt as to his system, that he wished auctoritas antecessorum et
fidei et prcsdicationi sum. Adver. Marcion. iv. 2, vol. ii. p. 163,
Opera, ed. CEhler.
4. Nor probably can we regard the whole matter as merely
subjective, with Chrysostom, Beza, Borger, Winer, Riickert,
Meyer, and Ellicott, — that is, lest in the opinion of others I be
running or had run in vain; or as Theodoret plainly puts it, ov
irepl eavrov reQeiKev dXXd irepl riov aXXcov. This, we apprehend,
is only the truth partially, not wholly. It was not the mere
opinion others might form of the gospel which he preached
among the Gentiles, but more the mistaken action to which it
might lead. He was now under a commission to ask advice
on a certain point, the point which characterized his gospel
among the Gentiles. This private conference enabled him

110 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
to state what his views were on this very question ; and his
apprehension was, that if it should be misunderstood, all his
labour would be lost, if his free and unhampered mode of offer
ing Christ to poor heathens were disallowed. Should the church,
in defiance of his arguments, experience, and appeals, insist on
compliance with circumcision as essential to admission to the
church, then on this point which signalized his preaching as
the apostle of the Gentiles, his labour would be so far in vain,
and the Gentile churches would be in danger of losing their
precious freedom. No man who had laboured so long and so
hard to maintain a gospel unrestricted by any ceremonial con
ditions would wish his labour to be in vain, or so in vain as to
be authoritatively interfered with, and frustrated as far as pos
sible by being disowned. And the question involved so much,
that fo enjoin it was to introduce another gospel. No wonder
that in connection with so momentous a matter fraught with
such interest to all the Gentile churches, the apostle of the
Gentiles went up by revelation. But he gained his point, and
that point was the non-circumcision of Gentile converts, as the
next verse shows. We do not suppose, with Thiersch, that the
reality of his apostleship was the matter laid before the private
conference after the public settlement of the controversy, so
that thus the " faithful at large were spared the trial of a ques
tion for which they were not prepared, the recognition of Paul's
apostleship being much more difficult than the rights of the
Gentiles." History of the Christian Church, -p. 121, Eng. trans.
But it was his gospel, not his office, which he set before them.
Winer's view is as remote from the point : Ut ne, si his vide-
retur paribus castigandus, publica expostulations ipsius auctoritas
infringer etur. He had not run in vain —
Ver. 3. 'AXX' ovBe Tiro's b avv ifiol, "EXXnv eov, rjvayKaaQr)
irepiTfinQrjvai — "Howbeit not even Titus, who was with me,
though he was a Greek, was forced to be circumcised." The
reference is not to what had happened at Antioch prior to the
visit (Hofmann, Reiche), but to what took place at Jerusalem
during the visit. The dXXd is strongly adversative. So far from
my having run in vain ; in the very headquarters of Jewish
influence or Judaistic leaning, my Greek companion Titus,
heathen though he was, had not circumcision forced upon him.
The apostle's position was tested in the case of Titus, and was

CHAP. II. 3. Ill
not overthrown. ''AXX' ovBe is a climactic phrase — at ne quidem;
"neuerthelesse nother" (Coverdale). Luke xxiii. 15 ; Acts
xix. 2. Titus is the emphatic word : his was a ruling case, —
" a strong and pertinent instance," as Locke calls it. For various
reasons that might have been deemed expedient at the moment
and in the place, his circumcision might have been demanded,
and yet the tenor of the apostle's preaching among the Gen
tiles not disallowed. But not even Titus —
"EXXvv eov — " Greek though" or " as he was," — Kalroi,
Theodoret, — the participle declaring the reason by stating the
fact. Donaldson, § 493. Titus was a Greek, or of Greek
extraction, and circumcision might on that account have been
exacted from him as also my companion ; but on the very same
account it was resisted. " Greek" is equivalent to being of
heathen extraction. Mark vii. 26.
The verb rjvar/KaaQr), the opposite of irelQeiv, is a strong ex
pression, denoting to compel even by torture, to force by threats,
more mildly by authority (Acts xxvi. 1 1) ; then to constrain by
argument : Matt. xiv. 22 ; Mark vi. 45. See under ver. 14.
Two wrong and extreme inferences have been drawn from
the word :
1. The Greek fathers, Winer, De Wette, Usteri, Matthies,
and Schott go to one extreme, and give this meaning, that the
circumcision of Titus, as a Greek and Paul's companion, was
not insisted on, so much did Paul find himself at one with the
leading authorities in the mother church. But this hypothesis
does not harmonize with the strong expression rjvar/KaaQr), nor
with the well-known state of opinion and feeling in the church
at Jerusalem. Such a statement at this point, too, would be a
forestalling of the argument as based on the results of the con
ference. The apostle is showing that he had not laboured in
vain, — that the very point which characterized his gospel was
gained, that point being the free admission of uncircumcised
Gentiles into the church ; for even in Jerusalem the circum
cision of Titus was successfully resisted, — the enemy was
worsted even in his citadel. Titus was "with me," and my
authority in the matter was equipollent with that of the other
apostles. 2. Some have gone to another extreme, and have drawn
this inference from the language, that Titus was not forced to

112 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
circumcision, — that is, he was circumcised voluntarily, and not
of constraint. Such is the idea of Pelagius, Primasius, Wieseler,
Baur, Trana, and others. The verse may bear the inference,
but the context disallows it. The circumcision of Timothy is
no case in point; and such an interpretation is in direct conflict
with the course of argument. For the circumcision of Titus
would have been a concession of the very point for which the
agitators were disturbing these churches, first in Antioch, and
afterwards in Galatia. The " false brethren " for whose sakes,
or to whose prejudices, the apostle is supposed to have yielded,
are the very persons with whom he could have no accommoda
tion. How could he say that he " yielded not," if at the very
time and on a vital doctrine he had succumbed ? " The apostle
might be accused of preaching uncircumcision ; but had he
allowed Titus to be circumcised, a far more pointed charge
might have been brought against him" (Jowett). And how
could such a compromise in such a crisis, a compromise which
the council virtually condemned, secure the truth of the gospel
coming to or remaining with the Galatian churches (ver. 5) ?
If Paul yielded in Jerusalem, why not in the provinces ? His
conduct would have been quoted against himself; the Judaizing
teachers would have had warrant for their fettered and subverted
gospel, and " the truth of the gospel " among the Galatians
would have been seriously endangered. Would not the Judaists
there have pleaded Paul's example, proposed Titus as a noted
precedent, and ingeniously pictured out similarity of circum
stance and obligation ? Holding the. oh ovBe to be genuine,
we regard him as affirming that very strenuous efforts were
made, by whom he says not, to have Titus circumcised, — efforts
so keen and persistent as to amount almost to compulsion, but
which the apostle strenuously and effectively resisted. Such a
view is in harmony with the course of the historical argument.
Though there is no sure ground fo.r Lightfoot's assertion, that
" probably the apostles recommended Paul to yield the point,"
yet they may have left him to contend alone on this point
with the alarmists ; for the subsequent tSoWe? . . . yvbvre<;
certainly imply, that if they did not alter their views, they
came at all events to clearer convictions. The apostle proceeds
to give the reason, or rather the explanation, of the statement
just made :

CHAP. II. 4. 113
Ver. 4. Aid Be roil? irapeiaaKrov? yjrevBaBeXcpov? — "now it
was because of the false brethren stealthily introduced." The
difficulty of this connection lies in the Be, and the Greek fathers,
expounding their own language, were puzzled with it: o Se
crvvBea/io'} irepirrb<; (Theodoret). The statement is repeated
by Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Theophylact transforms it into
ovBe. Jerome says, Sciendum vero quod autem superflua sit, et
si legatur non habeat quod ei respondeat. But Be gives an ex
planation which virtually contains a reason. Klotz-Devarius,
ii. 362. Rom. iii. 22 (Alford, in loc), Phil. ii. 8, are similar,
but somewhat different. The connection is not, Titus was not
forced to be circumcised, which, if it had happened, would
have happened on account of the false brethren ; but rather,
Titus was not forced to be circumcised, and the reason was,
because of the false brethren, — either they pressed it, or would
have made a handle of it, and divided the council on that point
and others allied to it.1 Nor is Be adversative, and irepierfifjQr)
to be supplied — " but he was circumcised on account of false
brethren" (Pelagius, Riickert, Elwert, Schmoller), — nor is rjvar/-
KdaQn to be simply repeated. The construction is probably of a
more general nature, and apparently refers to some unexpressed
connection between the expected and the actual result of the
conference with the apostles, the difference being caused by
the efforts of the false brethren. The clause has also a sort of
double connection, — one suggested by Be with the verse before
it, and one carried on by oh with the verse after it. The con
nection is thus peculiar. The suppositions of an anakolouthon —
Sta t. -tyevB. . . . oh ovBe, ver. 5 — or of a blending of two con
structions, the oh of ver. 5 being redundant or resumptive
(Winer, Wieseler, Hilgenfeld, Windischmann, Rinck, and Hof
mann), need not be detailed. The apostle's words, though loose
in connection, may be otherwise unravelled, though not perhaps
to one's complete satisfaction. There is, as Lightfoot says,
some " shipwreck of grammar. He must maintain his own
independence, and not compromise the position of the twelve.
There is need of plain speaking, and there is need of reserve."
Yet one may say with Luther, Condonandum est Spiritui Sancto
1 Augustine says, Nam et Titum circumcideret, cum hoc urgerent Judxi
nisi subintroducti falso fratres idem vellent, etc. De Mendacio, 8, p. 718,
vol. vi. H

114 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
in Paulo loquenti si peccet aliquando in grammaticam. Ipse
magno ardore loquitur. Qui vero ardet, non potest exacte in
dicendo observare regulas grammaticas et prcecepta rhetorica.
It is an unnatural and far-fetched connection given by
Storr, Borger, Rosenmiiller, Stroth, Olshausen, Hermann, and
Gwynne, to connect this verse with dveftwv, or with dveQifinv
(Turner). Nor was it necessary to write, " Titus was not al
lowed to be circumcised, yea not; on account of false brethren."
The preposition Bid assigns the reason — propter. Matt. xxiv.
22; Acts xvi. 3; Rom. viii. 20. The more abstruse meaning
assigned by Wieseler is not in point, at least is not necessary.
The Bid gives the ground for the preceding statement as a
whole, but specially for the non-circumcision of Titus.
Who the tyevBaBeXcpoi in Jerusalem, not Antioch (Fritzsche),
precisely were — and the article gives them a known promi
nence — we know not. 2 Cor. xi. 26. The apostles certainly did
not coincide with them ; and they must have been Judaizers,
though all Judaizers might not be called " false brethren,"'
for many were no doubt sincere Christians, though zealous of
the law. But this faction who clamoured for circumcision were
Christians only by profession, — owning the Messiahship so
far as to secure admission to the church, but still Jews in their
slavish attachment to the old economy and its ritual, and in
their belief of its permanent and universal obligation. Epi-
phanius affirms that they were Cerinthus and his party : Hceres.
xxviii. 4. Their mode of introduction showed what they were
— rov<; irapeiaaKrovs. The word occurs only here; the verb
is used in 2 Pet. ii. 1, and the term is also found in the pro
logue to the son of Sirach. It appears to be sometimes used
simply for a stranger, and is rendered by Hesychius and Suidas
aXXorpto?, and it is found with the same meaning in Polybius
more than once ; but the additional sense of surreptitious (sub-
introductitios, Tertullian) was in course of time attached to it,
as its verb here implies. Or may not the term mean that their
falsehood lay in their surreptitious introduction to the company
of the apostles, not their admission into the church, — that they
were false in professing to be brethren, while yet they were
only spies, not from curiosity, but from an earnest and insidious
longing to enslave the Gentile converts? Further are they
characterized :

CHAP. II. 4. 115
OtTtfe? irapeiarjXQov — " who came in stealthily." Oinvet,
" as being a class of men who." Jelf, § 816 ; Ellendt, Lex.
Soph, sub voce — significatio non tarn causalis, quam explicativa ;
Bornemann, Scholia in Luc. p. 135, comp. Jude 4. The verb
is applied to Simon Magus in the Clementine Homilies, ii. 23.
Their first object was —
KaraaKoirrjaai rrjv iXevQeplav rjficov rjv e%pfiev ev Xpiarco
'Ir/aov — " to spy out our liberty which v>re have in Christ
Jesus." Josh. ii. 2, 3 ; 2 Sam. x. 3, 1 Chron. xix. 3, where it
stands for the Hebrew ^p. ; Xen. Mem. ii. 1, 22 ; Polybius,
v. 20, 2; Eurip. Hel. 1607. Their work was that of spies-
inspection for a sinister purpose. The aorist may refer to the
act as done before they were detected ; or they had no sooner
done with spying out our liberty, than their design became
apparent. The liberty referred to in the clause is not spiritual
liberty in general, nor independence of human authority
(Kohler), but freedom in the sphere where it was menaced
and threatened to be curtailed. It was freedom from the
Mosaic ritual, but not in and by itself ; for that freedom con
tained in it at the same time justification by faith without deeds
of law. This liberty is precious —
*Hv e%p/iev iv Xpicrrco 'Irjaov — " which we have in Christ
Jesus." It is ours, rjficov, for we are having it in Christ Jesus.
It is our present, bur asserted possession. See Eph. i. 7. Its
element of being is " in Christ Jesus," — not by Him (Fritzsche,
Brown), though He did secure it, but in Him through living
faith, and in Him by fellowship with Him. By Him it was
secured to us, but in Him we possess it. Their purpose was —
"Iva rjfid<; KaraBovXcoaovaiv—" in order that they might
bring us into utter bondage." The rj/id<; are not all Christians,
or the apostle and the heathen Christians (Usteri, Meyer,
Wieseler, Hofmann), but as in contrast with vfid<; it is more
distinctive, and is restricted at the moment to the apostle, Titus,
and Barnabas, with perhaps the deputation from Antioch re
presenting the freer party in the church. Still, what was true
of the rjfieh at that moment as a representative party holds true
of all believers. F, G read iva firj. The Textus Receptus
has KaraBovXcoacovrai, vindicated by Reiche, with K and the
Greek fathers who virtually use the middle; but the other
reading has in its favour A, B1, C, D, N, and it is received

116 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
by Lachmann and Tischendorf. B2, F, G have the subjunctive
KaraBovXcoacoaiv. The future is the most probable as the rarest
form of construction, for the future indicative is very uncommon
after iva, though found in John xvii. 2 (Led. Var.), Rev. iii. 9,
viii. 3, xxii. 14. Winer, § 41. The change to the subjunctive
is thus easily accounted for. There is no reason whatever for
Bloomfi eld's assertion, that the received reading was altered on
account of ignorance of the proper force of the middle voice,
for the middle voice would be inappropriate here, since the
subjection is not to themselves, but to the law; or for Fritzsche's
opinion, that the future is only the subjunctive aorist — depra-
vatum. The term iva points to the final cause, and the Kara
in composition deepens the meaning of the verb. The con
nection with the future is rare, though oirco<; is so employed.
Gayler, Part. Neg. p. 169, says that it is used sensu improprio
finem spectante. Hom. II. vii. 353, xxi. 314. In connection
with 07T6>? firj, see Schaefer, Annot. in Demosth. Ol. III. vol. i. p.
277. According to Winer, § 41, the future expresses duration,
or a continued state ; according to others, confident anticipa
tions of the result ; or, as Alford gives it, " certain sequence in
the view of the agent ;" or as Meyer puts it, they expected the
result as certain and enduring — als gewiss und fortdauernd.
Schmalfeld, § 142 ; Klotz-Devarius, p. 683. It probably indi
cates purpose realized in the view of the false teachers.
Ver. 5. Oh ovBe 7rpo? copav e'l^a/nev 777 inrorcvyrj — " To
whom not even for an hour did we yield in subjection." The
reading ol? ovBe has preponderant authority. The words are
found in all Greek uncial codices except D at first hand, and
in almost all the cursives, in a host of versions and originally
in the Vulgate. Many of the Greek and Latin fathers so read
also. Ambrosiaster refers to the reading, and so does Jerome :
quibus neque. But some of the Latin fathers omitted the nega
tive. Tertullian justifies the omission, reading nee ad horam,
and accuses Marcion of vitiatio Scriptures, for Paul did some
times yield, ad tempus. The omission thus arose from the
grammatical difficulty, and the desire to preserve the con
sistency of the apostle who had circumcised Timothy. The
verb occurs only here, and by the aorist refers to the historic
past. The dative virorayfj is that of manner, the article rrj
before the abstract noun specifying it as the obedience which

CHAP. II. 6. 117
was demanded or expected, not " the submission we were
taunted with," in the circumcision of Titus (Lightfoot). The
noun does not signify obedience to Christ — Jesu obsequio (Her
mann), but refers to the oh, the false brethren in Jerusalem,
on account of whom and whose conduct Titus was not com
pelled to be circumcised. The virorayfi claimed was a specimen
of the KaraBovXcoais designed against them. Its resolution by
Winer and Usteri into et? rrjv virorayfjv, or by Bloomfield into
7rpo? r. viror., is not to be thought of; nor can it mean, as with
the older interpreters, St' virorcvyrji;, per subjectionem (Calvin),
nor is it in apposition with ot? (Matthies). The subjection
was not yielded for the briefest space, ovBe irpb? copav — " not
even for an hour." 2 Cor. vii. 8 ; Philem. 15. This natural
interpretation of the clause goes directly against those who,
thinking that Paul voluntarily circumcised Titus, are obliged
to strain the meaning thus : obsequium se prcestitisse Paulus
profitetur, sed non ita prcestitisse ut illis se victum donet vel de
jure suo aliquid cederet. See Elwert. And the purpose was —
' Iva rj dXrjQeia rov evar/yeXlov Biafielvr/ 7rpo? vfid<; — " that
the truth of the gospel might continue with you." " The truth
of the gospel" is not simply the true gospel, but truth as a
distinctive element of the gospel, — opposed to the false views of
its cardinal doctrine which the reactionary Judaists propounded.
That truth was, in its negative aspect, the non-obligation of
the Mosaic law on Gentile believers, — in its positive aspect,
justification by faith. The long theological note of Matthies
is foreign to the point and the context. The Bid in the verb
is intensive — " might endure," ad finem usque. Heb. i. 11 ;
2 Pet. iii. 4 ; Wilke, sub voce. The phrase ?rpo? vfia<s means,
with you — you Galatians, the readers of the epistle. It is an
instance, as Alford remarks, " in which we apply home to the
particular, what, as matter of fact, it only shares as included
in the general." The apostle's motive in resistance was pure
and noble, and the Galatians should have highly appreciated it.
Ver. 6. 'Airb Be reov Boxouvrcov elval n — " But from those
high in reputation." The construction is plainly broken and
involved. It is evident from this clause that the first inten
tion was to end the sentence with ovBev irpoaeXaBbpyijv ; or,
judging from the words actually employed, it might or would
have been ifiol ovBev irpoaavereQrj — "but from those high

118 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
in reputation nothing was added to me;" instead of which he
writes : " From them who are high in reputation — to me these
persons high in reputation added nothing." The construction
begins with a7ro, and passively, then two parenthetical clauses
intervene, and the parenthesis is not formally terminated, but
passes into the connected active clause, ifiol ydp. Winer, §
63. The apostle is still asserting his apostolic independence.
First, generally, he went into conference with the ol BoKovvre<;,
and he got nothing from them — no additional element of in
formation or authority. His commission did not receive any
needed imprimatur from them. But, secondly, the apostle, on
referring to the ot BoKovvres, and while such a result as we
have just given is before his mind, is anxious that his relation
to them should be distinctly apprehended — that he met them
on a perfect equality ; and so he interjects, " Whatsoever they
were, it maketh no matter to me." Then, thirdly, to show that
this declaration was no disparagement of them on any personal
ground, he subjoins, as if in defence or explanation, " God ac-
cepteth no man's person." And, lastly, going back to his in
tended statement, but with an emphatic change of construction,
he concludes, " To me, it is true, those who are high in reputa
tion added nothing." The anakolouthon is the result of mental
hurry, the main thought and subordinate ideas struggling for
all but simultaneous utterance,— his anxiety to be distinctly
understood in a matter of such high moment as the indepen
dency of his apostleship and teaching, leads him to commence
with a statement, then to guard it, and then to explain the very
guard. This throng of ideas throws him off from his construc
tion which he does not formally resume, but ends with a dif
ferent and decided declaration. Such, generally, , is, we think,
the structure of these clauses of terse outspokenness.
More particularly: dirb Be rcov Bokovvtcov elval n — "But from
them who were esteemed something," — literally, "who were" or
"are In high estimation;" qui videbantur, Vulgate; " which seme
to be great," Tyndale. The Se' is resumptive of the thought
first alluded to in ver. 2, but going off from the previous state
ment. The phrase is not to be taken subjectively, or as mean
ing "who thought themselves to be something." Examples
of similar language are : virb iroXXcov Kal Bokovvtcov elval n,
Plato, Gorg. p. 472, A ; idv BoKcbal ti ehai pAjBev ovre<;, Apolog.

CHAP. II. 6. 119
41, E. See also Wetstein, in loc. There is apparently a slight
element of depreciation in these quotations, but not in the
clause before us. If those in whose estimation they stood so
high were the Judaizing faction, such an inference might be
legitimate, and Bengel and Wieseler adopt it ; but if the per
sons who held them in honour were the church — and such seems
the case from ver. 9 — then the words simply indicate the high
position of the individuals referred to. See under ver. 2. The
next clause is explanatory —
'Oiroiol irore rjaav, ovBev /ioi Biacpepei — " whatsoever they
were, it matters nothing to me ;" quales aliquando fuerint, Vul
gate. Some give 7roTe the sense of olim, and understand the
reference to be to the apostles and their past connection with
Christ during His public ministry (Luther, Beza, Hilgenfeld,
Olshausen) ; while others refer it to the life of the apostles prior
to their call by Christ — " Whatever they had been " — sinners
(Estius after Augustine) ; or but unlearned and ignorant fisher
men (Ambrosiaster, Thomas Aquinas, Anselm, Cajetan, and
a-Lapide). Others suppose a reference to previous opinions sub
versive of the gospel held by them (Gwynne), or to the past time,
when they were apostles, but himself was alienus a fide Christi
(Calvin). Hofmann and Usteri make it "whether apostles or
not." The first of these views is not without plausibility, for
the prevailing sense of 77-oTe in the New Testament is temporal;
but it is too pointed to be contained in these simple words, and
the reference is one not employed by the apostle usually when he
maintains his equality. He says that he had what they had as
in 1 Cor. ix. 1, xv. 10, but does not refer to their personal con
nection with Christ as giving them any official advantage over
him, for he was not a "whit behind the, very chiefest apostles"
— rcov virepXlav dirocrrbXcov. 2 Cor. xi. 5. The apostle speaks
simply of their position in the church when he conferred with
them, or rather, of the honour they were held in at the period
of his writing. The 77-oTe, therefore, may be used in an inten
sive sense — cunque — as often in interrogations.
OvBev fioi Biacpepei — "nothing to me it matters:" the
stress on ovBev — utter indifference. The present Biacpepei does
not express his present view of the case, but his view at the
time, vividly recalled, or assuming the present. Phrynichus
says, p. 394, Xeye ovv rl Biacpepei, quoting Demosthenes against

120 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
the use of the dative rlvi, as /ioi here. Lobeck, however, quotes
in correction from Aristotle, rlvi Biacpepei rd dppeva, De Part.
Animal, viii. 555; Xenophon, Hier. 1, 7, ovk otS' et nvi Bia
cpepei. Plato uses both dative and accusative, Alcibiades, i.
109 B ; and JElian also has feuyos ydp r] nvi r) ovBev Biacpepei,
Hist. Animal, xiv. 26, vol. i. p. 327, ed. Jacobs. Chrysostom
writes too strongly in saying that "he presses hard on the
apostles for the sake of the weak." Theophylact, on the other
hand, says, ovk iljovQevcbv rov<; dylov; — " not vilipending those
holy men." It matters nothing to me, and the reason is —
Upbacoirov 0eo? dvQpcoirov ov Xa/iBdyei — " God accepteth
no man's person." The asyndeton, or want of any connecting
particle, gives point to the statement (Winer, § 60), and by the
peculiar order of the words the emphatic 0eo? is placed next
the contrasted dvQpcoirov. The phrase irpbacoirov Xa/iBdvei is
a Hebraism, a translation of CJS NB>J which means " to favour,
to show favour," — used first of all in a good sense — of God in
Gen. xix. 21 : Gen. xxxii. 20 ; 1 Sam. xxv. 35 ; 2 Kings iii.
14 ; Job xiii. 8 ; — then specially in a bad sense to show undue
favour to, Lev. xix. 15; Deut. x. 17; Ps. lxxxii. 2; Prov. xviii.
5 ; Sirach iv. 27. But in the New Testament the phrase is
invariably used in a bad sense : Matt. xxii. 16 ; Mark xii. 14 ;
Luke xx. 21, etc.; — to favour one for mere face or appearance,
Jas. ii. 1—7. Hence the nouns irpoacoiroXrpJrla, irpoacoiro-
XrjirTr)';, and the corresponding verb. God is impartial in the
bestowment of His gifts and in the selection of His instruments.
The apostle takes God for his model, and he judges and acts
accordingly. " I acted," as if he had said, " in my estimate of
these men, and in my conference with them, without regard to
such external elements as often influence human judgments
and occasionally warp them." He showed no undue leaning
on them, though they justly stood so high in the esteem and
confidence of the mother church in Jerusalem. Koppe's con
jecture, that the apostle might be thinking of his mean bodily
appearance, is really bathos. Chrysostom gives another turn
to the thought : " Although they allow circumcision, they shall
render an account to God ; for God will not accept their per
sons because they are great in rank and station." But this
future and judicial reference is not in the context, which is
describing present feeling and events.

CHAP. II. 6. 121
The resumed statement is :
'Efiol yap ol BoKovvre<; oiBev irpoaaveQevro — " to me in fact
those in repute communicated nothing," — ifiol emphatic. If ydp
assign a reason, it may be connected with ovBev, fioi Biacpepei —
"it matters nothing to me, for they added nothing to me;" or it
may be joined to the preceding clause, irpbacoirov @eo? dvQpco
irov ov Xa/iBdvei — God is impartial, for He has put me on the
same level (auf so gleiche Linie, Meyer) with the persons so
high in reputation. Both connections appear unnatural, linking
what is the main thought to a clause subordinate and virtually
parenthetical. Nor will ifiol ydp bear to be translated mihi
inquam (Peile, Scholefield). But ydp may be regarded rather
as explicative. Donaldson, § 618, says ydp is often placed first
with an explanatory clause. Composed of 7c, verily, com
bined with dpa, " therefore," it signifies " the fact is," " in
fact, as the case stands." Klotz-Devarius, ii. 233 ; Kiihner,
§324,2. The verb irpocravarlQrjfii is to impart, to communicate ; in
the middle voice — " on their part." This is the real significa
tion of the verb, though the idea of " additional" or new be
found in it by Beza, Erasmus, Bengel, Winer, Usteri, Wieseler,
Hilgenfeld, and others ; but 77-poo-- in composition will not sig
nify insuper. Though, however, the signification of the verb be
simply " they imparted," the sense or inference plainly is, they
imparted nothing new, — as Meyer has it, um mich zu belehren.
The men of note, ol BoKovvres, imparted nothing — nothing which
was so unknown, that he felt himself instructed in his preach
ing or strengthened in his commission. The least that can be
said is, they did not interfere with him, and they felt that they
could not. Chrysostom is therefore too strong when he explains
it, rovrean, fiaQbvre^ rd e/id ovBev irpoaeQr/Kav, ovBev BicopQco-
crav. In a word, the apostle makes this statement in no spirit
of vainglory, but simply narrates the naked facts.
Other forms of exegesis have been tried. 1. Some render
the first clause, as Gomarus, Borger, Bagge, quod attinet ad — as
regards the persons high in repute, — thus giving dirb the sense
of 77-ept, and rendering the next clause, as Theophylact, oiBefila
/101 cppovrh, or as Olshausen paraphrases, "I do not trouble
myself about the distinguished apostles in the matter." 2.
Homberg in his Parerga, p. 275, thus renders : ab illis vero,

122 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
qui videntur esse aliquid, non differo. Vult enim, he adds, se
non esse minorem reliquis, quanticunque etiam fuerint. This
interpretation makes 077-0 superfluous, and also fioi, consueto
pleonasmo; and Homberg quotes in justification several examples
which are far from bearing him out — admitting, too, that the
clause is the same in meaning with ovBev Biacpepco. (Similarly
Ewald.) 3. Eisner, throwing 077-0 aside, renders, qui videbantur
esse aliquid nihil ad me, nulla ab illis pervenit ad me utilitas.
4. Heinsius, keeping 077-0, renders, de Us autem qui existimantur
esse aliquid, qualescunque ii fuerint, nihil mihi accedit, — a mean
ing which the verb will not bear. 5. Bengel's paraphrase is,
Nihil mea interest quales tandem fuerint illi ex insignioribus,
etc. : this would require in the last clause dirb rcov Bokovvtcov,
and the paraphrase is very loose and disjointed. 6. As re
mote from the context, and subversive of the order of thought,
are the two methods proposed by Kypke, which need not be
given at length ; one of them, reckoned by him the prefer
able, being, " It matters not to me whether these false brethren
were held in high esteem or not." 7. Riickert gives the
sense as, Was ihn anlangt, ist es rnir ganz gleichgultig — an
exegesis not unlike that of Castalio, Calovius, Zachariae. 8.
Still worse is the exegesis of Zeltner, given by Wolf : " Of
those who seemed to be somewhat — rl, what ? What, in a
word, of those in repute ? What they were formerly, whether
they held another opinion or not, I am not concerned ;" — the
view also of Schrader. 9. Hermann proposes an aposiopesis,
diro rcov Bokovvtcov elval ri — quid metuerim ? But this is not
the kind of style for such an oratorical pause. 10. Kohler
joins the clause to the last clause of the previous verse :
" That the truth of the gospel might remain with you, (as a
gift) from those who were high in reputation." But this
exegesis mars the unity of thought, and the persons high in
reputation were not specially concerned with the preaching and
permanence of a free gospel among the Gentiles. 11. Words
worth, after Bengel, calls 077-0 paraphrastic, and takes it as
indicating origin or quarter : " But it is no matter to me what
sort of persons were from those who seemed to be somewhat."
So also Gwynne, who finds the syntax to be remarkably simple,
and its parsing a " schoolboy's" exercise. On the other hand,
Laurent conjectures that the difficulty arises from the apostle's

CHAP. II. 7. 123
habit of adding marginal notes to his epistles after he had
dictated them, and that ver. 6 is one of these notes : Neutest.
Studien, p. 29, Gotha 1866. 12. Hofniann contrives to con
strue without any anakolouthon, making the parenthesis begin
with biroioi, and ending it with dXXd rovvavrlov, which words
he dissevers from ver. 7 for this purpose, — a clever but quite
unnatural mode of sequence. All these forms of exegesis, more
or less ingenious, are out of harmony with the context and the
plain significance of the terms employed, in such broken and
hurried statements.
They not only gave me no instructions, as if my course had
been disapproved by them, " but on the contrary" — dXXd rov
vavrlov — their conduct was the very opposite ; neither jealousy,
nor disparagement of me — far from it, — " but on the contrary,
they gave me the right hand of fellowship."
Ver. 7. 'AXXa rovvavrlov, tSofre? on ireirlarev/iai to evay
yeXiov t?}? aKpoBvarlas, KaQcb<; Uerpo<; rrjs irepirofirj*; — " But on
the contrary, seeing that I have been entrusted with the gospel
of the uncircumcision, even as Peter was with that of the cir
cumcision." The passive verb governs the accusative of the
thing, the active combining a dative with it. Rom. iii. 2, 1 Cor.
ix. 17, 1 Tim. i. 11 ; Winer, § 32, 5; Polybius, xxxi. 26, 7.
Other examples may be found in Fischer, ad Wetter. Gram.
Grcsc. vol. iii. p. 437. The perfect passive, emphatic by
position, denotes the duration of the trust, or that he still held
it. The resolution of the more idiomatic ireirlarevfiai to evayy.
into ireirlarevral fioi to evay. is found in F, G.
The noun aKpoBvarla<;, " of the uncircumcision," is equiva
lent to rcov aKpoBvarcov, Rom. ii. 26, iii. 30, — the gospel as
addressed to them or belonging to them, the gospel as it was
preached by him among the Gentiles. Of course, the gospel
of the circumcision is that belonging to Jews, as specially
preached to them by Peter — Kadcb?. It is plain that this agree
ment was the result of the apostle's frank disclosures. They
had confidence in his statements, and seeing that his was a
divine stewardship for a special sphere of labour, they could
not, they durst not, oppose, it. It might not be in all points to
their perfect liking, it might not quite tally with their ideas of
becomingness ; but they could not set themselves against it.
They now did more than allow Paul "to fight his own battle"

124 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
(Jowett) : not only did they leave him undisturbed in the field,
but the council, after a characteristic address by Peter, the
apostle of the circumcision, and on the motion of James, sent
out an edict which must have smoothed away some prejudices
and confirmed the success of the apostle among the Gentiles.
One should like so much to know what the beloved disciple
said at the private conference, or what he who lay in the
Master's bosom addressed to the public assembly.
The verse implies that Peter was a representative of the
other apostles who laboured among the circumcision. Yet
he had been the first to evangelize and baptize the heathen
(Acts x. xi.) ; and on being challenged for his conduct, he
had made a pointed and successful vindication. It is not
implied by this language that there were two gospels, or even
two distinct types of one gospel. But circumcision formed
the point of difference. The Jew might practise it, for it was
a national rite ; but it was not to be enforced on the Gentile.
The first Epistle of Peter shows the accordance of his theo
logy with that of Paul. In Peter there are Jewish imagery
and allusions, but no Judaistic spirit. The relation of the
old economy to Gentile converts is not once glanced at. He
does not refer to its overthrow, for to him the old Israel had
passed into the spiritual Israel which had burst the national
barriers. He does not write of Judaism and Christianity as
rival faiths, or of the one supplanting the other ; but to him
Judaism had reached a predicted spirituality and fulness of
blessing in the Messiah, by "the sprinkling of the blood of Him"
who was the "Lamb without spot." So that, as Tertullian
tersely puts it, this arrangement was only distributio officii, not
separatio evangelii, nee ut aliud alter sed ut aliis alter prcedicarent.
De Prcsscript. Hceret. xxiii. vol. ii. p. 22, ed. CEhler.
Ver. 8. This parenthetical verse gives the ground of the
preceding statement. The same God who wrought effectually
for Peter wrought effectually for Paul too ; therefore the mis
sion of Paul, divine in its source and sustentation, could not
but be recognised.
O ydp ivepyrjaa<; Herpco et? diroaroXrjv tt}? irepirofirj<;,
ivrjpynae Kal ifiol et? rd eQvrj — "For He who wrought for
Peter toward the apostleship of the circumcision, the same
wrought for me also towards the Gentiles." This he adds,

CHAP. II. 9. 125
Jerome says, ne quis eum putaret detrahere Petro. The datives
LTerpcp and fioi, as Meyer observes, are not governed by iv in
the verb which is not a pure compound, as eV could not stand
independently. They are therefore dativi commodi. The
purpose of the divine inworking is expressed fully in the first
portion, et? diroaroXrjv — " with a view to the apostleship," for
its successful discharge; at least such is the sense implied,
2 Cor. ii. 12, Col. i. 29. The last clause, fully expressed, as
in the Syriac version, would have been et? diroaroXrjv rcov
iQvcbv ; but the curter form is used by the apostle (comparatio
compendiaria). Winer, § 66, /. The inworker is God, and
that inworking comprehends every element of commission and
qualification — outpouring of the Spirit, working of miracles,
and all the various endowments and adaptations which fitted
both men so fully for their respective spheres. Acts xv. 12.
Ver. 9. Kat yvbvres rrjv ydpiv rrjv BoQeiadv fioi — " And
coming to the knowledge of the grace which was given to me,
James and Cephas and John, who are reputed pillars, gave to
me and Barnabas right hands of fellowship ; that we should go
or preach to the Gentiles, but they to the circumcision." First,
t'Swre?, perceiving, — that is, probably struck by Paul's repre
sentation of his work as the apostle of the Gentiles, — a phrase
parallel to xal yvbvres, " and learning," from the details com
municated to them. The x^P1^ here is not barely the apostolic
office (Piscator, Estius), nor yet the success of his labours —
potissimum de successu (Winer, Fritzsche), — but all that divine
gift embodied as well in the apostolate as in all the freely
bestowed qualifications for the successful discharge of its duties.
See under Eph. iii. 8. They came to a knowledge of the divine
gift enjoyed by Paul, implying that they had not distinctly
understood it before. If they added nothing to Paul, he cer
tainly added something to them. Rom. i. 5, xii. 3.
'IaKcoBo<i Kal Kncpas Kal ,Icodvvr)<; — " James and Cephas
and John." The order of the names differs. A omits Kal
Kncpd<}; D, F, G, and the Itala read nirpo? Kal 'IaKcoBof,
followed by few supporters ; while the reading as we have
given it is found in B, C, K, L, X, and versions and fathers.
The placing of Kr/cpd? first is a natural correction from the
mention of Peter in the previous verse ; but James is first,
from his immediate official status, and he must have had

126 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
great influence at the consultation. So much did he become
the central figure, that Irenaeus characterizes the other apostles
as hi autem qui circa Jacobum apostoli. Adver s. Hceres.
iii. 12, vol. i. p. 494, ed. Stieren. See Essay at the end of
previous chapter. There is no good reason for supposing that
the James of this verse is other than the Lord's brother, i. 19,
who according to all tradition was head of the church in Jeru
salem. Stier, Wieseler, and Davidson, however, take the
James of this verse for the Apostle James, son of Alphaeus.
But is it not likely that some clause or epithet would have been
given to the James of the second chapter, if he were different
from the James of the first ? or how were his readers to be
guided to make the necessary distinction ? See p. 98. The
two participles have these proper names as substantives. Of
them the apostle adds —
Ol BoKovvres arvXoi elvai — " who have the reputation of
being pillars," — 'not, as in Authorized Version, " who seemed to
be," either in tense or signification. The Genevan has, "which
are taken to be pyllers." There is no pleonasm in BoKovvre?.
Mark x. 42; Luke xxii. 24; Josephus, Antiq. xix. 6, 3; Winer,
§§ 65-7. The figure in the term arvXoi is a common and
natural one. It represents the Hebrew "TOy in Ex. xiii. 21, 22,
xiv. 24, referring to the pillar of fire, and it occurs often in a
literal sense in the description of the tabernacle. Its tropical
use may be seen in the New Testament, 1 Tim. iii. 15, Rev.
iii. 12. It is employed often by rabbinical writers as an epithet
of great teachers and saints. See Schoettgen, i. 728, 9 ; com
pare Prov. ix. 1. It occurs in a personal sense in the Epistle
of the Church at Lyons — arvXov? eSpatou?, Euseb. Hist. Eccl.
v. 1 ; in the first Epistle of Clement, i. 5, Peter and Paul are
ot fieyiaroi Kal BiKaibraroi arvXoi eBico^Qnaav. See Hom.
Clement, xviii. 14, eirrd cttiIXoj;? Koafico. Many examples from
the Greek and Latin fathers will be found in Suicer, Thes.
sub voce. The figure is found also in the classics : arvXoi yap
oIkcov elal iraiBe<; dpaeve<s, Euripides, Iph. Aul. 57 ; yi^X?;?
areyr/'s arvXov iroBrjpn, JSschylus, Agam. 897 ; also, stantem
columnam, Horace, Od. i. 35. The accent of o-tvXo? is doubt
ful, though probably evidence preponderates for arvko's —
perhaps the old iEolic form : Lipsius, p. 43, Leipzig 1863.
Ellicott and Tischendorf print it arvXoi, and the v is invariably

CHAP. II. 9. 127
long in poetry, though it is short in the Latin stylus. Rost und
Palm, sub voce. These three men were esteemed as " pillars,"
and deservedly so, as they supported and graced the Christian
edifice — which is not necessarily imaged here as a temple, —
zealous, gifted, mighty, and successful labourers, able to look
beyond the narrow and national boundary within which some
would confine the gospel, and qualified to guide the, church in
any crisis with enlightened and generous advice; for they
solemnly and formally recognised Paul on this occasion.
Ae^ids eBcoKav ifiol Kal BapvdBa Koivcovla? — " gave to me
and Barnabas right hands of fellowship." The first noun is
far removed from the genitive which it governs. Such a sepa
ration when the genitive follows sometimes happens from the
sudden intervention of some emphatic or explanatory phrase.
John xii. 11; Rom. ix. 21; 1 Cor. viii. 7; Phil. ii. 10; 1
Thess. ii. 13 ; 1 Tim. iii. 6 ; Winer, 30, 3, note 2. One may
say in this case that Se^ta? eBcoKav stand first, referring to the
visible hearty pledge of recognition; and that ifiol Kal BapvdBa
follow, from their close relation to eBcoKav and Koivcovlas, which
are put in immediate connection with the explanation. Both
nouns are anarthrous. The first noun with this verb is often used
without the article, the second wants it by correlation. Middle-
ton, pp. 36, 49, ed. Rose ; Apollonius, de Synt. p. 90 ; 1 Mace.
xi. 50, 62, xiii. 50. Compare, however, Gersdorf's Beitrage,
pp. 314-334. For Koivcovla, see under Phil. i. 5. The giving
of the right hand was a common pledge of friendship or cove
nant then as now. While the Hebrew "P JHJ means " to sur
render," as in 2 Chron. xxx. 8, Lam. v. 6, it denotes also to
pledge, 2 Kings x. 15, Ezra x. 19. Compare Ezek. xvii. 18,
Prov. xi. 21, Lev. vi. 2; Diodor. Sic. 16, 43 ; Xen. Anab. ii. 3,
11 ; Aristoph. Nub. 81 ; Euripides, Medea, 91, and Porson's note.
This giving of right hands was the pledge of fellowship, the
recognition of Paul and Barnabas as fellow-labourers. Chry
sostom exclaims, *il avveaecos virepBoXr) kcu crvficpcovias dirbBei^i<;
dvavrlppr)To<;. " It was no such parting as when Luther in
the castle of Marburg refused the hand of Zuingle, or when
James Andreas refused that of Theodore Beza at Montbeliard"
(Thiersch). The purpose was —
"Iva 97/iei? et? rd eQvn — " in order that we unto the heathen."
The particle fiev is found after rjfieh in A, C, D, K, many cur-

128 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
sives, and several of the fathers ; but the simple pronoun is
read in B, F, H, K, L, X1, Vulgate and Clarom. and Gothic
version, in Origen, Theophylact, CEcumenius, and in most of
the Latin fathers. Griesbach marks it as probable, Tischen
dorf omits it, Lachmann and Meyer accept it ; but Wieseler,
Ellicott, Alford, and Lightfoot rightly reject it. It seems
to have been inserted to produce a correspondence with the
following Se. The clause wants a verb, and is all the more
emphatic, as if no verb of sufficient fulness and distinction had
presented itself readily or at the moment to his mind. The
words "we to the Gentiles" say all that is needful. His
readers could easily divine what the phrase implied. Compare
Rom. iv. 16, 1 Cor. i. 31, 2 Cor. viii. 13,— 'Iva being similarly
placed in all these quotations.
Airrol Be et? rrjv irepiro/irjv — " and they unto the circum
cision," — the abstract used as in ver. 7 for the concrete. Are
not the Jews so named here on purpose, as if the reference were
not only to the covenant rite, but also to what had been the
theme of dissension at Antioch and the subject of present con
sultation in Jerusalem ? while eQvn is used in its broad sense,
of all the nations beyond Palestine, as nations in want of a free
and unclogged offer of the gospel. Some would supply eiay-
yeXi^cofieQa — covrai, as Winer and others ; but et? with a per
sonal reference is not used by Paul after this verb. Yet we
have a very similar connection in 2 Cor. x. 16, and this prepo
sition follows the corresponding noun, 1 Thess. ii. 9; see 1 Pet.
i. 25. Meyer in his last edition drops his objection to evayyeX.
as the supplement, which he had stated in his third edition.
Others propose iropevQcofiev — Qcoaiv, as Bengel and Fritzsche •
but the apostle's idea implies both these verbs ; Erasmus and
Schott fill in by apostolatu fungeremur. Though this agreement
referred generally to spheres of labours, it cannot strictly be
called a geographical division ; nor was it a minute mapping out
of future travels. Thousands of Jews were in " the dispersion "
among whom the three apostles might labour ; and Paul " as
his custom was," went first to the Jews : Acts xvii. 2, 10, xviii.
5, xix. 8. He speaks in his imprisonment of some of his com
panions " who are of the circumcision," Col. iv. 11 ; and Peter
and John travelled into heathen countries. Peter is found in
Paul's way at Antioch; but Paul "would not build on another

CHAP. II. 10. 129
man's foundation " — " would not boast in another man's line
of things made ready to our hand."
Ver. 10. Movov rcov irrco^cbv 'Iva fivnfiovevcofiev, b Kal
iairovBaaa avrb rovro iroirjaai — " Only they asked us that
we should remember the poor, which very thing I also was
forward to do." The adverb belongs to the previous clause
beginning with iva. There is no formal ellipse, and no verb
like atVowTe? or irpoaKaXovvre? needs to be supplied (Borger,
Winer, Ruckert, Usteri) : vi. 12 ; 2 Thess. ii. 7. The clause
is scarcely a limitation of the compact, but is rather an under
standing, so slight as not to contradict what the apostle has just
said — " they communicated nothing to me." They gave us the
right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles; only
we were to remember the poor of the circumcision. Rom. xv.
26, 27 ; 1 Cor. xvi. 3. The order of the words is peculiar, and
fiovov 'Iva rcov irrco-ylov in D, F, etc., is an evident emendation.
The position of rcov irrcoyfov is emphatic, John xiii. 29, 2 Thess.
ii. 7 ; and this irregular position occurs in a different form in
the previous verse. Winer, § 61, 3. For a similar position of
Iva, see 1 Cor. vii. 29, 2 Cor. ii. 4. The emphasis is thus on
" the poor,"— the understanding being that Paul and Barnabas
were to remember them. The subjective verb fivvfiovevco governs
here the genitive, though occasionally it is followed by the
accusative, indicating a different aspect of idea. Matthiae, §
347 ; Winer, § 30, 10, c. Many believers in Judaea were
poor, and the victims of persecution. It would be wrong to
limit the poor to the city of Jerusalem (Piscator and Estius).
In the contract that they should go to the Gentiles to make
them the special field of labour, they were, however, to take
with them this understanding, that they were to remember the
Jewish poor believers. To "remember the poor" is a quiet
Christian way of expressing generous pecuniary benefaction, —
not the idle and cheap well-wishing reprobated by the Apostle
James. The apostle now adds this brief explanation for him
self ; for he and Barnabas soon after parted :
"N0 Kal iairovBaaa avrb rovro iroirjaai — " which very thing
I was also forward to do." The repetition of avrb rovro after
the relative is no direct imitation of a well-known Hebraism.
Nordheimer, Heb. Gram. §§ 897, 898. In such cases avrb<s is
the pronoun most commonly employed in the Septuagint.
i

130 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
Thiersch, De Pentat. Alex. p. 123, has noted some examples
in the Seventy, as Gen. xxiv. 37, xxviii. 13, xlviii. 15 ; Ex.
xxx. 6 ; Num. xiii. 20 : and also in the New Testament, as
Rev. vii. 2, xii. 14. Ellicott adds Mark i. 7, vii. 25. The
idiom before us is thus no Hebraism (Ruckert, Baumgarten-
Crusius) ; nor are avrb rovro redundant, as Piscator and
many of the older interpreters affirm. The idiom is well
known. Kiihner, ii. p. 527 ; Winer, § 21, 3, 2, § 22, 4 ; Stall
baum, Plato, Gorgias, p. 285 (509 E.) ; Sophocles, Philoetet.
315, and there Hermann's note in reply to Porson's conjecture
in his Adversaria, p. 199. See under Phil. i. 6. The emphasis
is on the verb — the apostle was forward to do it, and needed not
any such recommendation. The past tense of the verb needs not
have either a perfect (Conybeare) or a pluperfect signification,
as denoting time past with reference to the conference, that is,
before it (Jatho, Webster and Wilkinson) ; but it signifies, that
at that past period now referred to, he was forward to remem
ber the poor — " also," Kal — as forward to do it as they were
to stipulate for it. Probably the Galatians did not need to be
told this, for he informs the Corinthians, 1 Cor. xvi. 1, " Now
concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order
to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye." Compare Rom.
xv. 26, where Macedonia and Achaia are said to make a col
lection et? roil'; irrco'^ov'; rcov dyleov rcov iv ' IepovaaXrjfi, and
the argument which follows in ver. 27. Such benevolence
shows the unity of the church amidst this apparent diversity of
procedure. The special spiritual obligations under which the
Gentiles lay to the Jews, were partially and cheerfully fulfilled
in those temporal charities which the Jews did not hesitate to
receive from their Gentile brethren. But the sending of this
money was no tribute, no token of their dependence on the
mother church (Olshausen) : Acts xxi. 17, xxiv. 17, and Acts
xi. 29 at an earlier period; 2 Cor. viii. and ix. To take o for
St' o, a conjecture hazarded by Schott, is vague and inadmis
sible here, though it may occur in poetry. Allied to this is
another meaning, eben deshalb, "for that very reason :" 2 Pet.
i. 5 ; Xen. Anab. 1, 9, 21 ; Plato, Protag. 310 E ; Winer, § 21,
3, 2 ; Matthiae, § 470. Such a mode of construction is here
quite unnecessary. Nor can the reference be that which Usteri
quotes from his friend Studer, " even this," that is, " nothing

CHAP. II. 10. 131
more did the apostles communicate ;" nor can it be " which also,
that same, trifling and inconsiderable as it was" (Gwynne). It
simply refers to the fact that the very thing stipulated was the
very thing the apostle was forward to do, and independently al
together of the stipulation. It is needless to ascribe the poverty
of the believers in Jerusalem to any such remote cause as the
free table established after Pentecost, and which was furnished
by a kind of voluntary communism ; for we know not how long
the experiment lasted, or to what extent it was supported. Nor
need we think of any abuse of the doctrine of the second advent
as being near at hand (Jowett), — an error in the Thessalonian
church which apparently unhinged its social relations. We
have but to remember "the spoiling of your goods" in the
Epistle to the Hebrews, and what the apostle says to the Thes-
salonians, 1 Thess. ii. 14, 15, " For ye, brethren, became fol
lowers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ
Jesus : for ye also have suffered like things of your own coun
trymen, even as they have of the Jews ; who both killed the
Lord Jesus and their own prophets, and have persecuted us ;
and they please not God, and are contrary to all men."
The three apostles here referred to, whatever their prepos
sessions, yield to the force of Paul's statements. Peter also
at the council called the imposition of the law on Gentile con
verts an intolerable yoke, for the Gentile was saved by the
same grace as the Jew. Peter appealed only to the great facts
which had met him unexpectedly in his own experience ; but
James, in the old theocratic spirit, connected the outburst of
Christianity with ancient prophecy as its fulfilment. In his
thought, God takes out of the Gentiles a people for His name,
and by an election as real as when He separated Israel of old
from all the nations. The prophecy quoted by him describes
the rebuilding of the tabernacle of David, not by restoring his
throne in Jerusalem over Jews, and over heathen who as a test
of their loyalty become proselytes, but by the reconstitution
of the theocracy in a more spiritual form, and over myriads
of new subjects — " all the Gentiles" — without a hint of their
conformity to any element of the Mosaic ritual. This expan
sion of the old economy had been foreseen ; it was no out
growth unexpected or unprovided for. Believers were not to
be surprised at it, or to grudge that their national supremacy

132 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
should disappear amidst the Gentile crowds, who in doing
homage to David's Son, their Messiah, should raise "the
tabernacle of David" to a grandeur which it had never at
tained, and could never attain so long as it was confined to
the territory of Judaea. The Jewish mind must have been
impressed by this reasoning— this application of their own
oracles to the present crisis. So far from being perplexed by
it, they ought to have been prepared for it ; so far from being
repelled by it, they ought to have anticipated it, prayed for
it, and welcomed its faintest foregleams, as in the preaching
of Philip in Samaria, and of Peter to Cornelius. Paul and
Barnabas, in addressing the multitude — " the church, the
apostles and elders" — did not launch into a discussion of the
general question, or attempt to demonstrate abstract principles.
First, in passing through Phenice and Samaria, they "de
clared the conversion of the Gentiles;" and secondly, at the
convention theirs was a simple tale which they allowed to work
its own impression — they " declared what miracles and wonders
God had wrought among the Gentiles by them." The logic
of their facts was irresistible, for they could not be gainsaid.
Let their audience account for it as they chose, and endeavour to
square it with their own opinions and beliefs as best they might,
God was working numerous and undeniable conversions among
the Gentiles as visibly and gloriously as among themselves.
The haughty exclusiveness of the later Judaism made it
impossible for the church to extend without some rupture and
misunderstanding of this nature. That exclusiveness was
nursed by many associations. For them and them alone was
the temple built, the hierarchy consecrated, and the victim slain.
Their history had enshrined the legislation of Moses, the priest
hood of Aaron, the throne of David, and the glory of Solomon.
The manna had been rained upon their fathers, and the bright
Presence had led them. Waters had been divided and enemies
subdued. Sinai had been lighted up, and had trembled under
the majesty and voice of Jehovah. Their land was hallowed
by the only church of God on earth, and each of them was a
member of it by birth. His one temple was on Mount
Moriah, and they gloried in the pride of being its sole pos
sessors. The archives of their nation were at the same time
the records of their faith. Nothing was so opposed to their

CHAP. II. 10. 133
daily prepossessions as the idea of a universal religion. Or if
the boundaries of the covenanted territory were to be widened,
Zion was still to be the centre. Foreign peoples were to have
no separate and independent worship ; all nations were to flow
to the " mountain of the Lord's house, established in the top of
the mountains, and exalted above the hills." It is impossible for
us to realize the intensity of Jewish feeling on these points, as
it was ever influencing Hebrew believers to relapse into their
former creed, and leading others into the self-deceptive and
pernicious middle course of Judaizers. In such circumstances,
the work of the Apostle Paul naturally excited uneasiness
and suspicion in the best of them, for it was so unlike their
own sphere of service. But the elder apostles were at this
period brought to acquiesce in it, and they virtually sanctioned
it, though there might not be entire appreciation of it in all its
extent and certain consequences.
There is no ground, therefore, for supposing that there was
any hostility between Paul and these elder apostles, or any de
cided theological difference, as many strenuously contend for.
They all held the same cardinal truths, as is manifest from the
Gospel and Epistles of John, and from the Epistles of Peter.
There are varying types of thought arising from mental pecu
liarity and spiritual temperament, — accidental differences show
ing more strongly the close inner unity. Nor is the Epistle
of James in conflict with the Pauline theology. It was in
all probability written before these Judaistic disputes arose ;
for, though addressed to Jews, it makes no mention of them.
Its object among other things was to prove that a justifying
faith must be in its nature a sanctifying faith ; that a dead
faith is no faith, and is without all power to save ; and that
from this point of view a man is justified by works — the pro
ducts of faith being identified with itself, their one living
source. Nor can we say that there were, even after the convention,
no misunderstandings between Paul and the other apostles.
While they were at one with him in thought, they seem not to
have had the same freedom to act out their convictions. There
was no opposition on any points of vital doctrine ; but though
they held that his success justified him, they did not feel at
liberty, or had not sufficient intrepidity, to follow his example.

134 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
Though their earlier exclusiveness was broken, their nationality
still remained, — their conservatism had become an instinct —
" they to the circumcision." This mere separation of sphere
might not give rise to division, but these pharisaic Judaists,
who were not so enlightened and considerate as their leaders,
were the forefathers of that Ebionitism which grew and fought
so soon after that period, having its extreme antagonism in
Marcion and his adherents. How the other apostles who had
left Jerusalem at the Herodian persecution, and may have
been in different parts of the world, acted as to these debated
matters, we know not. It is storied, indeed, that John, living
amidst the Hellenic population of Ephesus, kept the paschal
feast on the fourteenth day of the month, in accordance with
the Jewish reckoning; and that he wore in his older years
one special badge of a priest. Such is the report of Poly-
crates ;x but no great credit is to be attached to it, for it may
be only a literal misapplication to the "Divine" of the sacerdotal
imagery of his own Apocalypse. But the stand made by Paul
subjected him to no little obloquy and persecution from Jews
and Judaists. His apostleship was depreciated as secondary,
and his doctrine impugned as not according to truth. His perils
were not sympathized with; nay, some during his imprisonment
preached Christ "of envy and strife," intending thereby to
"add affliction to his bonds." The mournful admission is wrung
from him during his last hours, " All they which are in Asia
be turned away from me." For his bold and continuous asser
tion of Gentile freedom he was frowned upon during his life,
and no doubt censured as pragmatic, vehement, and unreason
able in the advocacy of his latitudinarian views ; and after his
death, he was for the same reason caricatured in the Clementines
under the name of Simon Magus, the malignant and worsted
antagonist of the apostle of the circumcision. And yet Paul was
the truest Jew of them ally — true in spirit and in act to the
Abrahamic promise which contained in it a blessing for " all
families of the earth" — to the divine pledge, " I will give Thee
the heathen for Thine inheritance" — and to the oracular utter-
1 The words of Polycrates are, ot sysrifa [spivs to virx^o, irtqiopnxZt.
Euseb. Hist. Eccles. v. 24. The word virx-ho, is rendered by Jerome (De
Viris Illus. 4, 5), aurea lamina— the plate on the high priest's mitre.
Epiphanius records the same thing also of James the Just, Hxres. 39, 2.

NOTE ON CHAP. II. 1. 135
ance, " I will give Thee for a light to the Gentiles, that Thou
mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth." Truer by
far was he to the old covenant, and those numerous' fore-show
ings of a better and broader dispensation, than they "which were
scattered abroad upon the persecution that rose about Stephen,
and who travelled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch,
preaching the word to none, but unto the Jews only" and than
those who, by insisting on the circumcision of Gentile converts,
were barring the way while they professed to open it, and clog
ging the gift in their mode of presenting it with conditions
which robbed it of its value by hampering its freeness.
The power of early association, which grows with one's
growth, is very difficult to subdue; for it may suddenly reassert
its supremacy at some unguarded moment, and expose inherent
weakness and indecision. He who, on being instructed by a
vision, had preached to Cornelius and admitted him by baptism
into the church, and who, when " they of the circumcision
contended with him," had nobly vindicated his procedure, and
rested his concluding argument on the remembered words of
the Master, — who had spoken so boldly in the synod, and
joined in the apostolic circular, — sunk at Antioch so far beneath
himself and these former experiences, that Paul was obliged to
withstand him to the face.

NOTE ON Chap. ii. 1.
'Avifyv els 'Upoo-6\vpa — " I went up again to Jerusalem."
Five visits of the apostle to Jerusalem are mentioned in the
Acts, and the question is, which of them can be identified with
the visit so referred to in the first verse of this chapter, or is
that visit one not mentioned in the Acts at all ?
These visits are : 1. That recorded in Acts ix. 26, and re
ferred to already in Gal. i. 18. See p. 50.
2. The second visit is described in Acts xi. 27-30, and the
return from it in Acts xii. 25. In consequence of a famine,
" which came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar," Bar
nabas and Saul carried up from Antioch " relief to the brethren

136 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
which dwelt in Judaea ;" and their mission being accomplished,
they " returned from Jerusalem."
3. The third visit is told in Acts xv. In consequence of
Judaistic agitation in the church at Antioch, it was resolved
" that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should
go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders about this ques
tion." The agitation was renewed in Jerusalem, and after the
deputies had been " received of the church," a council was
held, and a letter was written. Then Paul and Barnabas re
turned to Antioch, accompanied by Silas and Judas Barsabas,
who carried the epistle, and had it also in" charge to expound
its contents — " to tell the same things by mouth."
4. The fourth visit is inferred from Acts xviii. 21, where
the apostle says, " I must by all means keep this feast that
cometh in Jerusalem," — followed by the announcement, that
" when he had landed at Caesarea, and gone up and saluted the
church, he went down to Antioch."
5. The fifth visit is given at length in Acts xxi. 1-17, etc.
The apostle sailed from Philippi " after the days of unleavened
bread;" and he would not spend any time in Asia, for "he
hasted if it were possible for him to be at Jerusalem the day of
Pentecost." Now the first and last visits may be at once set aside. He sets
aside the first himself by affirming that the one under discus
sion was a subsequent visit to it — eireira; and he did not return
to Antioch after his last visit, but he went down to it after
this visit, as is implied in ii. 11. Nor is it likely that his visit
to Jerusalem as a delegate from Antioch on a theological con
troversy was the fourth visit, for its only asserted purpose was
to keep a Jewish feast. Whiston, Van Til, Credner, and
Ruckert virtually, with Kohler, Hess, Huther (on 1 Pet. p. 8),
and Lutterbeck, adopt this view, which has been strenuously con
tended for by Wieseler in his Chronologie d. apostol. Zeitalters,
p. 179, and in a Chronologischer Excurs appended to his com
mentary on this epistle. Wieseler, struck by Paul's circumcision
of Timothy after the visit referred to in this epistle, and by some
objections adduced by Baur, tries to escape from the difficulty
by adopting this hypothesis. But in this visit of the Galatian
epistle, the apostle describes his interview with the apostles as a
novelty ; while the entire narrative implies that they met for the

THE FOURTH VISIT. 137
first time, and came to a mutual understanding as to their re
spective spheres of labour. Such a visit cannot therefore be the
fourth, for at the third visit Paul had most certainly met with
the apostles and elders, and there had been a public synod and
debate. Besides, Barnabas was with Paul at the visit in ques
tion ; but there is no mention of him in the account of the
fourth visit, for the two apostles had separated before that
period. If what Paul relates in this epistle, as to the results of
his consultations with the older apostles, had happened at the
fourth visit, it would have been surely mentioned in Acts ; but
Acts is wholly silent on the matter, and dismisses the visit by
a single clause — " having saluted the church." Can those
simple words cover, as Wieseler argues, business so momentous,
prolonged, and varied as that described in the epistle before us ?
Besides, if this fourth visit, which appears to be limited to the
exchange of cordial greetings, is the one here described by the
apostle, then his historical argument for his independence
breaks down, and he conceals that at a previous period he
had been in company with the apostles, and had obtained
from them a letter which was meant to suspend an agitation
quite of the kind which was placing the Galatians in such
serious peril. In arguing his own independence from the fact
of his necessary distance during a long period from the primary
apostles, could he have concealed such a visit as that which led
to an address from Peter and a declaration from James on
points of such importance, and so closely allied to those which
he is about to discuss at length in the letter under his hand ?
Wieseler's arguments are futile. One of them is, that not till
the time of the fourth visit could Paul have risen to such emi
nence as to be on a virtual equality with Peter, nor would Paul
have ventured at an earlier period to have taken a Gentile like
Titus with him to Jerusalem. This is only an assumption, for
during those fourteen years the churches must have been learn
ing to recognise Paul's independent mission, since he had so suc
cessfully laboured in Antioch, the capital of Syrian heathendom,
had gone a long missionary circuit, and returned to the same
city, where he " abode long time." There was therefore, before
his third visit, an ample period of time and labour, sufficient to
place him and Barnabas in the high position assigned to them.
The record of the fourth visit in Acts is also silent about Titus;

138 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
but at such a crisis as that which necessitated the third visit,
Titus, a person so deeply interested that in his person the
question was virtually tested, is very naturally found along with
the champion of Gentile freedom in the Jewish metropolis.
Wieseler indeed attempts to find Titus in Acts xviii. 7, where
the common reading 'lovarov is found in some MSS. as Tirov
'lovarov or Tirlov — a reading rejected by Lachmann and
Tischendorf, and probably a traditional emendation. He again
argues that the clause, ii. 5, " that the truth of the gospel
might remain with you," implies that Paul. had been in Galatia
before he could so write of any purpose of his at the conven
tion. But the apostle merely identifies, as well he might, a
more proximate with a more future purpose. See on the verse.
Another of Wieseler's proofs that the visit must be the fourth
one is, because it allows unrestricted freedom to the Gentile
converts, whereas at the third visit the circular issued and car
ried down to Antioch laid them under certain restrictions.
But in making this affirmation he travels beyond the record in
Gal. ii. 1-10, which speaks only of the apostolic concordat, and
says not a syllable about the general standing of the Gentile
converts. There is thus a certainty that his fourth visit is not
the one referred to by the apostle in the words, " Then fourteen
years after I went up to Jerusalem."
Nor in all probability was it the second visit, when he went
up with funds to relieve the poor. This opinion is given in the
Chronicon Paschale,1 and held by Calvin, Keil, Kiichler, Gabler,
Heinrichs, Kuinoel, Koppe, Bottger, Fritzsche, and by Browne,
Ordo Scsclorum, p. 97. The prophecy of Agabus could not be
the "revelation" by which he went up; and this visit could not
have been so long as fourteen years after his conversion. On such
a theory, too, he must have spent nearly all the intermediate and
unrecorded time at Tarsus. But, according to Acts, no period
of such duration can be assigned to his sojourn in his native
city, for we find him very soon afterwards at Antioch. Prior to
the visit of this chapter, Paul and Barnabas were noted as mis
sionaries among the heathen ; the elder apostles saw that Paul
had been entrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision, for
he described to them the gospel which he was in the habit of
1 Kxl o" tWt •zx'hir, "irihovort sripx larh drxfixett xvri>. Vol. i. p. 436,
ed. Dindorf, Bonn 1832.

THE SECOND VISIT. 139
preaching among the Gentiles. These circumstances were im
possible at the second visit, for at that period the conversion of
the Gentiles had not been attempted on system and over a wide
area. It may be indeed replied, that as the apostle refers to
one visit, and then says, "After fourteen years I went up
again," the natural inference is, that this second must in order
of time be next to the first : Primum proximum iter (Fritzsche).
But the inference has no sure basis. The apostle's object must
be kept in view ; and that is, to show that his mission and
ministry had no originating connection with Jerusalem ; be
cause for a very long period he could hold no communication
with the twelve, or any of them ; for it was not till three years
after his conversion that he saw Peter for a fortnight, and a
much longer interval had elapsed ere he conferred with Peter,
and James, and John. Any visit to Jerusalem during which
he came into contact with none of the apostles, did not need
to be mentioned ; for it did not assist his argument, and was
no proof of his lengthened course of independent action. But
the second visit was one of this nature — the errand was special;
the Herodian persecution, under which James son of Zebedee
had fallen, and Peter had been delivered from martyrdom by a
singular miracle, had driven the apostles out of Jerusalem, and
the money sent by the church was, in absence of the apostles,
given into the custody of " the elders." This view is more in
accordance with the plain meaning of the narrative than that
of Ebrard and Diisterdieck, Meyer, Bleek, and Neander, who
conjecture that this visit to Jerusalem was made by Barnabas
only, Paul having gone with him only a part of the way. So
that the so-called third visit was therefore really the apostle's
second. But this view charges inaccuracy on the Acts of the
Apostles, and is only a little better than the assumption of
Schleiermacher, that the historian has confounded his authori
ties, and made two visits out of one. Nor had Paul at the
second visit risen to an eminence which by common consent
placed him by the side of Peter. We dare not say with
Wordsworth that he was not an apostle at the period of the
second visit, for the apostleship was formally conferred on him
at his conversion, but certainly he had not as yet made " full
proof" of his ministry. In the section of the Acts which nar
rates the second visit he even appears as secondary — the money

140 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
was sent "by the hands of Barnabas and Saul;" "Barnabas
and Saul returned from Jerusalem." Acts xi. 30, xii. 25. If
one object that the visit under review could not be the second
visit, because Peter, on being released from prison, had left
Jerusalem (Acts xii. 17), and could not therefore come into
conference with Paul and Barnabas, Fritzsche replies, perperam
affirmes, for Paul and Barnabas had finished their stewardship
prior to the martyrdom of James and the arrest of Peter. But
to sustain his view, he breaks up the natural coherence and
sequence of the narrative.
The probabilities are therefore in favour of its being the
third visit recorded in Acts xv., when Paul and Barnabas went
up as deputies from the church at Antioch on the embarrass
ing question about the circumcision of Gentile converts. The
large majority of critics adhere to this view ; and among
authors not usually referred to in this volume may be named,
Baronius, Pearson, Hemsen, Lekebusch, Ussher, Schnecken-
burger, Thiersch, Lechler, Baumgarten, Ritschl, Lange,
Schaff, Anger, de Temporum.in Actis ratione, iv. ; and Trip,
in his Paulus nach der Apostelgeschichte, Leiden 1866. Baur,
Schwegler, Zeller, and Hilgenfeld hold the same opinion,
only for the sinister purpose of showing that the discrepancies
between Acts and Galatians in reference to the same event
are so great and insoluble, that Acts must be given up as
wholly wanting historical basis and credit. But in Acts, Paul
and Barnabas were commissioned, and "certain others;" in
the epistle, Titus is mentioned as being with the two leaders.
The question at Antioch was virtually the same as that dis
cussed in the public conference at Jerusalem ; and as a
testing case, the circumcision of Titus was refused, after it
had been apparently insisted on with a pressure that is called
compulsion. At this visit Paul stood out in the specific
character and functions of an apostle of the Gentiles ; the
other apostles acquiesced in his work, not as a novel sphere
of labour, but one which he had been filling with signal suc
cess. True, he says, "I went up by revelation;" but the
statement is not inconsistent with the record in Acts, that
he was sent as a deputy. Commission and revelation are not
necessarily in antagonism. The revelation might be made
either to the church to select him, or to himself to accept the

THE THIRD VISIT. 141
call. Or it might open up to him the true mode of doing the
work, and of securing Gentile liberty. Or it might take up
the more personal question of his own standing ; and he chiefly
refers to this point in the epistle, for it concerned the argu
ment which he was conducting, and closely touched the more
public theme of disputation. The first form of revelation is
found in the history of the same church, Acts xiii., but the
case is not analogous to the one before us. Quite a parallel
case, however, is related by the historian, and told by Paul
himself : the efforts of the brethren to save his life were co
incident with a vision vouchsafed to himself. Acts ix. 30, 31,
xxii. 17-21.1 As the iraXiv of ver. 1 does not make it of
necessity a second visit, so the history of the third visit in Acts
xv. is not in opposition to the paragraph of the epistle before
us. The historian, looking at the mission in its more public
aspects, describes the assembly at Jerusalem to which Paul
and Barnabas were deputed; but the apostle, looking at it
from his own line of defence, selects what was personal to him
self and germane to his argument — his intercourse with the
three " pillars," and their recognition of his independent apostle
ship. It is vain for Baur and his school to insist on any noto
rious discrepancy; for private communication is not inconsistent
with, but may be preparatory to a public convention, or may
spring out of it. It is true that John is not mentioned in
Acts as being present at the assembly, as he might have taken
no prominent part in the consultation, though he is spoken of
as being at the interview in Galatians. It is further argued,
as by Wieseler, that the third visit to Jerusalem and its convo
cation cannot be the one referred to in this epistle, because in
the epistle no notice is taken of the decrees of the council.
This silence about these local and temporary decrees, which were
simply " articles of peace," as Prof. Lightfoot calls them, is
one of Baur's curious arguments for denying that such a docu
ment was ever issued at all. The abstinence enjoined in them
was to produce conformity in three things to the Jewish ritual;
and the moral veto refers probably not to incest or marriage
within the Levitical degrees, but to the orgies so often con-
1 Biley, however, without any good ground, places this vision at the
second visit, during the Herodian persecution. Supplement to Paley's
Horx Paulinx, p. 6.

142 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
nected with heathen worship, and to indulgence in which the
heathen converts, from custom and a conscience long seared as
to the virtue of chastity, and not yet fully awake to its neces
sity, might be most easily tempted.1 But the apostle never
refers to the decrees at any time, when he might have made
naturally some allusion to them, as in 1 Cor. x. and in Rom.
xiv. Nay, in the first of these places, he virtually sets aside
one of the articles of the apostolic letter. It forbade the eat
ing of "meats offered to idols;" but he represents it to the
Corinthians as a matter of indifference or of liberty, the ques
tion of eating or of abstinence depending on the degree of
enlightenment one may have, and on the respect he ought to
show to a brother's scruples. In the Epistle to the Romans he
takes similar ground, not that it is wrong in itself to eat certain
meats — " I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that
there is nothing unclean of itself ; " but the law laid down is,
that no one in the exercise of his just liberty is to put a stum
bling-block in his brother's way. The apostle probably did not
regard the decrees as having any force beyond the churches
for which they were originally enacted and designed — " the
brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch, and Syria, and
Cilicia." The apostolic circular, which was a species of com
promise in a peculiar and vexing crisis, was not meant for the
churches in Galatia which at the time had no existence. The
circumstances, too, were different. The Gentile section of the
church at Antioch wanted to guard itself against Judaistic
tyranny, and there is no proof that any of its members had
succumbed. But many in Galatia had become willing cap
tives, and the enactment of the council had therefore no
special adaptation to them. The churches in Antioch, Syria,
and Cilicia were exhorted to conform on some points to Jewish
observances, with the guarantee that no further exactions
should be demanded; while many in the Galatian churches
were willing to observe, as far as possible, the entire Hebrew
ritual. It is sometimes alleged, as by Keil, that Paul after the
council became more lax in his treatment of Jews, for he cir
cumcised Timothy ; so that this controverted visit must be one
1 See in Deyling specimens of an attempt to show that the " decrees "
were meant to comprise the so-called Noachic precepts, vol. ii. p. 469.

VACILLATION OF PETER. 143
earlier than the third, for at it he strenuously resisted the cir
cumcision of Titus. But while there is no general proof of
the assertion, the special case adduced in illustration is not in
point. Titus was wholly a Gentile, and his circumcision was
resisted. Timothy was a Jew by one side, and might receive,
according to law and usage,1 a Jewish ordinance which was a
physical token of his descent from Abraham. Paul circumcised
Timothy " because of the Jews in those quarters," to gain them
by all means ; but he would not have Titus circumcised to
please the Judaists, for their demand was wrong in motive and
character. To circumcise the son of a Jewish mother that he
might have readier access to those of his own race as one of
themselves, is one thing ; but it is a very different thing to
circumcise a Gentile on the stern plea that submission to the
rite was essential to his salvation. Nor can the objection taken
from Peter's conduct at Antioch, as recorded in the following
verses, be sustained, viz. the strong improbability that one who
had taken such a part in the apostolic council at Jerusalem
should so soon after at Antioch act so unlike himself, and in
opposition to the unanimous decree of the synod. Some, in
deed, place the scene at Antioch before this council, as Augus
tine, Grotius, Vorstius, Hug, and Schneckenburger ; but it
seems most natural, according to the order of this chapter, to
place it after the council. Wieseler and Neander date it after
the fourth journey, with as little reason, though Wieseler,
in accordance with his own theory, places it not long after the
council. But granting for a moment that Peter did act in
opposition to the decrees, his conduct at Antioch affords no
proof that he had changed his opinion in any way. What he
is accused of is not any sudden, violent, and unaccountable
alteration of opinion, but he is formally charged with dissimu
lation, — not Selbstwiderspruch, self-contradiction (Hilgenfeld),
but hypocrisy, — not the abjuring of his former views, but
shrinking from them through timidity. His convictions were
unchanged, but he weakly acted as if they had been changed.
Such vacillation, as will be seen in our commentary, is quite in
keeping with those glimpses into Peter's character which flash
upon us in the Gospels. Besides, while occasional vacillation
characterized Peter, his conduct at Antioch was not a formal
1 See "Wetstein on Acts xvi. 1-3.

144 EPISTLE TO TEE GALATIANS.
transgression of the decrees. They did not distinctly touch the
point on which he slipped ; for while they enjoined certain
compliances, they said not a word as to the general social rela
tions of the Gentile to the Jewish brethren. This question
was neither discussed nor settled at the council. So that
Peter cannot be accused of violating rules in the enactment
of which he had borne a principal share, and the objection
based on his alleged and speedy disobedience falls to the
ground. See under the 11th and 12th verses.
Some of the objections against the identity of the third
visit with the one referred to in Galatians, disposed Paley to
the notion that the Galatian visit is one not recorded in Acts
at all. Some of these objections he certainly solves himself
with his usual sagacity, particularly that based on the omission
of all notice of the decrees in the epistle. He says that " it is
not the apostle's manner to resort or defer much to the authority
of the other apostles ;" that the epistle " argues the point upon
principle;" and Paul's silence about the decrees "is not more to
be wondered at, than it would be that in a discourse designed
to prove the moral and religious duty of keeping the Sabbath,
the writer should not quote the thirteenth canon." Works, vol.
ii. p. 350, ed. London 1830. Still, as he is inclined to think
that the journey was a different one from the third, he puts it
after Acts xiv. 28 ; and he is followed by his annotator, Canon
Tate, in his Continuous History of St. Paul, pp. 141, etc., Lon
don 1840. Beza held a similar opinion ; and Schrader would
insert the journey after the 20th verse of Acts xix., — that is,
the visit was made during the apostle's long sojourn at Ephesus,
and is thus placed between the fourth and fifth visits. Der
Apostel Paulus, vol. ii. pp. 299, etc. But while there are diffi
culties in spite of all explanations, there seems great proba
bility at least that the visit recorded in the epistle is the same
as that told in Acts xv. — the third recorded visit of the apostle
to Jerusalem. The remarks of Hofmann on the harmony
between Acts and Galatians on the point before us may be
read with advantage.
Approximate chronology reckoning, according to ordinary
Jewish computation, a fragment of a year as a whole one,
leads to the same result. His first journey to Jerusalem was
probably in a.d. 41, his conversion having happened three

DATES OF THE VARIOUS VISITS. 145
years before ; his second visit with funds for the poor may be
placed in A.D. 44, for in that year Herod Agrippa died, Acts xi.,
after a reign of seven years ; his third visit may be assigned to
a.d. 51, or fourteen years after his conversion ; his fourth visit
may be dated a.d. 53; and his fifth and last a.d. 58. Then
he was kept prisoner two years in Caesarea ; Festus succeeded
Felix as procurator in a.d. 60, and probably the same year the
apostle was sent under his appeal to Rome. See Schott's Pro
legomena ; Ruckert, in loc. ; Davidson, Introduction, vol. ii. p.
112 ; and Conybeare and Howson, vol. i. p. 244, etc.

CHAPTER II. 11-21.
THE apostle pursues his vindication no further in the same
strain. He has said that he received his commission
and gospel immediately from the same source as did the other
apostles ; that he owed nothing to them ; that he did not on his
conversion rush up to Jerusalem and seek admission among
them, or ask counsel or legitimation from them ; that three years
elapsed before he saw one of them, and him he saw only for a
brief space ; that fourteen years afterwards he went up again to
the metropolis, when he met them, or rather three of the most
famous of them, as their equal ; that he did not and would not
circumcise Titus ; that the original apostles gave him no in
formation and no new element of authority, nay, that they
cordially recognised him, and that he and they came to an
amicable understanding as to their respective departments of
labour. Who then could challenge the validity of his apostle
ship, or impugn the gospel which he preached, after Peter,
James, and John had acquiesced in them ? Who would now
venture to question their opinion ? for they were satisfied, — even
Peter, specially marked in contrast as having the gospel of the
circumcision divinely committed to him. Nay more — and such
is now the argument — he was not only officially recognised as
a brother apostle by Peter, and as possessed of equal authority,
but he had opposed and rebuked Peter on a solemn and public
occasion, and in connection with one of the very points now in
dispute. While Peter had resiled for a moment, he had never
done so : his conduct in Jerusalem and in Antioch had been
one and the same. He thus proves himself invested with the
same high prerogative, measuring himself fully with Peter as
his equal, nay, more than his equal.
Antioch, a large and magnificent city, had communication
by the Orontes and its port of Seleucia with all the territories

CHAP. II. 11-21. 147
bordering on the Mediterranean, and it was connected by an
overland route with Arabia and the countries on and be
yond the Euphrates. Men of all nations easily found their
way into it for business or pleasure; and into this capital
named after his father, Seleucus had introduced a large colony
of Jews who lived under their own ethnarch. From being
the metropolis of Greek sovereigns, it became through the
fortune of war the residence of Roman proconsuls. The
gospel had been brought to it at an early period. Persons
who had fled on the martyrdom of Stephen travelled as far as
Antioch, " preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only,"
acting according to their light and their national prepossessions.
But a section of these itinerating preachers, " men of Cyprus
and Cyrene," had larger hearts and freer views, and they at
Antioch " spake unto the Grecians, preaching the Lord Jesus."
Great results followed these ministrations. Tidings of the
immense success were carried to the church in Jerusalem,
which at once, and probably from a combination of motives,
sent Barnabas to visit the Syrian capital. The earnest and
self-denying Cypriot at once undertook the work, and rejoiced
in the spectacle which he witnessed ; but he felt the labours so
augmenting, that he went and fetched Saul to be his colleague.
Their joint ministry among the mixed people that thronged
the streets and colonnades of this Rome in miniature lasted a
year ; and such were its numerous converts, that the native
population were, for the sake of distinction, obliged to coin a
name for the new and rising party, and they called them
Christians. Antioch thus became the metropolis of Gen
tile Christianity, and Jerusalem looked with jealousy on its
northern rival. In it originated the first formal Christian
mission, and Paul made it his headquarters, starting from it
on his three great evangelistic journeys. The peace of this
society, however, was soon disturbed by Jewish zealots from
Jerusalem, and Paul and Barnabas went up to the mother
church "about this question." Gal. ii. 1. A council was held,
the decrees were issued and sent down, and the two deputies
returned to Antioch and resumed their old work — " teaching
and preaching the word of the Lord." At some period after
this, Peter happened to come down to Antioch, and the
scene here described took place. Just as from attachment

148 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
to Jesus he followed "into the palace of the high priest,'
and found himself in almost the only circle where he could be
tempted to deny his Lord ; so now he had travelled to almost
the only city which presented that strange variety of circum
stances by which, from his peculiar temperament, he could be
snared into this momentary cowardice and dissimulation.
Ver. 11. "Ore Be rjXQev Kncpai ek 'Avrib^eiav — "But when
Cephas came to Antioch." Kvcpd^ is found in A, B, C, H,
N, in the Vulgate, Syriac, and Coptic versions ; but JTeVpo?
has in its favour D, F, K, L, and the Greek fathers. The
Hebrew name was more likely, however, to be altered than the
usual Greek one. By Se he passes to another and different
argument. Paul and Barnabas went down after the council,
and Peter seems to have followed them, though his visit is not
recorded in Acts. Augustine, Hug, and Schneckenburger
refer the visit to an earlier epoch, yet the apostle appears to
follow the order of time; while Neander, Sardinoux, Baum-
garten, Lange, and Wieseler of course, assign it to a later
year. But Barnabas had separated from Paul before the
time alluded to in Acts xviii. 22, and they were together in
Jerusalem at the period of the council. There is no authority
for saying either, with Schrader, that Peter had accompanied
Paul and Barnabas from Jerusalem, or with Thiersch, that it
was his first visit to the metropolis of Gentile Christianity.
Kara irpoacoirov avrco avrearnv, on Kareyvcoafievos rjv — " I
withstood him to the face, because he had been condemned."
The Syriac reads ois oocji ^ ¦ N nZASo; ^fii°5 " because they
were stumbled by him." The last clause sets out the reason
of the conflict, and then it is historically stated. The
verb KaraiyiyvcbaKco, generally followed by the genitive of the
person and accusative of the thing, means to know or note
something against one, next to lay this to his charge, and then
naturally to condemn him— accusation followed by the passing
of sentence. The perfect participle passive with rjv has its
natural meaning, "because he had been condemned," — not
simply accused, but condemned. Compare 1 Cor. xi. 5, Heb.
v. 14, x. 22. The Vulgate reads doubly wrong, in sense and
in syntax, quia reprehensibilis erat; and so Calvin, reprehensione
dignus. And this rendering is followed by many, as Beza,

CHAP. II. 11. 149
a-Lapide, Kiittner, Borger, Matthies, Brown, and the English
Version. Others, as Winer, Schott, De Wette after Luther,
and Jowett, take the milder meaning, which is, however,
grammatically correct, quia reprehensus erat — " because he was
blamed." But the phrase "I withstood to the face " necessi
tates the full signification of the participle. The instances
commonly adduced in behalf of the adjectival meaning will
not bear it out. It is true that in Hebrew, from its want of
verbal adjectives, the passive participle may occasionally bear
the sense of one ending in bilis, or a participle ending in ndus.
Gesenius, Lehrgeb. § 213; Nordheimer, § 1034, 3, b. The
idiom is based on the notion that what is praised is praisable,
that what is loved is lovable or deserves to be loved. Thus
one passes easily from the idea of incorrupt to that of incor
ruptible, from that of seen to that of visible, from that of
touched to that of touchable or palpable. But it is difficult to
say in regard to the Hebrew idiom when and how far the one
notion is expanded into the other, and there is no reason why
this usage should be transferred into Greek. The common
proofs taken from the classics — rereXeapevos, Iliad, i. 388, and
Lucian, de Saltatione, p. 173 (vol. v. ed. Bipont.), where the
same word occurs as in the passage before us — will not bear
it out, and those quoted from the New Testament are also
defective. For the aorist participle iKpi^coQivra in Jude 12
has its regular meaning, "rooted out;" the perfect participle
iBBeXvyfievoi? in Rev. xxi. 8 is not "abominable," but "covered
with pollutions," or abominated ; and the present participle in
Heb. xii. 18, ^rfXacpcofievcp, has its literal meaning of being
touched. See Alford, Delitzsch, and Bleek, in loc. ; Winer,
§ 45, 1. So that the strong term used by the apostle leads
us to infer that the condemnation was not simply self-con
demnation or conscious inconsistency (Bengel, Bagge, Win-
dischmann, Hofmann), but condemnation pronounced in no
measured terms by those who were aggrieved by Peter's hypo
critical conduct. Tergiversation on the part' of such a man
could not but produce deep and wide sensation in such a church
as Antioch ; and the outraged feelings of the Gentile portion
of it so suddenly shunned, and to all appearance so decidedly
disparaged, must have condemned the apostle. They had but
to compare himself, not with his former self, as he had cham-

150 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
pioned them twice over in Jerusalem, but with his recent self
on his arrival in their city. The hollowness of his withdrawal
from them carried with it at the same time its own condem
nation. Peter therefore being signalized as a condemned man, Paul
was obliged to interfere on behalf of honesty, consistency, and
spiritual freedom —
Kara irpbacoirov avrco dvrearnv — " to the face I withstood
him" — not simply coram omnibus (Erasmus, Beza, Matthias,
and Conybeare), for the preposition retains its sub-local mean
ing, as may be inferred also from the attitude described in the
verb dvrearnv. Acts iii. 13, xxv. 16. Comp. 2 Cor. x. 1, 7 ;
Sept. Deut. vii. 24, ix. 2 ; 2 Chron. xiii. 7, 8 ; Kara irpbacoirov
rd%a<;, Polyb. iii. 65, 6 ; similarly xi. 14, 6. This meaning is
not very distinctly brought out in Winer, § 49. The antago
nistic sense of the verb may be seen in Eph. vi. 13, 2 Tim. iii. 8.
These two words — irpbacoirov, dvrearnv — have the emphatic
position as an index to the fidelity of the argument. Private
remonstrance, written correspondence, appeals against Peter
or crimination of him in his absence, would not have proved
' Paul's conscious equality of status so truly as a face-to-face
rebuke, and that publicly, of the apostle of the circumcision.
The iniquitous gloss Kara aj^rjpa — " in appearance only" — as
if the whole scene had been got up between the apostles, is as
little to be thought of as the assertion that this condemned Peter
was not the well-known apostle, but another individual of the
same name. See the history of that controversy at the end of
this chapter.
Ver. 12. Ilpb rov yap eXQelv rti/o? dirb 'IaKcoBov — " for
before that certain from James came." What is the connec
tion of the word eXQeiv with Tim? dirb 'IaKcoBov ?
1. The preposition seems to be used in no vague sense, as
if they only came from James' locality, or from Jerusalem, for
they came from himself. Augustine, Beza, Olshausen, Schaff,
Baumgarten-Crusius, and Brown incline to this view. But
why name James, if locality only be alluded to? As easy,
since dirb has so often a local meaning, would it have been to
write at once, from Jerusalem — dirb IepoaoXvficov.
2. Usteri, Winer, and Zeller connect nvd<; with dirb 'IaKco-
Bov— certain dependants or followers of James, as in the phrase

CHAP. II. 12. 151
ol dirb nXarwi/o?. Bernhardy, p. 222. Winer's explanation
of this conjecture is loose— qui Jacobi auctoritate utrum jure an
secus usi fuerint. But this idiom is specially connected with
names of places and abstract nouns (Ellicott), and James never
appears as the head of a party. His name never seems to have
been used as the watchword of any faction of Jacobites, like that
of Paul, Cephas, and Apollos ; and this probably because he
was resident in Jerusalem where the church thought and felt
so much at one with himself, whereas Peter must have con
stantly come into contact with persons of opposite sentiments,
and preached to communities of divided opinion.
3. The inference seems to be well grounded that they were
persons sent from James (De Wette, Meyer, Trana). Matt.
xxvi. 47 ; Mark v. 35 ; Mark xiv. 43 ; koi dpri air iKelvov
ep%ofiai, Plato, Protag. 309b. It may, on the one hand, be
too strong to affirm that they were formally sent by James on
an express mission, though it may be fairly inferred that he
knew of their coming, and that they appeared in Antioch with
at least his sanction ; but, on the other hand, it unduly softens
the phrase to give it the meaning of persons who " gave out
themselves as from James" (Winer, Ellicott). There is no war
rant for Prof. Lightfoot's supposition, that they came " invested
with some powers from James, which they abused." For there
is no hint that they were the same very extreme party described
in Acts xv. 24, a party which Peter would rather have resisted
than succumbed to. Who those men were, or what their
mission was, we know not. The narrative of Acts says nothing
of the occurrence. But from the result one may infer, that
they were sent to see as to the obedience of the church to the
decrees. These decrees respected the Gentiles, and indeed
they originated in a reference regarding their position. No
additional burden was to be placed on them ; but the believing
Jews were expected to keep " the customs," and not to mix
freely with the Gentiles. Acts xv. 19. It may, therefore,
have been suspected at Jerusalem that the Jewish believers,
through intercourse with Gentile brethren, were relaxing, and
were doing what Peter had begun to do at Antioch with in
creasing freedom; so that the business of this deputation may
have been, to see that the circumcision did not presume on any
licence in consequence of the opinion of the council. See

152 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
Alford. Other purposes have been imagined for these " certain
from James," without any foundation. At all events, they could
not be the false brethren already mentioned by Paul, nor those
disowned by James in his address before the council, and in
the apostolic circular. Nor could they be the bearers of the
decrees, as Ritschl (Altkath. Kirche, p. 128) supposes, for these
documents had been sent down at an earlier period. Before
these certain came from James, we are told of Peter —
Merd rcov eQvcov avvrjaQiev — " he was eating with the Gen
tiles." As he had done before (Acts x.), and had defended
the act at Jerusalem so nobly and conclusively, as is told in
the following chapter (Acts xi.). The charge at that time was
Kal avvecpayes avroh, — himself admitting to Cornelius that by
Jewish ordinance such intercourse was dQifiirov. Compare
Luke xv. 1 ; 1 Cor. v. 11. Some, as Olshausen and Matthies,
widen the meaning of the phrase too much, as if it signified
general social intercourse ; and others, as Thiersch and Hilgen
feld, emphasize it too much, and refer it not to ordinary diet,
but also to communion in the love-feasts and eucharist. Peter
then had been acting according to conviction, and as the vision
had long ago instructed him. But on the question of eating
with Gentiles the council had said nothing, it only forbade cer
tain articles of food; and the circular did not settle the general
relation of converted Gentiles to the law, for it only spoke out
against the necessity of circumcising them. But this last enact
ment releasing them from circumcision virtually declared them
no longer common or unclean ; and for a time at Antioch Peter
thus understood it, so that his tergiversation was a violation in
spirit at least of the " decrees." There is no ground for
Wieseler's assumption, which is based on the late date which
he assigns to this meeting at Antioch, that Peter's conduct had
reference simply to the articles of food forbidden by these
" decrees " which in lapse of years had fallen into comparative
desuetude, and that, in withdrawing from social intercourse
with the Gentiles, he only obeyed them. The reproof of Paul
on such a supposition would have been uncalled for and unjust;
and for such a withdrawal, hypocrisy could not be laid to
Peter's charge. The "certain from James" seem to have in
sisted that the decision of the council was to be limited entirely
to the points specified in it, and that it did not warrant such

CHAP. II. 13. 153
free intercourse with believing Gentiles as Peter had been
practising. The believing Gentiles were, on that view, to be
an inferior caste in the church.
' Ore Be rjXQov, vireareXXev Kal dcpcopi^ev eavrbv — " but when
they came, he withdrew and separated himself." The reading
rjXQev has B, D1, F, N, two other MSS., and the Itala in its
favour ; but the plural form has preponderant authority. The
singular rjXQev, accepted by Lachmann, may have come from
the following verse, from some reminiscence of the previous
eXQeiv in ver. 11, or from some odd meaning attached to nveq
dirb 'IaKcoBov ; for Origen has e\Qbvro<; 'IaKcoBov 7rpo? avrbv,
as if James himself had followed his rti/e'?. Contra Celsum, ii.
1, p. 56, ed. Spencer. The two connected verbs represent
Peter first as withdrawing himself, and then, as the fear grew,
ultimately and formally separating himself. The imperfects
show that not one act only, but the course which he was
following is depicted as if placed before one's eyes. Jelf, §
401, 3.
$oBovfievo<; tow e'« irepirofirj<; — " fearing," or " inasmuch
as he feared them of the circumcision" — that is, Jews in blood,
but Christians in creed, called 'IovBalcov rcov ireiriarevKorcov in
Acts xxi. 20; Tit. i. 10, 11. The participle has a causal sense.
Schmalfeld, § 207, 3. Before the Ttfe? who had arrived at
Antioch he quailed; and they certainly represented, though not
by any formal commission, the creed and practice of the mother
church (Wieseler). Peter might imagine that his position
as the apostle of the circumcision was endangered. It would
thus appear, that though he was the apostle of the circum
cision, and might naturally be regarded as the head of that
section of the church, there was an influence in it higher than
his, and a power resident in Jerusalem of which he stood in
awe. Chrysostom is anxious to show that his fear had no con
nection with himself, but was only anxiety about the disciples,
his fear being parallel to that expressed by Paul in iv. 11 ; and
Theophylact adds, that he was condemned wrongfully by men
who did not know his motive. Somewhat similar opinions are
held by Erasmus, Piscator, Grotius, and Dr. Brown, and most
naturally by Baronius and Bellarmine.
Ver. 13. Kal avvvireKplQrjaav avrco Kal ol Xoiirol IovBaioi
—" and the other Jews also dissembled with him." The com-

154 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
pound verb — the aorist passive with a deponent sense (Polyb.
iii. 31, 7) — means " to act a part along with," " to play the
hypocrite in company with." The rest of the believing Jews
in Antioch acted as Peter did — withdrew themselves, and
shunned all social intercourse, of the kind at least referred to,
with their fellow-believers of the Gentiles. Now this secession
was hypocrisy, for Peter and these other Jewish converts trans
gressed against their better convictions. They concealed their
real views, or acted as if they thought that it was really wrong
to eat with Gentiles. Probably they felt as if they had gone
beyond the understood compact, in enjoying such familiar
intercourse with their Gentile brethren ; and on account of the
party which came from James, they suddenly and decisively
asserted their rigid Judaism, and acted as if they had been
convinced that their salvation depended on complete ritual
conformity. This hypocrisy involved a denial of one of the
primary truths of the gospel, for it had a tendency to lead the
Gentiles to believe that they too must observe the law in order
to justification and life. It is added, in fine, to show the mar
vellous strength of the current —
flare Kai BapvaBa<; avvairrryQi) avrcbv rfj viroKplaei — " so
that even Barnabas was carried along with them by their dis
simulation." The Kal is ascensive — " even." Winer, § 53, 3, e.
The verb is used only tropically in the New Testament, but
not always in malam partem : Rom. xii. 16 with the dative of
thing. The particle coare is usually joined with the infinitive,
that mood, according to grammarians, being used when the
result is a matter of necessity ; but the indicative, as here, is
employed when the result is represented as a matter of fact.
Klotz-Devarius, ii. 772 ; Kiihner, ii. 563 ; Winer, § 41, 5, 1.
The vacillation of Barnabas was the direct but not the neces
sary result of their dissimulation. The dative viroKplaei may
be that of instrument, or it may be governed by aw in com
position, as our version gives it. 2 Pet. iii. 17 ; rj "Zrrdprrj
avvairrjyero ry Koivrj ttj? 'EXXdBos dXcoaei, Zosimus, Hist.
v. 6, p. 409, ed. Reitemeier,— in which places also both
forms of construction are possible. The first, said to be so
harsh, is probably the true one. They were swept along with
others by their hypocrisy, and of course swept into it, though
the translation cannot be that of the Vulgate, in illam simula-

CHAP. II. 14. 155
tionem. That, however, is the undoubted inference, as aw
implies it. Fritzsche on Rom. xii. 16. The contagion of such
an example infected Barnabas, " a good man, and full of the
Holy Ghost, and of faith," who had shared in Paul's labours
among the Gentiles, and must have possessed no little of his
free and elevated spirit. Even the apostle's colleague was
swept away from his side by the influence of Peter, and per
haps by a similar awe of the Tti>e?. If Peter and Barnabas
had changed their views, hypocrisy could not have been laid to
their charge. But with their opinions unchanged, they acted
as if they had been changed; therefore are they accused of
dissimulation. It was "not indecision" of opinion, as Jowett
affirms, but indecision certainly in acting up to their un
altered convictions. Nor was it error or inconsistency, induced
by want of clear apprehension, that is laid to their charge
(Hilgenfeld, Bisping) ; but downright hypocrisy, and that is
the proper term to describe their conduct. What Peter could
say in his genuine state may be. read in his first Epistle, i. 22,
23. This dissimulation, so wide and powerful, was compro
mising the freedom of the gospel, for it was subverting the
doctrine of justification by faith ; and therefore the apostle,
who could on fitting occasions " to the Jews become a Jew,"
was obliged to visit it with immediate and stern rebuke.
Ver. 14. '^4XX' ore elBov on ovk bpQoiroBovai 7rpo? rnv
dXrjQeiav rov evayyeXiov — " But," or " howbeit," " when I saw
that they were not walking according to the truth of the gos
pel." The compound verb occurs only here, and is translated
in the Vulgate, recte ambularent ; in Tertullian, non recte pede
incedentes : Contra Marc. iv. 3. 'OpQbirov; (Soph. Antig. 972)
occurs also in later ecclesiastical writers, and the use of bpQb<s
in other compounds leads to the correct apprehension of its
meaning here, which is " to foot it straight," to walk straight,
that is, in no crooked paths — to conduct one's self uprightly or
honestly. The apostle often uses irepiirarelv and aroiyeiv.
See under Eph. ii., etc. The present tense employed as in
this clause denotes action beginning at a previous period and
still continuing — " a state in its entire duration." Kiihner, §
846 ; Winer, § 40, 2, c. Schmalfeld says that in such a case
das Subjekt in dem Processe der Ausfuhrung seines That verge-
genwdrtigt wird, p. 96. The 7rpo?; pointing to the norm or

156 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
rule, signifies " according to." Luke xii. 47 ; 2 Cor. v. 10 ;
Winer, § 49, h ; Bernhardy, p. 265. But Estius, Baumgarten-
Crusius, Meyer, and Alford give it its more ordinary sense of
"in the direction of," or marking aim, that aim being, according
to Meyer, to uphold and further the truth of the gospel. The
apostle generally uses Kara, as denoting rule or measure, after
irepiirareiv. Ellicott says, indeed, in reply, that "motion is
much more obscurely expressed in bpOoiroBeiv than irepiirareiv."
Hofmann affirms that the verb means "to stand with equal feet,"
bpQoirovs (Antigone, 972) meaning ein gerad aufrecht stehender.
Usage seems to declare for the second meaning, and the idea
of norm may be implied in the verb itself. The " truth of the
gospel " is not the true gospel, but the truth which it Contains
or embodies — evidently the great doctrine of justification by
faith, implying the non-obligation of the ceremonial law on
Gentile converts, and the cessation of that exclusiveness which
the chosen people had so long cherished. See ii. 5.
Elirov reo Kr/cpa. The reading KvcpS, has the authority of
A, B, C, a, the Vulgate, Syriac, and many other versions, with
several of the Greek fathers ; but Ilerpco has only in its favour
D, F, K, L. The apostle uses no strong term, does not say in
any overbearing spirit, "I challenged him, or I rebuked him ;"
but simply, " I said to him." The expostulation, however, was
in public (not Kar IBlav now), and he puts his own apostolic
independence in direct conflict with that of Peter. He was
in this publicity only following the injunction which he after
wards gave to Timothy, 1 Tim. v. 20. But while the words
efiirpoaQev irdvreov, " before them all," describe the publicity
of the address, there is no warrant for saying expressly,
as Thiersch does, that the phrase means " in a meeting of
both sections of the congregation specially summoned for the
purpose." The scene is quite in keeping with the respective ante
cedents and character of the two apostles. See note at end of
chapter. The address is somewhat difficult and involved, from its
brevity and compactness, and its passing away from the direct
second person singular to the first person singular which
rehearses in wondrous words the depth of Paul's own experi
ence. Yet Gwynne, in opposition to all who have written on

CHAP. II. 14. 157
the subject, says, "Methinks a plainer, simpler, more intel
ligible line of argument is not to be found within the compass
of the Bible."
The commencement is bold and somewhat abrupt —
Et av, 'louSoto? virdpycov, iQviKcb<; Kal ov% 'IovBaiKcb'} £179 —
" If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles
and not after the manner of the Jews." The place of the
verb in our text has the authority of A, B, C, F, K, mss., and
Latin fathers. Cod. Clar., Sang., with the text of Ambros.
Sedulius, Agap., omit Kal ov% ,IovBaiKco<;. The position of £77?
in the received text after iQviKm has the authority of D, K,
L, nearly all mss., the majority of versions and of the Greek
fathers, and is followed by Tischendorf. Instead of ovk, ov%
is found in A, C, a1, etc., and is accepted by Tischendorf, B
and D1 having ov%t,. Winer, § 5. Paul brings the matter
home at once to him. If a Jew as thou art — virdp%cov, stronger
than eov, which is found in D1. The et throws no doubt on
the case, but puts it syllpgistically, as in Rom. v. 10, xv. 27 ;
2 Cor. iii. 7, 9, 11 ; Eph. iii. 2. If thou, being a Jew — born
and brought up a Jew 'as thou hast been — the stress lying on
'lovBalos. By the present £?7? is represented the usual life of
the apostle — his normal conduct ; for at that very moment he
had receded from his ordinary practice, and was again living
'lovBaiKco'i. The present £77? is certainly not for the past ety]<;,
either actually (Flatt) or in effect (De Wette), nor is et for
eireiBrj, nor £77? for e£?7cra? (Usteri). Like all Jews, he had felt
it unlawful — dQefiirov — KoXXdaQai rj irpoaepyeaQai dXXocpvXcp
— to associate with or come unto a foreigner. Acts x. 28 ;
Joseph. Cont. Ap. ii. 28. Such association was limited and
defined by avvecpayes when Peter was challenged for his free
social intercourse with Cornelius. Since that period of divine
warning and illumination at. Joppa, as to what was koivov r)
aKaQdprov, Peter had so broken through Jewish custom that
he freely ate and drank with Gentile converts. He had been
doing so till the moment of his present withdrawal. To live
eQviKio<i was to disregard the old distinction of meats, drinks,
and races ; and this Peter did, as is said in ver. 12. And he
had not renounced his liberty ; he had in no sense retracted his
principles of life ; he had not refused to eat with Gentiles from
force of conviction that such association was wrong, but only

158 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
from pressure of circumstances — undue deference to the pre
judices of some he desired to stand well with. So that Paul
justly and with emphasis says £"779 — "thou art living" — the
word by the present form rebuking his inconsistency, as if
overlooking his momentary defection. Wholly out of ques
tion is the view of Usteri, that the adverbs iQviKco? and
'lovBaiKcbs are to be taken ideally and not in their ordinary
objective sense, the first meaning " wrongly," and the
second " with spiritual rectitude," Rom. ii. 23 ; that is, Peter
had acted ethnically or sinfully, in his dissimulation, since he
was not " an Israelite in whom is no guile." But it is not to
the morality, it is to the hollowness and inconsistency of the
action that the apostle refers. The charge is, Thou art living
after the manner of the Gentiles, and, though a Jew, not after
the manner of the Jews, Now, this being admitted and unde
niable, the challenge is —
ffi? t« eQvn diwy«a£et? 'IovBat^eiv ; — " how art thou com
pelling the Gentiles to live after the manner of the Jews?"
Wycliffe has it more tersely idiomatic — If thou that art a Jewe
lyuest hethenlich and not jewliche, how constreynest thou
hethen men to bicome jewis ? We read 77-eo? on the authority
of A, B, C, D, F, N, the majority of versions and the Latin
fathers. The other reading Tt of the Received Text, has K,
L, the majority of minuscules, and the Greek fathers in its
favour, and it is retained by Tischendorf, in violation of his
own critical principles. The verb dvcuyKa^eiv, used here as
often with an accusative followed by an infinitive, passes away
from its strict original meaning into the kindred one of moral
compulsion — by suasion, menaces, or authority. So often in
Plato and in Xenophon. Ast defines it as argumentis cogo
aliquem ut concedat, Lex. Platon. sub voce ; Sturz, Lex. Xen.
sub voce, gives it as necessitas quam presens rerum conditio efificit.
Matt. xiv. 22; 2 Cor. xii. 11. See under ver. 3. Libanius
has rl 77/1.09 dvayKa&i<s roi<; rjQeaiv 'AOnvaicov aKoXovQeiv, 455.
Comp. Hom. Clement, xiv. 7, and Recogn. ix. 38. It has been
supposed by De Wette, Wieseler, Lechler, and Ritschl, that the
we? dirb 'IaKcoBov had insisted on the observance of the cere
monial law, and that Peter did not merely remain silent or
passive, but openly and actively defended their view. But
this verb and the context afford no sure ground for this ex-

CHAP. II. 14. 159
treme supposition. All we are warranted to say is, that Peter
belied his own principles in his conduct ; for there is no proof
that either he had changed them, or had intimated that he
had changed them. The Jewish party naturally followed
Peter, even Barnabas among them ; and such an example in
the circumstances, and connected with the arrival of these
men from the mother church, exerted a pressure amounting to
a species of compulsion on the Gentile converts. What infer
ence could they draw from the sudden change of Peter but an
obligation to follow him and submit ? The direct tendency of
Peter's conduct was so to act upon them as to constrain them
into Judaism, — a result which, by the concealment of his real
principles, he was doing his best to bring about. The verb
'IovBa'l^eiv is apparently more pointed and full than 'IovBaiKco?
tfiv — the one depicting the condition of, and the other implying
the entrance into, the Jewish life, and properly used of a con
forming Gentile. Joseph. Bel. Jud. ii. 18, 2 ; Sept. Esther
viii. 17. Wieseler, according to his theory already referred to,
takes "to Judaize" as equivalent to, "to keep the decrees of
the council." 'IovBat^eiv is formed like eXXtjvl^eiv, cpiXXiirl^eiv,
XaKcovl^eiv, firjBl^eiv. Buttmann, § 119-8, d. The 77-w? repre
sents the case as incomprehensible and surprising — qui fit ut,
quo jure (Winer) ; Mark xii. 35 ; John iv. 9 ; Rom. iii. 6,
vi. 2 ; — puts his conduct in such a light, that it needed imme
diate vindication.
How far the address of the apostle extends, has been dis
puted. Beza, Grotius, Semler, Koppe, Matthies, Hermann,
Wieseler, and Hofmann hold that the address ends with ver.
14; Luther and Calvin that it ends with ver. 16; Cajetan,
Neander, Turner, Gwynne, that it ends with ver. 17; and
Flatt with ver. 18. On the other hand, the majority of com
mentators suppose that the address extends to the end of the
chapter. For it would be strange if, in such a crisis, these two
clauses alone, or these and ver. 15, formed the entire expostu
lation. Wieseler argues, and he is joined in this portion of his
argument by Hofmann, that if the two apostles were at one
in principle, then, though Peter dissembled, how could Paul
so earnestly prove to him the truth which he did not deny ?
But Peter was not alone concerned; the words were spoken

160 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
" before them all," and the inconsistency between principle and
practice needed to be fully exposed. The appeal in iii. 1, it
is argued, is abrupt if the address to Peter be carried on to the
end of the chapter. But the abruptness is not more than that
expressed by QavfiaC,co in i. 6 ; and the conclusion of Paul's
expostulation so shapes itself as to accord with, and form an
introduction to, the train of argument and appeal with which
the epistle is to be filled. Wieseler objects again, that the
direct av is not found after ver. 14, and that the tone of a
personal address is wanting. But the av is taken up by the
rjfieh, and the apostle does not reproduce his exact words ; he
gives only the substance without the precise original form.
Nay, the iyco in the hypothetical case put in ver. 18 plainly
arraigns the conduct of Peter, and is an indirect description of
his inconsistency — " For if the things which I destroyed, these
again I build up, I constitute myself a transgressor." In the
15th verse the words are rjfieh cpvaei 'IovBaioi, which could not
be said directly to the Galatian churches, the majority of whom
were Gentiles. Nor are there any marks of transition, indi
cating where he passes from the address to Peter to the general
style of the epistle, till we come to the sharp and startling
words of iii. 1, eo dvbr/roi TaXdrai. The verses, too, are all
closely connected — the 15th and 16th verses by syntax ; these
to the 17th by the adversative inference in et Be ; it to the 18th
by the argumentative et ydp ; and it to the 19th by 7ap, ren
dering a reason, — while the remaining clauses are logically
linked together to the end of the chapter. Vers. 15, 16, 17 are
in the first person plural rjfieh, and the remainder in the first
person singular, — not precisely the apostle's " musing or argu
ing with himself with an indirect reference to the Galatians"
(Jowett), but the vindication of his consistency, which had its
roots deep in his own personal history. The apostle is not
"speaking to himself," nor can we regard the words as "the after
comment of the narrator" (Lightfoot) ; but he brings out some
elements of his own spiritual consciousness to vindicate the part
which he had taken, and to show by this representative / that
he, and those who had passed through his experience, of all of
whom he was a prominent specimen, could not but regard
Peter's tergiversation not only as unworthy of him and detri
mental to the cause of the gospel, but as utterly in conflict with

CHAP. II. 15. 161
the inner life and trust of every believer. Nor does the apostle
really " drift away from Peter at Antioch to the Judaizers in
Galatia" (Lightfoot) ; rather, the apostle's reminiscence of his
address to Peter naturally throws into relief the points which
had reference to the letter which he was writing at the
moment. That is to say, his immediate object was to show his
perfect independence of the primary apostles, even of Peter ;
for he opposed him resolutely on a certain occasion, when by
taking a retrograde step he was exercising an adverse Judaistic
influence ; but this theme of dispute was in itself intimately
connected with the Judaizing reaction in Galatia, so that in
his narrative of the interview and expostulation he brings out
its bearing on the immediate object of the epistle, to which
he passes at once without any formal transition. The apostle
gives only an abridged report of what he said to Peter ; and he
introduces what he says of himself, first, because he was the
object of suspicion and attack, and secondly, because at the
same time it carried him into the line of thought which he was
about to pursue in the parchment under his hand. He is not
to be supposed as calling up his very words, but he writes the
general purport in brief, at once vindicating his independence,
or in a human sense his autonomy, and exposing in the process
the very error which had seduced the Galatian converts.
Ver. 15. 'Hfieh cpvaei 'IovBaioi, koX ovk e% iQveov dfiaprcoXol
— "we by nature Jews, and not of the Gentiles sinners."
Primasius, Eisner, Schmidt, Bagge, Grotius, and Brown con
nect dfiaprcoXol with 'IovBaioi— nos natura Judcei, licet non ex
Gentibus, peccatores, — we being by nature Jews, and not of the
Gentiles, yet sinners ; or, Jews, and though not Gentiles, still
sinners. True, the apostle concludes all under sin ; and Jews
are not only no exception, but their sinfulness has special aggra
vations. Rom. ii. 3, 22, iii. 9, 23, 24. Yet he does not here
say that the Jews are not sinners, but the heathen are cha
racterized as " sinners" from the Jewish standpoint — sinners
inasmuch as they are Gentiles, or in consequence of being
Gentiles; and it would be as unfair to infer from tnis language,
on the one hand, that those who were by birth Jews were there
fore not sinners (Hofmann), as, on the other hand, that the
Gentilism of the contrasted party excused their sin. The term
is not taken in a strict spiritual sense, but with the signification
L

162 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
it carried in Jewish parlance as a designation of all who were
beyond the limits of the theocracy. The apostle thus speaks
relatively : Men born Gentiles, being without the law, were by
the privileged Jews reckoned " sinners." Rom. ii. 12 ; Eph.
ii. 12 ; 1 Cor. ix. 21 ; Luke xviii. 32, xxiv. 7, compared with
Matt. xxvi. 45, xviii. 17 ; 1 Sam. xv. 18 ; 1 Mace. ii. 44 ;
Tobit xiii. 6 ; Hom. Clement, xi. 16, p. 241, ed. Dressel. It is
perhaps better to supply ia/iev than owe?. We (himself and
Peter) are Jews by nature, not of Gentile extraction, and
therefore, from our national point of view, sinners. Wieseler,
according to his view, takes the rjfieh to be Paul and the other
Jewish believers like-minded with him. The stress is on rjfieh,
and Kal ovk normally follows an affirmative assertion. The
dative cpvaei (Winer, § 36, 6) affirms that they were Jews in
blood and descent, not proselytes, — e/c yevovs Kal ov irpoarjXvroi,
Theodore Mopsuest. See under Eph. ii. 3. But the opposite
phrase el? iQvcbv has not the very same meaning, as it signifies,
though not so distinctively, " out of or belonging to the Gen
tiles," as in Acts xv. 23. The Kal may have a consecutive
force : Gentiles, and being such, sinners. Phil. iv. 9 ; Matt.
xxiii. 32. The particle fiev is not needed in such a connec
tion, nor is there an ellipse, as Ruckert, Schott, and others
suppose. Fritzsche, Rom. x. 19, vol. ii. 423 ; Donaldson,
§ 563. The verse seems in a word to be a concessive state
ment to strengthen what follows : Though we are Jews by
descent, and not Gentiles who as such are regarded by us from
our elevation as sinners, yet our Judaism, with all its boasted
superiority, could not bring us justification. Born and bred
Jews as we are, we were obliged to renounce our trust in
Judaism, for it was powerless to justify us. Why then go
back to it, and be governed by it, as if we had not abandoned
it at all ?
Ver. 16. Et'SoTe? Se on ov BiKaiovrai dvQpcoirov e'£ epycov
vbpov — " but knowing as we do that a man is not justified by
the works of the law." The Se is not found 1n the Received
Text, nor in A, D3, K, some versions and Greek fathers ; but
it occurs in B, C, D1, F, L, x. Some connect the verse with the
preceding, regarding its rjfieh as taken up by the following
Kal rjfieh, the nominative to iiriarevaa/iev : " We by nature
Jews, knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the

CHAP. II. 16. 163
law, even we believed into Christ." This is the view of Winer,
Matthies, B.-Crusius, De Wette, and Alford — the whole form
ing one sentence. But the previous verse may be taken as a
complete statement : "We are Jews by nature ; but, knowing
as we do that a man is not justified by works of law, even we
believed." Such is the view of Beza, Borger, Schott, Hilgen
feld, Ellicott, Lightfoot, Ewald, Hofmann, Meyer, and Turner.
The construction is supported by the Se, which was probably
omitted in favour of the other view. Nor can Be well mean
" nevertheless," as Alford renders it, nor " and," as Bagge
gives it ; nor can bbgleich, " although," be supplied to the pre
vious verse, as is done by De Wette, or quamquam, as by
Trana. None of these supplementary ekes are required.
The Be then is " but," with its usual adversative meaning,
pointing to a different course from that to which the previous
verse might be supposed to lead, and indicating a transition
from a trust in Judaism, so natural to a born Jew, to faith in
Christ. The participle etSoT69 has a causal sense (Schmalfeld,
§ 207, 3) ; but the meaning is not that it was a logical conclu
sion from the premiss, " a man is not justified by the works of
the law," which led to the conversion of Peter and Paul. The
faith of Peter had showed itself in attachment to the person
and life of the Master, and must have developed within him
the conviction, that He to whom he had ascribed " the words
of eternal life" could alone bestow the blessing. Paul, on the
other hand, had been arrested in a moment by the sudden
challenge of Jesus (Phil. iii. 12); and his first thought was, the
identity of Him that spoke out of that " glory" with Him who
had been put to death on the cross. This earliest belief, be
gotten in an instant, must have created the persuasion, that in
Jesus and not in works of law a man is justified. But the
apostle now speaks in the light of present knowledge, puts
into a definite shape the result of those mingled impressions
which led to their discipleship, or at least sustained it.
The phrase e£ epycov vbfiov, the stress on epycov, may be ren
dered " by works of law," as virtually by Peile, Brown, and
Gwynne ; for if a man cannot be justified by the Mosaic law,
he cannot be justified by any other. But,
I. Such a generalization, or the idea of obligation arising
out of law, though it is the blessed truth, could scarcely be

164 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
attributed to so early a period in the religious history of the
apostle and that of the Jewish converts.
II. The law referred to is certainly the law in dispute, the
Jewish law, the law which Peter was so inconsistent as to allow
himself to observe through pressure of Jewish influence — his
hypocrisy in the matter leading to the whole controversy.
That a man cannot be justified by any law whatever on the
score of duty done, is indeed the ultimate inference, but it was
not the immediate point of discussion. That a man cannot be
justified by the works of the Mosaic law, was the doctrine de
manding immediate defence, the doctrine so far invalidated by
Peter's dissimulation ; nay, it was this conviction which led so
many Jews in possession of that law to put their trust in
Christ. III. IVop.09, in the sense of the Mosaic law, does not require
the article, as some suppose ; for it was to the Jewish mind the
only divine law, the only law revealed and sanctioned for them.
In the Gospels it has the article indeed, except in Luke ii. 23,
24, in which places there is the qualifying genitive Kvpiov.
But it wants the article in Rom. ii. 12, 23, iv. 13, 14, 15, v.
13, 20, vii. 1, x. 4; 1 Cor. ix. 20 ; Gal. iii. 10, 11, 18 ; and as
Winer remarks, " it always occurs as a genitive when the prin
cipal noun has no article," § xix. Middleton, Gr. Art. p. 48.
The preposition e'«, " out of," denoting source, passes
often into a causal meaning, " resulting from," and is not in
such use distinguishable, as Fritzsche remarks, from Bid, as
frequently in Herodotus, or even from v7ro or irapd: Epist.
ad Rom. i. pp. 332-3; Jelf, § 621, 3. Source or origination
may be the relation here indicated : works are not the source
out of which justification springs ; or, with a slight change of
relation, works are not the cause of justification. The genitive
vbpov is taken as that of subject by Augustine, — by the Catholic
interpreters, Aquinas, Bellarmine, and Salmero, — by Windisch-
mann and Maier, as also by Usteri, Neander, Olshausen, Lep-
sius, Hofmann, and Gwynne who calls it a genitive of quality
" with an adjectival force." Under that view the meaning is,
" works capable of satisfying the requirements of God's law,
i.e. meritorious works." But ep7o vbfiov are works which fulfil
the law, in contrast, as Meyer remarks, to dpaprrjpara vbfiov,
Wisdom ii. 12, deeds which transgress the law. In this way

CHAP. II. 16. 165
it is regarded as the genitive of object by Beza, Ruckert, De
Wette, Wieseler. And the vbfiov or law we regard as the
whole Mosaic law, and not merely its ceremonial part, as is
the opinion of Theodoret, Pelagius, Erasmus, Michaelis, Sender,
Schott. And the epya are not works external in character
and proceeding from no inner principle of love or loyalty, ep7o
veKpd, which Catholic commentators place in contrast to spes,
charitas, timor ; the plural ep7« does not of itself convey this
insinuation (Usteri). See under Eph. ii. 10. See Calvin, in
loc; Philippi on Rom. iii. 20, p. 89, etc., 3d ed. — his opinion
being changed from that expressed in his first edition. Neither
meritum de congruo nor meritum de condigno has any place in
a sinner's justification. The so-called ceremonial part of the
law may indeed have been specially in the apostle's mind, as
suggested by Peter's withdrawal from eating with the Gentile
converts, but the modern distinction of moral and ceremonial
is nowhere formally made or recognised in Scripture ; the law
is regarded as one code. See under iii. 10-13.
'Edv fir) Bid irlareco<; 'Ir/aov Xpiarov — " except by faith in
Jesus Christ,"- — the stress lying on irlarecov. This is the order
of the proper names in C, D, F, K, L, and K, the majority
of cursives, versions, and the Greek fathers, Chrysostom,
Theodoret ; also, Jerome and Ambrose. The inverse order,
adopted by Tischendorf in his 7th ed., has in its favour only
A, B, Victorinus, and Augustine. The phrase idv firj has the
usual meaning of et firj, and refers only to the ov BiKaiovrai —
a man is not justified by the works of the law, or a man is not
justified except by faith in Jesus Christ. See under i. 7, 19,
pp. 33, 51 ; Matt. xii. 4 ; Luke iv. 26, 27 ; Rom. xiv. 14, and
the remarks of Fritzsche on that place, vol. iii. 195. The verb
BiKawvrai is the ethical present — the expression of an enduring
truth. The relation indicated by e'« in the former clause is
indicated in this clause by Sto, — the reference being to source
or cause in the former, in the present to means or instrument ;
or, as Meyer says, it is causality in two forms — " des Ausgehens
und des Vermitleltseins." It is the apostle's manner to exhibit
relations in various connected phases by a change of preposi
tions. Rom. iii. 30 ; 1 Cor. viii. 6, etc. The Sto is changed
again into e'/c in the next clause, showing that they indicate the
same relation with a slight difference of view, — iriarK being

166 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
taken as cause or as instrument in connection with — that is,
originating or bringing about — the same result. Besides e'« and
Bid, iirl with the dative occurs Phil. iii. 9, and the simple geni
tive is used Rom. iv. 11. Bengel's strange distinction is, that Bid
refers to Gentiles, and e'/c to Jews. Like the preceding vbfiov,
the genitive I. X. is that of object. Rationalists, according to
Wieseler, make it the genitive of subject. Thus Schultess,
der Glaube Christi, Glauben wie Christus an Gott den Vater
hatte und beihatigte. But others, not rationalists certainly, hold
a similar view. Thus Gwynne, who takes the genitive sub
jectively or possessively, " Faith not only of Christ as author
or giver, but of Christ as the author or possessor- — Christ, in a
word, believing, within them." See also Stier, Eph. i. 447.
Whatever theological truth may be in the statements, they do
not lie naturally or apparently in the words before us. The
faith which I justifies is characterized by its object, for by its
object it js distinguished from all other kinds of belief ; the
difference being, not how one believes, but what one believes.
Th^se clauses seem sometimes to have been understood in
the following fallacious way, chiefly by Catholic expositors :
" A man is not justified by works or by the law, except
through faith in Christ ; that is, on condition of faith in
Christ, works of law will justify a man, or works acquire justi
fying power through faith in Christ.'' Non justificatur homo
ex operibus legis nisi per fidem Jesu Christi, i.e. opera legis non
justificant quatenus sint legis, sed quatenus ex fide fiunt, ita ut
opera vim justificandi a fide accipiant (a-Lapide, Holsten).
But this opinion is plainly against the grammatical meaning
and the entire logical bearing of the apostle's argument. See
Paraeus in reply.
The notion of Jatho is peculiar, as he takes epya vbfiov to
mean, in some way or other, the works done in fulfilment of
the law by Christ — the obedientia activa, die Gesetzeserfullung
Christi, on which faith lays hold. A man is not justified by
Christ's fulfilment of the law, except through faith in Him
who had so acted. The idea is far-fetched, and wholly foreign
to the natural meaning of the terms, for it comes not within
the scope of the apostle's statement.
No man can fulfil the law, and therefore, no man can be
justified by it; for as he breaks it, so he is exposed to the

CHAP. II. 16. 167
threatened penalty. Law detects and convicts transgressors ;
it has warrant to condemn, but it is powerless to acquit. It
pronounces every man a violator of its precepts, and leaves
him under the curse of death. But the law is holy ; it does
not create his guilt, save in the sense of showing many acts to
be sinful which without its light and power might be regarded
as indifferent, and of stirring up desire after forbidden things :
it only declares his guilt ; and " we abandon it," as Chrysostom
says, " not as evil, but as weak." Faith is a principle wholly
different from works. It does not merit justification ; but as
it has its root in Him who died for us, it brings us into union
with Him, and into a participation of all the blessings which
His obedience unto death has secured for us. It is not the
ground (propter), but only the instrument (Bid irlareeov, and
never Sto. irlariv or propter fidem, Lightfoot) by which Christ's
merit is laid hold of — " the hand," as Hooker says, " that
putteth on Christ to justification." See under chap. iii.
Kat 77p,et? et? Xpiarov 'Inaovv iiriarevaapev — •" we also
believed into Christ Jesus." There is some variation of read
ing as to the proper names. B, some versions, Theodoret, and
Augustine place 'Inaovv first, so that it is precarious to lay
stress on the change. The aorist is not " we have believed,"
but indefinite, or at a previous point of time " we believed."
The Kal may be taken in its ascensive force — " even we," born
Jews as we were. Its ordinary meaning, however, is just as
emphatic — " we also," as well as the Gentiles — " we too," born
under the law, renounced all trust in the works of the law,
and putting ourselves quite on a level with Gentile sinners who
never had the law, — we as well as they believed into Christ Jesus.
In rjfieh there is the personal application of the precious doc
trine — a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by
the faith of Christ Jesus. In order to be so justified, " we too"
believed on Christ, is the exhaustive statement ; and Paul re
minds Peter how they had both brought this truth home to
themselves, and acted in harmony with it. The relation indi
cated by et? — not so frequent a usage in Paul as in John — is
more than mere direction, and means " into " (Winer, § 30), in
the same way as the other expression, et'9 Xpiarov iBairrlaQr/re,
in iii. 27. The faith enters into Christ through union with
Him. But faith is not to be identified with this union or

168 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
incorporation (Gwynne), for it is rather the means of creating
and sustaining it — the Spirit being the agent, the Spirit in the
Head giving organic union to all the members.
The verb iriarevco is used with various prepositions. Thus,
it sometimes governs the dative, expressing an act of simple
credence, a usage common in the Septuagint. See Matt. xxi. 25,
28-32 ; Mark xi. 31 ; Luke xx. 5, in reference to the Baptist ;
John v. 38, 46; Acts xviii. 8; Gal. iii. 6. Sometimes, though
rarely, it is followed by the dative with iv, expressing confi
dence in or in union with : Mark i. 15, Sept. Jer. xii. 6, Ps.
lxxviii. 22, 3 fDKn ; — sometimes, but very seldom, by the dative
with e7rt, implicit reliance on : Luke xxiv. 25, spoken of divine
oracles, 1 Tim. i. 16, Matt, xxvii. 42 ; — sometimes with the
simple accusative of the thing believed: John xi. 26; — occa
sionally with et? : 1 John v. 10 ; — sometimes with accusative
of person and et? — faith going out toward and entering into, —
often, as might be expected, in John, and also in Peter ; and
sometimes with an accusative and eVt — faith going out with a
view of being reposed upon — fidem alicui adjungere, — only
once in Sept. Wisdom xii. 2. The accusative with et? or iirl
is more specially characteristic of believing in the New Testa
ment — of that faith which implies union with its object, or
consciously places calm confidence on it. Rom. iv. 5. The
ecclesiastical uses of the verb and noun, the more correct and
the laxer, will be found in Suicer's Thes. sub voce. See also
Reuss, Theol. Chret. vol. ii. p. 129.
' Iva BiKaicoQcofiev e'/c irlareeov Xpiarov — " in order that we
might be justified by the faith of Christ." This reading is
well supported, and is generally accepted. X. is omitted in F,
Theodor., Tert., — the omission made apparently on account of
the previous repetition of the name. The 'Iva reveals the final
purpose or object of their believing — the momentous end
sought to be realized. The use of e/c shows that it does not
essentially differ from Bid in the previous part of the verse,
and it was preferred probably as being directly opposed to the
repeated e£ epycov. Justification springs out of faith in Christ,
not as its ultimate source, but as its instrumental cause. Or
may not e/c have been suggested by the previous et? — irlanv
et? X. . . . e'/c irlarem X. — out of this faith so uniting us with
Him into whom it enters as its object, comes justification ? The

CHAP. II. 16. 169
apostle adds in contrast, Kal ovk ii; epycov vbfiov — "and not
by the works of the law." See on the first and last clauses.
If the reading of the previous clauses as here given be
adopted as correct, there are th de ways in which the Saviour
is mentioned — Jesus Christ, Christ Jesus, Christ. It is hard
to say what suggested such variations to the "apostle's mind in
this verse or elsewhere. The nouns are all anarthrous, and, as
may be expected, there are often various readings. In this
epistle the names Jesus Christ and Christ Jesus occur about
equally ; but with iv it is always X. I., as with et? in this verse.
If the variations of name are designed to be significant, then
they may be explained thus : In '"'he first clause where the
name occurs, it is Jesus Christ — ¦" the faith of Jesus Christ "
— faith which has for its object the living and loving man
brought so close to us by His humanity indicated by His
birth-name Jesus, and that Jesus the Messiah or Christ, the
double name being connected with a proposition of universal
application. Then in the next clause it is Christ Jesus — " we
also believed into Christ Jesus " — into Him, the promised
and anointed Deliverer, His mission and work giving our
faith its warrant, and our union with Him its saving reality,
this Messiah being He who was called Jesus, — a proposition
made by the /cat rjfieiv especially Jewish in its aspect, and
therefore naturally giving the name Christ or Messiah the
prominence in thought and order. Next it is simply " Christ "
— " that we might be justified by the faith of Christ." The
solitary Jewish name in its recurrence is all-inclusive to the
rjpeiv — "we" — "you, Peter, and I:" we Jews believed on our
Messiah, on whose mother and for Him rested the unction of
the Holy One, and on whom at His baptism the Spirit visibly
descended, in fulfilment of the oracles and promises of the Old
Testament. In the Gospels these names are used with dis
tinctive propriety ; and it may be added, that 'Inaovv, the
familiar name of the Man, occurs in the Gospels 620 times, —
61 of these, however, being various readings; that b Xpiarov,
the official designation, occurs 47 times, four of these being
various readings ; and Xpiarov five times, — the form Xpiarov
'Inaovv not occurring once. But in the Epistles such precision
is not preserved : the ascended Lord had become more than
mere Jesus, and 'Inaovv occurs only 62 times, 10 of these

170 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
being various readings ; the promised Deliverer now stood
out to view, and b Xpiarov occurs 108 times, 22 being various
readings ; and the simple Xpiarov 148 times, 17 being various
readings. The compound name is also naturally employed :
'Irjaovv Xpiarov being used 156 times (nine various readings) ;
and Xpiarov 'Inaovv, which is never used in the Gospels and
only two or three times in the Acts, occurs in the Epistles 64
times (two various readings). These changes are natural, and
are easily accounted for. Xpiarov lost its official distinctive
ness and passed into a proper name, though there are places
where the names could not be interchanged. The name
''Inaovv (Joshua) is from JrtE^,.Neh. viii. 17, the later form of
J>E>i!T, " Jehovah— help," Num. xiii. 16, Matt. i. 21. Com
pare Acts vii. 45, Heb. iv. 8. Some of the Greek fathers
absurdly derived the word from 'Idofiai, as Eusebius, Clement
of Alexandria, and Cyril of Jerusalem who says " it means
saviour among the Hebrews, but in the Greek tongue 'Icofie-
vov" — Healer. Xpiarov, D^l1, or the anointed one, is applied
to such as had enjoyed the sacred unction. The priest is often
called o %piarbv, Lev. iv. 3, 5, 16 ; the king was also called
b xpiarov, 1 Sam. xii. 3, 5, as is also Cyrus, Isa. xiv. 1 ; and
the prophets also get the same title — rcov ^piareov fiov, Ps.
cv. 15 — my anointed ones, Abraham being specially referred
to, Gen. xx. 7. The word is applied in pre-eminence to
Jesus, and the reason is given in Luke i. 35 ; Matt. iii. 16, xii.
18 ; John iii. 34 ; Acts x. 38. In the Received Text the last
clause of the verse reads —
A ion (on) ov BiKaicoQrjaerai k% epycov vbfiov irdaa adpp
— " because by the works of the law no flesh shall be justi
fied." This order of the words is found only in K, L, in the
Gothic version, and in some of the Greek fathers. But the
order on ef epycov vbpov ov BiKaicoQrjaerai is found in A, B, C,
D, F, K, in the Itala, Vulgate, Syriac, and in many Latin
fathers. The reading StoVt is doubtful. It is found in C, D3,
K, L, many mss., versions, and fathers, and is adopted by
Tischendorf and Ellicott; whereas the shorter on has in its
favour A, B, D1, F, K, etc., and is received by Lachmann,
Alford, Meyer, and Lightfoot. It may be said that StoTt was
taken from Rom. iii. 20 ; but it may be replied that on is a
correction of the longer Stori : the latter, however, is not so

CHAP. II. 16. 171
likely. The clause is a .free use of Old Testament language,
and in Paul's manner it is naturally introduced by 6Vt which
in meaning is not materially different from StoVi in the later
writers — " because that," " because." It is not a formal quota
tion introduced by a formula, but rather a reminiscence of Ps.
cxliii. 2 in the Sept., 6Vt ov BiKaicoQrjaerai ivcoiriov aov irdv
£wi>. That the allusion is to that psalm, is indicated by the
Hebraism ov irdaa. The apostle leaves out ivcoiriov aov, which
implies an appeal to Jehovah ; and to give the clause special
adaptation to the case before him, he adds e'£ epycov vbfiov.
The Hebrew reads, Tr!tt T3E& Prlf.'^> % The negative xb
belongs to the verb, as the Masoretic punctuation shows
(Ewald), and forms a universal negative. Ex. xii. 43 ; Josh.
xi. 12; Jer. xxxii. 16. So in the Greek: non-justification is
predicated of all flesh. Compare Matt. xxiv. 22, Luke i.
37, Acts x. 14. The idiom is found chiefly in " sentential
quotations," though it occurs often in the Septuagint. Ex.
xii. 16, xx. 10; Deut. v. 14; 2 Sam. xv. 11. It is put by
Leusden in the sixth section of his sixteenth class of Hebra
isms : Philologus Heb. Grcsc. p. 118, ed. 1785, Lugd. Batav.
See also Vorstius, De Heb. N. T. p. 91 ; Pars Altera, p. 91,
ed. 1705, Lipsiae. The Seventy now and then render by ov
— ovBelv, or simply ovBelv. Compare Deut. viii. 9, Josh. x. 8,
xxiii. 9. It is especially when the negative precedes the article
that the Hebraism occurs. Winer, § 26, 1. The ttoo-o adp%,
equivalent to ^<2, is perhaps chosen in preference to the £wf
of the Septuagint, as in the apostolic times, and so close on the
life-giving work of Christ, £&>77 with its associates was acquiring
a new and higher meaning. Ildaa adp% is all humanity — the
race without exception, — Luke iii. 6 ; John xvii. 2 ; Acts ii.
17 ; 1 Pet. i. 24, — representing in the Septuagint "ic>3"?3, there
being apparently in the phrase no accessory notion of frailty,
or sin, or death (Beza, Schrader). It means, however, man as
he is, though not insinuating his inability in natura adfectibus et
cupiditatibus sensuum obnoxia (Schott) ; nor does it carry any
allusion to the overweening estimate placed by the Jews on their
fleshly descent from Abraham (Windischmann). The future
BiKaicoQrjaerai, as the ethical future, affirms possibility under
the aspect of futurity, and with the negative particle denotes
?' something that neither can or will happen." Webster, Syntax

172 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
of the New Testament, p. 84. It thus expresses a general truth
which shall ever continue in force — quo? omnino non fiunt, et ne
fieri quidem possunt. Thiersch, de Pentat. p. 160. The future
contains no allusion to a coming day of reckoning (Hofmann) ;
nor is there any such allusion in the psalm, for the phrase
" enter not into judgment with Thy servant " refers to present
divine inquisition or trial. Peile, p. 238. The apostle in the
clause bases his reasoning upon an assertion of the Old Testa
ment familiar to Peter and to his Jewish auditors. The quota
tion is more than " an axiom in our theology " (Alford), and
it is not a mere repetition of what is found in the first clause
of the verse, but it is an authoritative confirmation of the
major premiss of the argument. Usteri, Lehr-begr. p. 90 ;
Messner, Die Lehre der Aposfel, p. 219.
Ver. 17. Et Se tyyrovvrev BiKaieoQrjvai iv Xpiarco evpeQnfiev
dfiaprcoXol, apa Xpiarov dpaprlav BiaKOvov ; firj yevoiro —
" But if, while seeking to be justified in Christ, we were
found sinners, is Christ therefore a minister of sin ? God
forbid." Of this difficult verse various interpretations have
been given.
The verse plainly takes up an assumption, and reduces it
to an absurdity. Theodoret says at the conclusion of his re
marks on the previous verse, etTO avXXoyl^erai to elpr/fieva.
" But if, in accordance with these premises of thine, or assuming
the truth of these thy retrogressive principles" (Ellicott). The
apostle had said, " we believed into Christ," "va, with this end
in view — justification; and he now uses tyjrovvrev, describing the
action in unison with it, or which had been prompted by it. It
is to be noted, that with the active participle he uses the aorist
infinitive, which, though it cannot be expressed in English,
" gives a momentary character to the action." Jelf, § 405, 2.
Not as if two justifications are spoken of — one enjoyed already,
and another yet sought after" (Wieseler, Lipsius). The
apostle throws himself back to an earlier period ; and indeed
some regard tyjrovvrev as an imperfect. He does not insinuate
any doubts as to the reality of his justified state, but only
represents the general attitude of an earnest soul — its uniform
aspiration toward Christ and justification in Him; as it still
feels its sins and shortcomings, still prays for a growing faith
and an intenser consciousness of union with Him, and the pos-

CHAP. II. 17. 173
session of its blessed fruits. The phrase iv Xpiarco has its usual
meaning, "in Christ" — in union with Christ, and not "by
Christ," as in our Authorized Version, which follows Cranmer,
Tyndale, and the Genevan. Wycliffe and the Rheims have,
however, " in Christ." The faith possessed by Peter and Paul,
which had gone out of themselves and into Christ, et9, was the
nexus of a living union — iv Xpiarco. They were justified Bid
irlarecov, for it was the means, or e'/c irlarecov, as it was the
instrumental cause ; but they were also justified iv X., as only
in such a union has faith any power, or divine grace any sav
ing efficacy. The soul out of union with Christ is faithless,
unforgiven, and lifeless. So that the relation indicated by iv
X. differs from that indicated by Bid X. The phrase "by
Christ " may cover the whole extent of His work as Media
tor ; but eV X. narrows the meaning to the more special point
of union with Him — the inner and only source of life.
Wieseler, followed by Schmoller, wrongly takes the phrase to
mean, the " ground, or Christ as causa meritoria'' But the iv
and Sto are used with distinctive significance, as in Eph. i. 7.
See under it. The two prepositions cannot be so distinguished
here, or in such an argument, as if the one pointed to a
mere inquirer and the other to a professed member of Christ
(Gwynne). In evpeQvfiev lies a contrast to tyjrovvrev: "if while
seeking," or, " if after all our seeking, we ourselves also were
found to be sinners." The verb evplaKco has been often re
garded as a periphrasis of the subjunctive verb — idem est ac
eivai. Kypke, Observat. i. p. 2. Even Gataker makes it a
Hebraism — yevb/ievov et evpeQelv idem valent. Antonin. Med. p.
329, ed. London 1697. By this dilution of meaning the point
and force of the verb are taken away. Not only the Greek
verb, but the NXDJ of the Hebrew idiom also, keeps its proper
meaning (2 Chron. xxxvi. 8 ; Mai. ii. 6), and denotes not simply
the existence of anything, but that existence recognised or dis
covered. Matt. i. 18 ; Luke xvii. 18 ; Rom. vii. 10. Soph.
Trach. 411 ; Ajax, 1135 ; Winer, § 65, 8. The aorist refers
to a point of time past ; that is to say, " but if, while seeking
justification in Christ, we too were found to be, or turned out
to be" (perhaps with the idea of surprise, Lightfoot), or "after
all," dfiaprcoXol. It is surely requisite that this word be taken
in the sense which it has in ver. 15 — " sinners" as the Gentiles

174 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
were regarded from the Jewish point of view, because not
living in subjection to the Jewish law.
The particle which begins the next clause may be accented
dpa or dpa. "Apa — pa has in it, according to Donaldson, the
idea of distance or progression in an argument, and may in
volve the idea that the existing state of things is at variance
with our previous expectations — ¦" so then," or " as it seems."
Cratylus, pp. 364, 365. In Attic usage it indicates both direct
and oblique allusions, the idea of surprise being sometimes
implied ; or, as Stallbaum defines it, Earn habet vim ut aliquid
prcster opinionem accidere, signified; also, doch. Plato, Republ.
375 D ; Apolog. 34 E. It does not usually stand first in the
sentence among classical writers, nay, sometimes is placed at
the end. Herod, iii. 64 ; Xen. Hell. vii. 1, 32. Hermann
says, dpa avXXoyiariKov in initio poni non potest: Antig. 628.
But in the New Testament it stands first. Matt. xii. 28 ; 2
Cor. v. 15; Gal. ii. 21; 2 Thess. ii. 15; Klotz-Devarius, ii.
160,1. Some take it here as the conclusive opo. As Chrysostom
says, eiSe? et? oavv dvdyKrjV irepiearnaev droirlav rbv Xoyov.
More fully his argument is : " If faith in Him does not avail
for our justification, but if it be necessary to embrace the law
again; and if, having forsaken the law for Christ's sake, we
are not justified, but condemned for this abandonment ; then
shall we find Him for whose sake we abandoned the law the
Author of our condemnation." This opinion changes, however,
the meaning of dfiaprcoXol into KaraKpivopevoi. Theodoret gives
the same view, but more distinctly : et Se on rbv vbfiov Kara-
Xiirovrev reo Xpiarco irpoaeXnXvQapev Bid rrjv eir avrov irlarecov
diroXavaaaQai irpoaBoKrjaavrev, irapdBaaiv rovro vevbfiiarai,
eh avrov rj air la %coprjaei rbv Beairbrifv Xpiarov. In this case
"the apostle is supposed either to take up the objection of a Juda-
izer thus put: "To forsake the law in order to be justified, is to
commit sin ; and to make this change or commit this sin under
the authority of Christ, is to make Christ the minister of sin
— a supposition not to be entertained ; therefore it is wrong to
plead His sanction for renunciation of law." Or the statement
may be the apostle's own argument : " It cannot be a sinful
thing to abandon the law, for such abandonment is necessary
to justification ; and if it were a sinful thing to pass Over from
the law to faith, it would thus and therefore make Christ the

CHAP. II. 17. 175
minister of sin : but far from our thoughts be such a conclu
sion." So generally Koppe, Flatt, Winer, Borger, Schott, and
many others.
2. But opo is supposed by some to put a question ; and it
needs not with this meaning to be changed into dpa, because it
introduces an unauthorized conclusion rebutted by fir) yevoiro
(Hofmann, Wieseler). It is better, however, to take the particle
as opo. True, indeed, in the other places where it occurs, Luke
xviii. 8, Acts viii. 30, it introduces a question to be followed
by a negative answer ; but here, from the nature of the case,
an affirmative — that is, on the principle admitted — but virtually
a negative, which fir) yevoiro thunders out. On the other hand,
it may be said, that in Paul's epistles fir) yevoiro occurs only
after a question, and denies an inference false in itself but
drawn from premises taken for granted, as is pointed out by
the indicative evpeQnpev. The dpa expresses a perplexity, so
natural and striking in the circumstances. It hesitates in put
ting the question, and has a shade of irony in it. Are we then,
pray, to conclude that Christ is the minister of sin % Simplex
dpa aliquid sive vera? sive fictcs dubitationis admiscet. Stallb.
Plato, De Repub. 566a. It does not necessarily stand for dp' ov,
nonne (Olshausen, Schott), which prepares for an affirmative
reply. Jelf, § 873, 2 ; Hermann, ad Viger. 823. Uncle fit, ut
ubi dpa pro dp' ov dictum videalur orationi scepe color quidam
ironies admisceatur. Kiihner, Xen. Mem. ii. 6, 1, p. 244. The
general meaning then is : But if we, seeking to be justified, are
found to be sinners ; if we, having renounced the law as the
ground of justification, have placed ourselves on a level with
the heathen who are sinners from our point of view ; is it to
be inferred, pray — dpa, ergone — that Christ is a minister of sin ?
Ellicott and Lightfoot find an irony in dfiaprcoXol : We look
down upon the Gentiles as sinners, and yet, in order to be
justified, we must put ourselves on a level with them. Our
possession of the law as born Jews gives us no element of justi
fication ; we renounce it, and thus become as Gentile sinners
who never had it. Is Christ in that case, in whom alone justi
fication is to be sought without works of law, a minister of sin?
The lesson given by Peter's dissimulation in reverting to legal
observance was, that renunciation of legal observance had been
wrong. But the renunciation had been made under the autho-

176 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
rity of Christ; so that you, and they who hold with you, must be
prepared to affirm that Christ, necessitating such renunciation,
is a minister of sin.
The expositors who attach a different sense to dfiaprcoXol
in this verse from what it plainly bears in ver. 15, bring out
forms of exegesis which do not harmonize with the apostle's
reasoning, or with the special circumstances in which he was
placed. 1. A common exegesis among the older interpreters gene
rally, as Parasus, Wesseling, etc., and recently Twele, Web
ster and Wilkinson in their New Testament, has been this : If
men seeking or professing to seek justification in Christ are
yet found living in sin, is Christ to blame for such an abuse of
His gospel? vi. 1. It is a monstrous inference to teach, that
" to dispense with works of law in regard to justification is to
allow men to continue in sin." But surely this exegesis does
not follow out the apostle's train of thought. It is not the
abuse of the doctrine of faith or fides sola at all, but the virtual
denial of its sole efficacy, that the apostle is reprehending in
this verse.
2. Others, as Calovius, Locke, Zschokke, Haldane, bring out
this idea : If while seeking to be justified in Christ, we are yet
found sinners or unjustified ; if His work alone cannot justify,
but must have legal observance added to it ; then Christ after
all leaves us sinners under condemnation. As Dr. Brown re
marks, the inference in such a case would be, not, Christ is the
servant of sin, but, Christ's expiation has been incomplete.
This exegesis does not suit the context, nor is it fairly deducible
from the words.
3. The same objection may be made to Calvin's notion : " If
justification by faith puts Jews and Gentiles on a level, and
if Jews, ' sanctified from the womb,' are guilty and polluted,
shall we say that Christ makes sin powerful in His own people,
and that He is therefore the Author of sin ? He who discovers
the sin which lay concealed is not therefore the minister of
sin." Compare Piscator and Wordsworth. This, however, is
not by any means the point in dispute to which the apostle is
addressing himself.
4. Nor better is the supposition of Grotius, that the apostle
has in his eye the flagitious lives of Judaizers, though he puts

CHAP. II. 17. 177
it in the first person : The inference that Christ is the minister
of sin, will be gathered from our conduct, unless it far excel
the life both of Gentiles and Judaizers.
5. The opinion of Macknight needs scarcely be noticed :
" If we practise the rites of the Mosaic law contrary to our
conscience, will Christ promote such iniquity by justifying
teachers who delude others in a matter of such importance ? "
6. Olshausen's view of the last clause is as objectionable, for
it overlooks the special moments of the verse : " If justification
depends on the law, while Christ ordains the preaching of faith
for that purpose, then He is the minister of sin, as He points
out a false method of salvation."
7. The form in which Jowett puts the question changes
the meaning of dfiaprcoXol : " If we too fall back under the
law, is Christ the cause of this? Is He the author of that
law which is the strength of sin, which reviving we die?" etc.1
This paraphrase introduces a new idea from the Epistle to the
Romans; and it is not so much to the inner working of the law,
as to its powerlessness to justify, that the apostle is here refer
ring. The point before him suggested by Peter's inconsistency
is rather the bearing of the law on our relation to God than on
our character, though both are inseparably connected.
The phrase dfiaprlav BiAkovov is a pregnant one (2 Cor. xi.
2), the first word being emphatic, — not a furtherer of lawless
ness, as Morus, who gives dfiaprcoXol the meaning of lawless,
or without law — gesetzlos, — and Rosenmiiller, who sums it up,
Christum esse doctorem paganismi !
The apostle protests against the inference —
Mr) yevoiro — " God forbid " — let it not be ; absit, Vulgate.
The phrase is one of the several Septuagint translations of
nPvn, ad profana, sometimes joined to a pronoun of the first
or second person, and sometimes to the name of God. The
Seventy render it by pnBafieov or fir) e'lrj ; iXecov aoi occurs in
Matt. xvi. 22 ; and the Syriac has _m.»j = propitius sit Dens.
The phrase is not confined to the sacred writers, but is found
abundantly in Arrian's Epictetus and in the same sense, but
1 " Meint Ihr, dass Christus dann an uns Gef alien, grosseres Gef alien,
als an den Heiden finden, und so uns in unsrer Siinde stdrhen und f order n
werde 1 Das wird er nicht.'''' — Riickert. M

178 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
with a change of reference in Herodotus, v. Ill ; Xen.
Cyrop. v. 5, 5. It is used only by Paul among the writers of
the New Testament : Rom. iii. 4, 6, 31, vi. 2, 15, vii. 7, 13,
ix. 14, xi. 1, 11 ; 1 Cor. vi. 15 ; Gal. iii. 21 ; and with a differ
ence in Gal. vi. 14. It is spoken by the people in Luke xx. 16.
It is usually and suddenly interjected against an opponent's in
ference. " God forbid " that any one, for any reason or to any
extent, from any misconception or on any pretext, should either
imagine or suspect Christ to be a minister of sin' ; or should be
involved in any course of conduct, the vindication of which
might imply such an inference ; or be entangled in any pre
misses which could lead by any possibility to such an awful
conclusion. Perish the thought ! Let it be flung from us as
an abominable thing !
Ver. 18. El yap a KareXvaa ravra iraXiv oiKoBoficb, irapa-
Bdrrjv ifiavrbv avviardvco— "for if the things which I destroyed,
these again I build up, I constitute myself a transgressor."
The avvlarnpi of the Received Text rests only on the slender
authority of D3, K, L.
This verse has a close connection with the preceding one.
The 7ctp, in spite of Wieseler's objection, is a confirmation of
the fir) yevoiro, as in Rom. ix. 14, xi. 1. Why say I fir) yevoiro
so sharply? the reason is, For if I set up again what I have
pulled down, my rebuilding is a confession that the work of
demolition was wrong. And if I claim the authority of Christ
for both parts of the process, then I make possible an affirmative
to the startling question, " Is He after all a minister of sin? "
Nay, if I re-enact legal observances as indispensable to justi
fication, after having maintained that justification is not of
legal merit but of grace, my second work proves my sin in my
first work. Or : Is Christ the minister of sin ? God forbid ;
for in the renunciation of the law, and in the consequent find
ing of ourselves sinners in order to justification, there is no sin;
but the sin lies in returning to the law again as the means or
ground of acceptance, for such a return is an assertion of its
perpetual authority. There is yet another and secondary con
trast, — not .so primary a contrast as Olshausen, Winer, Schott,
and Wieseler would contend for, since ifiavrbv coming after
irapaBdrvv has not the emphatic position : You, from your
point of view toward us who have forsaken the law and only

CHAP. II. 18. 179
believe in Christ to justification, find us sinners — dfiaprcoXol,
and would implicate Christ; but in rebuilding what I destroyed,
it is not Christ who is to blame, but myself I show to be a
transgressor. Or : You Judaists regard as dfiaprcoXol all non-
observers of the law, yet this non-observance is sanctioned by
Christ ; but would you dare to impeach Him as the promoter
of anything that may really be called dfiapna ? No, far from
us be the thought ! But a direct irapdBaaiv must be charged
on him who, like Peter, sets up in Galatia what at Caesarea and
at Antioch he had cast down so firmly, and that as the result
of a supernatural vision and lesson. The structure of the verse,
which prevents it from being well rendered into English, is
emphatic : a . . . ravra. The change to the first person was
probably dementia? causa — mitigandi vituperii causa (Jaspis), —
for it might well have been — av. The figure is a common
one with the apostle, as in Rom. xv. 20 ; 1 Cor. viii. 1, x.
23 ; Eph. ii. 20. The tropical use of KaraXvco, to loosen
down, is common in the New Testament, as applied to vbfiov,
Matt. v. 17, and epyov, Acts v. 38, 39, Rom. xiv. 20. The
apostle utters a general principle, though the intended appli
cation is to the Mosaic law. There is a distinct emphasis on
ravra : " these, and nothing else than these," — a rebuilding of
the identical materials I had cast down. The verb o'tKoBofieco in
the present tense is suggested by the general form of a maxim
which the verse assumes, while it also glances at Peter's actual
conduct. The rarer form avviardvco, not different in meaning
from the other form awlarnfii, signifies " I prove, or am prov
ing," not commendo (Schott). Hesychius defines it by iiraiveiv,
cpavepovv, BeBaiovv, irapariQevai. The true meaning comes — e
componendi significatione : Rom. iii. 5, v. 8 ; 2 Cor. vi. 4 ; Sept.
Susan. 61 ; Jos. Antiq. ii. 7, 1 ; and as here with a double accu
sative it occurs in Philo, avvlarnaiv avrov cppocprjrrjv, Quis rer.
div. Haer. p. 114, vol. iv. ed. Pfeiffer; and in Diodor. Sic. xiii.
91, avviardv avroiiv oiKelovv, vol. i. pt. 2, p. 779, ed. Dindorf,
Lipsiae 1828. Bengel's notion of a mimesis, and Schott's of
irony, in the selection or use of the verb, are far-fetched and
groundless. HapaBdriqv is a transgressor, to wit, of the law,
— a more specific form than dfiaprcoXov, for it seems to imply
violation of direct law: Rom. ii. 25, 27, iv. 15 ; Jas. ii. 9, 11.
But what law is referred to? It cannot be the law of

180 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
faith or of the gospel (Koppe, Matthies) ; but it is the Mosaic
law itself. For Peter was guilty of notorious inconsistency in
preaching the abrogation of legal observance, and then in re-
enacting it in his conduct ; and specially, that conduct was a
confession that he had transgressed in overthrowing the law.
So Borger, Usteri, Hilgenfeld, De Wette, and Ewald. Alford
takes the phrase as the explanation of dfiaprcoXol evpeQr/fiev —
" found sinners," that is, in setting aside the law. Various
modifications of this view have been given. Pelagius places
the irapdBaaiv specially in this, that Peter was confessing him
self mece sententio? prcevaricator ; Morus, in that by his inconsis
tency he was showing himself to be one, qui non observat officium
doctoris. Hammond takes the noun to signify an apostate.
Wieseler understands the verse in a general sense as enforcing
the connection of justification and sanctification, — sin being
an actual rebuilding of what in justification had been thrown
down ; an opinion which Schmoller is justified in calling ein
starkes Exempel dogmatisirender Exegese. Hofmann, too, gives
a peculiar view : The sinner, to be justified, must acknow
ledge himself guilty of a violation of law ; and such a con
fession shows himself and not Christ the servant of sin — his
very attempt to obtain righteousness in Christ is an acknow
ledgment of transgression. But these opinions are aside from
the context. Bagge's view is too vague : " If a justified man
seek justification by law, he again binds himself to the law,
and thus declares himself a transgressor." So is that of
Rollock : Ego sum transgressor quoniam recsdifico peccatum,
quod per fidem in Christum, quoad reatum et maculam destruere
desideravi. Similarly Webster and Wilkinson. The apostle's
general argument is, there was no sin in declaring against the
validity of legal observance in order to faith in Christ, who is
"the end of the law;" this emancipation was only obedience
to Christ, and He cannot be the minister of sin. Men, Jews
especially, renouncing the law as a ground of justification, will
find themselves sinners from their previous point of view, and
Christ is not to be blamed. But this renunciation of law must
be sin to all who, now regarding themselves as having been in
a false position, not only recoil from it, but go back to the old
Judaic ordinances, and seek acceptance through subjection to
them. Abrogation and re-enactment cannot both be right.

CHAP. II. 19. 181
But there lies a deeper reason which the apostle now pro
ceeds to develop. This deeper reason it might be difficult to
trace in this verse by itself, but the ydp of the next verse brings
it out. It is also recognised by the Greek expositors ; and it is
this, that the law itself was leading on to faith in Christ. From
its very form and aspects it taught its own typical and tempo
rary character, — that it was an intermediate system, preparing
for Christ and showing the way to Him ; and in serving such
a purpose it indicated its own supersession. But if, after
Christ has come, you re-enact it, you not only confess that you
were wrong in holding it to be abrogated, but you also prove
yourself a transgressor of its inner principles and a contravener
of its spirit and purpose ; for the next words are, iyco ydp Bid
vbfiov vb/iep direQavov. Chrysostom gave as the meaning : " The
law has taught me not to obey itself; and therefore if I do so, I
shall be transgressing even its teaching." Theophylact explains,
o vofiov fie cbBrjyr/ae irpbv rrjv irlanv Kal eireiaev dcpeivai avrov.
The objection of Alford to this view is, as Ellicott remarks,
" of no real force." The Dean says, " The iyco of the illus
tration has given up faith in Christ, and so cannot be regarded
as acknowledging it as the end of the law." The Bishop truly
replies, that " the 6701 had not given up faith in Christ, but
had only added to it." Peter certainly had not renounced faith
in Christ, but he had given occasion for others to suppose that
he regarded legal observance to be either the essential comple
ment of faith or an indispensable supplement to it. His view
of the relation of the law to faith may not even have been
obscured, for his inconsistency was dissimulation. How the
law was transgressed, if re-enacted either to compete with faith
or give it validity, the apostle proceeds to show :
Ver. 19. 'Eyco ydp Bid vbfiov vbficp direQavov — "for I through
the law died to the law." Aid vbfiov cannot mean "on account
of the law." The yap has its full force : If I build up that law
which I pulled down, I prove myself a transgressor of it, for
by it I became dead to it ; or as Lightfoot happily expresses it,
" In abandoning the law, I did but follow the leading of the
law itself." The position and expression of iyco are alike em
phatic — "I for my part;" it being the revelation of his own
experience. The iyco is not merely representative in its nature,
as is held by Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, Kamphausen, and

182 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
Wieseler who understands it von Paulus und seinen judenchrist-
lichen Gesinnungsgenossen. This is true as an inference. But
Paul's personal experience had been so profound and decided,
and had so moulded the entire course of his life, that it may
certainly isolate him from other believing Jews, — even from
those who could trace in themselves a similar change, — even, in
a word, from Peter, whose momentary reaction had challenged
this discussion. So far as the result is concerned, the experi
ence of believers generally is pictured out ; but the apostle puts
himself into prominence. The experience of others, while it
might approximate his, could never reach a perfect identity
with it in depth and suddenness. ' That both words, vbfiov
vbfico, should by necessity refer to the same law, has not been
universally admitted. The genitive has been referre'd by very
many to the law of the gospel, — such as Jerome, Ambrosiast.,
Erasmus, Luther, Calovius, Hunnius, Vatablus, Vorstius,
Bengel, Koppe, Morus, and Borger. It is also an alternative
explanation of the Greek fathers and Pelagius. Kuttner quietly
says, Intellige irlarecov quod omisit ut elegantior et acutior fieret
sententia. But this signification cannot be received as even plausible.
It is true that vbfiov is a term occasionally applied to the gospel,
but some characterizing element is added, — as irlarecov, Rom.
iii. 27 ; r. irvevparov r. ^eorjv, Rom. viii. 2 ; BiKaioavvrjv, Rom.
ix. 31 ; Justin Mart. Dial, cum Tryph. p. 157, ed. Thirlby.
The word can bear here no meaning but the law of Moses, the
law of God embpdied in the Jewish economy. The Mosaic
law is the point of dispute, the only divine law known to the
speaker and his audience. The article is not necessary. The
want of the article in some clauses, even when the reference
is to Mosaic system, may express to some extent the abstract
idea of law, but it is ever divine law as exemplified or embodied
in the Jewish economy. See pp. 163, 164.
How, then, did the law become the instrument of the
apostle's dying to itself, — for Bid vbfiov has the stress upon it ?
How through the instrumentality of the law was he released
from obligation to law ; or, more briefly, How did the law free
him from itself?
1. Some find this power in the outspeaking of the law as
to its own helplessness to justify. Thus Winer: Lex legem

CHAP. II. 19. 183
sustulit, ipsa lex cum non posset mihi salutem impertire mei me
juris fecit atque a suo imperio liberavit. Similarly Olshausen,
Matthies, Hilgenfeld, and Matthias. But this statement does
not contain the whole truth.
2. Some ascribe to the law the peculiar function of a iraiBa-
ycoyov. Thus Beza: Lex enim terroris conscientiam ad Christum
adducit. So Calvin, Schott, Bagge, Trana, and virtually
Lightfoot. But surely this abandonment of the law forced
upon sinners by its terrors does not amount to the profound
change described in the very significant phrase tg3 vbpcp
direQavov. 3. Some refer this instrumental power to the Messianic
deliverances of the law, as Gen. xv. 6, explained in Rom. iii. 21,
or Deut. xviii. 18 — Aid re rcov MeoaaiKcov Xoycov Kal rcov irpocpr)-
riKeov, Theophylact. Theodoret, Hammond, Estius, Wetstein,
and Baumgarten-Crusius. It is also an alternative explanation
of CEcumenius, Pelagius, Augustine, Crocius, and Grotius.
But the written law would be b vbfiov, and it did not as such
embrace the prophets by whom those utterances were most fully
and vividly given. Besides, as Lightfoot remarks, " such an
appeal" based on type and prophecy would be "an appeal rather
to the reason and intellect than to the heart and conscience."
The apostle's words are indeed an argument, — one not based
however on written external coincidences or propaideutic and
typical foreshowings, but drawn from the depths of his spiritual
nature. Marian. Victor, puts it peculiarly : Ego enim per legem,
qucs nunc spiritualiter intelligitur legi mortuus sum, illi scilicet
legi quo? carnaliter intelligebatur.
But to aid inquiry into the meaning of Sto vbfiov, the
meaning of vbfico direQavov must be first examined. The noun
is a kind of dativus commodi as it is called. Such a dative is
found with this verb Rom. vi. 2, 10, vii. 4, xiv. 7. To die to
the law, is to die as the law demands — to bear its penalty, and
therefore to be no longer under its curse and claim. In Rom.
vii. 4 the apostle says, " The law has dominion over a man as
long as he liveth ; " but that dominion over him ceases at his
death. This is a general principle ; and for the sake of illus
tration he adds, that the 7W77 viravBpov dies to the law of
marriage in her husband's death, and therefore may " marry
another." So believers died to the law in the death of Christ

184 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
- — iQavarcoQrjre reo vbfico Bid rov acofiarov rov Xpiarov. They
were freed from the law (KarrjpyrjQrjfiev, nullified), and so are
discharged from it. The common reading airoQavovrov in
Rom. vii. 6 is to be rejected — " that being dead in which we
were held ;" for the true reading is diroQavbvrev — " we having
died to that eV eo KareiybfieQar — in which we were held bound,"
and so we are freed from it. But how can a man die by the
law to the law and be relieved from its curse ? The apostle
explains in the following verse —
Xpiarco avvearavpcofiai — " I have been crucified with
Christ." Wondrous words ! I am so identified with Him,
that His death is my death. When He was crucified, I was
crucified with Him. I am so much one with Him under law
and in suffering and death, that when He died to the law I
died to the law. Through this union with Him I satisfied the
law, yielded to it the obedience which it claimed, suffered its
curse, died to it, and am therefore now released from it — from
its accusations and its penalty, and from its claim on me to
obey it as the means of winning eternal life. By means of
law He died ; it took Him and wrought its will on Him. As
our Representative in whom we were chosen and in whom
we suffered, He yielded Himself to the law, which seized Him
and nailed Him to the cross. When that law seized Him, it
seized at the same time all His in Him, and through the law
they suffered and died to it. Thus it is that by the law taking
action upon them as sinners they died to the law. This is the
view generally of Meyer, Ellicott, Alford, and Gwynne. At
the same time, the passage is not parallel to the latter portion
of the seventh chapter of Romans ; for there the apostle shows
the powerlessness of the law to sanctify as well as to justify.
Yet the law is not in itself to blame, for it is " holy, and just,
and good ;" and it has its own functions — to reveal sin in the
conscience, to irritate it into activity, and to show its true
nature as being " exceeding sinful." When sin revives, the
sinner dies — not the death referred to in the passage before us,
but spiritual death and misery. And now certainly, if the law,
avenging itself on our guilt, has in this way wrought our release
from itself — has set us for ever free from its yoke, and we have
died to it and have done with it ; then he who would re-enact
legalism and bring men under it, proves himself its transgressor,

CHAP. II. 19. 185
nay, opposes its deepest principles and its most gracious design.
See Usteri, Paulin. Lehrb. p. 171, 5th ed.
But release from law is not lawlessness. We die to sin
as well as to the law which is " the strength of sin," — and
" Christ died unto sin once." But death to the law is followed
by life to God as its grand purpose :
"Iva ©eco Qrjaco — " that I might live to God," even as Christ
" liveth unto God." Life in a high spiritual form succeeds that
death to the law — life originated and fostered by the Spirit of
God — the life of faith — the true life of the soul or Christ living
in it. The dative ©eco is opposed to vbfico, and with the same
meaning. The verb Ijrjaco is the subjunctive aorist (Winer,
41, p. 257), in keeping with the historical tense of the prin
cipal sentence. The phrase £777/ nvi, vivere alicui, is common :
eavrco tfjv, opposed to reo Kvpieo tfofiev, Rom. xiv. 7 ; ifiavrco tfjv,
Euripides, Ion, 646 ; 4>iXlirircp £iwi/Te?, Demosth. Philip. Epist.
vol. i. p. 100, ed. Schaefer ; ra irarpl ^eovrev, Dion. Halicar.
iii. 17, vol. i. p. 235,'ed. Kiessling, 1860; tout' ian to £772/ ov%
eavrco £771/ fiovov, Menander in Philadelpho, Stobaeus, Flor. 121,
5, ed. Gaisford ; alayjpbv yap £771/ fiovoiv eavroiv, Plutarch, Ag.
et Cleom. Opera, vol. iv. p. 128, ed. Bekker ; 'Cfoaiv reo ©eco, 1
Mace. xvi. 25 ; ©eco fibvep tfiaai, Philo, de Nom. Mut. p. 412, Op.
vol. iv. ed. Pfeiffer; £770-01 ©eco /iSXXov 77 eavrco, Quis rer. Div. do.
p. 50 ; non sibi soli vivere, Ter. Eun. iii. 2, 27 ; mihi vivam, Hor.
Ep. xviii. 107 ; vive tibi, vive tibi, Ovid, Tr. iii. 4, 4. These
current phrases were therefore well understood. To live to
one's self is to make self the one study- — to bend all thoughts,
acts, and purposes on self as the sole end ; so that the inquiry,
how shall this or that tell upon self either immediately or
more remotely, deepens into a species of unconscious instinct.
To live to God is to be in Him — in union with Him, and to
feel the assimilating influence of this divine fellowship — to
give Him the first place in the soul, and to put all its powers
at His sovereign disposal — to consult Him in everything, and
to be ever guided by His counsel — to do His will, because it is
His will, at all times — to regard every step in its bearing on
His claims and service, and to further His glory as the one
grand end of our lives. Such is the ideal in its holy and
blessed fulness. Alas, how seldom can it be realized ! Such
a life must be preceded by this death to. the law through the

186 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
law, for the legal spirit is one of bondage, failure, and un-
happiness, — works done in obedience to law to ward off its
penalty, with the consciousness that all the while the perfect
fulfilment of the law is impossible, — God being viewed as the
lawgiver and judge in their sterner aspects, and not in His
grace, so as to win our confidence and our unreserved conse
cration. The clause is connected with the one before it, and
not with the following one.
Ver. 20. Xpiarco avvearavpeo/iai — " I have been crucified
with Christ." The meaning of the words has been already
considered — the wondrous identity of the saint with his
Saviour. See under Phil. iii. 9, 10, 11. Compare Rom. vi.
4, 8 ; Rom. viii. 17 ; Eph. ii. 5 ; Col. ii. 12, 20 ; 2 Tim. ii. 11.
Lightfoot errs in giving it a different meaning from vbfico
direQavov, of which it is the explanation, as if the one were
release from past obligation, and this were the annihilation of
old sins. For the allusion here is not to the crucifixion of the
old man as in v. 24 (Ambros., Grotius),— -the image of spiri
tual change, self-denial, and " newness of life." The apostle
is describing how death to the law and release from legal
bondage were brought about. Some connect the clause iva
©eco £,rjaco with the one before it — " in order that I may live
to God, I am crucified with Christ" (Chrysostom, Cajetan,
Calvin). But the position of iva, and the contrast of direQavov
and £770-0), show that the first clause is a portion of what is
introduced by 7op. The punctuation of the following clauses
has been variously attempted. In one way the arrangement is —
Zeb Be ovKen iyco- %rj Be iv i/iol Xpiarov — "but it is no
longer I that live, but it is Christ that liveth in me ;" or, " I
live however no longer myself, Christ however liveth in me."
It has been common, on the other hand, to put a point after
the first Se, as in our version — " nevertheless I live, yet not I,
but Christ liveth in me ;" and so Bagge, Gwynne, Scholz,
Luther, Morus, etc. As Alford remarks, however, that punc
tuation would require dXXd before ou/ceVt in such a negative
assertion. It is difficult, indeed, to translate the clauses ; but
that is rather in favour of the idiomatic structure which the
newer punctuation brings out. Still, under the older punctua
tion there is something like the Pauline antithesis, iKoirlaaa-
ovk iyco Be, 1 Cor. xv. 10; 2 Cor. vi. 8-10. But here the

CHAP. II. 20. 187
phrase " I am crucified with Christ" is a kind of parenthetical
explanation suddenly inserted ; and the £w Se, therefore, is not
in contrast with it, as the older punctuation supposes, but goes
back to the previous clause — ©eco £770-0).
The £oj . . . £77 have the emphatic place — the idea of life
after such death fills the apostle's thoughts : " living, however,
no longer am I ; living, however, in me is Christ." The first
Be has its proper force, referring to 'Iva ©eco %rjaco : " That 1
may live to God ;" but " it is not I that live." I have said
" I," but it is not I. It is .something more than the fortschrei-
tendes Be (De Wette, Ruckert). This iyco is my old self —
what lived in legalism prior to my being crucified with Christ ;
it lives no longer. The principle of the old life in legalism has
passed away, and a new life is implanted within me. Or, When
I speak of my living, " I do not mean myself or my natural
being;" for a change as complete is spoken of as if it had
sundered his identity. The explanation of the paradox is —
this new life was not himself or his own, but it was Christ
living in him. His life to God was no natural principle — no
vital element self-originated or self-developed within him ; — it
sprang out of that previous death with His Lord in whom also
he had risen again ; nay, Christ had not only claimed him as
His purchase and taken possession of him, but had also entered
into him, — had not only kindled life within him, but was that
Life Himself. When the old prophet wrought a miracle in
restoring the dead child by stretching himself upon it so
exactly that corresponding organs were brought into contact,
the youth was resuscitated as if from the magnetic influences of
the riper and stronger life, but the connection then terminated.
Christ, on the other hand, not only gives the life, but He is the
life — not as mere source, or as the communicator of vitalizing
influence, but He lives Himself as the life of His people ; for
he adds —
Zrj Be iv ifiol Xpiarov. There are idiomatic reasons for
the insertion of this second Be, for it marks the emphatic
repetition of the same verb. The idiom is a common one.
rjaQrjv Be Biaid, irdvv Be Biaid. — Aristophanes, Acharn.
v. 2.
KaXeb Be rdaBe Balfiovav KaXeo B' "Apr). — Soph. (Edip.
Col. 1391.

188 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
77-oXXa Be avKn iroXv S' eXaiov, Xen. Cyrop. II. 22. Many
other examples are given in Hartung, i. p. 168 ; Klotz-
Devarius, ii. 359, who adds, significatio non mutatur etiam tum,
cum in ejusdam rei aut notionis repetitione ponitur ; Kiihner,
Xen. Mem. i. 1 ; Dindorf, Steph. Thes. ii. p. 928. That is to
say, Se is not wholly adversative ; but it introduces a new, yet
not quite a different thought — similis notio quodam modo oppo-
nitur. Living is the emphatic theme of both clauses ; the
contrast is between iyco and Xpiarov in relation to this life ;
the one clause does not contradict or subvert the other, but the
last brings out a new aspect under which this life is contem
plated. The utterance is not, as might be expected, I live in
Christ ; but, " Christ liveth in me." Some, as Riccaltoun and
Olshausen tell us, take this expression " for a mere metaphor"
or " a mere oriental figure," or if not, " for cant and unintel
ligible jargon;" while others, as Olshausen also informs us, base
a species of pantheism upon it — ein Verschwimmen ins allgemeine
Meer der Gottheit. But Christ-life in us is a blessed fact,
realized by profound consciousness ; and the personality is not
merged, it is rather elevated and more fully individualized by
being seized and filled with a higher vitality, as the following
clauses describe.' What a sad interpretation of Sender, that
" Christ " in this clause means ilia perfectior doctrina Christi !
*0 Be vvv £w iv aapKi — "but the life which I am now living in
the flesh," the stress lying on vvv . The Be is used as in the first
of the two previous clauses, and it rebuts an objection suggested
by the words vvv — iv crop/ct. The vvv, glancing back to ovKen,
has been supposed to allude to the apostle's unconverted state :
my present life dating from my conversion ; as Alford, Meyer,
Wieseler, Trana. Others take it to be in contrast to the future
state, as Ruckert, Usteri, Schott, Bisping : my present life, my
life now in contrast with what it shall be, is a life of faith ;
Meyer adding, though he adopts the previous interpretation,
that Paul expected at the second coming to be among the
living who shall only be changed. The idea of Chrysostom,
followed by Ellicott, comes nearer to our mind, that vvv cha
racterizes simply his life as a present one, life in the flesh — hcec
vita mea terrestris. The words iv aapKl would be all but
superfluous if a contrast with his former unbelieving state were

CHAP. II. 20.. 189
intended, for he lived iv aapKi then as now. As for the con
struction, it is needless with Winer to fill it out as quod vero ad
id attinet, or KaQ' b Be vvv ££, the alternative and preferred ex
planation in his Gram. § 24, 4, 3. Here o is simply the accu
sative to the verb £w (Bernhardy, p. 297) ; not precisely, as
Ellicott resolves it, rr)v Be ^ebnv rjv vvv £&), for o limits and
qualifies the idea of life, as is more fully seen in Rom. vi. 10.
See Fritzsche in loc. The implied repetition of the noun in
connection with its own verb is common. Bernhardy, p. 106.
The iv aapKi, in this body of flesh, is not carnaliter or Kara
adpKa ; there is no ethical implication in the term ; it merely
describes the external character of his present life. My pre
sent life — so true, so blessed, and so characterized by me — is
a life in the flesh. Granted that it is still a life in the flesh,
yet it is in its highest aspect a life of faith. This idea or
objection suggested the Be, which is simply explicative, and is
more than namlich, to wit (Meyer) : " but what I now," " or
so far as I now live in the flesh." "I live indeed in the flesh,
but not through the flesh, or according to the flesh" (Luther),
for the believer's life externally resembles that of the world
around him. Thus Tertullian, in vindication against the chargej
of social uselessness : Quo pacto homines vobiscum degentes,
ejusdem victus, habitus, instinctus, ejusdem ad vitam necessitatis ?
Neque enim Brachmancs, aut Indorum gymnosophistcs sumus,
sylvicolo? et exules vito?. Meminimus gratiam nos debere Deo
Domino creatori, nullum fructum operum ejus repudiamus, plane
temperamus, ne ultima modurn aut perperam utamur. Itaque non
sine foro, non sine macello, non sine balneis, tabernis, officinis,
stabulis, nundinis vestris cceterisque commerciis, cohabitamus in
hoc seculo ; navigamus et nos vobiscum et militamus, et rusti-
camur et mercatus proin.de miscemus, artes, opera nostra piibli-
camus usui vestro. — Apologet. cap. 42, vol. i. p. 273, ed. QShler.
While his life was in this visible sense an earthly one, it was
characterized at the same time by a higher principle —
'Ev irlarei £w ry rov vlov rov ©eov — " I live in the faith of
the Son of God ;" or, "in faith," to wit, "the faith of the Son
of God." Codex A omits £w ; rfj rov ©eov Kal Xpiarov is
read in B, Dl, F, and is accepted by Lachmann ; but the usual
text is supported by A, C,*D2'3, K, L, a, and by many of the
versions and fathers. It is difficult, indeed, to see how the other

190 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
reading could have originated ; unless, as Meyer supposes, vlov
rov had been omitted, and some other copyist, to bring the
clause into harmony with what follows, added tou Xpiarov.
He lived iv irlarei, "in the faith," not by the faith, either as
the simple dative, or as if it were Bid irlarecov, though the Greek
fathers, with Michaelis, Beza, Balduin, so render it ; and our
version has also " by the faith," the only place where the phrase
is so translated. 'Ev, indeed, with the dative has an instru
mental sense ; but here, while that is not wholly excluded, it
falls into the background. Faith was the element in which he
lived ; his life was not only originated instrumentally by it, but
it was also sustained in faith. A weak dilution of the phrase
is given by Grotius, Sub spe vitcs melioris, and by Koppe, who
explains the clause by omne studium religionis Jesus. How odd
is the notion of Vatablus, Propter fidem, i.e. ut fidem doceam !
This faith is held up or is particularized as rfj rod vlov rov
©eov. The article, as inserted at this point, gives it special
prominence or moment — ¦" in faith, and that of the Son of
God." The genitive is that of object — faith resting on Christ,
as in ver. 16. And the name is chosen with fitting solemnity.
It is as the Son of God that He has and gives life. John
v. 25, 26. Divine personality and equality with the Father
are implied in the Blessed Name. Both names are specified
by the article. See under Eph. i. 3. That faith rested on
no creature, but on God's own Son — so like Him as to be
His " express image," and so loved by Him as to be in His
bosom. And what He has done for the apostle is stated in
glowing terms —
Tov dyairrjaavrbv fie Kal irapaBbvrov eavrbv virep ifiov
— "who loved me, and gave Himself for me." See under
i. 4, and under iii. 13. The Kal is illustrative — et quidem,
Winer, § 53, 3, c, though he warns correctly, that " this epexe-
getical force has been attributed to /cot in too many passages."
The participles, emphatic in position, are aorists, referring the
facts to the indefinite past ; and they show how well warranted
that faith was, by the relation which the Son of God bore to
him, for He loved him with a love which none but He can
feel — a love like Himself, and by the gift which He gave for
him, and which none but He could give — Himself, the fruit of
His love. Me, though repeated,— for it is still the same iyco,

CHAP. II. 20. 191
— has riot a position of special prominence. But it shows the
depth and individualizing nature of his faith ; he particularizes
himself : No matter who else were loved, He loved me ; no
matter for whom other He gave Himself, He gave Himself for
me. Is it any wonder, then, that my life even now is a life of
faith in Him, and no longer one in legal bondage? Paul had
been many years in Christ ere he used this language of assur
ance. That assurance was unchanging. If the Son of God
loved him, and so loved him that He gave Himself to death for
him, and if his faith had been resting on that love crowned
in His sacrifice, how could he think of disowning this divine
Redeemer, slighting His love and disparaging His self-gift,
by relapsing into legal observances and rebuilding what He
had been so strenuously throwing down? His confidence
in the Son of God, and the near and tender relation of the
Son of God to him, made such retrogression impossible ; for
these elements of life were weightier than all arguments — were
the soul of his experience, and identified with himself. He
must deny himself and forget all his previous history, before he
could turn his back on that cross where the Son of God proved
the intensity and self-denying nature of His love for him in
that atonement which needs neither repetition nor supplement.
" Wilt thou bring thy cowl, thy shaven crown, thy chastity, thy
obedience, thy poverty, thy works, thy merits? What shall those
do ?" (Luther.) To be faithless is to be lifeless, without union
with Him who has life and imparts it. Faith rests on His
ability and will as a divine Redeemer — " the Son of God ;" feels
its warrant and welcome — " He loved me ;" and revels in the
adapted and numerous blessings provided — " He gave Himself
for me." These blessings are all summed up in " life," as
awaking it, fostering it, and crowning it, so that its receptive
faculties are developed, and it pulsates healthfully and freshly
in sympathetic unison with its blessed Source. Faith brings
the soul into close and tender union with Him " who is our
life," keeps it in this fellowship, and creates within it a growing
likeness to Him in the hope that it shall be with Him for ever.
Faith gives Him a continuous influence over the conscience,
writes His law on " the fleshly tables of the heart," and enables
the believer to realize His presence as his joy and power. In
short, the new existence which springs from co-crucifixion with

192 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
Christ, "lives, and moves, and has its being" in this faith of the
Son of God. It is a lamentably superficial view which is taken
by Rosenmiiller of these clauses — iv irlarei, in religione Messio?
excolenda et propaganda.
Prof. Jowett at this point makes an apparent assault on
the common theology, because it does not follow the apostle's
special order of thought in this place. "We begin," he says,
" with figures of speech — sacrifice, ransom, Lamb of God — and
go on with logical determinations — finite, infinite, satisfaction,
necessity in the nature of things. St. Paul also begins with
figures of speech — life, death, the flesh ; but passes on to the
inward experience of the life of faith, and the consciousness of
Christ dwelling in us." But this use of the apostle's present
form of argument is partial and one-sided. Prof. Jowett's accu
sation implies that " we" do not reason on these subjects in
the apostle's order ; and he institutes a needless comparison be
tween theology and experience, between objective and subjec
tive Christian truth. But it is surely quite possible to begin
with such " figures" as those he refers to — " sacrifice, ransom,
Lamb of God" — and move on naturally to the other figures
which more delight him, as " death, and death with Christ."
May not one — after referring to the fact that " Christ has given
Himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God," to the
" price" with which men " are bought," and to " the Lamb of
God taking away the sin of the world," — and these are realities
of Scripture, — pass without any incongruity to the necessity of
faith as a means of appropriation, to the inability of the law to
justify, and to the blessed fact that the same law has no power
to condemn believers — they being dead to it — while their faith
originates a new life within them, of which Christ is the true
vital element ? Nay, might not a man put all this as the record
of his own experience? Might not he say, Christ my "pass-
over has been sacrificed" for me; I "have redemption through
His blood;" I have been "redeemed with the precious blood of
Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot ?" And
what then should hinder him either to drop altogether the scho
lastic terms " finite, infinite, satisfaction," or, making his own
use of them as the inadequate symbols of momentous truth, to
go on to vital union with the Life-giver, and that fellowship with
Him in His death which emancipates from legal bondage and

CHAP. II. 20. 193
gives a community of life with the Son of God in whom faith
ever rests. If it be common for divines to do as Prof. Jowett
alleges, if it be their normal progress of argument, it is because
they have some purpose in view which is different from that of
the apostle in this report of his address to Peter. For, in re
ferring to Christ's death in this paragraph, it was foreign to
his purpose either to discuss or illustrate such aspects of it as
the terms " finite, infinite, satisfaction, and necessity," point to.
Neither these words, nor any words like them, are ever used
indeed by the apostle, for they had their rise chiefly in medi
aeval times; but the ideas suggested by them, we will not say
represented by them, are occasionally illustrated by him. His
object, however, here is to connect the death of Christ subjec
tively with his own experience which shadows out that of all
true believers, and he required not to consider its value, extent,
or connection with the divine government. That is to say, the
apostle does not himself follow a uniform order of thought on
this central theme; and why should blame be insinuated against
those who do not follow him in the special style of reasoning
adopted here for a specific object and in personal vindication ?
Finally, the apostle begins at a point more remote than that
selected by Prof. Jowett, from which to start his depreciatory
contrast. He commences with an objective declaration that
justification is impossible by the works of the law, and that
this blessing comes through faith as its instrument, — with an
assertion that under this creed or conviction himself and Peter
had renounced Judaism and had believed in Christ. But
while Peter had recoiled and partially gone back to the law, he
would not and could not go back to it, for he had died to the
law. He did not need to fortify his position by argument ; his
own history was conscious and undeniable evidence. Unless,
therefore, writers on theological science have a purpose iden
tical with the apostle's before us, there is no reason why they
should walk in his steps ; nor, if they deviate, are they to be
tacitly censured, for in such deviation they may be only follow
ing the apostle in some other section of his epistles. Let, then,
these " logical determinations" be dismissed as not being scrip
tural terms, but only inferential conclusions, and not perhaps
in all their metaphysical senses and uses warranted by Scrip
ture ; still, one may hold the scriptural ideas which by common
N

194 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
understanding they are intended to symbolize, and may from
them pass over, by closely connected steps and in the apostle's
mode, to spiritual experience in its elevation and rapture. There
is no occasion, then, to contrast the method which men may
ordinarily adopt in the construction of creeds with the apostle's
special and limited illustration in the present paragraph. The
presentation of doctrine in its scientific aspects and relations is
surely a warranted effort, and not incompatible with a living
spiritual experience as the result of the truth accepted. A
sound creed or Scripture teaching arranged and classified, and a
true and earnest life acted on by faith and reacting on it, are not
necessarily at opposite poles. Still it had been better if, in our
treatises on divinity, it had been more deeply borne in mind —
Pectus est quod theologum facit. The whole truth contained in
an inspired utterance can never be fully expressed by any
human dogma ; but the divine and illimitable will always out
stretch its precision and logic. Confessions of faith, however
necessary and exact they may, be, are only as cisterns ; and no
matter how skilfully and capaciously they are hewn out, the
water from the living fountain will not be confined, but will
always overflow them.
Ver. 21. Ovk dQereo rrjv %optf rov ©eov — " I do not frus
trate the grace of God." The verb, which is used first by
Polybius, has various shades of meaning. As applied to per
sons, it means "to despise" or "reject." Mark vi. 26 ; Luke
vii. 30, x. 16 four times ; John xii. 48 ; 1 Thess. iv. 8 ; Sept.
1 Sam. ii. 17. So Theodoret here has ovk an fiasco ; Grotius,
non vilipendo ; and the Vulgate, non abjicio. The definition
of CEcumenius falls short of the full import : rb diriareiv, rb
i^evreXl^eiv, rb Biairal^eiv. In a stronger sense it denotes " to
cast off" or violate, such as vbfiov, Heb. x. 28, or one's faith,
1 Tim. v. 12 ; then it means "to annul or make void." This last
sense it has in the clause before us; as rr\v ivroXrjv, Mark vii. 9;
rrjv avveaiv, 1 Cor. i. 19; Sept. 1 Mace. xv. 27; Ps. xxxiii. 10;
Polyb. ii. 58, 5 ; Gal. iii. 15. The sweeping conclusion Beopedv
direQavev shows that this must be its meaning. The " grace of
God" is not in a general sense the gospel, nor exactly the work
of Christ (Gwynne), though that work was its proof and
channel, as the last clause indicates ; but His sovereign kindness
manifested in the death of His Son, spontaneous on His part

CHAP. II. 21. 195
and wholly unmerited on ours. See Eph. ii. 4-9. The apostle's
realization of identity with his Lord, dying with Him and rising
with Him, his conscious possession of Christ as his life within
him, and that life moving and being sustained in its element
of faith in the Son of God, — all were proofs to him that he was
not frustrating the grace of God. For he felt that the one
source of justification was grace, and that the medium of it was
grace embodied in the incarnate Son. In trusting in Christ,
and in Him alone, he was magnifying the grace of God ; while
Peter, on the other hand, by his reactionary dissimulation, was
in effect putting aside that grace. For if any one put faith in
works, or revert to works, or in any way, either wholly or in
part, give them place in justification, either as opposed to faith
or as supplementing it, — if any one hope to merit what God so
freely bestows, he frustrates the grace of God, regards it as
void, or as an unneeded arrangement. For most surely —
.Et 7op Sto vofiov BiKaioavvr), dpa Xpiarov Bcopedv direQavev
— "for if through the law comes righteousness, then Christ
died without cause." Tap introduces strong confirmatory proof.
The phrase Bid vbfiov, emphatic in position, is in contrast with
Xpiarov in the same position. AiKaioavvn is supposed by some
to be the result of justification (Alford) ; by others, righteous
ness imputed and inherent (Ellicott) ; by others, the possession
of BiKalcoaiv (Wieseler). Righteousness is that by which a
man becomes right before God — that on his possession of which
he is rightened or accepted as righteous in God's sight. Such
a basis of justification may come through law, and be personal
righteousness, but that is impossible for fallen man. The
law which he has broken can only arraign him, convict him,
and work his death ; works of law can therefore in no sense
justify him. Another provision has been made by God, and a
righteousness wrought out by the obedience unto death of His
Son, becomes his through faith. See under Phil. iii. 9. It comes
not Bid vbfiov, but Bid irlarecov ; and law and faith are antago
nistic instrumentalities. But if righteousness did come by the
law, then there was no necessity for Christ's death. If man by
works of law can justify himself, what need was there that Christ
should die to provide for him what he can win for himself ?
"Apa — " then," " after all" — standing first in the apodosis
after the previous conditional sentence — then as an undoubted

196 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
inference. Matt. xii. 28; Luke xi. 20; 1 Cor. xv. 18; Klotz-
Devarius, ii. p. 160.
Acopedv does not mean "in vain," frustra (Erasmus,
Piscator), or pdrnv (Theophylact), nor gratis, as often in
classical use. Matt. x. 8 ; Rom. iii. 24. From this meaning,
nulla prcegressa causa, it comes to signify sine justa causa.
Tittmann, Synon. i. 161, gives it as nulla erat causa moriendi.
Sept. 1 Sam. xix. 5, Qavareoaai rbv AavlB Bcopedv — rendered in
our version "without a cause;" Ps. xxxiv. 7, Bcopedv eKpv^av
— " without cause they hid for me a net," rendered by Sym-
machus dvairlcov, but followed by fidrnv covelBiaav ; Ci|n being
used in both clauses. So Sirach xx. 23, Kal iwrfjaaro avrbv
i%Qpov Bcopedv — -"and made him his enemy for nothing;"
John xv. 25, ifilanadv fie Bcopedv — " they hated me without a
cause," — quoted from Ps. xxxiv. 19, ol fiiaovvrev fie Bcopedv.
Gesenius and Fiirst, sub voce B3n. If there can be righteous
ness through the law, Christ's death was uncalled for — was
gratuitous ; irepirrbv b r. X. Qdvarov, Chrysostom. The sense
is not, if works are necessary, Christ's death is ineffectual or
in vain ; but, if works can secure righteousness, Christ's death
was needless. But Christ's death could not be needless, there
fore righteousness comes not of the law ; it is the purpose and
result of the great atoning sacrifice. His theme is, I do not
constitute myself a transgressor ; the reason is given, " I do not
frustrate the grace of God ;" and then the proof contained in
the last clause is added. The former declaration was connected
with opo (ver. 17), and this similarly with the same particle
—two conclusions alike absurd and impious, but to which the
inconsistency of Peter assuredly led by necessary consequence.
What reply Peter made, or how his subsequent conduct at
Antioch was shaped, we know not. Nor know we how the
crisis ended — whether the believing Jews recovered their
earlier freedom, or whether any compromise was brought
about. Yet in spite of this misunderstanding and rebuke,
evincing the superior consistency of one of the apostles, tra
dition, with the exception of the Clementines, has placed Peter
and Paul on a similar level in many points. The Apostolical
Constitutions (vii. 46) report Peter as saying, " Evadius was
ordained bishop by me at Antioch, and Ignatius by Paul ;" but
whether simultaneously or in succession, cannot be ascertained.

CHAP. II. 21. 197
The same authority adds, that Paul ordained Linus the first
bishop of Rome, and Peter Clement as the second bishop.
Irenaeus says, again, that the church of Rome was founded a
gloriosissimis duobus apostolis Petro et Paulo — a false asser
tion indeed, but showing what honour both apostles enjoyed.
Contra Hcsres. iii. 3, 2 ; Opera, vol. i. p. 428, ed. Stieren.
Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, as quoted by Eusebius (ii. 25),
says, " Peter and Paul planted us at Corinth, and likewise
instructed us." And this is very much in the spirit of the
Acts of the Apostles, where Peter is found vindicating free
Pauline doctrine, and Paul goes into the temple to show that
he " walked orderly," while miracles similar in character are
ascribed to each. We may hold this opinion without going the
length of asserting that the " Acts" was written for the apolo
getic purpose of defending the apostolate of Paul, or of placing
him on the same official standing as Peter. Baur, Schwegler,
and Lutterbeck admit that, if judged by the first Epistle of
Peter, there is no essential difference between the Pauline and
Petrine doctrine. The original apostles are, indeed, found in
the temple again and again after the ascension ; but after what
was agreed to by them at the council, they cannot be justly ac
cused of Ebionitism. The address of Peter at the council pointed
indeed at the free and untrammelled admission of Gentiles,
while the modifications are proposed by James ; but even these
restrictions gave up circumcision — the initial rite, the necessity
for submission to which had been so fanatically contended for, —
and proposed only certain compliances with the national ritual,
along with obedience to the law of chastity, for the breach of
which Syrian idolatries and the Antiochene grove of Daphne
afforded so many facilities and temptations. Still, that con
formity to the Jewish ritual should prevail especially in Pales
tine, is scarcely to be wondered at. Eusebius enumerates
fifteen bishops, " all of the circumcision," who held office in
Jerusalem prior to the last Jewish rebellion, the church being
entirely made up of "believing Hebrews," Histor. Eccles. iv. 5.
Sulpicius Severus records : Namque tum Hierosolymw non nisi
ex circumcisione habebat ecclesia sacerdotem . . . pcene omnes
Christum Deum sub legis observatione credebant. Chron. ii. 31 ;
Opera, vol. i. 36, ed. Halm, Vindobonae 1866. Jerome de
scribes the church at Alexandria founded by Mark, Peter's

198 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
interpres et disciplus, as adhuc judaizans, that is, in the period of
Philo, De Viris Illust. viii.1 But the insurrection under Bar
Cochba brought the vengeance of Hadrian upon the capital,
and by him the Jews were forbidden to enter it under its new
heathen title of iElia Capitolina. Christians had on the other
hand free permission to settle in this Roman colony ; and then,
the Jewish element being so thoroughly eliminated, the church _
elected Marcus as the first Gentile bishop or " presiding elder."
Probably Jews who had fully renounced Judaism, who had
denationalized themselves in embracing Christianity, might
also be enfranchised. But the exiled Jews of the stricter
party, who clung to their old Judaism like ivy to a ruined
tower, and clung to it all the more keenly on account of this
proscription, repaired to Pella, their refuge under the first
siege, and the Ebionite community so originated survived till
the fifth century. In course of time the Christian element had
nearly faded out among them, and, as Origen informs us, there
was little left to distinguish them from ordinary Jews. There
were, however, various modifications both in the theology and
practices of the party ; and a section called Nazarenes, the
original Jewish appellation of believers, were noted for their
more orthodox creed and for their stern anti-pharisaic tenden
cies. See Neander ; Lechler, das Apostol. u. das nachapostol.
Zeitalter, p. 235.

NOTE ON Chap. ii. 11.
Kara 7rp6(ra>wov avra avreo-rrj, — " I withstood him to the face, because
he had been condemned."
This scene at Antioch — Peter's dissimulation and Paul's re
buke — was soon laid hold of by infidel opponents to damage
the truth of Christianity. Jerome in the preface to his Com
mentary on Galatians refers to Porphyry, who took such an
advantage of the altercation,2 and under ii. 11 he puts this
1 Compare Schwegler, Nachapost. Zeitalter, i. p. 113.
2 Volens et illi maculam erroris inurere et huic procacitatis et in com
mune ficti dogmatis accusare mendacium, dum inter se ecclesiarum principes
discrepent.

THE CLEMENTINES. 199
alternative : ad extremum, si propter Porphyrii blasphemiam,
alius nobis fingendus est Cephas. Opposing parties also in these
early times made the most of the occurrence. The Ebionites
through it attacked Paul, as in the Clementines, in which
Peter assaults the apostle of the Gentiles under the name of
Simon Magus. We need not say a word about the date of the
Clementines — Homilies and Recognitions. Nor need we discuss
the critical opinions of Schliemann, Hilgenfeld, Uhlhorn, and
Ritschl as to their relations and origin ; nor the elaborate
efforts of Neander, Credner, Baur, and Schwegler to evolve
their doctrinal system.1 Suffice it for our present purpose to
say, that in the letter of Peter prefixed to the Homilies he says,
" Some of those among the Gentiles have rejected my lawful
preaching — vb/iifiov Kfjpvyfia, having embraced the lawless and
foolish teaching of the enemy," — " hostile man" — rov i^Qpov
dvQpcoirov. " Some have tried by diverse interpretations to
shape my words into an abolition of the law — et? rrjv rov
vofiov KardXvaiv, as if this were my sentiment, and I did not
dare openly to preach it ;" — with more to the same purpose, in
evident allusion to the viroKpiaiv charged upon him at Antioch.
Homilies, pp. 4, 5, ed. Dressel. In Homily xvii. 19 (p. 351,
do.) Peter then refers in sneering depreciation to the visions
and revelations which Paul enjoyed, and places his own honours
and privileges in very favourable comparison — the personal
instructions of the Divine Teacher for a year being put into
contrast with instructions for but an hour, adding : " For me,
being a firm rock, the foundation of the church, as an adver
sary thou hast withstood ; if thou hadst not been an enemy,
thou wouldest not have reviled me and calumniated my preach
ing, that I might not be believed when I declared what I had
heard from the Lord myself in His presence — as if I were
condemned, and not to be approved ; or if thou calledst me
condemned, thou accusest God who revealed Christ to me."2
1 Uhlhorn supposes an earlier work than either the Homilies or Recog
nitions to have existed among the Elxaites in eastern Syria, and argues
that the Recognitions are a recasting of the Homilies, because the quota
tions from the New Testament in the former agree better with the cano
nical text. But this better harmony may have been the work of the Latin
translator, though he certainly professes a strict adherence to his original.
2 See the critical note of F. Wieseler in his appendix to Dressel's
edition of the Clementinorum Epitomx dux, pp. 308, 309, Lipsise 1859.

200 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
The reference is plainly to this section of Galatians. The
phrases ivavrlov dvOearrjKav fioi — ifiov KarayvcoaQevrov — 77 et
Kareyveoapevov pe Xeyeiv, are borrowed from it. That Simon
represents the Apostle Paul is now generally agreed. Many
proofs may be found in Schliemann's Clementinen, p. 96, and
in Zeller, Die Apostelgeschic'hte, p. 158. This opinion is denied,
but on insufficient grounds, by Ernest de Bunsen (Hidden
Wisdom, vol. ii. pp. 12-14), who, however, regards these
documents as genuine, and " as based on originals dating from
apostolic times."
On the other hand, the conflict at Antioch afforded an
opportune handle for Marcion to depreciate Peter, and to
prove the direct opposition of the true gospel to Judaism.
Irenaeus thus meets the objection : " This dispute about the
law did not argue a different origin to it from the gospel." 1
Tertullian, occupied with the same objection, rebukes his
opponents thus : credunt sine scripturis ut credant adversus
scripturas ; and his explanation is, that Peter's fault lay not in
his preaching, but in his life — utique conversationis fuit vilium
non prcsdicationis.2
This Antiochene controversy was thus sadly misunderstood,
and its meaning perverted for sceptical and polemical purposes.
But it did not touch the truth of the gospel, nor militate
against the inspiration of the apostles. For inspiration does
not charge itself with the government of personal conduct, but
is connected only with official labour done in Christ's name.
Peter's momentary timidity, so like himself, and yet so un
worthy of him, did not influence his preaching, since he acted
against his own theory, and shrunk from his asserted freedom.
Peter and Paul preached all the while the very same gospel,
1 Religiose agebant circa dispositionem legis, qux est secundum Moyseih
ab uno et eodem significantes esse Deo. — Vol. i. p. 494, ed. Stieren Lipsise
1853. 2 De Prxscript. Hxret. xxiii. ; Opera, vol. ii. p. 22, ed. Oehler 
Tamen doceant ex eo quod allegant Petrum a Paulo reprehensum aliam evan-
geliiformam a Paulo superductam citra earn qux prxmiseral Petrus et ceteri.
.... Non enim ex hoc alius Deus quam creator et alius Christus quam ex
Maria,* et alia spes quam resurrectio. See also i. 20, p. 69, ib. Plane
reprehendit, non ob aliud tamen quam ob inconstantiam victus, quern pro
personarum qualitate variabat, non ob quam divinitatis perversitatem.—
Advers. Marc. v. 3, p. 280, do.

TEMPERAMENT OF PETER. 201
though at this startling crisis Peter did not act in harmony
with it, but allowed earlier feelings to acquire for the time a
second and cowardly predominance. To eat with one of
another nation had been his first abhorrence ; and though a
vision helped him, nay, forced him, to surmount the antipathy,
it had never wholly died out within him. Traditionary edu
cation and habit produce certain associations which may have
a dormant co-existence with a better creed, but which in an
unexpected hour and under strong temptation may reassert
the mastery. To make a bold assertion, and then on a sudden
to recoil from it, had been Peter's temperament. " Lord, bid
me come to Thee on the water," was in a few moments
followed by "Lord, help me!" — the avowal, "Though all
men forsake Thee, yet will not I," " though I should die
with Thee, yet will I not deny Thee," was only a prelude
to the denial a few hours afterwards, " I know not the
man ;" — " Thou shalt never wash my feet," was said one
instant, but the next brought out the changed desire, " Lord,
not my feet only, but also my hands and my head." His
answer to those who " contended with him," saying, " Thou
wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them,"
had been, " God hath showed me that I should not call any
man common or unclean," and his intrepid conclusion had
been, "What was I that I could withstand God?" Nay,
to those who insisted on the Gentiles being circumcised and
keeping the law of Moses, his reply had been noble and un-
fearing : " God made choice among us that the Gentiles by
my mouth should hear the word of the gospel. Why tempt
ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples ? " And
yet, after all this undaunted and unreserved vindication, he
turns his back on himself, abjures his own protest, and in a fit
of weakness bows his own neck to that very unbearable yoke.
Paul's record of the scene shows how free and open the
founders of the church were — without any collusion which a
misunderstanding might break up, or any compact the fraudu
lent basis of which a sudden alienation might expose. The
worst that could be said of Peter was, that overawed by the
presence of "certain from James" and the mother church, he
fell into a momentary vacillation ; and that his courage and
constancy sank for a time under a conservative influence,

202 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
before which even Barnabas, first the patron and then-the col
league of Paul, and filled with no small portion of his spirit,
quailed and fell.
In this debated matter of Gentile freedom, while others
stumbled or advanced with unsteady step — for theirs were
but " broken lights" — Paul moved onwards without hesita
tion or pause, and by his single courage and consistency
secured to the churches a liberty which, though it might
be grudged or suspected in many quarters, could not be
withdrawn, but has descended as an invaluable legacy to
modern times. As he knew Peter's character, it must have
cost him a pang to confront him whose name stands first
in all the catalogues of the apostles ; but the claims of truth
were paramount. The unhappy entanglement of Barnabas
in the controversy, and this rebuke, in which he must
have shared, perhaps helped to exacerbate the misunder
standing or " contention" which soon afterwards severed the
two fellow-labourers, when they " departed asunder the one
from the other." Who that knows anything of human nature
will not sympathize with Peter in his sudden weakness, so
characteristic of persons of his temperament, which, without a
steady self-control and true all the while to the ultimate
motive, so vibrates under proximate influences as to swerve
for a season into devious courses ? His dissimulation was an
honest obedience to the impulse of the moment, and that im
pulse was the sudden awakening of early and deep impressions.
What bitter regrets must have followed such aberrations ! what
prayers for a steadier walk and for an unbroken unity of will !
what reluctance to forgive himself, even though he had the
assurance of divine forgiveness ! But it needed the greater
nature of Paul to ward off the injuries which such tergi
versation was so certain to produce. He was a stranger to
that infirmity by which Peter had been overtaken. With
an emotional nature as profound though not so variable as
Peter's, his temperament was as decided as it was ardent, as
lofty as it was inflexible. He saw truth on all sides of it,
both in theory and result, in germ and in development ; and
obstacles unforeseen by others did not, as they started up, so
surprise him as to make him question or re-examine his leading
principles.

FICTION OF ANOTHER PETER. 203
It is pitiable, therefore, to see what shifts have been re
sorted to in order to explain away a scene so life-like in the
case of Peter, and so true to his character in that of Paul.
And first it was hinted that this Cephas was not the Apostle
Peter, but another bearing the name, and who was one of the
seventy disciples. This opinion was started by the Alexandrian
Clement. In the fifth book of his Hypotyposeis, as cited by
Eusebius, when speaking of the Cephas whom Paul withstood
to the face at Antioch, he says : eva yeyovevai rcov eBBofirJKovra
fiaQryrebv, ofiebvvpov Uerpeo rvy^dvovra reo diroarbXeo. Hist.
Eccles. 1-12, pp. 75, 76, vol. i. ed. Heinichen. Eusebius
simply reports the opinion without controverting it; but his
neutrality is construed by Qilcumenius into positive agreement,
— with the addition, Kal iriQavbv b Xoyov, the argument being
the great moral improbability of its being that apostle who had
seen the vision and baptized Cornelius, and who had already
stood out so boldly on the subject — ov ydp rjv 6 elircov ravra.
Jerome repeats the same conjecture, though he does not hold
it ; adding, that its advocates argue that Luke makes no men
tion of the dissension, or ever places Peter and Paul together
at Antioch — et locum dari Porphyrio blasphemanti ; si autem
Petrum errasse, aut Paulus procaciter apostolorum principem
confutasse credaiur. Chrysostom, in his homily on the clause,
" I withstood him to the face," refers to the same opinion, but
asserts that it is refuted by the context — /cot e'/c rcov dvcorepeo
Kal e'/c reov perd ravra. Opera, vol. iii. p. 446, Gaume, Paris
1837. Gregory the Great mentions it too, but denies it.1
Nay, this Cephas appears in the list of the seventy in the
Paschal Chronicle : Knepdv Oficbvvfiov TIerpov & Kal ifiayrjaaro
HavXov Kara 'IovBaiafiov ; and in the list ascribed to Dosi-
theus, the martyred bishop of Tyre, the addition is made :
Krjepdv bv b dirbaroXov HavXov iv ' Avrioyela rjXey^ev, ov Kal
iirlaKoirov Kovlav iyevero. Chron. Pasch. vol. i. p. 400, vol.
ii. p. 126, ed. Dindorf, Bonn 1832. This wholly groundless
1 Patet ergo de quo Petro Paulus loquitur, quern et apostolum nominat et
prxfuisse evangelio circumcisionis narrat. In the previous paragraph also,
when telling that Paul rebuked Peter, and Peter called him afterwards
charissimus frater noster, he adds : quatenus qui primus erat in apostolatus
culmine esset primus et in humilitate. — Homil. in Ezek. lib. ii. Hom. vi. ;
Opera, vol. ii. pp. 1002-3, ed. Migne, Paris.

204 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
opinion has not wanted favourers in more modern times, as
may be seen in Vallarsi's editorial note on Jerome, which has
also guided us to some of the previous references. Hardouin
the Jesuit revived it, and its refutation in Deyling's Observ.
Sac. (cap. xiv. vol. ii. p. 520) degenerates ultimately into an
antipapal polemic. See also Calmet, Dissert, torn. iii. p. 519,
Paris 1720. This absurd opinion originated in a fear that
the great apostle of the circumcision might be disparaged ;
but it is rightly and honestly repudiated by many exegets
and controversialists who owe allegiance to the chair of St.
Peter. To gain a similar end, another method was adopted ; and it
was held that the dispute was only a feigned one, the apostles
being quite agreed in opinion, and that the scene was got up in
order that Peter might submit to a rebuke, as a lesson to the
Judaizers who were censured and condemned in him. Jerome
asserts that Origen first propounded this extraordinary notion.1
Jerome himself adopted it, and it was advocated by Chry
sostom,2 first in his Commentary on Galatians, and also in a
separate treatise referred to in the footnote.3 The Latin father,
who, according to Luther, " neither understood this place, nor
the whole epistle besides," in various ways justifies this acting
of a lie, quasi in publico contradicens. The apostles must have
been at one, he argues ; for Paul was just as much committed
as Peter by " shaving his head in Cenchrea, for he had a vow,"
by his carrying offerings to Jerusalem, and by his circumcision
of Timothy, so that, ejusdem simulationis tenebitur reus. Then
he asks in triumph, " How, then, could Paul resist and rebuke
with a good grace, when himself was guilty of similar inconsis-
1 His words, in a letter to Augustine, are : Hanc autem explana-
tionem quam primus Origenes in decimo Stromateon libro, ubi epistolam
Pauli ad Galatas interpretatur, et ceteri deinceps interpretes sunt sequuti,
ilia vel maxime caussa subintroducunt, ut Porphyrio respondeant blasphe-
manii, qui Pauli arguit procacitatem, etc. — Epist. 112 ; Opera vol. i. ed.
Vallarsi. 2 Quid dicam de Joanne qui dudum in Pontificali gradu, Constantino-
politanam rexit Eccksiam; et proprie super hoc capitulo latissimum exaravit
librum, in quo Origenis et veterum sententiam est sequutus. — Ep. 112, do.
s The treatise of Chrysostom thus referred to by Jerome is in the third
volume of his works, p. 431, Gaume, Paris, and is a homily preached at
Antioch on the clause — Kxrx Trpooairor xvra xwritrrvi,.

THE DISPUTE A FEIGNED ONE. 205
tencies?" This tu quoque reply is heartily and admiringly
endorsed by Stap in his Etudes, an attempt to popularize the
criticism of the Tubingen school for French readers.1 But the
proofs adduced do not come at all under the same category of
personal inconsistency or hypocrisy. Jerome then refers for
an instance of utilis simulatio to the treachery of Jehu, without
which the priests of Baal could not have been assembled to be
all massacred. " Call unto me all the prophets of Baal, all his
servants, and all his priests : let none be wanting ; for I have
a great sacrifice to do to Baal," were also the words of Elijah.
But the adduction of such a case is truly as melancholy as his
next is ridiculous, which is David's feigning of madness for his
personal safety at Gath. Another of his proofs is based on the
publicity of the rebuke ; for such publicity, if the censure were
genuine, would, in his opinion, be a direct violation of the
Master's precept, " Tell him his fault between thee and him
alone." But the inconsistency of Peter was no private offence;
it scandalized the entire Gentile portion of the church. His
next reference to the practices of pleaders in the Roman forum
is pithily put, but is still farther from the point, and needs not
be replied to. Chrysostom, in the midst of his rhetoric, is as
precise as > Jerome. In his commentary his deliverance is,
"Peter's conduct, as Paul well knew, was dictated by two
secret motives : to avoid offending the Jews, and to give Paul
a good opportunity for animadverting. . . . Now that the one
refutes, and the other submits, the Jewish faction is seized
with great fear."2 His explanation of the clause Kara irpbaco
irov avrearnv is a^rjpa rjv, it was a feint, or merely in outer
appearance ; for if they had been in earnest, they would not
in public have censured each other. Peter's inconsistency was
only a sham — eov dfiaprdveov — that the Judaizers through him
might be rebuked. The plot was this : " If Paul had reproved
these Jews, they would have been indignant and contemptuous,
for they held him in small honour ; but when they saw their
1 Etudes historiques et Critiques sur les Origenes du Christianisme,
par A. Stap, 2d ed., Paris 1866.
2 Alio t«wt« oixo,o/xar, xxi to fiij oxx^ox'hioxi rov; ii, lovoxm,, xxi to
irxpxo}cii, t5 Tlxi'kCfi i'vhoyo, t»jj smrifiiiota; mplt((ixaiii. . . . Aid xxi IT«t/Ao?
Iff wTujttw xxi TLtrpo; xn-^srxi 'ivx iyxxhovfierov toD 'bio'aoxa'hov xxi triya,- ,
rot ivxoharepo, oi (ixirrrxl pcsrxSZrrxi.

206 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
teacher under rebuke and yet silent, they could not despise nor
gainsay what was spoken."1 Chrysostom is eloquent on the
impossibility of one who had spoken and acted as Peter had,
falling into the alleged inconsistency. In his homily on the
subject his motive is apparent, for he espoused the theory on
account of the bad use that was made of the incident — 7ropo
reov e^eoQev Kal rcov rrjv irlarecov dXXorplcov. " Would not
one," he adds, "be struck with terror if he heard that the
pillars of the church had come into collision ? The great
wisdom and benevolence of the two apostles would have pre
vented them from coming into actual strife. Could Peter be a
coward — SetXo? Kal dvavBpov — he to whom the name of Rock
had been given ; who had himself been the first to confess the
Messiahship and boldly to preach it ; whose ardent impulses
outstripped all his fellows, and who had protested before the
rulers, ' We cannot but speak the things which we have seen
and heard ; ' — could he who had been so bold at Jerusalem in
the midst of enemies waver at Antioch — iv rfj XpianaviKco-
rdrrj irbXei ? " Time, place, and circumstances alike forbid the
thought. Besides, Paul, who was " as weak to the weak," was
too modest and loving, and must have had too much respect
for Peter's prerogative, to have rebuked one, to make whose
acquaintance he had not long before gone up to Jerusalem, and
with whom he had sojourned fifteen days. This, and a vast deal
more poured out in impassioned declamation and challenge,
does not touch the matter. In the case of a man of Peter's
temperament, it is dangerous to argue from only one side of
his antecedents, leaving the other side in discreet abeyance,
such as his boast and his subsequent denial of the Master.
Similar things will be found in CEcumenius, and in Theophy
lact, who calls the dispute ayijpanaQeiaa p,dyrj. Theodoret's
commentary is wanting at this part; but he elsewhere cha
racterizes Peter's conduct as dissimulation — /cot rep nirpeo
ayrjfiariaapkvcp rov vbfiov cpvXaKrjv. Op. vol. ii. p. 536 ed.
Sirmondi. The interpretation of Jerome came at length into the hands
1 El fiir yxp nit e% 'lovlxia, 6 Tixv^ot iirin'Krt&v, iyxuxxryo-x, xxi
liivrvox,- ov yxp uroXhi, irepl xvnv oo^xv eTxov vv,l li n, oiaxoxxKo,
oparret iirirtfiafiiro, xxi oiyZrrx, ovre xxrx<ppo,7ioxt, ovre x,reiwt~i, roit
teyopipoig eT%o, ; and in this the Greek father discovers n-oATviji; ovreoi,.

JEROME AND AUGUSTINE. 207
of Augustine,1 and greatly shocked him,2 — non mediocriter
doleo. Ep. 28, probably a.d. 394 or 395. He wrote at once
to Jerome as the reputed author — qucsdam scripta quo? iua
dicerentur ; but he was not perfectly sure — si alius ilia scripsit.
He puts the case very plainly, not as one of lying on the part
of good men, but whether it behoved the writers of sacred
scripture to lie. The same allegation, he adds, may be made
regarding other passages, such as those regarding marriage,
1 Tim. iv. 3. The authority of Scripture is thus destroyed —
nusquam certa erit in Sanctis Uteris castes veritatis auctoritas.
Augustine writes firmly, but in all modesty — nee me onerosum
aut impudentem judices. This first letter does not touch the
context, nor its bearing on the subject ; it deals only with
ethics, and not with criticism. In another letter (Ep. 40) he
refers to the same subject, and enters into it more fully in its
various aspects, has a word on the value of Origen's authority,
and urges Jerome to sing a palinode, " for -the truth of Chris
tendom is more incomparably beautiful than the Grecian
Helen." Augustine is in profound earnest, and yet quite
without arrogance. Nequaquam vero mihi arrogaverim ut in-
genium tuum divino dono aureum, meis obolis ditare contendam.
The first letter, which had been entrusted to Profuturus, had
been lost in the conveyance, but its contents had got into
general circulation. Jerome's temper was none of the best,
and this supposed slight was enough to exasperate him. He
could not bear to be attacked by a younger rival (Ep. 102).
Through Sysinnius the deacon, he had got, he says, a copy of
a letter purporting to be addressed to him — epistolcs cujusdam
quasi ad me scriptcs, — in which Augustine urged him to
recant and imitate Stesichorus.3 If the letter be genuine, he
1 The letters of Jerome are quoted as numbered in the first volume of
his works edited by Vallarsi, Venetiis 1769 ; and those of Augustine, as
in the second volume of his works published apud Gaume fratres, Paris
1836. 2 Opera, vol. ii. p. 68, ib.
3 The legend was, that Stesichorus, "the poet of Himera" in Sicily,
wrote an attack on Helen, and was punished with blindness for the libel ;
but recovered his sight on composing a recantation — a palinode. Pausanias,
iii. 19, 11, vol. i. pp. 541-2; Opera, ed. Schubart., Lipsise 1838. The
unlucky allusion stuck fast in Jerome's memory, and again and again he
makes reference to it, as in a sense " the unkindest cut of all."

208 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
bids him aperte scribe, vel mitte exemplaria veriora. Augustine
explained afterwards that the person entrusted with the letter
had neither delivered it nor returned it. Jerome was there
fore suspicious and irritated, because he had seen only an
anonymous copy of a document, which, though addressed to
himself, he had never received, while the attack upon him found
in it had come to be generally known in Rome and over the
churches. Augustine solemnly denied on oath that he had circu
lated any book against Jerome. Deum nostrum testor hoc me non
fecisse (Ep. 67.) It turned out, however, as Augustine admitted
afterwards, that this denial was caused by the distinction which
he made between liber and epistola. He had not written any
liber against Jerome, nor had he sent that ill-fated epistola
to the capital. But Jerome was not aware of this at the time,
and consequently his indignation begins to glow at what he
reckoned unhandsome treatment, and he warns his youthful
tutor of the juvenile weakness of crowing over illustrious men,
as if it were a way to fame. He reminds him that the writer
(Jerome) had had his day ; and lest Augustine should suppose
that poetic allusion was specially his property, he hints in
return for the reference to Stesichorus, that Entellus, aged
though he was, might crush the younger Dares.1 In another
communication (Ep. 105) Jerome returns to the letter on the
subject which had been circulated in Africa and in Italy ; and
he plainly suspects Augustine of using undue means for its
publication, as it had never reached him, save in some anony
mous form. Busy friends, too, had been at his elbow — fami-
liares mei et vasa Christi, and they had insinuated doubts of
Augustine's integrity of motive, and the hints officiously whis
pered in his ear lose nothing through his telling of them. The
old and suspicious story of the letter, and Augustine's denial of
its authorship, again turn up with the sharp innuendo : " Thou
hast not written, and yet how are there brought to me reports
of my being censured by you ? If the book is not yours, deny
its authorship ; if yours, say so honestly, that I may write in
my defence."2 Augustine had quietly asked Jerome to cor-
1 Virgil, JEneid, v. 362, etc.
2 Quod autem juras te adversum me librum nee scripsisse, neque Romam
misisse quern non scripseris. Non scripisti librum et quomodo mihi repre-
hensionis a te mex per alios scripta delata sunt ? Cur habet Italia quod tu

JEROME'S REPLY. 209
rect anything wrong in his works ; but Jerome tartly retorts,
"that he had not given special attention to them, and had
seen indeed but few of them, but that there were opinions in
his book on the Psalms not consonant to the views of the old
Greek interpreters." The next letter of Augustine (Ep. 73)
is a long and pointed one. It takes up the allusion to Entellus
and to his own works — fortasse dura sed certe salubria verba ;
reciprocates his protestations of love ; declares that he wrote
about the Galatian Comment, -when he was a young man, and
that now, though he was an old man, he had got no reply.
Probably ten years had elapsed, so slow was correspondence in
those days. The letter is occupied not with recriminations
certainly, but it shows that the writer had been touched by
some of Jerome's hard words : " If we cannot correct what
may be wrong in one another's writings without suspicion of
envy, or breach of friendship, let us give it up — quiescamus ab
his et nostras vitcs salutique parcamus ;" and he ends with sen
tences of noblest Christian charity. So boldly challenged,
Jerome replied at length (Ep. 112), perhaps a.d. 404, to what
he calls tres epistolas imo libellos breves. In the introduction and
at the end he purposely omits all compliments, even those with
which his opponents had tried to soften his censures. In defence
of his Commentary on Galatians, he quotes a portion of the
preface which enumerates the authorities which had been con
sulted by him — Origen, Didymus, the Laodicene (Apollinaris),
Alexander (an ancient heretic), Eusebius of Emesa, and Theo
dore of Heraclea ; and he challenges Augustine to produce one
supporter of his view. The old arguments are then repeated :
the various points of Peter's life ; his sayings and doings which
make the tergiversation ascribed to him so unlikely, for he was
the first to advocate the freedom which he was now accused of
having deserted ; and then he sets upon Paul, to show him
guilty of the very course for which he reprehended Peter.1
non scripsisti? Qua ralione poscis, ut rescribam ad ea qux scripsisse te
denegas? . . . Igitur aut tuum negato librum, aut si tuus est ingenue confitere;
ut si in defensionem mei aliqua scripsero, in te culpa sit qui provocasti, non
in me, qui respondere compulsus sum.
1 0 beale Apostole Paule, qui in Petro reprehenderas simulationem, quare
subiraxisset se a gentibus propter metum Judxorum qui ab Jacobo venerant,
cur Timoiheum filium hominis gentilis, utique et ipsum gentilem (neque enim
O

210 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
The abuse which Porphyry had made of the scene is still
the stumblingblock which Jerome could not surmount or thrust
aside. Augustine had spoken in a previous letter of the com
parative harmlessness of a Jew observing the Mosaic institutions
of his country, that being a different thing from fixing their
observance on the Gentiles ; but with striking inconsistency,
Jerome's blood boils at the thought, and he declares the opinion
to be vilest error bordering on Ebionitism ;l and this thought
is elaborated in various ways, and with increasing vehemence.
The letter then passes into some biblical questions, among
which the proper Latin translation of Jonah's "gourd"2 is
a source of irritation ; and it draws to a close with a request
to be let alone, so as not to be provoked into further contest,
and with an advice to Augustine — who, though young, was
a bishop — to teach the people and enrich the Roman church
with the fruits of his African genius ; concluding with a sigh,
perhaps of wounded pride — mild sufficit cum auditore et lectore
pauperculo in angulo monasterii susurrare. To this epistle
Augustine sent a distinct and formal reply (Ep. 82), in which
he carefully reviews all the points of the argument ; lays stress
on Paul's declaration, " When I saw that they walked not
uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel," — a handle to
the falsifying Manichseans if it were not true ; analyses the
conduct and motives of Paul ; shows that his becoming a Jew
to the Jews was non mentientis astu, sed compatientis affectu ;
dwells on the relations of the law to believers ; throws off all
Jerome's authorities but three as being heretics ; opposes to
them the two fathers Ambrose and Cyprian ; and asserts that
if he had read much, he could easily have found a third (ut
ires tribus opponam). In default, however, of a third, he will
summon the apostle himself, and ask him if, when he accused
Peter, he had spoken dispensativa falsitate ; and his reply is,
what he had stated in a previous verse, " Now the things which
Judxus erat qui non fuerat circumcisus) contra sententiam tuam circumcidi
coegisti ? Respondebis mihi ; propter Judxos qui erant in illis locis. . . . Qua
igitur fronte, qua audacia Paulus in altero reprehendit quod ipse commisit?
1 Ego e contrario loquar, et reclamante mundo, libera voce pronuntio :
cxremonias Judxorum, et perniciosas esse et mortiferas Christianis ; et qui-
cumque eas observaverit sive ex Judxis, sive ex gentibus, eum in barathrum
diaboli devolutum.
2 Whether it should be hedera or cucurbila.

JEROME'S CHANGE OF VIEW. 211
I write unto you, behold, before God I lie not." The epistle
concludes with warm expressions of attachment, and some
undervaluing of Jerome's biblical labours. To this last letter
Jerome does not seem to have replied. Augustine gives
another and a very clear and succinct view of the subject in
his De Mendacio.1 The reasoning of Augustine must have told
upon Jerome; but there is no answer extant to Augustine's last
epistle. Jerome's pride was hurt : the beginning of the corre
spondence had been so awkward and unfortunate, that it had
given him an adverse bias; the allusion to Stesichorus evidently
rankled in his mind, as it is often alluded to in his letters ; he
expected his opponent to pay greater deference to his age and
standing, and had some suspicions of his motives ; and he was
ruffled by his calm and dignified arguments and expostulations,
to which he answered in a style of vaunting vehemence. In
attempting to vindicate Peter from a charge of inconsistency,
and Paul from that of procacity, he really finds both of them
guilty of a darker sin by far when he describes them as con
spiring to act what Augustine calls ojfieiosum mendacium. But
it would seem that afterwards and on reflection Jerome was at
length convinced of his error, and he appears to have adopted
the view which Augustine had so warmly and conclusively
pressed upon him. In his treatise or dialogue Contra Pela-
gianos, written after this correspondence, he gives the honest
and straightforward view, and at the end of it he refers to his
former opponent as virsanctus etehquens episcopus Augustixius.2
In his tract against Jovinian the same view is given as a pass
ing reference;3 similarly in the midst of a few sharp words at
1 Qui et Petrum coram omnibus in rectam viam revocavit, ne gentes per
eum Judaizare cogerentur, et ipse sux prxdicaiioni attestotus est, qui cum
putaretur hostis paternarum traditionum, eo quod nolebat eas imponere genti
bus, non aspernatus eas more patrio celebrare, satis ostendit hoc in eis Christo
adveniente remansisse, ut nee Judxis essent perniciosx, nee gentibus neces-
sarix, nee jam cuiquam hominum salutares. — Vol. vi. p. 718, ib.
2 Opera, vol. ii. 804, ib. In the same treatise he says : Si enim ipse
apostolus dicit de Petro, quod non recto pede incesserit in evangelii veritate
et in tantum reprehensibilis fuerit, quis indignabitur id sibi denegari quod
princeps apostolorum non habuit (ib. p. 718) ; and all this to show that when
it is affirmed that a bishop ought to be irreprehensibilis, the epithet is not
to be taken in a universal sense, because aut nullus aut rarus can claim the
epithet. 3 Et certe casligaverat Galatas Petrumque reprehenderat quod se propter

212 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
the beginning of his tract against Ruffinus ;a and again in his
Commentary on Philemon, Opera, vol. vii. p. 755. In these
places there is only a simple allusion to the scene at Antioch,
but such an allusion as would honestly seem to imply his con
viction of the reality of the dispute, involving the error of
Peter and the necessity of the rebuke. Only, he makes these
references without a syllable indicative of his own past or pre
sent opinion. But the dates are uncertain, and some of those
treatises may have been written during the correspondence ; if
so, Jerome did not hold his view tenaciously, though he could
not but accept the challenge of an opponent and junior rival
who was in no way abashed before his age, fame, and position.
It was not in him to make a formal acknowledgment of defeat
in such circumstances. Yet no matter how Porphyry reviled
Christianity through its two apostles, he could say nothing of
them so severe as Origen and Jerome had said of them, in
asserting that they had conspired to act a hollow drama. A
traditionary halo was already gathering round Peter, and the
veracity of Paul must be sacrificed to save Peter's consistency,
as if infallibility of conduct and the utter elimination of every
human element of character were a necessary result of a divine
commission. It was, however, quite like Peter and his ante
cedents to shrink in a moment from a perilous and bold step,
and quite as like Paul to rebuke without a moment's hesi
tation such cowardice. The straightforward meaning of his
words in his own account of the occurrence, must therefore be
maintained. Honest interpretation must be listened to, no
matter what traditionary dogma it upsets, or what unwelcome
inferences may be suggested by it. Augustine's opinion pre
vailed in the western churches, even though it exposed a con
stitutional weakness in their great primate's character. In a
word, Augustine believed that Jerome had changed his opinion,
yet he does not take any credit for producing the change.2 But
observationes Judaicas a gentibus separaret. — Adversus Jovin. vol ii p
264, ib.
1 Nome idem Paulus infaciem Cephx restilit quod non recto pede ince-
deret in Evangelio f—Advers. Ruffin. vol. ii. p. 532, ib.
2 To Oceanus he writes (Ep. 180, vol. ii. p. 948) : Sed quid hinc
diutiust cum de hac quxstione inter nos, ego et prxdictus venerabilis frater
Hieronymus satis litteris egerimus ; et in hoc opere recentissimo, quod sub
nomine Critobuli adversus Pelagium modo edidit, eamdem de ista re gesta

FINAL UNCERTAINTY. 213
there is uncertainty still about Jerome's real or ultimate view,
for in his Commentary on Isa. liii. 12 (perhaps A.D. 410) he
says, those who regard the controversy between Peter and
Paul as real ut blasphemanti Porphyrio satisfaciant, debent et
auream in mille annis expectare Jerusalem. Zockler's Hierony-
mus, sein Leben und Wirken, p. 275, Gotha 1865.
Some remarks on this controversy may be found in Thomas
Aquinas, Summa? Theologicw prima secundce, Qusest. 103, Art.
4, vol. ii. p. 849 ; et secunda secundce, Qusest. 43, Art. vi. vol.
iii. p. 349. The first volume of Moehler's Gesammt. Schriften
contains a paper on this subject, giving a fair critical estimate
of the controversy. He says that Jerome put himself into the
position of many whose zeal for truth and goodness is greater
than their insight into what is true and good, and Augustine's
last letter (82) he characterizes as crushing Jerome's argument
mit der Gewalt eines iiberlegenen Geistes.
dictisque apostolicis sententiam tenuit, quam beatissimi Cypriani etiam nos
secuti sumus. Cyprian's opinion so referred to is found in one of his
letters, in which he says of Peter when rebuked by Paul : Nam nee Petrus
quern primum Dominus elegit et super quern xdificavit ecclesiam suam, cum
secum Paulus de circumcisione postmodum disceptaret, vindicavit sibi aliquid
insolenter aut arroganter assumpsit, ut diceret se primatum tenere et obtem-
perari a novellis et posteris sibi potius oportere. Nee despexit Paulum quod
ecclesix prius persecutor fuisset, sed consilum veritatis admisit. — Ep. 71,
Opera, ed. Fell, vol. ii. 194-5, Bremse 1690. Similarly thought also Zosi-
mus of Tharassa at the Council of Carthage, a.d. 256. Compare Tertullian,
De Prxscrip. 23 ; Contra Marc. iv. 3 ; Gregory the Great, Hom. vi. lib.
ii. in Ezek. vol. ii. p. 1002, Op. ed. Migne ; and Cyril. Alex. vol. ix. p.
999, ed. Migne.

CHAPTER III.
THE apostle has now finished his self- vindication. He has
maintained his apostleship to be divine in origin and in
fulness of prerogative ; and the discussion at Antioch proved
his equality with Peter, nay, it evinced his superiority as com
pared with the momentary relapse and dissimulation of the
apostle of the circumcision. His rebuke of Peter does not rest
simply on logical argument, but it has its source and power in
the living depths of his own spiritual experience. The address
as here presented concludes the first portion of the discussion,
and is so moulded in its parting words that it naturally intro
duces us into the second division of the epistle. The object of
this second or theological part is to illustrate and defend the
doctrine of a free justification through faith, without the works
of the law. He concludes his address to Peter by affirming,
"I do not set aside the grace of God ;" but all who rest justi
fication on legal merit put aside divine grace. I am not guilty
of this error, nor can I, for the Son of God died for the great
and blessed purpose of providing pardon and acceptance : you
Galatians knew this — " for Christ was set forth in you, cruci
fied." How foolish, then, to fall away from Him, to resile for
justification to the works of the law, and so to nullify the grace
of God, and bring on you the fearful but inevitable conclusion
that the death of Christ was superfluous and unneeded, and
might have been dispensed with I
Having therefore vindicated his apostolic prerogative, he
now turns sharply round on his readers, and, as their sudden
change seemed so inexplicable, he cries —
Ver. I.*i2 dvbvroi TaXdrai — "O foolish Galatians!" "O
senseless Celts!" The epithet dvbrjrov, sometimes taken among
the classics in a passive sense, but always having an active
sense in the New Testament when applied to persons (Luke
214

CHAP. III. 1. 215
I
\xxiv. 25 ; Rom. i. 14 ; 1 Tim. vi. 9 ; Tit. iii. 3), means foolish
— acting in a spirit which manifests the absence of wisdom.
Tittmann, De Syn. p. 144. The apostle does not, as Jerome
wrongly supposes, charge them with foolishness as a national
characteristic — regionis sua?, proprietas. Their temperament
was rather different. It was not stupidity, but fickleness ; not
dulness, but susceptibility so quick as to be at variance with
decision and permanence. Their folly showed itself in that
facility of fascination by which they had been characterized.
True, indeed, Callimachus says,
at TaXarr/ai Kaicrjv oBbv acppovi cpvXco
arrjaovrai. — Hym. et? A. 184, p. 33, ed. Blomfield.
On the other hand, Themistius calls the Galatians o£et? /cat
dy)(lvoi Kal evp,aQearepoi rcov dyav 'EXXrjvcov. Orat. 23. See
Wernsdorf, de Republica Galatarum, p. 268. Jerome informs
us, too, that Hilary, Gallus ipse et Pictavis genitus, calls his
own race, in one of his Hymns, Gallos indociles.1 The dvoia
had showed itself in the senseless change which they had made.
See Introduction. Chrysostom is anxious to vindicate the
apostle's use of such an epithet from being a violation of
Christ's law, Matt. v. 22. The Syriac reads )j_i_l5 . .• . m ->
— " deficient in understanding."
Tt? vfidv iBdaKavev ;— in some of the Greek fathers, etc.,
iBdaKr/vev (Winer, § 15; A. Buttmann, p. 35) — "who bewitched
you?" This expressive verb still indicates the apostle's sur
prise, as if he could not explain their change, or as if ordinary
causes could not account for it. BaaKalveo (not as the scholiast
on Aristophanes puts it = cpdeai Kalveiv — " to kill with the
1 Jerome had spoken of the word Galatia as connected with the Hebrew
npj, to migrate, as if their name had indicated their fickleness — Galatia
translationem sonat in nostra lingua. Weinrich, for the same purpose, con
nects the name with jpi, rota : Comment, in Ep. ad Galat. p. 119 ; see
Borger in loc. Luther brings the matter home thus : Quinam putant nos
Germanos oriundos esse ex Galatis. . . . In omnibus enim rebus sub initia
prima valde calemus, ut ubi deflagravit is ardor primorum affectuuni mox
sumus remissiores. Lactantius, in a work not extant, had, as Jerome tells
us, connected the name with yxhx, milk, as if they had been so named a
candore corporis — which some have improved upon, as if the apostle here
meant to stigmatize them as sucklings. The name of Lac-tantius himself
has been fancifully supposed to image the milk-like character of his style.

216 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
eyes," but) from Bd£co, BdaKco — Latin, fascino (Benfey, ii. 104),
— signifies to hurt by an evil tongue, to slander, then to talk
over, or mislead by insidious speech. The word occurs only
here in the New Testament. The eye is sometimes the organ
of witchery as well as the tongue. BaaKalvcov reo bepQaXfico,
Sirach xiv. 8 ; " oculus obliquus," Horace, Ep. i. 14, 37 ; also
Virgil, Eclog. iii. 103. It is not in unison with the context to
take the verb, with the Greek interpreters, as signifying to
envy, for the word with that sense usually governs the dative
(Lobeck, Phryn. 463), but sometimes the accusative also, with
an ideal difference. Jelf, § 589, 3, obs. 2. Chrysostom
renders it Tt? icpQbvnae ; — who has envied you ? your previous
privileges excited envy. Jerome adds that the evil eye was
specially hurtful to the young, and therefore to the Galatians,
as they were but recent converts — in Christo fide nuper nati.
The stress is on rjfidv, " you :" who has juggled you ? — you, who
possessed and so appreciated your high privileges, — he must
have wielded very uncommon powers of fascination. In ti?
there is no reference to the seducer's imagined piety or power,
as Brown thinks ; nor is there any apology, as Luther sup
poses, in the question, as if he "laid the fault on the false
apostles." Prof. Lightfoot lays too much stress on the mere
popular image employed by the apostle, and Hammond supposes
that sorcery was practised. Winer, Real- Wort., art. Zauberei.
The next clause of the Received Text, rfi dXrjQela fir)
irelQeaQai — " that you should not obey the truth" — is generally
rejected as without authority, and as having been probably
taken from v. 7. It is not found in A, B, D1, F, a, nor
in many versions and fathers. There was also some doubt
about the reading in Jerome's time — in exemplaribus Adamantii
non habetur. The reason why the apostle, in his sorrow and
surprise, puts the striking question is now given. Their privi
lege having been so great, it was passing strange that they
should have been so quickly tempted to abandon it.
Oh Kar bcpQaXfiovv 'Inaovv Xpiarov irpoeypdcprj ev vfiiv
iaravpeopevov — " before whose eyes Jesus Christ was evidently
set forth in you— crucified."1 The words iv vfiiv are not
1 Macknight gives, " crucified for you," and innocently adds—" the
common translation of this clause is not true : Christ was not crucified
among the Galatians." Tirinus puts it alternately : " either in Judaea,

CHAr. iii. 1. 217
found in A, B, C, K, and were omitted, perhaps, because they
were not understood, or were regarded as superfluous. But as
they create a difficulty, it is almost impossible to regard them
as an interpolation. Much depends on the meaning assigned
to 77-po in irpoeypdcpr) — whether the local meaning of palam,
" openly," or the temporal meaning of antea, " before." The
phrase /cot' bepQaXfiovv and the classical usage seem to favour
the former, and it is espoused by Winer, Usteri, Ruckert,
Wieseler, Ewald, Schott, Lightfoot, and Hofmann; but the
Pauline usage is as strong for the latter (Rom. xv. 4 ; Eph.
iii. 3), which is adopted by Erasmus, Beza, a-Lapide, Trana,
and Meyer. The simple verb sometimes signifies to paint or
depict, but not so the compound, though Jowett translates, "as
in a picture was set." The meaning then is, that Jesus Christ
had been at a prior period, or when Paul preached to them, de
scribed to them Kar bepQaXfiovv, so that as the placard fronted
them they could easily comprehend it. Comp. Sept. 2 Chron.
xxxii. 23, Jer. Iii. 10, Ezek. iv. 12, xxi. 6 ; Aristoph. Ranae,
626. Compare Kar Sfi/ia, Eurip. Androm. 1064 ; Soph.
Antig. 760. There is no reference to the foreannouncements
contained in the prophets (Jerome, Hermann). The ordinary
reading of the Vulgate is prcescriptus est, but some codices have
proscriptus; and Augustine, Ambros., and Lyra take the words
in a kind of legal sense — " pro-scribed" — Rheims Version. The
Claromontane has proscriptus est in nobis. This sense it some
times has. Comp. Aristoph. Aves, 450; Demosthenes, vol. ii. p.
228, ed. Schsefer ; Dio Cass. ii. p. 46, ed. Bekker; Jude 4. The
phrase iv vfiiv cannot be regarded as tautological nor as epexe-
getical of oh, nor does oh preceding and agreeing with it form
a Hebrew construction, D33 "IB>K. Winer, § 22, 4. It is an
nexed to irpoeypdcpr) as a species of local qualification — in you.
This division of the words is better than to assign iv ifiiv to
the iaravpcofievov, as if the sense were — crucified among you,
the idea of Calvin, Borger, and Matthies; or, for, or on account
of you (Koppe), or by you. 'Ev vfiiv, bearing the emphasis
(compare iv ifiol, i. 1, and ii. 20), shows the nature of the
description, or where it could be read. Compare 2 Cor. iii. 2.
near you, or by some of you who happened to be present in Jerusalem ; "
while the Jesuit Gretzer argues that the apostle's language implies the use
of pictures and crucifixes.

218 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
Before their eyes had it been posted, and in them was it appre
hended. What the apostle preached, they accepted. It was
not unintelligible, or they might be pardoned. It was not a
transient impression meant only for the senses ; it had pene
trated into them. They understood, appreciated, and believed.
Had it not been openly made, and inwardly understood and
realized, there would have been no wonder at the sudden revo
lution ; for men cannot hold tenaciously anything of which
they have no just perception or cordial appreciation. Had it
been only Kar bcpQaXpovv, it might have faded away ; but it
was also iv vpiv, and therefore the apostle was amazed that it
should so very soon lose its hold. There is no need of taking
iv vfiiv in any proleptic sense, (i So that in you He becomes a
crucified one," or dead, as Jatho, and his references to Bremi
and Stallbaum are not to analogous instances. Nor is there
any allusion to Jewish phylacteries or to heathen amulets :
" Your frontlet of faith — Christ crucified" (Wordsworth).
And there is special moment on the last word iaravpcofievov,
not to be diluted by " as if" (Turner), but the One who has
been crucified, who still in this character is preached, or who
still maintains the relation of. a crucified One. Winer, § 45, 1.
The previous and patent presentation of Christ Jesus was of
Him as the Crucified One (1 Cor. i. 23, ii. 2); and Theophylact
adds, that with the eye of faith they saw the cross more dis
tinctly than rcov rbre irapbvrcov Kal Qeeo/ieveov. The theme of
preaching was Christ crucified, and it was the object of com
memoration in the Lord's Supper. The death of Christ really
involved the whole question in dispute, and the iaravpeofievov
of this verse repeats the fact of the previous verse, " He gave
Himself," nay, is an echo of an earlier utterance — " I have
been crucified with Christ." He had made atonement by His
obedience and sufferings, and had thus provided a free and
complete salvation received through faith in Him. This doc
trine of salvation by His blood they had accepted ; and what
then could induce them to turn away so speedily, and seek by
the law of Moses what they had believed to be attainable only by
the cross? Luther's notion is strange and foreign to the point,
and the image is unnatural here, that the Galatians had by their
inconsistency crucified Christ afresh : Heb. vi. 6. So Ambros.,
Storr. Out of place also is Bengel's view, that the form of

chAp. ni. 2. 219
His cross was so portrayed in their hearts that they might be
crucified with Him (Windischmann, Ewald) ; and Cajetan's,
that by their sufferings they had become partakers of Christ's
sufferings ; and that of Mar. Victor., that in persuading them
to follow Judaism, their enemies crucified Christ in them.
Hofmann, without any good reason, divides the clauses by a
comma after I. X. — "abrupt und gewaltsam," as Moeller in De
Wette calls it. The same remark may be made on the punc
tuation proposed by Matthias.
Ver. 2. Tovro fiovov QeXeo fiaQeiv dep' vfieov — " This only I
would learn of you." This only — this one thing out of many ;
for this one point is sufficient for the purpose, and is in itself
decisive of the controversy. There is no irony in the language
(Luther) ; he wished information on this one point. Acts
xxiii. 28 ; Sept. Ex. ii. 4, 2 Mac. vii. 2 ; Soph. CEd. Col. 504;
Xen. Hell. ii. 1, 1. 'Acp' vficbv is less direct or immediate than
77-ap' vfieov. Winer, § 47, 2, note. The one thing so conclusive
of their folly lies in the question —
'E£ epycov vofiov rb Uvevfia eXdBere, rj i% aKorjv irlarecov ;
— " Did ye from the works of the law receive the Spirit, or by
the hearing of faith?" The meaning of Hvevpa is restricted
erroneously, by Chrysostom, Jerome, and others, to miraculous
gifts. It is no argument on the part of Schott and Meyer
against this view, that the apostle writes to the entire churches,
and that only a fraction could enjoy the yaplapara, because
the gift of a few was really the gift of the church at ¦ large, as
a church may be said to enjoy a revival though all its mem
bers without exception may not have partaken of the heavenly
gift. That the Hvevfia included extraordinary gifts is evident
from ver. 5 ; but that it included greatly more is evident from
its contrast with crapf in the next verse, from the allusion
of the 14th verse, and from the entire strain of the epistle,
especially of the fifth chapter. The Holy Spirit was the cha
racteristic possession of believers. To settle a previous dispute,
Peter had said, " The Holy Ghost fell on them as upon us."
Though the Spirit was bestowed under the law, it was with
scantiness ; but fulness of gift was a prominent element of the
promise in Joel ii. 28. That fulness seemed to overflow at the
first descent, and miracles, tongues, and healings were the re
sult — as if the prismatic sparkling of the baptism of fire. The

220 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
Spirit, as the originator and sustainer of the new life, is the
special endowment of believers, and was received openly and
visibly by many of the converts to Christianity from Judaism.
What, then, was the source of that spiritual influence
possessed by them ? Was it e|? epycov vbfiov — e/c, as in ii. 16,
denoting origin or cause — the works of the law, which have
the law for their object and are done to fulfil it ?
The precise meaning of o/cot) irlarecov — which, however,
cannot mean "faithful hearing" (Gwynne) — 'has been disputed.
The noun aKorj may be taken either in an active sense — the hear
ing of faith, that is, the hearing or reception of that gospel in
which faith is the distinctive doctrine, in which it is presented
as the rule of life ; or in a passive sense — that which is heard
of faith — that " report " or message which holds out faith as
its prominent and characteristic element — " the preaching of
the faith" (Tyndale). Ulanv is used generally in a subjective
sense (see i. 23). The passive sense is the prevailing, if not
the only one of aKorj in the New Testament. Matt. iv. 24 ;
John xii. 38 ; Rom. x. 16, 17 ; 1 Thess. ii. 13 ; Heb. iv. 2.
Herod, ii. 148 ; Plato, Tim. 23, A, D. It represents in the
Sept. the Heb. njPiDB', a passive participle. The contrast also
justifies this meaning : on the one hand are works done, on
the other hand a report or declaration is made — states of mind
quite opposite. Works done in obedience to law is the one
alternative, the presentation of a message about faith is the
other. The contrast is not so defective as Jowett supposes.
Schott and Sardinoux represent that the parallelism of the con
trast demands, that as the first clause is subjective, the second
must be subjective too. Granted that the first clause is subjec
tive, the second is all the stronger a contrast that it is objective 
works that ye do, placed in opposition to a report brought to you.
Did they receive the Spirit in obeying the law, or in so trying
to obey it as to merit eternal life by it ? or was it when the
message of faith was preached to them, and they embraced it ?
for it is to the period of the introduction of the gospel that the
apostle refers. They could at once determine the matter  it
was one of experience and history. The apostle does not give
the answer, for he knew what it must be. It was under the
hearing of faith that they first enjoyed the Spirit — that Spirit
which enlightens, sanctifies, certifies of sonship, makes inter-

CHAP. III. 3. .221
cession for us as being in us, seals us, and is the earnest and
first-fruits. Opposed to usage and correctness is the interpre
tation of Rollock, Matthies, and Wahl, that aKofj stands for
viraKorj — obedience. It is needless to object, with Gwynne and
Hofmann, that the hearing of the gospel does not in itself secure
the gift of the Spirit, as the apostle is alluding in the contrast
to open and usual instrumentality. Jerome starts and answers
the question — si fides non est nisi ex auditu quomodo qui surdi
nati sunt possunt fieri Christiani ? It is needless to debate the
question raised by De Wette and Wieseler, whether, as the
first holds, the parties specially addressed were Jews or prose
lytes once under the law, or whether, as the second maintains,
they were Gentiles who had never been under the law at all.
The challenge, however, has a special point as spoken to Jews,
to whom their law had been everything.
Ver. 3. Oiircov dvaryrol iare ; — "Are ye so very foolish?" —
ovreov being used of degree or extent : i. 6; Mark vii. 18 ; John
iii. 16; Heb. xii. 21; ovk eanv ovrco ficbpov bv Qaveiv ipa, Soph.
Antig. 220; Xen. Cyr. ii. 2, 16. The folly is again noticed,
and the ovreov refers to it.
' Evap^dfievoi irvev/ian, vvv o-op/ct iirireXeiaQe ; — "having
begun in the Spirit, are ye now being completed in the flesh?"
The words ivap^dfievoi and iirireXeiaQe occur in Phil. i. 6.
See also 2 Cor. viii. 6. The two datives are those of manner.
Winer, § 31, 7 ; Bernhardy, p. 101. The two clauses are so
arranged in contrast, that they make what grammarians call
a Chiasma. Jelf, 904, 3. They had begun in or with the
Spirit ; that is, the beginning of their spiritual life might be
so characterized. His influences, enjoyed through the hearing
of faith, are the commencement — the one way in which life
is to be enjoyed and sustained. The natural course would
be, begun in the Spirit, and in the Spirit perfected — reaching
perfection in Him as He is more copiously given and His in
fluences work out their end more thoroughly, and with less
resistance offered to them. But the apostle adds abruptly,
"are ye now being carried to perfection in the flesh?" The
verb iirireXeiaQe contains more than the idea of end as in con
trast to that of commencement in ivaptjdfievoi, the notion of
perfection being in it, not simply and temporally — but a perfect
end ethically. 1 Sam. ii. 12 ; Luke xiii. 32 ; Rom. xv. 28 ;

222 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
2 Cor. vii. 1, viii. 6 ; Rost und Palm, sub voce. The verb may
be either middle or passive. In the former it often occurs in
the classics, but usually with an accusative of object. Win-
dischmann, De Wette, Hilgenfeld, Ewald, Bisping, Hofmann,
Wieseler, and Winer so take it here. Some in this way render,
" Are ye now for finishing — do ye think that you can finish or
be perfect, or do ye seek to be perfected, or do ye bring your
selves to perfection ?" But the passive form only is found in
the Septuagint and the New Testament, and thus Chrysostom
and others regard it ;' the Vulgate has consummamini. The
use of the present (not the Attic future, Usteri) implies that
they were at the moment cherishing this mistaken perfection.
The language, perhaps, is not irony, but springs from a deeper
source. It depicts their own experience and their folly. Is it
possible that you can suppose that a beginning in the Spirit
can be brought to maturity in the flesh ? Are ye so senseless
as to imagine it ? Are you living under such a delusion ? As
the dvbnroi is repeated in his fervour from the first verse, it
being there the warning epithet .; so irvevpan comes from the
second verse, it being there the testing word. By irvevfia is
meant here again the Holy Spirit — the Life and Power of the
gospel which fills the spirit of believers, and not vaguely the
gospel itself ; and by adpl; is designated, not the Jewish dis
pensation, but the sensuous element of our nature, which finds
its gratification in the observance of ceremonial or of external
rites. See under Phil. iii. 4 ; Rom. iv, 1. It is too restricted
on the part of Chrysostom, Riickert, and Schott to give adpl;
any immediate reference to circumcision, though it is not ex
cluded; and too vague on the part of Theodoret to render
irvevfia by %apt?, and on the part of Winer to describe it as
indoles eorum qui mente Deum colere didicerunt. The folly was
extreme — to go back from the spiritual to the sensuous, from
that which reaches the soul and fills it with its light, life, and
cheering influence, or from the gift of Pentecost, to the dark
economy, which consisted of "meats, and drinks, and divers
washings." Shall he who has been conscious of his manhood,
and exulted in it, dwarf himself into a child, and wrap himself
in swaddling bands ? It was so foolish to turn round so soon
after they had so auspiciously begun ; though there is no allu
sion here or in the context, as Wolf and Schott think, to the

CHAP, III. 4. 223
image of a race. Lightfoot's allusion to a sacrifice is far
fetched ; as is the similar notion of Chrysostom, that the false
teacher slew them as victims.
Ver. 4. Toaavra iirdQere et'/cr) ; et 76 /cat eiKrj — " Did ye
suffer so many things in vain, if it be really in vain?" We
hold this to be the right translation of the verb, that it has not
a neutral sense, and that it cannot be used in bonam partem —
" have ye experienced so many blessings in vain ?" The verb
has such a meaning in extra-biblical writings, but not in itself
— never having it when used absolutely, such a sense being
determined by the context, or by the addition of such words as
eS, %dpiv, cuydQa, etc. Rost und Palm, sub voce ; Joseph. Ant.
iii. 15, 1 ; dyaQbv Kal KaKov irda^pvai, Artemidorus, iv. 67 ;
iraQebv SvyaQbv fieya, Theognis, 342, p. 20, ed. Welcker ; eov
ireirovQev ovk e%ei %dpw, Chares, ap. Stobosi Florileg. xvii. 3,
vol. i. p. 345, ed. Gaisford ; Kypke and Raphel. in loc., and
Hombergk's Parerga, p. 278 ; Bos, Ellips. p. 131. In Homer
and Hesiod it never has such a sense at all; nor in the Hellenistic
Greek (Septuagint and Apocrypha) ; nor in the New Testament,
though it occurs in it above forty times, and eleven times in the
Pauline writings. But this meaning is given it here by Schomer,
the first apparently to propose it, and by Borger, Flatt, Homberg,
Winer, Wieseler, Bagge, Holsten, Sardinoux, De Wette, Usteri,
Schott, Trana, Ewald, Hilgenfeld, Jowett, and the lexicogra
phers Robinson, Wahl, Bretschneider, and Wilke. The sense
then will be, Did ye experience so many things, — or, "Have you
had all those experiences in vain ? " (Jowett.) But the proper
translation is the natural one — " Did ye suffer so many things
in vain ? " Such a reference to previous suffering is surely not
" unlike the noble spirit of the apostle ;" for he is rebuking that
inconsistency which, as it turns its back on blessing, forgets the
lessons of persecution. The Syriac appears to favour this view
— "have ye borne;" and the Vulgate has passi estis. But if the
verb do refer to suffering, what sufferings are spoken of? Not
1. Suffering with the apostle himself, though they had
borne with him most patiently. Such is Bengel's view, un
supported alike by the diction and by the context. Nor is it
2. Sufferings of bondage which were brought upon them by
their false teachers. For, as Alford remarks, a different tense
would have been employed, as the apostle would consider them

224 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
as suffering from that source still. But the aorist refers to a
specific period in their past history. The appeal would also be
in vain ; for the Galatians, so long as their delusion lasted,
would not admit that they were suffering in this sense. The
ceremonial under which they were brought was hailed by them
as a means of perfection, and not a source of suffering. The
apostle alludes to a previous epoch. And
3. To the sufferings endured by them on their first con
version, when the Crucified One was so vividly set before
their very eyes, and they received the Spirit, and began in the
Spirit. Thus Theodoret, ii7rep tou Xpiarov rd iraQfjfiara ;
and Augustine, multa jam pro fide toleraverant. It is objected,
first, that there is no historical account of persecution endured
by the Galatian churches ; but the silence of the Acts of the
Apostles can furnish no argument. The record is there so
very brief and incidental — it is not even a sketch. We cannot
suppose that the Jews were less busy in Galatia than in other
places, as at Antioch in Pisidia, Lystra, and Thessalonica.
1 Thess. ii. 13, 14.1 The probability is, that the Galatians
suffered like so many of the infant churches, and suffered just
because they professed faith in the doctrines of the cross —
apart from any Jewish modification, supplement, or admixture :
v. 11, vi. 12. It is objected, secondly, by Meyer and Usteri,
that the idea of suffering is not in harmony with the course of
thought. But surely the appeal is quite in keeping with pre
vious statements. The argument rests on the folly of the
Galatians. It was folly to be so bewitched as to revert to the
law, which did not and could not give them the Spirit ; folly to
begin in the Spirit, and apostatize to the flesh which could not
perfect them ; and folly assuredly all the more unaccountable,
after they had suffered so severely for their first and opposite
views and opinions. They were so foolish as to renounce bless
ings which they had once prized, nay, for which they had also
undergone persecution. Men naturally cling to that for which
they have suffered, but they had in childish caprice flung it
away. The apostle thus appeals first to what they had enjoyed,
1 Justin Martyr boldly says, as if the fact were notorious and undeni
able, " Other nations have not inflicted on us such wrongs as you have ; "
adding, that "chosen men were sent from Jerusalem" to stir up the
heathen governors against the Christians. — Dialog, cum Tryph. § 17.

CHAP. III. 5. 225
and then to what they had endured, as the proof of their folly
— their senselessness. See under Phil. i. 29.
Et 7e Kal e'lKr) — " if indeed they be in vain." The particle
elye, different from e'lirep, does not express doubt, — the usage,
according to Hermann, being, ei7rep usurpatur, de re quo? esse
sumitur sed in incerto relinquitur utrum jure an injuria sumatur;
et Ye, autem, de re quce jure sumpta creditur. Kal signifies
truly or really — if it really be in vain. Klotz-Devarius, ii. 308 ;
Hartung, i. 136. If what has been said is true, and it must
be true, those sufferings are in vain — though he is loath to
believe it. There is therefore no need, first, to weaken the
sense, and render the clause, si modo frustra, si modo dicere
ita liceat (Morus) ; nor secondly, with the Greek fathers, and
many others, as Bengel and Hofmann, to suppose the apostle
as hinting, on the one hand, that possibly after all the et/cij
might be prevented ; nor, thirdly, with Augustine, Meyer,
Wieseler, etc., as surmising, on the other hand, that worse than
elKrj may be dreaded — ne ad perniciem valeat. The Syriac
reads, " And I would — *£i.QLa)o — that it were in vain."
Ver. 5. 'O ovv iiri^pprjycov vfiiv rb Hvevpa, Kal ivepyeov
Bwdfieiv iv vfiiv, il; epycov vbfiov, rj ef aKorjv irlarecov ; — " He
then that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles
in you, doeth He it by the works of the law, or by the hearing
of faith?" The ovv is continuative, or rather resumptive, —
is " then," not " therefore," taking up again, after a momen
tary digression, the question of ver. 2, which has not yet been
formally answered. The first participle iiri^opnyeov signifies
to furnish, to minister to: Sir. xxv. 22; 2 Cor. ix. 10; Col.
ii. 19 ; Eph. iv. 16. Its original meaning in connection with
the furnishing of a chorus on some public occasion is lost sight
of, and the generosity of the act, not the purpose of it, re
mains in the verb. Xopvyovai ol irXovaioi, Xen. Athen. i. 13.
The iirl does not signify, as often, " additional," but probably
specifies direction. The Spirit came down iirl — upon them.
Of that Spirit so furnished, the apostle gives a specimen —
ivepyeov Bwdfieiv iv vpiiv. The iv is not " among," as Winer
and others take it, but " in," its natural sense. Matt. xiv. 2 ;
1 Cor. xii. 6 ; Phil. ii. 13. These Bvvdpieiv are works of power,
which the Spirit alone can effect — the result of His influence
P

226 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
and inhabitation. They are not, perhaps, to be confined to
miracles, but may comprehend other results of divine energy.
The Galatian believers were conscious of the Spirit's presence
and working within them, as they had felt the pulsations of
the new life, and perhaps could speak with tongues, and they
were therefore prepared to answer the interrogation. But
there are two questions — What is the tense of the participles ?
and to whom does the apostle refer? Peter Lombard, Eras
mus, Macknight and even Augustine, Doddridge, Riccaltoun,
and Brown understand the apostle to apply these participles to
himself — " out of modesty declining to name himself" (Locke).
In some inferior sense they might be true of him. But the
apostle was not likely so to characterize himself as if he stood
in God's stead. Could he say that he furnished the Spirit
when he was only at best the vehicle of communication, or
that he wrought these miracles in them when his hands simply
conveyed the energy ? The participles portray the source,
and not the mere medium. In fact, these two clauses give only
the reverse view of ver. 2. There the reception of the Spirit is
spoken of, here it is the donation of the Spirit ; there it is man
who gets, here it is God who gives. See also under i. 6.
Nor do the participles refer to the same point of time with
iXdBere, as they are not aorists. The Greek commentators,
followed by Semler and Bengel, take them as imperfects, and
as referring to the time when the apostle was among the Gala
tians. But as the reference is to God, it is most natural to
take the participles as presents; and the present tense may
refer not specially to divine gift as continuous, but may be used
in a substantival sense to characterize God as the Giver, —
this function of supplying the Spirit specially belonging to
Him. Winer, § 45, 7. See under i. 23. God, whose prero
gative it is to give the Spirit and work miracles, — does He, is
He in the habit of giving the one and doing the other by the
works of the law or by the hearing of faith ? In the second
verse of the chapter the apostle refers to the period when they
received the Spirit ; and in this verse, while he refers to God,
it is to God not simply as giving the Spirit at that precise
period, but to the principle on which He usually acts, or the
instrumentality which He usually employs, in the bestowment
of such gifts. See under ver. 2.

chap. iii. e: 227
Example is often more pointed and powerful than theo
retical illustration, just as for geographical instruction a map
excels a verbal description of a country. The Jews boasted
of Abraham, their forefather, and of their being Abraham's
progeny. " We be Abraham's seed " was their characteristic
vaunt, and they believed that because of this relationship all
spiritual blessing was chartered to them. Matt. iii. 9 ; John
viii. 33. Some of their sayings were — " All Israel hath part
in eternal life ;" "Great is the virtue of circumcision — no cir
cumcised person enters hell." "Your Rabbins," said Justin
Martyr, " delude themselves and us in supposing that the
kingdom of heaven is prepared for all the natural seed of
Abraham, even though they be sinners and unbelievers." See
Wetstein on Matt. iii. 9. Such being their trust in Abraham
and in lineal descent from him, his justification was a ruling
precedent for all those who truly hoped to be saved after
his example. If he, then, was justified without circumcision,
and prior to it, how could Judaizers insist on its necessity?
But his justification was prior to his circumcision, nay, his cir
cumcision was but the seal of a righteousness already possessed
by him. Abraham was not circumcised in order to be justified;
he was circumcised because he was justified. Let the example
of Abraham, then, decide the controversy, for Judaizers can
not in loyalty refuse to be bound by it. It is surely enough for
you to be as he was, and to accept the doctrine which his life
suggests and embodies. Ought it not by common consent to
be a divine precedent to all generations ? At once, then,
without warning, and without any connecting particle, does
he add —
Ver. 6. KaQeov 'ABpadfi iirlarevae reo ©eco, Kal iXoylaQn
avrco et? BiKaioavvnv — " Even as Abraham believed God, and
it was counted to him for righteousness." The apostle does
not answer his own question : he takes for granted that every
one will reply, "By the hearing of faith," — faith being the
leading term, which is now illustrated in the case of Abraham.
He thus passes so far from the point of the interrogation, which
was the supply of the Spirit, and takes up another topic — justi
fication by faith. But by KaQeov both themes are associated, as
indeed they really are in ver. 3. The reception of the Spirit
implies justification, and is a blessing either dependent upon it

228 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
or collateral with it. So related to each other are the two gifts,
that the apostle binds them together in the following illustra
tion, which, after dwelling on law, curse, faith, righteousness,
life, returns to the leading question as answered in ver. 14.
The connecting compound KaQeov (a later form of KaQd,
Phryn. ed. Lobeck, p. 426) is not to be causally rendered as by
Gwynne — "Forasmuch as Abraham believed God, therefore
know ye," etc. ; for such abruptness mars the consecutive force
of the argument, since KaQeov introduces the illustrative example.
The verse is a quotation from Gen. xv. 6, as given in the Sept.,
and as in Rom. iv. 3, Jas. ii. 23. The Hebrew of the last
clause is somewhat different : np~i¥ i? mtJin!l') " and He counted
V t ; t v : : — *
it to him as righteousness." The nominative to the verb eXo-
ylaQw in the Greek translation is rb iriarevaai. The meaning
of et? after Xoyl^erai has been viewed in various ways. Some
give it the sense of destination, one of its common uses — his
faith was counted unto, or, in order to, righteousness ; that is, it
was the means of securing righteousness to Abraham. Writers
on systematic theology have generally adopted this exegesis, as
indicating the connection of an instrumental faith with the
righteousness of Christ. Thus Gerhard, Loci Com. i. vii. 238 :
Fides . . . dicitur nobis imputari ad justitiam quippe cujus est
organum apprehendens. Many also have held that faith must
mean here the object of faith, — " that," as Bishop Davenant
says, " being ascribed to faith itself which is due in reality to
Christ." Disputatio de Justitia, cap. xxviii. Others take it
as the state of mind which was regarded by God as true faith,
and therefore instrumental to the obtaining of righteousness.
But the phrase seems to be more idiomatic in meaning, and,
according to Fritzsche, Xoyl^eral ri et? Tt is equivalent to Xoy<^
K,eral Tt et? rb eoare elvai n — ita res cestimatur, ut res sit, h.e. ut
pro re valeat. Fritzsche ad Rom. ii. 26. The one thing is
regarded as being the other thing, or its equivalent. Thus
Acts xix. 27, the temple of the great goddess Diana et? ovBev
XoyiaQrjvai — " should be counted for nothing," or regarded as
nothing ; Rom. ii. 26, ou^t 77 aKpoBvarla avrov et? irepirofirjv
XoyiaOfjaerai ;—" shall not his uncircumcision be counted for
circumcision ?" the one state being regarded as the other state ;
Rom. ix. 8, dXXd rd reKva tt}? iirayyeXlav Xoyl^erai et? airepfia
— " but the children of the promise are counted for a seed," or

CHAP. III. 6. 229
are reckoned as a seed. So too in Septuagint : 1 Sam. i. 13,
Kal iXoylaaro avrrjv 'HXel et? fieQvovaav — " and Eli regarded
her (Hannah) as a drunk woman ;" Isa. xl. 17, /cat et? ovBev
eXoylaQnaav avrco — " and they (all the nations) are counted to
Him for nothing" — quasi non sint, sic sunt coram eo (Vulg.) ;
Wisd. ix. 6, " for though a man be never so perfect among the
children of men, yet if Thy wisdom be not with him," et? ovBev
XoyiaQrjaerai — " he shall be counted for nothing," or, as in the
Authorized Version, " he shall be nothing regarded." Such an
idiom is plainly tantamount to a simple predication. Compare
Wisd. v. 4, xv. 15 ; Mark x. 8. The preposition is used in the
same way after verbs denoting to make or constitute, as Acts
xiii. 22, v. 36 ; with the verb of existence — " they shall be et?
adpKa p,lav," Matt. xix. 5 ; or after ylveaQai — eyevero et? Bev-
Bpov fieya — in our version, " waxed a great tree." Acts v. 36,
vii. 21 ; Rom. xi. 9 ; 1 Cor. xv. 45 ; Bernhardy, pp. 218, 219.
See also Rost und Palm, sub voce, p. 804. This interpretation
gives no support to the theory that the verb by itself means
to impute or reckon to another what does not belong to
him — the notion of Jonathan Edwards, Arminius, and many
others, who confound the signification with the sense of the
term. Nor will its use in Philem. 18 justify such an assump
tion, for there the meaning is settled by the circumstances and
the context. It is the same with the corresponding Hebrew
verb SK^ which, when it means to reckon to any one, does
not by itself determine whether such reckoning be rightly or
wrongly made. This inferential or ethical sense is to be
gathered from the connection. According to this idiom, the
faith of Abraham was accounted to him as his righteousness,
or God regarded his faith as his righteousness.
The factitive verb BiKaibeo is peculiar in its uses, and occurs
37 times in the New Testament. It is used absolutely of
God, Luke vii. 29 ; of man, Luke x. 29, Rom. ii. 13 ; and also
relatively, as in a judicial sense, Ps. lxxxii. 3, Matt. xii. 37.
In the general classical use of the word in reference to acts or
events, there is a kind of legal element involved, or a judgment
formed or a decision come to (Thucyd. v. 26) ; and in the
case of persons, the verb means to act justly toward them, to
right them, to put them in a right relative position. And so
the verb came to denote to condemn, to punish, to put a cri-

230 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
minal in a right position in reference to the law and society.1
Thucyd. iii. 40 ; Herod, i. 100 ; JElian, Var. Hist. v. 18.
In the Septuagint it represents the Pihel and Hithpahel of Ply,
the former, p^.y, at least five times — Job xxxii. 2, xxxiii. 32; Jer.
iii. 11 ; Ezek. xvi. 51, 52 — in all which vindication is the idea,
righting one's self or others by a judgment pronounced. The
Hiphil P^yn occurs many times. In Ex. xxiii. 7, Deut. xxv. 1,
1 Kings viii. 32, 2 Chron. vi. 23, Isa. 1. 8, it describes God's
vindication or judicial approval ; in 2 Sam. xv. 4, Job xxvii. 5,
Ps. lxxxii. 3, Prov. xvii. 15, Isa. v. 23, it is used of men, and
of them under a legal aspect, as of Absalom promising to right
every suitor who came to him, or that he would declare in his
favour, — of Job vowing that he could not vindicate or pro
nounce sentence of acquittal on his criminators — " miserable
comforters," — of judges who are summoned to give decisions
based on character, and who, if they act in a contrary spirit,
have a woe pronounced on them, and are, from their unjust
sentences, " an abomination to God." The phrase as occurring
in Dan. xii. 3 is of doubtful meaning, and the word in Isa. liii.
11 involves the question under discussion. The Greek term
is frequently found, besides, in the Septuagint and Apocrypha
with a similar reference, though not always so distinctly as
in the previous instances, — the reference in the majority of
cases being to an opinion or a judgment uttered or an acquittal
pronounced, and not to heart or character made better inhe
rently. The phrase in Ps. Ixxiii. 13 is an apparent exception,
where, however, iBiKaleoaa represents a different Hebrew term,
rot, and it is the rendering in several places of the Hebrew
1 In mediaeval Latin, justificare meant to condemn. Non tamjustitiam
exercere quamjudicio dato damnare, vel per judicium compellere. DuCange,
sub voce. "Justify" had the same meaning in old Scotch. Thus in Pit-
scottie's History it is said, "Writings were brought to the Duke of Albany,
telling him that he should be justified on a certain day"— i.e. executed. In
the Complaint of Scotland, " He gart bryng furth the presoners to be justi-
fiet" = to execute justice on them. The words of Bellendene, "the child
was justifiet in presence of mony peple," are rendered by Boethius—
multis conspicientibus furca est suspensus. James rv., in a letter to Charles
vn. of France, says, " The chief rebels who were found in the camp "—
poena suspendii justificavimus—" we have justified by hanging." See
Jamieson's Scottish Dictionary, under Arettyt— Justine. Hesychius gives
only this meaning. See Cicero in Verrem. v. 57. -

CHAP. III. 6. 231
BBB>, to judge. In Ps. Ii. 4 the Kal of p*l5f is rendered by otto?
op BiKaicoQfjv iv Tot? Xbyoiv aov — " in order that Thou may be
just in Thy words," or, "that Thy rectitude may be made
apparent in Thy utterances." The common meaning is thus
forensic in nature — to righten a man, or to give him acceptance
with God, Rom. iii. 24, 26, 28, v. 1, vi. 7 ; or from its nature
as acquittal from a charge — 77-apa ©eco — " at the bar of God."
It is used in ii. 17, in opposition to " found sinners," or being
under the curse. It means thus to give one the position of a
BUaiov, or to righten him in relation to God by releasing him
from the penalty, so that he is accepted by the gracious Judge,
and at the same time to purify and perfect him — a process
which, beginning at the moment of his justification, stretches on
through many a struggle to its complete development. Thus
the blessing of Abraham, or justification by faith, and the
reception of the Spirit the Worker of spiritual renewal, are
regarded as collateral or as interconnected gifts in the 14th
verse. To condemn is the opposite of to justify — KaraKpifia
is the opposite of BiKalcofia (Rom. v. 16) : but condemnation
is not making a man a criminal, it is proving or asserting him
to be one ; so justification is not making a man righteous, but
declaring him to be righteous, not for his own merit, but
through his faith in the righteousness of Christ — that faith
being the means of vitalizing the soul at the very moment of
its being the instrument of release and acceptance. AiKaio-
avvr) might be taken in a broad sense as covering the whole of
that lightening which a sinner needs and through faith enjoys;
that is, righteousness both imputed and inherent. But specially
in such passages as this, where the leading thought is release
from the curse which violation of the law has induced and per
petuated, its reference is rather to the basis than to the method
of justification — to that, on his possession of which a sinner is
rightened in relation to the law, relieved from its penalty.
AiKaioavvn is not to be confounded with BiKalcoaiv which in
Rom. iv. 25 is opposed to the rrapairrcofiara on account of
which Christ was delivered up, and is the realized result of
His resurrection ; while in Rom. v. 18 it is defined by £corjv,
as obtained St' evbv BiKaico/iarov. J. A. Turretine, Wesley,
Moses Stuart followed by Dr. Brown, take BiKaioavvr] ©eov as
meaning generally God's method of justification or of justifying

232 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
a sinner. The explanation is vague, unless method mean some
thing more than plan or outline, and include also basis and
result, and it will not fit in to many passages where the phrase
occurs. But BiKaioavvr) is said to refer to moral condition,
as " nothing can be more inapplicable than a Greek noun
ending in oavvn to a mere business of reputation or extrinsic
change.'' Knox's Remains, vol. i. 303. But, first, there are
passages where the word cannot bear such a meaning as applied
to God's dealing with sinners, so that it has not this moral
sense uniformly ; secondly, in its meaning as the basis of justi
fication, it is moral in the sense of being personal, or in our
individual possession ; and thirdly, in another aspect, BiKaioavvr/
may be regarded as the " moral " state of one who is St'/cdto?
at God's tribunal, or as that quality which characterizes him
before God. The meaning of the term may be thus conserved
without making the ground of justification inherent righteous
ness — without grounding, as Mr. Knox and others do, justifi
cation on sanctification. The compound term justification
would naturally signify " making righteous" — justum facere,
and several Romish theologians lay hold of this as an argu
ment ; but the word belongs not to the classic Latin, and came
into general use as a representative of the Greek BiKaibco. Still
the word, from its composition, is unfortunate, especially when
ranged by the side of sanctification — "making holy." The
analogy taken from the verbs "magnify" and "glorify" as
applied to God will not hold, for "justify" belongs to the relation
of God to man. Not a few theories about different kinds of
justification are wanting in any sound scriptural basis ; — some
confounding it with election, faith in that case being only its
proof, not its instrument ; others assuming a first, and a final
justification at the last day; and others laying no small stress on
the difference between an actual and a declarative justification
—a theory apparently necessitated by the attempt to reconcile
the statements of the apostles James and Paul, but not indis
pensable by any means to a true adjustment of their language :
thus Cunningham, Historical Theology, vol. ii. p. 67; Buchanan,
Doctrine of Justification, p. 233, etc., Edin. 1867. Owen dis
tinguishes between justification and justifaction !
The passage before us implies that Abraham had no right
eousness, or was in want of a righteousness which no law could

CHAP. III. 6. 233
provide for him, and that Jehovah reckoned faith to him as, or
in lieu of, such a personal righteousness which he had not. A
new principle was brought in by God Himself ; as the Hebrew
text so distinctly expresses it — " He counted his faith to him
for righteousness ;" and the non-righteous Abraham stood
before the divine tribunal acquitted and accepted as truly as
if he had possessed a personal righteousness through uniform
obedience. His faith, not as an act, but as a fact, put him
into this position by God's own deed, without legal fiction or
abatement. He believed God; that is, God in the promise
given by Him in Gen. xv. 5 : " And He brought him forth
abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars,
if thou be able to number them. And He said unto him, So
shall thy seed be." He was lifted into acceptance with God,
however, not on account of his faith, but through it laying
hold of the promise. That faith had no merit ; for what merit
can a creature have in believing the Creator's word ? — it is only
bare duty, — but Abraham's trust in God introduced him into
the promised blessing. His faith rested on the promise, and
through that faith he became its possessor or participant.
That promise, seen in the light of a previous utterance, in
cluded the Messiah ; and with all which it contained, and with
this as its central and pre-eminent object, it was laid hold of
by his faith, so that his condition was tantamount to justifica
tion by faith in the righteousness of Christ. In Abraham's
case the promise was vague — the Redeemer had not become
incarnate, and righteousness had not been formally provided ;
but now the person and work of Christ are distinctly set before
us as the immediate object of saving faith — the characteristic
doctrine of the New Testament. Tholuck indeed objects that
the parallel between Abraham and believers is not complete —
wnvolkommene — Abraham's faith being his righteousness, and
Christ's righteousness being reckoned to believers. But the
promise included Him whose day Abraham rejoiced to see, and
whatever was included in the promise was grasped by his faith
Compare Alford and Meyer on Rom. iv. 3, and Philippi on the
same verse in reply to Tholuck and Neander. And this right
eousness is not innocence, as Bishop O'Brien more than once
represents it in his Treatise on the Nature and the Effects of
Faith, 2d ed. p. 186. That the justified person has sinned, is an

234 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
element of his history which can never be obliterated ; nay,
it is confessed in all the songs of the saints, and the atoning
work of Christ ever presupposes it. He who believes becomes
righteous, not innocent as if he had never broken the law or
had uniformly kept it ; for he has sinned, and Omnipotence itself
is unable to reverse a fact. But from all the penal effects of his
sin he is graciously absolved, and is treated as righteous by God.
It was faith, then, and faith alone, which was accounted to
Abraham for righteousness. Bishop Bull maintains that faith
justifies, not as " one single virtue," but as being the germ of
holiness, or as "comprehending all the works of Christian
piety." St. Paul, he affirms, is to be interpreted from St.
James, not St. James from St. Paul. Be that as it may, the
Pauline doctrine is, that justification is by faith alone— -fide
sola sed non fide quo? est sola;1 that is, this faith, while alone it
justifies, does not remain alone — it proves its vitality or justi
fying nature by clothing itself with good works. The function
of faith as justifying differs in result from its function as sanc
tifying; but it sanctifies as surely as it justifies. "God infuses
righteousness in the very act of justifying." Davenant. Its
sanctifying power is as certain as its justifying influence, and
therefore the view of Bishop Bull is superficial : " Whoso
firmly believes the gospel, and considers it with due attention,
will in all probability become a good man." No such proba
bility is hazarded in the New Testament — absolute certainty is
asserted. One may ask, in fine, how far Bishop Bull's theory
about the nature of faith— fides formata — differs from that of
Bellarmine and that of the Tridentine theology which represents
no less than six graces as co-operating with faith in a sinner's
justification. See also Newman, Lectures on Justification.
The discussion of the doctrine of imputation belongs to
systematic theology, and it has been ably treated, with varying
opinions and conclusions — as in the treatises of Hooker, Owen,
Martensen, Dick, Wardlaw, Edwards, Hodge, Cunningham,
and Buchanan. See other authors in Buchanan's Notes.
It may be added, in conclusion, that it has been often
1 Bellarmine puts the difference between the Romish and Eeformed
creed on the point thus : his own party teaching Fidem non justificare solam,
sed tamen posse esse solam; but his opponents, Fidem solam justificare,
nunquam tamen posse esse solam.

CHAP. III. 7. 235
asked why faith should have been constituted the one instru
ment of justification; and various answers have been given. It
may be replied that the loss of faith in God brought sin and
death into the world. The tempter insinuated doubts of God's
disinterestedness, as if He had been jealous, and had selfishly
forbidden access to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil,
since those who partook of the fruit would become gods and
rise to a feared equality with Himself. The insinuation pre
vailed, — His creatures so poisoned against Him, gave up confi
dence in Him, and fell into spiritual death. And surely the
restoration of this confidence or faith in God is, and must be
in the nature of things, the first step toward pardon, accept
ance, or reinstatement- — toward reunion with the one Source
of life. Still, faith is indispensable only as instrument or con
dition, not for any merit in itself. The phrases e'/c irlarecov, or
Bid irlarecov, or iv or eVt rfj irlarei, are used, but never Bid
irlariv — on account of faith — which would be allied to the
justitia inhcsrens of Thomas Aquinas, and the meritum ex
congruo of Peter Lombard. See under ii. 16. The earlier
fathers were not accustomed to minute doctrinal distinctions,
and they often write without precision — their thoughts occupied
with the entire process of salvation, without any minute analysis
of its separate parts. Such freedom produces apparent inconsis
tency in careless utterances which may be variously expounded.
So that the patristic history of the doctrine of justification has
been viewed from opposite points, and been to some extent
interpreted in the light of previous opinions. See, for example,
on the one hand, Davenant's De Justitia, cap. xxix. ; Faber's
Primitive Doctrine of Justification, chap. iv. ; and on the other
hand, Bellarmine' s De Justificatione, and Newman. See also
Donaldson's Critical History of Christian Literature and Doc
trine. Ver. 7. TiveoaKere dpa on ol e/c irlarecov, ovrol elaiv vtoi
'ABpadfi — " Know ye therefore that they who are of faith,
those are the sons of Abraham." This verse is an inferential
lesson which he charges them to learn. The verb is better
construed in the imperative than in the indicative, which is
preferred by Jerome, Beza, Ruckert, Alford, Lightfoot, etc. ;
for the apostle is not taking for granted that they know it,
but he is enjoining their knowledge of it, and he proceeds to

236 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
expound and prove it to them. Cognoscite ergo — Vulgate. The
particle opo gives peculiar force to the imperative: "therefore,"
it being admitted that Abraham's faith was the undoubted
means of his justification. Hartung, p. 443 ; Klotz-Devarius,
ii. 167. Compare 2 Tim. iii. 1, Heb. xiii. 23. The phrase ot
e/c irlarecov is more than a mere periphrasis for ot iriarevovrev.
The preposition represents origin — genetic relation. Rom. ii. 8,
iii. 26, iv. 14 ; John xviii. 37 ; Winer, § 47. The aspect of
thought is not simply — those who possess faith but those who
are sprung of faith ; yet not specially here the faith of Abraham
(Windischmann), — faith being at once the formative and the
distinctive principle. The pronoun ovroi, so placed, has a sharp
exclusiveness of meaning, — those, and those alone — those and
none other. Bernhardy, p. 283. The contrast to e/c irlarecov
is not e/c aapKov, as Chrysostom wrongly illustrates, but specially
ot ef epycov in ver. 10, though at the same time it is implied
that mere natural descent does not entitle a man to be ranked
in this spiritual progeny of Abraham. It is not Abraham's
blood, but Abraham's faith which forms the filial bond. The
phrase vtot ' ABpadp is expressive, and is meant to be so. Rom.
iv. 12-18 ; Schoettgen, in loc. vol. i. p. 731. To be his children
is to have what he had, and that is faith ; and to be what he
was, and that is to be justified. Faith is the common principle
between father and children ; justification is the common bless
ing, or the gift of righteousness is the common inheritance.
Only such as have faith — and the point is not raised whether
they be Gentiles or of the line of Isaac and Jacob, whether they
be of the circumcision or of the uncircumcision — they alone are
true Abrahamids — airipfia 'ABpadfi. The aspect of thought
is different here from that in ver. 29, where to be Abraham's
-seed is said to result from connection with Christ. The con
clusion is levelled directly against proud Judaizing errorists,
who insisted more on imitation of Abraham's circumcision than
on the possession of Abraham's faith, — thus misunderstanding
the place, nature, and meaning of the seal and rite, and delud
ing their victims away from the Spirit to trust in externalism,
and seek for perfection in the flesh.
Ver. 8. Jlpot'SoOo-a Se 77 ypaeprj— "But the Scripture fore
seeing." The particle Be is transitional (" but," not " and," as
in our version), to urge an additional but different aspect of

CHAP. III. 8. 237
the same truth (Klotz-Devarius, vol. ii. 523),— that there is
community of blessing with Abraham, and that this was no
novelty. It had been described or foretold at a very early
period, for it is found in the inspired record of the patriarch's
life. In the words irpolBovaa rj ypacprj the Scripture is per
sonified, from the divine power and presence originating and
pervading it. The Scripture embodies the mind of God, and
that God being omniscient, His Scripture foresees as well as
narrates, glances into the future with the same eye as it sweeps
round the present or looks back into the past. Prophecy in a
book coming from the All-knowing One is as natural as history;
but there is no distinction meant here and on this point between
divine and human writing (Hofmann). This species of per
sonification is not uncommon in Jewish books. Surenhusius,
Bib. Katall. 567 ; Schoettgen, in loc. vol. i. 732. Rom. iv. 3 ;
John vii. 38. The Syriac reads ]cj^£. ^ ^o^oj j_tJ ^|iD
— " for because God knew beforehand."
What the Scripture foresaw is —
' OTt e/c irlarecov St/cotot to eQvq b ©eov — " that of faith God
justifies the nations." The verb is present, not, as Meyer and
De Wette argue, because the future time is taken as present,
there being no time with the Unchanging One ; nor merely,
as Alford, because it is God's one way of justification ; nor, as
Ellicott, because the reference is to eternal and immutable de
crees ; nor, as Trana and Bengel, a view from the apostle's own
position : but rather because it is God's continuous and uniform
way of justification, and that by which He may be character
ized. The words e'/c irlarecov have the emphasis — that out of
which justification springs — faith as opposed to works ; for it is
of this means or source of justification that the apostle's quota
tion and reasoning are a proof. Winer, xl. 2 ; Schmalfeld, § 54.
The eQvtj are supposed by Estius, Alford, and Winer to in
clude all nations — Jew and Gentile, the word being accepted
in its widest significance. But we are inclined to take it in its
more common and current usage, and therefore that in which
it would be most likely understood by those whom the apostle
addressed — the signification which it has in ver. 14. It there
denotes the Gentiles, or other races than the Jews. Not only
were his own race to be justified by faith such as his, but races

238 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
alien to him and his should be justified precisely in the same
way. The Scripture notified to Abraham the glad tidings
beforehand — irpoevnyyeXiaaro, — a word occuring in Philo, but
found only here in the New Testament. This early prophetic
notification made to Abraham was committed to writing — 77
ypacprj, and its substance was —
"On ivevXoyrjQrjaovrai iv aol irdvra rd eQvr) — " that there
shall be blessed in thee all the nations." This second double
compound verb rests on high authority, and it is plural, though
in concord with a neuter nominative. Kiihner, § 424, a. "On
is recitative, or introduces the quotation. The words, however,
are not found as the apostle quotes them. In the Septuagint
occur : Gen. xii. 3, ivevXoyrjQrjaovrai iv aol irdaai al epvXal rrjv
yrjv ; xviii. 18, ivevXoyrjQrjaovrai iv avrco irdvra rd eQvr). The
quotation represents both passages, as it so far combines them.
The difficulty lies in the determination of the meaning of eV aol.
1. It has been common to take it as meaning virtually "in
thy seed" — thy seed as embodied in thee, and that seed meaning
Christ. This view has been held by many, as by CEcumenius
and Jerome, and more recently by Estius, Hunnius, Ram-
bach, Bullinger, a-Lapide, Borger, Bagge, and Schott. In that
case iv would signify per, through — through thee, or thy seed
springing out of thee. But (1.) the mere words cannot bear
this meaning — it is a foreign sense imposed upon them ; (2.) it
would not sustain the inference of the following verse — " blessed
with Abraham ;" (3.) nor would it warrant the language of the
14th verse, in which a certain blessing is called the blessing of
Abraham ; and (4.) it would forestall the new and peculiar
argument of the 1 6th verse.
2. Nor can the phrase mean, as Calvin, Brown, Semler,
Rosenmiiller, and Baumgarten-Crusius suppose, " along with,"
or "in the same manner as;" for then the statement of the
following verse, so far from being a deduction from this one,
¦would only be a repetition of its sentiment, and the logical link
expressed by coare would be broken. Calvin is content with a
reference to Abraham as commune exemplar, and Augustine
with an imiiatione fidei ; while Chrysostom explains iv crol by
rrjv irlanv fiipmadfievoi, and that in contrast to their possessing
rnv cpvaiKrjv avyyeveiav.
3. The meaning, then, seems to be, that Abraham is pic-

CHAP. III. 8. 239
tured as the root and representative of all the faithful. They
are in him as spiritual children in a spiritual ancestor or federal
head, and are therefore included in his blessing — are blessed in
him. It is only a quotational illustration of the truth announced
in the previous verse. Gwynne, afraid lest the phrase "in
thee" as so explained should lead to theological error, presses
the meaning so far down that " father of the faithful" is only
analogous to " Jabal, father of such as dwell in tents," "Jubal,
father of all such as handle the harp." Wieseler understands
"in thee" = "having a share in thy blessing," which indeed is
the result.
And what is the evXoyla, blessing, promised or predicted ?
It does not seem to be merely the reception of the Spirit, that
being a result of the blessing, ver. 14 (De Wette, Wieseler) ;
nor is it properly salvation as a whole, or the benefits attached
to it (Hofmann) ; but it is specially that blessing which has
immediate and uniform connection with faith and righteous
ness, i.e. justification. The quotation is adduced to prove that
God justifies the Gentiles by faith, and it is this phase of bless
ing which has been since the conclusion of the previous chapter
especially before the apostle's mind, and which he now proceeds
more fully to illustrate. It was the free nature of this blessing
and its dependence on faith alone which the Judaizers so
strenuously and malignantly impugned. The " blessing" is in
contrast also with the " curse " so soon referred to, and that
curse is the penalty of a broken law. The prophecy does not
teach that when men wish to bless one another, they shall take
Abraham for a proverbial example, and say, God bless thee as
He blessed Abraham (Jowett). But God, foreseeing His own
gracious and uniform process of justifying the Gentile races
through faith, made it known to Abraham, even while disclos
ing to him the blessing of his own promised and direct posterity.
God revealed it, not to some heathen prince or priest, one of
the Gentiles himself, but to the father of the Jewish race. He
wrapped up blessing for the world in benediction given to the
Abrahamids. And the words are surely " good tidings," fully
warranting the epithet ; for they show that the non- Abrahamic
races were not utterly cast off, though they were not comprised
in the covenant, and that they do not need to seek admission
into that covenant by circumcision in order to obtain right-

240 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
eousness before God. It is Abraham's faith, not Abraham's
blood, which brings them into federal or genetic unity with
him. Ver. 9. "flare ol e/c irlarecov, evXoyovvrat aw reo iriareo
'ABpadfi — "So then they which are of faith are blessed to
gether with the faithful Abraham." "flare expresses a conse
quence. Schmalfeld, Synt. § 155. The deduction is not
specially from ivevXoyrjQrjaovrai (Alford and Ellicott), but it
rests also upon iv aol. Believers are ideally Abraham's children,
inheriting his righteousness, for it had been fore-announced —
"In thee shall all nations be blessed;" therefore those who
believe are really blessed along with believing Abraham. Faith
brings them into such a filial union with Abraham, that they
are as if contained in him — iv aol, and are through the same
faith blessed along with him — aiiv reo 'ABpadfi. Ol e'/c 77-/0--
recov, as before, has the emphasis. The aspect of relation is
now changed : it was iv, now it is avv. In the one the idea is
that of unity ; in the second, that of company. " In him," as
children in an ancestor, are they blessed, according to the pro
mise in the quotation, and therefore "with him;" in fellow
ship with him are they blessed, he and they together — they
being e'/c irlarecov, and he being iriarbv. For reo iriareo is
prefixed to Abraham, to prevent any mistake as to that in
which this unity and community consist. The adjective is
used in an active sense. See under Eph. i. 1. It is alto
gether wrong in Grotius to take avv as equivalent in mean
ing to KaQeov or eoairep, " in the same way." The apostle's
representation is by no means so vague. The assertion is
directed against that error which insisted on the Gentile races
submitting to the seal of Abraham's race and lineage before
they could enjoy his blessing. It attacks V orgueilleux egoisme
des Juifs (Sardinoux), which mistakes the ground of Abraham's
justification, and would frustrate the promise which Jehovah
made to him. Judaizing was opposed alike to the example of
Abraham and this early statement of Scripture. The apostle
had therefore been preaching no novelty when he preached to
the Gentiles, and Jews too, a free and complete salvation,
simply through faith in the Crucified One. Chrysostom de
scribes the apostle in the conclusion of this verse as avXXoyi^b-
fievov — Those who are of faith are Abraham's children ; Abra-

CHAP. III. 10. 241
ham's children are blessed ; therefore those who are of faith-
believers — are blessed with believing Abraham.
Ver. 10. "Oaoi yap ef epycov vbfiov elalv, iiirb Kardpav
elalv — " For as many as are of the works of the law are under
curse." The 7ap introduces another argument from the oppo
site point of view. Believers alone are blessed ; and that they
who are of faith are alone blessed is plain from the fact, that
they who stand in antagonism to them, or they who are of
the works of the law, are under curse — are not only negatively
unblessed, but positively under curse. The e'/c is expressive,
denoting origination and that dependence which it character
izes, as in ol e/c irlarecov. It is not simply ot ipyatypevoi, men
in the act of working, but men whose character and hopes
have their origin and shape out of works of the law. All such —
oaoi — as are under law are virb Kardpav. Compare virb yapiv,
Rom. vi. 14. The preposition is used in an ethical sense (Matt.
viii. 9 ; Rom. iii. 9, vii. 14 ; 1 Cor. ix. 20 ; Winer, § 49, k) ;
the original image of position, " under," fades away in familiar
usage, and the idea remains of subjection. Kardpa is plainly
opposed to evXoyla, and denotes here the penalty of sin. They
are under the penalty, according to the apostle's proof, not
merely because they have broken, but because they are break
ing, the law. Their obedience is neither complete nor uniform.
They are under the curse, and the law cannot deliver them ;
for the function of law is to arraign, convict, and punish. By
it is " the knowledge of sin," it shows their conduct to be out
of harmony with its requirements, and thus by its demonstra
tion all the world becomes guilty before God. " For," as the
apostle adds in proof, yeypairrai ydp, on. "On by authority
of A, B, C, D, F, N, and it introduces the quotation : " for it
has been written," and still stands written —
' EiriKardparov irdv bv ovk ip,p,evei iv irdai roiv yeypafi-
fievoiv iv reo BiBXleo rov vbpov, toO iroirjaai avrd — " Cursed
is every one who continueth not in all things which have
been written in the book of the law, to do them." The quo
tation is from Deut. xxvii. 26, but not precisely in harmony
with the original Hebrew or the Septuagint. The Hebrew
is : DniK rrife>j£ n&rrrninn "nyrntj! &\)\-i6 -ik>k "ivik ; and the
Septuagint reads : iiriKardparov irav dvQpcoirov bv ovk ififievet
ev irdai roh Xoyoiv rov vbpov rovrov iroirjaai airavv. The
Q

242 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
Hebrew wants the irdv and Tract. Jerome, however, says
that he saw Chol in the Samaritan Text — Quam ob causam
Samaritanorum Hebrcea volumina relegens, inveni Choi quod inter-
pretatur OMNIS sive OMNIBUS scriptum esse, et cum Septuaginta
interpretibus concordare. And he accuses the Jews of making
the deletion wilfully, though the motive he ascribes to them is
somewhat puerile — lest they too should be under curse ; for
the omission does not change the sense, and the verse is a sum
mary conclusion of all the Ebal curses recorded in the previous
paragraph. Surenhusius well says : t^ND "ills, maledictus vir
iste, id est quisque, et in responsione dicitur, " respondit totus
populus, dixitque Amen." Biblos Katall. p. 569. The verb
ifipevei, "to stand in," "to continue" (Thucydides, iv. 118;
Polyb. iii. 704 ; Acts xiv. 22 ; Heb. viii. 9), is sometimes fol
lowed by the simple dative, but here by eV, — not, however, as if
the relation were doubly marked. The directive eVt in the ad
jective iiriKardparov is based upon an image the inverse of that
implied in the previous virb. He who is virb Kardpav is truly
iiriKardparov. The term does not belong to classic Greek. The
"all things which are written in the law" are the sphere in
which any one must abide who purposes to do them ; but if he
leave this sphere and break any of them, he is cursed — the
emphasis being placed on iiriKardparov. The last clause, tow
iroirjaai avrd, is the infinitive of design, such an infinitive being,
as Winer remarks, § 44, 4, b, almost peculiar to Luke and Paul.
It grew out of the ordinary meaning of the genitive as de
noting result, for purpose and result are closely associated.
This usage, which is also found in the classical writers after
the age of Demosthenes, is common in the Septuagint, the
translation being partly induced by the Hebrew infinitive with
b prefixed. Thiersch, De Pent. p. 173. The apostle's mean
ing is, that confessedly every one fails to keep all the written
enactments of the law ; therefore every one seeking salvation
by his own obedience is under curse. He is striving to obtain
blessing from a code which has condemned and cursed him, to
win life from a law which has wrought his death. Ps. xiv. 3 ;
1 Kings viii. 46. It is useless to refute the notion of Semler
and others, that the law here is the ceremonial law, and the
curse the civil penalty that followed trespass or neglect.
This is one argument fortified by Scripture; and the apostle

chap. iii. u. 243
adduces another, and a more sweeping one. This tenth verse
states the principle — no obedience save what is uniform and
universal can be accepted ; no one renders this, or can render
it ; therefore they who yet are legalists are under the curse,
and the word of God has emphatically said so. But he now
states as a result the broad fact fortified by Scripture too, that
justification is impossible by the law, for it is declared to depend
not on obedience, but simply and solely on faith.
Ver. 11. 'On Be iv vofico ovBelv BiKaiovrai irapd reo ©eco
BrjXov — "But that in the law no one is justified before God
is evident." Flatt gives the connection in this way : because
no man is justified by the law in God's sight, it is clear that
the just shall live by faith. But the second on, introducing
a quotation which contains an argument, must be causative in
signification. Bengel seems to take BrjXov on as one word —
BrjXovbn, id est — " As concerns the fact that no one is justified
in the law before God, it is beyond all doubt true that the just
shall live by faith." Homberg suggests that a point is to be
placed after ©eco — ut rb BrjXov sequentia regat — " since no one
is justified in the law before God, it is plain that the just shall
live by faith." Hofmann adopts a similar view, taking BrjXov
on adverbially, and regarding the following clause as an expla
natory parenthesis, and a protasis or premiss to vers. 13, 14.
But 1 Cor. xv. 27 and 1 Tim. vi. 7 will not bear out this con
struction which is never used by the apostle ; and so far from
being an incidental insertion, this quotation is an essential por
tion of the argument, which te made up of a series of brief state
ments fortified by a series of Scripture proofs. Ae is more than
continuative. It introduces not an additional argument merely,
but one of another kind. Justification is not of works, for
legalists are under curse, since they cannot render perfect obe
dience, is the one argument ; but the second is, Justification
cannot depend on works, for the Scripture asserts its connection
with faith. It seems to many as if some objection had started
itself to the apostle's mind. Brown puts it thus : " But are not
justification by the law and justification by believing reconcilable?
may they not be coincident ?" But the verse does not afford a
reply to such a question, nor does it seem to be the objection
present to the apostle's thought. De Wette, followed by Ellicott,
supposes it to be, " but lest any one should imagine that if a

244 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
man did so continue in all things written in the book of the law,
he should be blessed." Granting that this hypothesis might be
started, the answer must have been in the affirmative, for per
fect obedience must secure acceptance; though on another view
it must be in the negative, since no man ever did find accept
ance by works, and justification before God has uniformly
been by faith. And such is his answer to the supposed chal
lenge. We see no need, however, for accounting for the chain
of argument by forging such a link of association. Justification
cannot be by law, for legalists are under a penalty; and he says
now, Justification as a fact has never been by works, but invari
ably by faith. The verb BiKaiovrai is therefore in the ethical
present — it is God's characteristic and invariable way of justi
fication. The phrase irapd reo ©eco has a judicial aspect. Rom.
ii. 13 ; 2 Thess. i. 6 ; 1 Pet. ii. 20 ; Rost und Palm, sub voce.
The phrase iv vbfico is not nach der Norm des Gesetzes (Wieseler),
but may mean, by or through law as instrument, as Meyer
maintains, for, as he says, " Xpiarov is in contrast to it." But
iv may have a wider meaning : no one is justified " in the law" —
in any aspect of it or in any connection with it, for justification
is found wholly beyond its sphere. The proof of the position
is again taken from Scripture, but the quotation is so well
known that there is no introductory formula —
"On b St/coto? e'/c irlarecov ^rjaerai — " because the just
shall live by faith." Codices D1 and F, agreeing with the
Syriac and the Itala, have on yey pairrai ydp, F omitting
BrjXov. The quotation is from Hab. ii. 4 — rw iimoxa pwjsi
" the just man by his faith shall live ; " and is rendered by the
Septuagint, o Be BUaiov e'/c irlarecov fiov fyjaerai. The apostle
omits fiov. The pronoun pov, if not an error — and its position
differs in the MSS. — indicates another Hebrew reading, and mav
be used objectively : " by faith in me," that is, God. The
rendering of roiDS by 77-1'0-Tt? is found also in Aquila, Sym-
machus, and Theodotion, but with the reading avrov or eavrov.
Orig. Hex. vol. ii. p. 372, ed. Montf. But " his faith" may
mean either ex fide ejus — faith in Him — God, or ex fide sua  his
own faith. The idea of stedfastness expressed by the Hebrew
noun implies faith, and it is commonly rendered 77-to-Tt? in the
Septuagint; though only in this place it is translated faith in the
Authorized Version, its usual renderings being " steady," "faith-

chap. iii. n. 245
ful," "faithfulness," "truth," "truly," "verily," "stability,"
and "set," as in the phrase "set office"— margin "trust." The
quotation occurs again in Rom. i. 17, and in Heb. x. 38.
It is difficult to determine the connection, whether e'/c
iriarecov belongs to o St'/coto? before it — the man just by faith
shall live, or whether it belongs to ^rjaerai after it — the just
shall live by his faith. Interpreters are greatly divided. The
first view is supported by Cajetan, Pareus, Bengel, Michaelis,
Semler, Morus, Ruckert, Usteri, Hilgenfeld, Meyer, Brown,
Alford, Sardinoux, Bisping, Umbreit on Rom. i. 17. In favour
of this view it may be said, that the apostle's aim is to show
the source of justification, and not the means or foundation of
spiritual life ; his theme being justification by faith, not life by
faith. Besides, as Meyer says, o St'/coto? e'/c irlarecov stands
opposed to 6 iroirjaav avrd in the following verse. The other
view is held by many old interpreters — by Borger, Schott,
Matthies, Winer, De Wette, Ellicott, Middleton, Wieseler,
Bagge, Ewald, Holsten, Hofmann, Philippi on Rom. i. 17,
Delitzsch on Hab. ii. 4.
And 1. The original Hebrew is in favour of this meaning.
The first clause reads, " See, the proud, his soul is not upright
in him ; but the just shall live by his stedfastness." See Fiirst,
Lex. sub voce. The first clause of the verse in the Septuagint
is wholly different from the Hebrew, though there is quite a
harmony of sense with the second.
2. The order of the Greek words is also in its favour. It
is not 6 e/c irlarecov St/cato?. Great stress, however, cannot be
laid on this argument, for it has been replied that the apostle
quotes the words as they stand in the Septuagint. But it may
be answered, the apostle quotes them in the sense which they
bear in the Septuagint, which is a true translation of the ori
ginal, though the first part of the verse would seem to be
rendered from a different Hebrew text (Hitzig).
3. There is the contrast e/c irla-recov fyjaerai and tyjaerai iv
avroh — epyoiv, — phrases directly antagonistic ; the one living
by faith, the other living in works — life and its source, life and
its element. 4. The apostle's theme is justification by faith. Now
justification and life are not different, as Alford's objection
would imply ; he who' is justified or rescued from the curse —

246 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
that curse being death — lives irapd reo ©eco. The apostle has
spoken of his own experience as a justified man under the
more subjective aspect of life in the end of the second chapter,
and the same idea recurs to him as suggested by a quotation
from the Old Testament. No man is justified in or by the
law before God, for the justified man lives by faith — faith
giving him life, or rescuing him from death as the penalty of
the law which he has broken. Or the statement, he is justified
by faith,- is the inference, inasmuch as he lives by faith — life
being the result of justification, or rather coincident with it.
The e'/c denotes origin — out of faith comes life. Abiding
faith is continuous life. If faith vary, life flickers, it is so sus
ceptible and so dependent on faith ; or, to speak differently,
the Spirit of life cannot dwell in an unbelieving heart. The
apostle adds —
Ver. 12. 'O Be vopov ovk eanv e'/c irlarecov — " But the law
is not of faith." This Se introduces the minor proposition of
the syllogism. The law is in no sense connected with faith in
its origin, essence, or working — does not spring from it, and in
no way belongs to it. Theodoret says truly, b vbfiov ov irlariv
tyjrei, dXXd irpa^w dirairei. The law is not, as Dr. Brown
paraphrases, " the'way of justification by the law," but the law
itself as an institute, the Mosaic law being the reference, and
on this point representing all law. The insertion of grjaerai
after irlarecov, which Gwynne " confidently presses as the true
grammatical construction," would be a clumsy and unsatisfac
tory interpolation.
'^4XX' o iroirjaav avrd Qqaerai iv avroiv — " but he who hath
done these things shall live in them." The dXXd is strongly
adversative. The Received Text has dvQpcoirov after avrd on
such slender authority as D3, K, L, and it was probably taken
from the quotation as it stands in the Septuagint, Lev. xviii. 5.
The Hebrew clause is, dna W D'lKli nnx n'W "UPX; and the whole
verse in the Septuagint is, /cat cpvXdgeaQe irdvra rd irpoa-
rcvyfiara fiov Kal irdvra rd Kplpard fiov, Kal iroirjaere avrd- a
iroirjaav avrd dvQpcoirov tyjaerai iv avroiv. The avrd are the
irpoardypara and Kplpara of the previous clauses. Compare
Neh. ix. 29 ; Ezek. xx. 21 ; Baruch iv. 1. As in the previous
quotation, there is no formula as yeypairrai, nor does it need to
be understood. The apostle uses a well-known quotation, and

CHAP. III. 13. 247
does not need to name it as such ; but there is a formula em
ployed in Rom. x. 5. The emphasis is on the aorist iroirjaav.
Doing, not believing, is always connected with the law. It
prescribes obedience, and threatens penalty. Works, not faith,
belong to it. It does not recognise faith, for it says, Do, and
then thou shalt live. He who has kept these laws lives in
them as the element of his life. Prcecepta legis non sunt de
credendis, sed de faciendis (Thomas Aquinas). The two quota
tions are placed almost side by side. Faith and obedience are
very opposite in nature, and so are a life of faith and a life of
legal obedience. Perfect obedience would secure life ; but there
is, and there can be, no perfect obedience. All are therefore
under the curse who are under the law, and the law has no
justifying power ; but by a new principle which the law knows
nothing of, and which is quite opposed to law in essence and
operation, are men justified — to wit, by faith. These two
verses are a species of inverted syllogism. The major is, " The
just shall live by faith;" the minor is, "but the law is not of
faith ;" and the conclusion is, therefore " in the law no one is
justified before God." See under ii. 16, etc.
Ver. 13. Xpiarov rjfidv i^nybpaaev e/c rrjv Kardpav rov
vbfiov — " Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law."
There is no connecting particle, and the abruptness of the
asyndeton gives vividness to the expression. Compare Col.
iii. 4; Dissen, ad Pind. Excur. ii. p. 277. Olshausen needlessly
supposes a fiev in ver. 10 and a Se in this verse to be left out.
As many as are of the works of the law are under the curse —
" Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law." There is no
doubt, whatever general truth may be inferred from the pas
sage, that the rjfieh are specially or primarily, if not solely,
Jews. If the law, as seems clear, be the Mosaic law or the
published law of God, then its curse lay upon the Jews who
were guilty of violating it, and to them the threatening of ver.
10 applies. The rjfidv also stands in contrast to et? rd eQvr),
who are not included in it. Freed from the curse through
faith in Him who bore it, why should they be so rigid' and un-
dutif ul in enjoining that law on the Gentiles ? That law did
not originally include the Gentiles under its sway,- — it in fact
severed Israel and non-Israel, Jew and Gentile. The us and
the we are, therefore, properly those who in ver. 23 are said to

248 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
be virb vbpov, and also in iv. 5, and not heathen also (Pareus,
Winer, Matthies, Baumgarten-Crusius). The law of Moses is
wrongly affirmed by Winer to have authority over the heathen.
The apostle gives a different view of the heathen world in Rom.
ii. 14, 15, and states a contrary doctrine — that they are " with
out law." So far, indeed, as the Mosaic law is unnational, or so
far as it is a proclamation of earlier moral law springing out of
those essential and unchanging relations which creatures bear
to God and to one another, it must bind all races.
The aorist verb i^nybpaaev — " bought us out," redeemed or
ransomed — corresponds very much to the other terms employed
elsewhere — Xvrpbeo, diroXvrpeoaiv. The preposition in a com
pound verb in the later Greek is not to be unduly pressed," as
Ellicott remarks, and as Thiersch has illustrated, De Pent. vers.
Alex. p. 82. The simple verb occurs 1 Cor. vi. 20, vii. 23 ;
2 Pet. ii. 1 ; Rev. v. 9, xiv. 3, 4. The idea is deliverance by
ransom. See under Eph. i. 7, v. 2, v. 25 ; Col. i. 14. The
curse of the law is its penalty of death, under which it holds
us in terrible bondage. The mode in which the action asserted
by the verb was done is told by the following participial clause —
Tevofievov virep rjficov Kardpa — " having become a curse for
us," yevbfievov having the stress upon it. The noun Kardpa is
the abstract, and without the article points out that the curse
which He became was full — not circumscribed or modified —
wide as the curse of the law. 2 Cor. v. 21. Cursed is every
one who has not kept the law — iiriKardparov — Christ became
Kardpa — not an accursed one, but curse. No element of the
Kardpa that fell on the sinner is beyond the sphere or influ
ence of the Kardpa which He became ; yevbfievov — not under
the curse originally, but filled with blessedness, the law having_
no claim on Him derived from previous or personal violation of
any of its statutes.
He became a curse jJ7rep rjpeov, for us. See what is said
under i. 4. While i57rep signifies primarily on behalf of, or for
the good of, it may here bear in combination the meaning of
" in room of," as certainly in John xiii. 37, 38, 2 Cor. v. 20,
in Philem. 13, and in Plato, 'SlfioXoyrJKa/iev iyco virep aov
diroKpivovpai, Gorgias, 515, D, Opera, vol. ii. p. 305, ed. Stall
baum. Compare Usteri, Paulin. Lehrb. p. 117. If substitu
tion be not formally expressed, it is certainly implied in this

CHAP. III. 13. 249
striking declaration. He became the curse that lay upon us,
and thus ransomed us out of it.
A quotation is introduced as proof of the last statement by
yeypairrai ydp, "it has been" and it stands "written," as in the
Textus Receptus; but the on yeypairrai has in its favour A, B,
C, D1, F, with the Vulgate and several of the Latin fathers.
EiriKardparov irdv b Kpefid/ievov iirl f vXov — " Cursed is
every one that hangeth upon a tree." The quotation is taken
freely from Deut. xxi. 22, 23. The Hebrew of the clause
is «6fl &rf?» n^i?_,,3— for he that is hanged is accursed of God ;
the Greek, on KeKarnpap,evov virb ©eov irdv Kpepd/ievov iirl
fjvXov. The whole place is given in our version thus : " And
if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to
be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree ; his body shall
not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise
bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God ;)
that thy land be not defiled, which the Lord thy God giveth
thee for an inheritance." The clause " and he be to be put
to death," is properly " he be put to death," for crucifixion was
not a Hebrew punishment. The common version of the clause
under consideration is the correct one — " the curse of God ; "
though another rendering has been sometimes given — " He that
is hanged is an insult to God" — vBpiv ©eov, — the rendering of
him whom Jerome calls Ebion ille hcsresiarches semichristianus
et semijudmus. The rendering of the Peshito, of the Targum
of Jonathan, and of the Greek translators Aquila, Symmachus,
and Theodotion, is a modification of this view. Jerome also
makes allusion to an altercatio between Jason and Papiscus — a
controversy referred to also by Celsus and Origen — in which the
words in dispute are rendered XoiBopla ©eov. See Prof. Light-
foot's note on the subject. The words virb ©eov are omitted
in the quotation, and iirl %vXov is added from the previous
verse. Lightfoot says that the words virb ©eov are " instinc
tively" omitted by Paul ; but they are really implied in the cita
tion — the criminal having broken God's law bore God's curse ;
and in their application to Christ, it is still God's law whose
curse was borne by Him, though the virb ©eov fades into the
background, as it is not essential to form a result of the pre
sent argument. Bahr and Hofmann suppose the words to be
omitted on purpose to keep out the idea expressed, as, among

250 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
other grounds, it might be a stumbling-block to the unsettled
Galatians. The citation is thus made as to sense — a citation
the force and truth of which his readers must at once admit.
Suspension from a stake (though %vXov in later Greek and in
the New Testament signifies also a living tree) was a posthu
mous degradation awarded to certain classes of criminals put to
death probably by stoning. Crucifixion was not a Jewish
punishment, but the dead criminal was exposed on a stake by
the hands. A man so hanged was a curse, and was not on
that account to remain exposed all night, because the land had
been consecrated to God. So the very means of Christ's death
showed it to be an accursed death. His being hanged on a
tree proved that He was made a curse. The manner of the
death, besides being in consonance with prophecy, was a visible
proof and symbol of its real nature ; for " He bore our sins on
His own body on the tree." He bore the curse of a broken
law, and the mode of His death signally showed that He became
a curse, for, by being suspended on a stake, He became in the
express terms of the law a curse. Acts v. 30, x. 39 ; 1 Pet.
ii. 24. And this declaration was a continuous stumbling-block,
as Jerome testifies, and as may be seen in Tertullian, Adversus
Judceos, § 10, Opera, vol. ii. p. 727, ed. CEhler'; in Justin
Martyr, Dial, cum Tryph. § 96, Opera, vol. ii. p. 327, ed.
Otto ; and in Aristo Pellaeus, some fragments of whom may be
found, with annotations, in Routh's Reliq. Sac. vol. i. p. 95, etc.
Jewish contempt styled the Saviour "the hanged man," as
may be seen in the second chapter of the first part of Eisen-
menger's Entdeckt. Judenthum, " on the slanderous names which
the Jews give to Christ." Eisenmenger did with a will this
work, which is a curious, erudite, and ponderous indictment
against the Jewish nation.
Ver. 14. "Iva eh rd eQvr) rj evXoyla rov 'ABpadp, yevvrai iv
Xpiarco Irjaov — " in order that to the Gentiles the blessing of
Abraham might come in Christ Jesus." The 'iva points to the
final purpose expressed by igrjybpaaev and the clauses connected
with it, and not simply with yevbpievov virep rjpebv Kardpa, as Al
ford, after Theophylact, CEcumenius, Winer, Usteri, and Schott;
and 77 evXoyla rov 'ABpadfi is the blessing possessed or enjoyed
by Abraham — not the blessing promised to him, as Wieseler
and Schott argue, but the blessing itself, justification by faith,

CHAP. III. 14. 251
ver. 6. Ellicott and Trana make it the genitive of object, the
blessing announced to Abraham ; the promise was vouch
safed to him, and he enjoyed the reality. The apostle does not
allude by contrast in evXoyla to Kardpa in the previous verse,
though it may not be altogether excluded, but he re-introduces
the idea of vers. 5-9. Winer takes the blessing generally as
felicitas, but too vaguely ; Gwynne as the "Spirit" — a confu
sion of ideas; and Wieseler, the collective blessing of God's
kingdom. These are included as results, but the blessing to
which the apostle gives prominence is justification by faith, as
in ver. 8. The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the
heathen by faith — to eQvr) ; and Christ became a curse, that
upon the same to eQvr) the blessing of Abraham might come.
Besides, it is the object of the apostle to vindicate the doctrine
of justification by faith, for it was endangered by the false teach
ing of the Judaizers. The heathen are foreshown to be justi
fied by faith, and it was contravening this foreannouncement
to insist on something more than faith in order to justification.
For the phrase yevrjrai et'?, " should come to " or " should
reach," compare Acts xxi. 17, xxv. 15 ; 2 Cor. viii. 14 ; Rev.
xvi. 2. The preposition retains its local meaning, and does not
signify, as in Peile's paraphrase, " in reference to" the nations.
Winer, § 49, a. The eQvn are the heathen in contradistinction
to the Jews, and not the peoples generally, as Estius, Olshausen,
and Baumgarten-Crusius suppose. This blessing of Abraham
comes upon the Gentiles iv X. I., in Christ Jesus — the ele
ment in which it is found, conveyed, and enjoyed— not in the
law, which claims perfect obedience, and inflicts a curse on
all transgressors. But why this connection? Christ became a
curse that the blessing of Abraham might come, not on his own
descendants, but on the Gentiles — the moment lying on the
words et? rd eQvn, from their position. Through His death
comes justification, or deliverance from the curse, and accept
ance with God, — the curse of the law being borne by Him, —
and that death, the infinite merit of which flows over to the
Gentile, at the same time (though the idea is not formally
introduced here) put an end to the typical and national eco
nomy from which the Gentiles were excluded, and introduced
a new dispensation without distinction of race or blood. Besides
the expiation of guilt in Christ's death, which is the express

252 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
and special thought of the apostle, there was in it also the ful
filment of the old symbols, with their consequent abohtion, and
the inauguration of a system of world-wide adaptation and offer.
The blessing so specially characterized as Abraham's, and so
founded on Christ's expiation, passes over to those who bear no
natural kinship to him — "aliens," "strangers," "afar off" — who,
looking up to the Source of all spiritual good, may say, " Doubt
less Thou art our Father, though Abraham be ignorant of us,
¦ and Israel acknowledge us not."
'Iva rrjv iirayyeXlav rov irvevpiarov XdBcofiev Bid rijv irla
recov — " in order that we might receive the promise of the
Spirit through faith." This second iva is co-ordinate with the
first, and is of climactic force. Ruckert after Chrysostom
maintains the second clause to be subordinate to the first, and
to express the result of it. Schott has a similar view. Flatt
renders this second 'Iva, " so that." The conjunctions 'Iva — 'Iva,
co-ordinate or parallel, are found in Rom. vii. 13, 2 Cor. ix. 3,
Eph. vi. 19. It is also something more than an explanation,
the error of Grotius, Estius, and Koppe. In the first plural
XdBcopev the "we" includes probably both Jews and Gentiles.
He does not say XdBcoai, as Chrysostom reads, in direct refer
ence to the Gentiles just referred to, nor does he formally ex
press rjpeiv as in contrast to rd eQvr), but he employs the simple
verb. Having specified the Gentiles, and recurring to the use
of " we," the probability is that he means " we"— both Gen
tiles just referred to, and Jews, the subject of the previous para
graph. Hofmann, Beza, Bengel, and virtually Brown, confine
the subject of the verb to the Jews— Judcei benedictioni in Christo
propinqui. What they should receive, the apostle styles —
Tip) iirayyeXlav rov irvevparov— "the promise of the Spirit."
The verb XdBcopev may mean to receive it in full, or into
conscious possession. The 77 iirayyeXla rov irvevpiarov is no
Hebraism standing for rb eirayyeXQev irvevpa — the promised
Spirit ; and as little can it mean promissio spiritualis — Calvin,
Pareus, Zegerus. The genitive is that of object— the promise
which has the Spirit for its object ; or perhaps is the genitive
of nearer specification or definition, as Wieseler takes it. The
genitives which admit of the resolution referred to are very
limited. Winer, § 34. See Fritzsche also on the phrase iv
Kaivbrnri &rjv, ad Rom. vi. 4, vol. i. p. 367. Were the geni-

CHAP. III. 15. 253
tive that of subject, as Winer takes it, it would mean, as he
phrases it, bona ilia quce a divino spiritu promissa sunt. But
the Spirit Himself stands out as the special subject of promise :
Joel ii. 28 ; Luke xxiv. 49 ; Acts i. 4, ii. ; Eph. i. 13. In the
apostle's idea, the Spirit does not give the promise, but seals it
in personal realization. The Spirit is a characteristic predic
tion of the Old Testament, and the Paraclete is Christ's pre
eminent promise in the New Testament. Thus it is plain that
the apostle recurs in this clause to the question of the second
verse, to irvevpa eXdBere ; — "Did ye receive the Spirit ?" and
he answers that question by various connected arguments, re
ferring to Abraham — to faith as opposed to law and works — to
the curse of the law and Christ's endurance of it, in order that
the promise of the Spirit may be enjoyed as an actual blessing.
His questions were, "Did ye receive the Spirit ef epycov V
ver. 2 ; " Does God furnish the Spirit e£ epycov ? " ver. 3. No ;
and the answer is elaborated in a series of pithy and pointed
sentences, " compactly built together," till he ends the demon
stration, and sets down as the proved result — Stct rrjv irlarecov.
For vbfiov and epya are associated with Kardpa, and Christ
became Kardpa for us, that justification might come to the
Gentiles, according to the old promise that all the nations
should be blessed in Abraham, their faith and not their blood
being their bond of union with him ; their faith being at the
same time inseparably connected with their possession of the
Spirit — God's great promise to believers.
Ver. 15. 'ABeXcpol, Kara dvQpcoirov Xeyco — " Brethren, I
speak after the manner of men " — I am going to use a human
analogy, or to propose an illustration from a human point of
view. " Brethren, yet beloved and cared for," though they are
censured as senseless in their relapse; affectionate remembrance
naturally springing up at this pause in the argument. The
phrase Kara dvQpcoirov has various shades of meaning, as may
be seen by comparing Rom. iii. 5, 1 Cor. ix. 8 with 1 Cor. iii. 3,
xv. 32, Gal. i. 11. See Wetstein on Rom. iii. 5. The point
of the statement is, that if it be true beyond doubt of a human
covenant, it applies much more to a divine covenant — a minore
ad majus."Oficov dvQpcoirov KeKvpeofievrjv BiaQfJKnv ovBelv dQerei rj iiri-
Biardaaerai—" though it be but a man's covenant, yet when

254 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
it has been confirmed, no one annulleth or addeth to it" — im-
poseth new conditions. AiaQrjKi) is rightly rendered covenant,
for the context demands such a sense. Such is its constant
meaning in the Septuagint, and its uniform use in the New
Testament — Heb. ix. 15, 17 being no exception. The classical
meaning of the plural form of the word and the testamentum
of the Vulgate have given currency to the other translation of
" testament," which is adopted here by Luther, Erasmus, and
Olshausen. The Hebrew IT1"!?, as a name both of the Abra
hamic and Mosaic covenants, is always represented by it.
Suidas defines it by avvQfJKr), a covenant in the strictest sense ;
but it has a wider significance than this allied term. Yet the
meaning is not so general as dispensation or arrangement —
dispositio (Winer, Matthies, Usteri, Schott, Hofmann, Hauck,1
and virtually Brown) ; the usual sense fits in to the illustration.
The participle KeKvpcopevn is applied to the ratification of a
bargain, Gen. xxiii. 20 ; of a public measure, Thucyd. viii. 69 ;
of a treaty of peace, Polyb. i. 6 ; and of laws, Andocides, De
Myster. p. 27, ed. Schiller. The confirmation might be effected
in various ways, as by an oath, Heb. vi. 13-18, or by the erec
tion of a memorial or witness, Gen. xxxi. 44-53. The adverb
b'fieov is not to be taken as bfieov, "in like manner" (Morus,
Jatho), but it signifies " yet," or " though," — not doch selbst
(Zacharise, Matthies) nor quin imo (Wolf). Windischmann,
Olshausen, and Ruckert refer it to Kar dvQpcoirov, and take it
as tamen or certe — "I speak only as a man" — one certainly
cannot abrogate a man's testament ; but the point is missed in
this exegesis. Some connect it with dvQpcoirov — " yet even a
man's covenant no one annulleth" (Gwynne, Matthias). Bagge
lays the emphasis on the participle KeKvpcofievnv, and connects
opcov with it — " no one sets aside a covenant, although ratified
by man." But the illustration is broader in its basis, for bfieov
logically belongs- to orjSet'?, and is out of its order by an idio
matic displacement. 1 Cor. xiv. 7 ; Winer, 61, 4. This tra-
jection happens oftenest with participles — participio suo prcs-
mitti solito. Stallbaum, Phcsdo, 91, C ; Plat. Opera, vol. i. p.
155 ; Xen. Cyrop. v. 4, 6 ; Thucyd. vi. 69. The sense then is,
though it be a man's covenant, when it is confirmed no one yet
or notwithstanding annuls it or adds to it. The last verb sic
1 Studien und Kritiken, p. 512, 1862.

CHAP. III. 16, 255
nifies to add or to supplement (superordinat, Vulgate), and by its
composition — eVt — it hints what the supplement is, or insinu
ates that it is contrary to the contents of the covenant or pur
pose of its author (Erasmus, Winer). Joseph: Bell. Jud. ii. 2,
3, where iiriBiaQrJKr) means a second will ; Antiq. xvii. 9, 4.
After a man's covenant has been duly ratified, no one dares to
set aside or supplement it with any new matter or any addi
tional stipulations. It stands good beyond strife and cavil
against all opposition and argument. 'AvQpcbirov is emphatic,
to mark the contrast ; for if it be so with a mere man's covenant,
how much more so with God's, which was also a ratified cove
nant ! To add to a covenant is virtually to annul it ; the Juda
istic dogma, under the guise of a supplement, was really an
abrogation of the original promise or covenant.
Ver. 16. Tco Be 'ABpadfi ippeQrjaav al iirayyeXlai, Kal reo
aireppian avrov — " Now to Abraham were the promises made,
and to his seed." The non-Attic form ippeQvaav has the sup
port of the best mss., as A, B1, C, D1, F, K, etc. ; Lobeck,
Phrynichus, p. 441 ; Buttmann, vol. ii. p. 121. It is needless
and irrelevant on the part of Schott, De Wette, and Hilgen
feld, to make vers. 15-17 a syllogism, and this verse the minor
premiss. A more definite contrast must in that case have been
expressed, and the parenthetical and explanatory clause ov Xeyet
would destroy the symmetry. The minor premiss is in ver. 17,
and this verse is rather a subsidiary illustration of some points
or words in the covenant, the validity of which he is just going
to prove. Thus —
1. The plural at iiraryyeXlai is not one promise, but many,
or the promise repeated in varying terms : Gen. xii. 3, xiii. 15,
xv. 18, xvii. 8, xxii. 16-18. The arrangement of the words
gives the emphasis to /cot reo aireppian avrov by severing it from
reo 'ABpadfi. 2. The promises were spoken not to Abraham only, but to
Abraham and his Seed. This Seed he explains to be Christ, >
so that until the Seed came, the promise was not fulfilled ; it
was still a divine promise awaiting its fulfilment when the law
was given, and could not therefore be set aside by it, or be
clogged with new clauses. The force of the argument lies in
this, that the seed is not Abraham's natural progeny, to which
1 So, too, in the palimpsest recently published by Tischendorf, Leipzig 1865.

256 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
Canaan had been given, but Christ, who did not come into the
world till the fulness of time. The simple dative, not that of
relation, is here employed, and the meaning is not, for Abra
ham and his seed (Matthias, Vomel), nor " through" or " in
reference to Abraham and his seed" (Brown), but the Seed is
characterized as the party to whom the promises were uttered
or given. 3. The point of the argument then is the quotation /cat reo
airepfiarl aov, the very words employed by God. For he ex
plains —
Ov Xeyef Kal roh aireppaaiv, eov iirl iroXXcov, dXX eov
icp' ivbv' Kal reo airepparl aov, ov ian Xpiarov — " He saith
not, ' And to seeds,' as of many, but as of one, ' And TO thy
Seed,' which is Christ." The /cat is plainly a part of the quo
tation, which must be taken either from Gen. xiii. 15 or from
xvii. 8, and therefore not from Gen. xxii. 18, as Tertullian and
many after Eim have supposed. The apostle now explains the
meaning and the unipersonal reference of the singular aireppa.
Ov Xeyei, referring back to ippeGnaav, probably in this instance
not impersonal (Lightfoot), for ©eov is emphatically implied
in the context and in ippeQrjaav. He who spoke the promises
used this phrase, " And to thy seed." In the two clauses eVt
with the genitive has some trace of its local meaning, " on" —
the utterance of God in the promise rests not on many, but on
one — like scribere super. Winer, § 47, 9. There are several
instances in classical Greek. Ast, Lex. Plat, sub voce. Aeyb-
fievov iirl rcov Qeeov rovrcov, JElian, Var. Hist. i. 31 ; Plato,
Charmides, 155, D ; and Stallbaum's modification of Heindorf's
note, which, however, is not applicable here, vol. ii. 132-3;
Diodor. Sic. i. 12. For the attraction in 6'?, which has not
evbv for its antecedent (Beza), see Winer, § 24, 3; Mark xv. 16;
1 Tim. iii. 15.
The apostle's argument is, that the singular airepfia signi
fies what the plural airepfiara could not have suggested. This
plural is indeed found in 4 Mace. xvii. 1, rcov ' ABpafiialcov
aireppdreov ; but this use is not so natural. Comp. in poetry,
iEschylus, Supp. 290 ; Sophocles, CEdip. Col. 1275. The
Hebrew term jnr is used in the plural, with quite a different
meaning, to signify " grains of seed," 1 Sam. viii. 15, and in
Dan. i. 12, where it is rendered "pulse" in our version. On

CHAP. III. 16. 257
this account the plural CJfiT could not have been employed in
such a promise, and therefore the apostle's argument from it
would be void. The plural, however, is used in Chaldee in
the sense of posterity ; and the apostle's inference only implies,
that had a plural been employed in the promise, his reasoning
could not have been sustained. It is also true, on the other
hand, that airepfia may have a plural signification, as in Rom.
iv. 18, ix. 7, where the apostle's argument depends on it, as
also in ver. 29 of this chapter. The singular jnt denotes a
man's offspring as a collective unit, not its separate individuals
but in their related oneness, the organic unity of the branches
with the root. In the promise made to Abraham, however,
the singular term is not a collective unity, but has an uniper-
sonal sense which no plural form could have borne, such as
D'OB, T^. The singular form thus gives a ground for the in
terpretation which he advances. The Septuagint had already
given a similar personal meaning to airepfia — avrov aov rr/pfjaei
KecpaXrjv, Gen. iii. 15. That seed is Christ — not Jesus in indi
vidual humanity, but the Messiah so promised. The posterity
of Abraham was embodied in Him ; He was its summation and
crown. It would never have existed but for Him, nor could
its mission to bless all nations be fulfilled but in Him. For
Him was Abraham chosen, and Canaan promised and con
ferred. In typical fore-union with Him was the old economy
organized, and its testimony to Him was the soul of prophecy.
The seed of Abraham blessed the world by the circulation of its
oracles in a Greek translation, its code being a protest against
polytheism, against atheism — the negation of the Infinite,
and against pantheism — the absorption of the finite, — a vindi
cation of the dignity of man as made in God's image, and of
the majesty of law as based on His authority ; while it made
a special providence a matter of daily experience, and disclosed
the harmony of mercy with the equity and purity of divine
legislation. Babylon, Egypt, and Phoenicia had contributed
to the education of humanity, which was also mightily ad
vanced by the genius of Greece and the legislation of Rome.
But Judaism diffused a higher form of truth: it taught1
religion — the knowledge and worship of that God who was
in Christ, in whom all the spiritual seed are comprehended,
in whom they were chosen, and in whom they have died,
E

258 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
been raised, and enthroned in the heavenly places. In the
Old Testament there are glimpses of the same truth ; for the
servant of Jehovah is sometimes the Messiah in person, some
times Israel either national or spiritual, and sometimes Messiah
combining in Himself and identified with the theocratic people.
Messiah was the Lord's servant, and so was Israel ; their ser
vice, either individual or collective, had its root and accept
ance in Him. Israel was God's son, His first-born — closely
related to Him, reflecting His image, and doing His will among
the nations ; and Messiah's relations and functions are described
in similar language. In this way Moses, in his time, bore "the
reproach of Christ;" and in the Gospel of Matthew (ii. 15) a
prophetic utterance regarding the chosen people is said to be ful
filled in the child Jesus — "Out of Egypt have I called my son."
/'Hos. xi. 1. The same truth is more vividly brought out in the
New Testament — the identity of Christ and Christ's. " Why
persecutest thou me?" said Jesus to the persecutor. The
apostle "fills up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ
in his flesh for His body's sake," and he says, " The sufferings
of Christ abound in us ;" and again, " For as the body is one,
and hath many members, and all the members of that one
body, being many, are one body : so also is Christ." Acts
ix. 4 ; 1 Cor. xii. 12 ; 2 Cor. i. 5 ; Heb. xi. 26. See under
Eph. i. 23 and Col. i. 24.
The meaning is not, Christ and His church (Augustine,
Beza, Matthies, Jatho) ; nor the church under a special aspect,
as Bengel and Ernesti ; but Christ Himself, embodying at the
same time His church — the Head with its members in organic
unity. Ver. 17. Tovro Be Xeyco — " This, however, I say," or, my
meaning is. The Be serves to resume or restate the argument,
applying the previous principle underlying a man's covenant to
the point under discussion in the form of an implied inference.
AiaQrJKVv irpoKeKvpeofievrpj virb rov ©eov et? Xpiarov b pierd
rerpaKoaia- Kal rpiaKovra err) yeyoveov vbpiov ovk aKvpoi, et? rb
Karapyfjaai rrjv iirayyeXlav— "a covenant which has been before
confirmed by God for Christ, the law, which was four hundred
and thirty years after, does not invalidate, so as to do away
the promise." The words et? Xpiarov of the Received Text
are doubtful. They are found in D, F, K, L, majority of

CHAP. III. 17. 259
cursives, the Syriac version (")>> . ~Knr>), the Claromontane
p
Latin, and the Greek fathers ; but are wanting in A, B, C, a,
in the Vulgate, Coptic, and in Jerome and Augustine. The
words are therefore suspicious, though Ewald, Wieseler, Hauck,
and Hofmann vindicate their genuineness ; and were they
genuine, they cannot mean " in Christ " as in the Authorized
Version, nor " with "Christ " as Scholefield, nor " until Christ"
as Borger, but " for Christ." Jelf, 625 ; iv. 11, v. 10 ; Rom.
ii. 26 ; 2 Cor. xii. 6, etc. The phrase, however, is quite in
harmony with the statement of the previous verse : the cove
nant was ratified with Abraham and his Seed, or its primary
object was Christ — not in Him, but with a view to Him was it
confirmed. The covenant was ratified " before " by God with
Abraham, the 77-po in the participle being in contrast with the
following p,erd. The ratification took place when the cove
nant was made. In one instance there was a sacrifice ; in
another an oath, when God " sware by Himself." If a man's
covenant on being confirmed cannot be set aside or interpolated
with new conditions, much more must God's covenant remain
unchanged, unvitiated, unabrogated. The law, so unlike it in <
contents and purpose, can be no portion of it ; and the priority
of the covenant by four centuries is additional proof of its
validity : the law, that was introduced so long after it, can have
no retrospective annulling influence over it. Magnitudo inter-
valli auget promissionis auctoritatem (Bengel, Koppe, Meyer).
The yeyoveov means " that came into existence" with the act of
legislation at Mount Sinai. The et? introducing the last clause
gives the purpose of aKvpoi : " so as to do away with the pro
mise" — the promise which was so much the core of the covenant,
and so identified with it that they are convertible terms. Rom.
i. 20; 1 Thess. ii. 16.
The law came in "430 years after the promise" — perd err)
rerpaKoaia Kal rpiaKovra. The apostle thus puts the interval
in specific numbers. If the period from the promise to the
Exodus was 430 years,1 as the apostle asserts, then the sojourn
1 After the promise twenty-five years elapsed to the birth of Isaac,
Abraham being seventy-five when he came into Canaan, and 100 years
old when Isaac was born, Gen. xii. 4, xxi. 5 ; Isaac was sixty years old
when Jacob was born, as is related in Gen. xxv. 26 ; Jacob was 130 years

260 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
in Egypt could not have been 400 years ; or if it lasted 400
years, then the apostle's chronology is defective by more than
200 years. But in Ex. xii. 40 the abode in Egypt is said to
be "430 years;" in Gen. xv. 13 the time of affliction is pre
dicted to be 400 years, the statement being quoted by Stephen
in his address, Acts vii. 6. There is thus a very marked
difference of computation, and the apostle has followed the
chronology of the Septuagint. It reads in Ex. xii. 40, rj Be
itaro'iKnaiv rcov vlcov 'IaparfX rjv KarcoKvaav iv yfj Aiyvirrco
Kal iv yfj Xavadv, [avrol Kal ol irarepev avrebv,] errj rerpaKoaia
rpiaKovra— the clause within brackets being found in Codex A,
and there being other minor variations. The Samaritan Pen
tateuch reads similarly. The apostle adopts this chronology of
the Alexandrian translators, who might, from their residence
in Egypt, have some special means of information on the point.
Josephus, Antiq. ii. 15, 2, says " that they left Egypt in the
month Xanthicus . . . 430 years after our forefather Abraham
came into Canaan, but 215 years after Jacob's removal into
Egypt." Josephus, however, with strange inconsistency, had
announced another chronology in his Antiquities, ii. 9, 1, and he
old when he went down to Egypt ; — these periods producing 215 years.
Similarly as to the length of the abode in Egypt. It is stated, Gen. xii.
46-7, that Joseph was thirty-nine years old when Jacob went down to
Egypt ; and as Jacob was 130 at the same period, it follows that Joseph
was horn when his father Jacob was ninety-one. Jacob's marriage with
Rachel took place when he was about seventy-eight, and at the same time
as his marriage with Leah. Levi, Leah's third son, could not have been
born before Jacob's eighty-first year, and he was therefore about forty-nine
at the settlement in Egypt. Levi lived 137 years in all, eighty-eight of
them in Egypt. Amram married his father's sister Jochehed, " the daughter
of Levi, whom his mother bare to Levi in Egypt." Now Jochebed must
have been born within eighty-eight years after the arrival in Egypt, and
Moses her son was eighty years at the Exodus. Giving her the full age of
forty-seven when he was born, you make the sojourn 215 years. But if
the sojourn in Egypt was 430 years, then, allowing Jochehed to have been
born in the last year of her father's life, she must have been 262 years
when Moses was born. In this way the apostle's shorter chronoloo-y may
be made out and sustained. It is the result of an implicit faith in entangled
theories of the succession and duration of Egyptian dynasties for Bunsen to
lengthen the sojourn in Egypt to 1500 years, or for Lepsius to shorten it
to ninety, or for Engelstoft to make it only a century. See Schbttgen's
Horx Heb. p. 736 ; Augustine, De Civitate Dei, xvi. 24, Opera, vol. vii.
Gaume, Paris 1838 ; also Bosellini, Monumenti delV Egitto, vol. i. 293.

CHAP. III. 18. 261
follows it also in his Jewish War, v. 9, 4. Philo adopts it,
Quis rerum divinarum hceres, § 54, Opera, vol. iv. p. 121, ed.
Pfeiffer ; so also Theophilus, ad Autolycum, iii. 10, p. 215, ed.
Otto. Hengstenberg, Kurtz, Havernick, Ewald, Tiele, Reinke,
Delitzsch, and Hofmann support this view, and disparage . the
Alexandrian reading as a clumsy and artificial interpolation.
But the apostle adopted the Hellenistic chronology, and it can
be satisfactorily vindicated out of many distinct intimations
and data even in the Hebrew Text. There seem to have been
two traditions on the subject, and Josephus apparently ac
knowledged both of them. It is ingenious but baseless to
attempt a reconciliation by supposing that the promise may be
regarded as made to Jacob just before he went down to Egypt,
so that 430 years can be allowed for the sojourn (Olshausen),
or by maintaining that the " land not theirs" of the Abrahamic
promise comprehends Canaan as well as Egypt. See Usher's
Chron. Sac. cap. viii. As to the possible rate of increase of
population during 215 years, see the calculations in Birks,
The Exodus of Israel, chap. iii.
Ver. 18. El yap e/c vopiov rj KXnpovopla, ovk en il; iiray
yeXlav — " For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more
of promise." The 7op shows strongly the basis of the previous
statement — if the law abrogate the promise, inheritance comes
of law ; but law and promise are quite antagonistic in nature,
so that if it be of law, the promise is completely set aside. The <-
one hypothesis excludes the other — there is no middle ground.
'Ek has its usual significance of origin, and ovk en is used in
a logical sense — "no more," not in point of time, but by force
of inference. Winer, § 65, 10. The " inheritance " was to
Abraham the land of Canaan ; and as the name is naturally
employed in connection with the Abrahamic covenant, of
which it was the characteristic term and gift, it became a
symbol of spiritual blessing, or of " the better country," as the
apostle argues in Heb. xi. It does not mean expressly the
Holy Spirit (Gwynne).
Teo Be 'ABpadfi St' iirayyeXlav Keydpiarai 6 ©eov — " but
G od has given it to Abraham by promise." " By promise," or
"through promise" — through the medium of promise; not exactly
in the form of promise (Riickert, Peile), though that is the re
sult. The verb is used in its common transitive signification,

262 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
the inheritance being understood ; and the perfect tense denotes
the duration of the gift. Compare Rom. viii. 32 ; 1 Cor. ii. 12 ;
Phil. i. 29. It alters the connection to make Christ the object
of the gift, as Grotius ; or to supply no object at all, as Schott,
Olshausen, and Matthias (gratiosum se ei exhibuit) ; or to take
the verb in a passive sense, God giving Himself as the inherit
ance, as Caspari. This is not the usage of the New Testament
which never identifies God with the inheritance, but describes
Him as its Giver, Lord, and Possessor. Rom. viii. 17 ; 1 Cor.
vi. 9, xv. 50 ; Eph. v. 5 ; Jas. ii. 5. The object of the apostle
is to show the validity of the promise having for its gift
the inheritance, which, if it be of law, cannot be of promise ;
but the fact is, that God gave it to Abraham by promise, and
it cannot be of law. What is expressed as the subject of the
first or conditional clause is naturally supplied as the object
of the second or demonstrative clause, resting on the great
historical fact which was universally admitted. The point of
the argument is lost in generality if no accusative be supplied.
For the verse is a species of dilemmatic syllogism,1 the first
giving the hypothesis — disjunctive major — if the inheritance be
of the law, it is no longer of promise ; the minor being, but
God has given it to Abraham by promise ; and the conclusion
is so self-evident that it does not need to be expressed — there
fore it is not of the law. For similar reasoning, see Rom.
iv. 13, etc. If, then, the law cannot upset the promise, and
yet if that law be of divine origin and introduction, what is its
use and meaning ? It must serve some purpose worthy of its
Author, though its functions be very different from those as
signed it by the Galatian Judaists. Therefore the apostle
puts the question —
Ver. 19. TI ovv o vbpov ;— " What then is the law?"
"What thanne the lawe?" (Wycliffe.) Ti is not for Bid
Tt— " wherefore " (Schott, Brown, Wieseler, Bagge, and
Jatho) ; nor is ireQn, as the latter thinks, the natural supple
ment, ian being quite sufficient. The passages adduced in
proof by Wieseler have a verb expressed, and one of a dif
ferent character. The Tt is the neuter, employed in reference
to the abstract nature of the subject. It often occurs with
such a meaning. Bernhardy, p. 336. The law— not "the
1 Sir Wm. Hamilton's Logic, vol. i. pp. 850-1.

CHAP. III. 19 263
ceremonial law " alone (Gwynne) — is not useless, as might be
conjectured ; it is in no sense irepirrbv, dXXd irdvv ^pnalficov
hBbQrj (Chrysostom), for —
Tcbv irapaBdaeeov %dpiv ^poaereQr) — " on account of the
transgressions it was superadded." The compound verb is to
be preferred, on preponderant authority, to the simple ereGn of
the Received Text, which has little in its favour — D, F, and
the Latin versions (posita est), Clement, Origen, and Eusebius
in some quotations. There may have been a temptation to sub
stitute the simple verb, as the compound might seem opposed
to iiriBiardaaerai of ver. 15 — " addeth thereto."
The idiomatic %daw, originally in gratiam — " in favour of,"
" for the sake of " — came at length to signify generally " on
account of," a definite purpose being involved. Many examples
may be found in Ellendt (Lex. Soph, sub voce), who explains it
as in gratiam alicujus, inde alicujus aut hominis aut rei causa sig-
nificans, quanquam rninime semper gratia adsignificatur ; and in
Ast (Lex. Platon.), who says : Prcepositionis instar ita ponitur,
ut vertipossit " causa" et "propter." Various meanings have been
assigned to the expression, " on account of the transgressions."
1. Many give it the sense of to restrain transgressions —
Clement, Homil. xi. 16, irapairrcofidrcov ydpiv rj rificopla eirerai
— the result being that " He may present them pure in the day
of universal judgment." Many of the fathers and the older
expositors held this opinion, followed by Neander, Olshausen,
De Wette, Baur, and others. This is one of the ends of law
generally, since it commands obedience to its statutes and
threatens a penalty on transgressors. But the term employed
is irapaBdaeeov, not dpaprla, and implies in itself the existence
of a law or legal standard, without which sins could scarcely
bear such an appellation : " where no law is, there is no trans
gression." 2. Some attach the meaning to the phrase — " the law was
superadded for the sake of transgressions," to multiply them.
Alford, Meyer, Wieseler, Lipsius, and Hofmann, who put it
in various phases. But such a view is extreme, for it is the
application to a passing phrase such as this of the formal
argument of the apostle in a theological section of the Epistle
to the Romans, v. 20, etc. It is true that the law does this in
various ways, for it irritates man's fallen and perverse nature,

264 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
and brings about that love of forbidden things which the apostle
pictures in Rom. vii. — ut transgressio sit et abundet. Luther.
But 3. probably the phrase means that the law multiplies
transgressions chiefly by detecting them, and bringing men to
a knowledge of them. " I had not known sin but by the law :
for I had not known lust except the law had said, Thou shalt
not covet;" "sin that it appear sin;" " that sin by the com
mandment might become exceeding sinful." Rom. vii. 7-13.
So Calvin, Winer, Matthies, Windischmann, Ellicott. Meyer's
objection to this opinion, resting on his view of the uniform
meaning of %apti>, falls to the ground. This view is thus the
virtual basis of the one enunciated before it, as it is princi
pally by the knowledge of transgressions -that they are multi
plied. For the law so instructs in the nature of sin, that what
before was reckoned innocent is seen to be transgression, and
what was regarded as trivial comes to be recognised as "exceed
ing sinful." Through this detection transgressions are of neces
sity multiplied in number and intensified in enormity. Gwynn'e's
notion is inadmissible, that the phrase refers to the work of the
priesthood in offering sacrifice " on behalf of sins." It must
not be forgotten, too, that the law is here regarded as an inter
mediate dispensation, as is intimated in the following clause —
irpoaereOr), «%pt? ov. The purpose of the superaddition of the
law was connected with the coming of Christ — that is, to pre
pare for it, by so deepening the sense of sinfulness that men,
convicted of so often breaking it, could not look to it for right
eousness, but must be " shut up unto the faith which should
afterwards be revealed." The Mosaic dispensation, provisionally
introduced between the Abrahamic promise and the coming of
the Seed, was a preparative or an educative instrument, not
merely in its typical services as foreshowing the realities of
atonement and pardon, but in the ethical power of multiplying
transgressions through the light which it cast upon them, and of
convincing those who were under it of the necessity of Christ's
advent in order to release them from its curse. The function
of the law was to produce profounder views of the number and
heinousness of sins, as preparatory to the appearance of Him
who came to deliver from its awful penalty, so that, under the
pressure of such convictions, His redemption might be wel-
i corned as a needed and an adapted blessing. Thus the law did

CHAP. III. 19. 265
not add to the promise, but was a different institute altogether ;
as Meyer remarks, "it was not an iiriBiaQrJKi]," or anything
connected with the iiriBiardaaerai of the fifteenth verse. And
it was also temporary —
"-^¦XP',? °^ e*&y to airkpfia ep iirrjyyeXrai — " until the Seed
to whom the promise has been made shall have come." This
use of the subjunctive proceeds upon this, that the apostle
throws himself back to the time when the law was given,
which thereby becomes to him present time, and from it he
looks down into the future, though historically that future was
now past time. Winer, § 41, 1 ; Jelf, § 841. The particle
dv is not used, as the period referred to is a definite one, with
out any contingency. Stallbaum, Plato, Phcedo 62 C> Opera,
vol. i. p. 32 ; Hermann, de Part, dv, pp. 1 10-12, omittitur dv in
re certa designanda ; Klotz-Devarius, ii. 368, non adjuncta dv ubi
eventus per se ponitur. The Seed is Christ— co, to whom, not
et? ov, but the ordinary dative (Winer, Usteri), as ver. 16
shows. It seems better to take the verb as passive, for then
it is in harmony with eppeQnaav, ver. 16. The Vulgate has
promiserat, and Bengel and Flatt prefer it. Compare 2 Mace.
iv. 27 and Rom. iv. 21, Heb. xii. 26, in both which places the
Authorized Version prefers the active. Bretschneider in his
Lexicon . gives the meaning, cui demandatum est ut legem mosai-
cam tollat — a meaning unauthorized by New Testament usage
and unnatural in the context. It serves no purpose, as in many
editions of the New Testament, to make this clause a paren
thesis. The same sense might have been expressed by two
finite verbs and a conjunction. Hermann, Vigerus, vol. ii. p.
614, London 1824. The next clauses point out the mode in
which the law was superadded, and the first is —
ZltaT07et? St' dyyeXcov — "being ordained by means of
angels " — ordinata, Vulgate ; disposita, Clarom., — the aorist
denoting time contemporaneous with the former verb irpoae-
reQrj. The phrase Biardaaeiv vbpov is to enact a law : vbfiov
SieTafe Kpovleov, Hesiod, Opera et Dies 276, ed. Goettling; rbv
ye vbpiov Biardrreiv, Plato, Leg. 746 E. Comp. Judg. v. 9.
So in his address Stephen says that they received the law et?
Bid-raydv dyyeXcov — "at the enactments of angels," et? as in Matt.
xii. 41. But the word will not bear the sense of " promulgate,"
as many have wrongly conjectured. The phrase St' 0776X0)1'

266 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
signifies by the instrumentality of angels, whatever that instru
mentality may mean, and is not to be diluted into " in the
presence of" (Calovius, Loesner), or " under the attestation of "
(Peile). Nor can dyyeXcov signify men — messengers (Zegerus),
nor priests, lepeav, as Chrysostom alternatively puts it. The
angels are not the source of the law in any sense (Schultess) ;
Sto implies only instrumentality. But in some way or other
as God's instruments they enacted it, so that it was o St' dyye-
Xcov XaXvdelv Xoyov — "the word spoken by angels." Heb. ii. 2;
Winer, § 47, 1. The divine precepts were by them made
audible to the people, or they had mysterious connection with
the awful phenomena which enshrined the majesty of the Law
giver. Josephus holds fast the distinction — rcov ev roiv vbfioiv
St' dyyeXcov irapd rov ©eov fiaQbvreov. Antiq. xv. 5, 3. It is
one thing to originate a law, and a different thing to enjoin it.
The special point is, that the law was not given immediately by
God, but mediately by angels — they came between God and
the people ; but Jehovah, without any intervening agency, and
directly, spoke the promise to Abraham. No allusion is made
to angels in the portions of Exodus which relate the giving of
the law. The first reference is in the last blessing of Moses,
Deut. xxxiii. 2 : " The Lord came from Sinai, and rose up
from Seir unto them ; He shined forth from Mount Paran,
and He came with ten thousands of saints : from His rio-ht
hand went a fiery law for them." The special clause is nnxi
®~!P n^1»— " He came from the midst of thousands of holy
ones." But the Seventy had a different reading, or fused
together two readings, and translate, avv fivpidai KdBr/v, — add
ing, e/c Begicbv avrov dyyeXoi pier avrov. Not a few expositors
follow the Sept. rendering, which requires the pointing BHi>,
and render, from the heights of Kadesh ; but the Hebrew will
not bear such a rendering. Aquila has dirb pvpidBcov dyiaa-
p,ov; Symmachus, dirb pvpidBov dr/lav; the Vulgate, cum eo
sanctorum millia. So also the Targums. The common ren
dering is the best. The angels appear already in connection
with God, Gen. xxvfii. 12 ; and as " God's host," Gen. xxxii.
1, 2. The "holy ones" of the Hebrew text cannot be the
Jewish people, as is thought by Luther, Vatablus, and Dathe ;
for He came not with them, but to them. Again, in Ps.
Ixviii. 17 there is a similar allusion : " The chariots of God are

CHAP. III. 19. 267
two myriads, thousands repeated (or thousands on thousands) :
the Lord is with them, Sinai is in His holy place." Jewish
tradition gradually enlarged on these hints, though the word
angels occurs in none of the original clauses, and made such
a romance out of them as may be found in Eisenmenger's
Entdecktes Judenthum, vol. i. 308, etc. The mention of angels
in connection with the law is not specially meant to shed lustre
upon it, as in Acts vii. 38 and Heb. ii. 2 ; but the object here
is to show that the employment of angels — glorious though
these beings are — in the enactment of it proves its inferiority
to the promise, which was directly given by Jehovah in sole
majesty to Abraham, no one coming between them. And for
the same end it is added —
'Ev %eipl fiealrov — " in the hand of a mediator." Meyer
takes the clause in a historical sense : Moses having received
from God the tables of the law, carried them to the people.
Ex. xxxii. 11, xxxiv. 29. But idiomatic usage shows that
iv %etpt has much the same meaning as Bid, the Hebrew
phrase *V3, which it often represents in the Septuagint, having
this general signification. Ex. xxxv. 29 ; Lev. x. 11, xxvi. 46 ;
Num. iv. 38, 41-45, xv. 23 ; Josh. xiv. 2 ; 2 Chron. xxxiii. 8 ;
in all which places the phrase is by the hand of Moses. Com
pare 1 Kings xii. 15, Jer. xxxvii. 2, Prov. xxvi. 6. As the
giving of the law is described here, there can be no doubt that
Moses is the mediator, whatever might be the position of the
high priest in subsequent times. Moses thus describes his own
mediation : " I stood between you and the Lord at that time "
— dvapieaov Kvpiov Kal i/ieov. Sept. Deut. v. 5, 27. Philo says,
that on hearing the sound of the idolatry connected with the
worship of the golden calf, and receiving the divine command,
he sprang down to be " a mediator and reconciler" — fiealrvv Kal
BiaXXaKrrjv. Vita Mosis, iii. 19. The name mediator, "UD"}?,
is often given to Moses in the rabbinical writings. See
Schoettgen and Wetstein. The allusions in Heb. viii. 6, ix.
15, xii. 24, also plainly recognise the mediatorship of Moses.
Origen started the opinion that the mediator was Christ, and
was followed by Athanasius, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine,
Chrysostom, Hilary, Victorinus, and others ; but Basil, Gre
gory of Nyssa, and Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret, Epi-
phanius, and others rightly maintain that the mediator was

268 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
Moses, and the most of modern commentators adhere to the
same view. Schmieder takes him to be the angel of the
covenant (Nova Interpretatio, Gal. iii. 19, 20), as does also
Schneckenburger. This angel is often referred to in the Old
Testament, but there is no ground for the opinion that He is
referred to here, and in those simple terms. But Moses did the
work of a mediator — went from the people to God, and came
from God to the people ; the first function more priestly, and
the second more prophetic, in character. Through his media
torial intervention the law was superadded, but the promise
was made by Jehovah to Abraham without any one between
them. On the other hand, it is held by Calvin, Meyer,
Wieseler, Winer, Schott, Baumgarten-Crusius, and Alford,
that the apostle refers to angels and a mediator in order to
illustrate the glory of the law. But even in Heb. ii. 2, " the
word spoken by angels" is put in contrast to the "salvation
spoken by the Lord," and is regarded as inferior to it, the argu
ment being from the less to the greater. The contrast for
mally stated there is implied here — the majus did not need to
be expressed : the covenant was confirmed by God ; God gave
it to Abraham by promise ; God is one. Is the law against
the promises of God V It is no objection to say that the em
ployment of a mediator is no mark of inferiority, since the new
dispensation has its Mediator too ; for, first, the contrast is not
between the law and the gospel, but between the law and the
earlier promise ; and secondly, the Mediator of the. new cove
nant is the Son of God — no mere man, as Moses; and, as
Professor Lightfoot says, " the argument here rests in effect
on our Lord's divinity as its foundation." Nor could it be
"unwise," as Meyer argues, in the apostle to depreciate the
law in writing to those who were zealots about it ; for he only
states in these two clauses two facts about it which they could
not gainsay, and he quietly leaves them to draw the inference.
Nor is his object to enhance the solemnity of the giving of the
law as a preparation for Christ ; for that is not the theme in
hand— it is the relation of the law superinduced because of
transgressions, to the older promise, and the function of a law
as a pedagogue is afterwards introduced. Granting that its
enactment by angels glorifies the law, it is yet inferior to a word
immediately spoken by the God of angels. The argument of

CHAP. III. 20. 269
the verse is : 1. The law has no organic relation to the promise,
was neither a new form of it nor a codicil to it, did not spring
out of it, but was superadded as a foreign and unallied element.
2. The law has functional connection with sin ; the promise
regards an inheritance. 3. The law was provisional and tempo
rary only ; the promise has no limitation of time, and is not to
be superseded. 4. The law was given by a species of double
intervention — the instrumentality of angels and the mediation
of Moses ; the promise was given directly and immediately
from God's own lips, no one stepping in between its Giver and
its recipient — neither angel ordaining it nor man conveying it.
5. The promise, as resting solely on God, was unconditioned,
and therefore permanent and unchanging ; the law, interposed
between two parties, and specially contingent on a human
element, was liable to suspension or abolition. 6. This law,
so necessitated by sin, so transient, so connected with angelic
ordinance and human handling, was an institute later also by
far in its inauguration — was 430 years after the promise.
Ver. 20. 'O Be pealrnv evbv ovk eanv, b Be ©ebv eh iarlv —
" Now a mediator is not of one, but God is one ;" equivalent to
saying, No mediator can belong to one party — wo? emphatic —
but two parties at least are always implied. It is philologically
wrong in Hauck to regard fiealrvv as meaning " one taken out
of the midst," and equivalent to intercessor or representative,
for it is "middleman." The verse defines by the way what a
mediator is, Se being transitional, and o fiealrnv giving the
specific idea — virtually every mediator, "denoting in an indi
vidual a whole class." Winer, § 18. Matt. xii. 35 ; John
x. 11 ; 2 Cor. xii. 12. Compare Job ix. 33. Meyer quotes
Hermann : Articulus definit infinita . . . aut designando certo
de multis, aut quo? multa sunt cunctis in unum colligendis.
Prsef. ad Iphig. in Aulide, p. xv. Lipsise 1831. In every work
of mediation there must be more than one party, and thus at
the giving of the law in the hand of a mediator there were
two parties — God on the one side, and the Jewish people on
the other, there being a covenant or contract between them.
This view of the clause is held generally by Theodoret, Luther,
Keil, Usteri, Riickert, De Wette, etc. The numeral evbv must
be masculine, in correspondence with the following et? ; but
Koppe and Bengel supply vbpov, Borger irpdyparov, Keil

270 - EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
fiepovv, Sack rpbirov, Rosenmiiller and Steudel airepparov, under
standing by it believers, also Gurlitt who limits it to heathen
believers (Stud. u. Kritik. 1843), and Jatho who restricts it
to Christ, the one Seed. Some, with a wrong interpretation of
the clause ending with dyyeXcov, take the singular evbv in con
trast : Moses was not a mediator of one, i.e. God, but of many,
i.e. angels ; as Schultess, Schmieder, Caspari, Huth, Schnecken-
burger, and Gfrorer in his das Jahrhundert des Heils, i. 228, etc.
" But God is one" — o Be ©ebv eh iariv. Ae adversative ;
evbv being numerical, so must et?. God is one, and is therefore
mediatorless. God Himself without any intervention speaks the
promise to Abraham ; the promise is conveyed through no third
party, as was the law. Whatever contingency might be in the
law and its conveyance by a mediator who went between God
and the people, there can be none with regard to the promise,
the direct and unconditioned word of Jehovah Himself alone.
The all-inclusive One uttered the words, " In thy seed shall all
nations of the earth be blessed," to Abraham immediately, no
one placing himself between them. God the Giver is one (not
two — Himself and a mediator) in the bestowment of that
absolute promise, which the introduction of the law four cen
turies afterwards cannot modify or set aside. It is not neces
sary for this interpretation, as some object, that the historical
rjv should be employed, as the present is commonly employed
in a definitive sentence. The clause, " but God is one," does
not announce dogmatically the unity of the Godhead, as do
several similar utterances in the Pentateuch. Whatever doc
trinal ideas the words might suggest, they are here used on
purpose to deny all duality in the bestowment of the promise,
the o pealrnv as implying more than one — evbv ovk — being in
contrast with God, who is one— eh. The law, in the period of
introduction, in its temporary and provisional nature, and in the
mediatorial process by which it was given, is so different from
the promise and its method of bestowment, that the apostle
next puts the question sharply, " Is the law then against the
promises of God?" This view, which appears to be the
simplest, as well as grammatically correct and in harmony
with the context, has been opposed by many,, who take o
pealrnv to refer to the mediator just mentioned — either Christ
or Moses — the verse being then regarded as descriptive of his

CHAP. III. 20. 271
relations or functions ; some supposing it to state an objection,
others regarding it as the refutation of one.
The interpretations which have been given of this verse, so
difficult from its terse brevity, amount to several hundreds -,1
and it would be a vain attempt to enumerate or classify them.
Suffice it to say, first, that it is in vain to attempt to displace
the verse, as if it were spurious, for it is found without vari
ation in all MSS., — or as if it were made up of two glosses, first
written on the margin, and then carelessly taken into the text
(Michaelis, Liicke, Stud. u. Kritik. 1828). Equally vain is it
to rewrite it, as if the first words should be rb Be aireppua
(Godor) ; or to change the accentuation of evov, and give it
the unwarranted signification of annual — " the yearly mediator
is no more," ovk eanv (Weigand). As little to the purpose
are such eccentric interpretations as that of Bertholdt, who
takes evbv to refer to Abraham, because he is called inNn in
Isa. Ii. 2 ; or that of Kaiser, who supplies vlbv — " Moses is not
the son of One, that is God, but Christ is;" or that of Holsten,
that o fiealrvv is the law standing between two things — the
promise and the fulfilment ; or that of Matthias, who, over
looking the contrast between evbv in the first clause and et? in
the second, understands the second clause thus — " God (and
not fallible man) is one of the two parties," — his conclusion
being, that therefore the law, though given by angels, is of
divine origin ; and then, giving the Kara of the following verse
the sense of " under," he makes the question to be, " Does the
law fall under the idea of promise ? " or, " Does the law belong
to the category of the promises?" — or that of Hermann, who,
preserving the numerical meaning of eh, and regarding it as part
of the minor proposition of a syllogism, brings out this odd sense :
Deus autem unus est ; ergo apud Deum cogitari non potest inter-
ventor, esset enim is, qui intercederet inter Deum et Deum, quod
absurdum est; — but the reductio assumed as an inference is
wholly foreign to the verse and context, and his further
exposition proceeds on the sense of testamentum, as given to
BiaQrjKr) ; — or that of Ewald, whose interpretation is not dis
similar in some points, but who, instead of saying " between
1 Weigand in 1821 reported and examined 243 interpretations, and
controversy on the passage may be seen still in several recent numbers of
the Stud. u. Kritiken.

272 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
God and God," speaks of two " innerly different Gods, or an
earlier and a later God." So Bagge — " There are not two gods,
— one giving the'promise, the other the law, — but One only ;"
and similarly Vomel. Bengel's general view is, " The party
to whom the mediator belonged is different from God — namely,
the law. There is not one God before and another after the
giving of the law. Before the law He transacted without a
mediator ; the mediator belongs to the law, but the promise to
God." Quite apart from the meaning and the course of argu
ment is the opinion that makes eh mean b avrov, unus idemque
(Semler), or sibi constans (Beza), or that regards evov as evo-
rnrov — a mediator implying diversity of opinion (Gabler,
Schottgen). The exegesis of Dr. Brown is ingenious but
philologically baseless, because evbv and el? never signify immu
table, as Borger and Koppe contend. " The law was given
by the hands of Moses as a mediator. But was he not the
mediator of Him who is one and the same, unchangeable?
Now God, who appointed Moses mediator, is one and the same,
unchanged and unchangeable." To give evbv a numerical
meaning in the first clause, but et? an ethical meaning in the
second clause, is not consistent (Schleiermacher, Usteri). Koppe,
Cameron, Sack, and Barnes who gives his exegesis as original,
educe this meaning : " While there may be many mediators,
God is one, consistent with Himself, so that the two dispen
sations cannot be opposed." Hilgenfeld, after Matthies, in the
same way gives et? the sense of absolute unity — monarchie. See
also Baumgarten-Crusius, Lipsius, Rechtfertigung, p. 77. Some
what similarly Luther : Neque Deus eget mediatore, cum sit
ipse unus secum optime conveniens ; and again, Deus neminem
offendit ergo non indiget ullo mediatore. Luther's opinion is so
far reproduced in Matthies ; in Rink — " God is eternal unity"
(Stud. u. Kritik. 1834), and in De Wette — " God is essential
unity." Windischmann has a more complex and untenable
view : " God is one— the Giver as the Father, the Receiver as
the Son— united," — unmittelbar dem Geber und dem Emptf anger
nach. So too his co-religionist Bisping, " The promise was
given immediately to the Seed, that is Christ, who is God and
man in one person. The promise made by God to God needed
no mediator." And similarly also Wilke. It is loading the
verse with an inferential sense to explain, that as God is but

CHAP. III. 20. 273
one of the parties concerned, and as Moses was mediator be
tween God and the Jews only, his mediation could have no
effect on a promise which included Gentiles as well as Jews
(Locke, Whitby, Chandler) ; or to conjecture that the apostle's
words suggest an allusion to the unity of man— to whom God
is one and alike — and to the unity of man with God (Jowett) ;
or to argue, God is one only, one part only, and the Israelites
as being the other part are bound to obey the law — Deus est
unus, una (altera) tantummodo pars est gens Israel (Winer,
with whom agree virtually Kern, Paulus, and Sardinoux) ; or
to affirm, God is one, not the other party, and stands therefore
not under the law, so that the freedom of Christ the Son of
God from the law is established (Steinf ass).
Those interpretations which give 6 fiealrnv a personal refer
ence, and identify it with either Christ or Moses, labour under
insuperable difficulties. The fathers generally held the former
view, as Chrysostom, Ambros., and Jerome, and many others.
The exegesis of some of this class may be thus reported : " The
law was given in the hand of a mediator — Jesus Christ. Now
He is not the mediator of the one dispensation only, but of the
other also. But God is one — the one God gave the law and
the promises, and in both cases He has employed the same
mediator." But the mediator of the context is very plainly
Moses, and that paraphrase assumes greatly more than the text
asserts. Similar objections may be made to another form of
the same exegesis : " Now the mediator (Jesus Christ) does not
belong to one part of the human race, but to both Jew and Gen
tile, even as the one God is God of both." Others give it this
form : " Christ is the mediator between two parties ; but God is
one of those parties, the elect being the other." Or, " God is in
Himself One ; so likewise was He one of the parties, the other
party being the children of Israel." 1 But the majority hold
the reference to be to Moses, as Theodoret, Bengel, Schultess,
Jatho, Brown, Hofmann, Wieseler. Theodoret explains : "But
Moses, was not the mediator of one, for he mediated between
God and the people ; but God is one. He gave the promise to
Abraham, He appointed the law, and He has shown the ful
filment of the promise. It is not one God who did one of
these things, and another God the other." Others, as Noesselt,
i The Epistle to the Galatians, by Sir Stafford Carey, M.A., 1867.
S

274 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
follow the form already given with Christ as mediator: "Moses
was not the mediator of the one seed, containing both Jews
and Gentiles ; but God is one, standing in a common relation
to both Jews and Gentiles." The one seed, however, is Christ;
and evbv is masculine, as the construction plainly determines.
Piscator brings out a different conclusion : " God who gave the
law by Moses is one, and therefore, being unchanged, still will
punish such as break His law ; therefore justification by works
is impossible." Another form of the exegesis is that of Pareus
(1621) — " a mediator implies two parties, out of which one must
be transgressors, in reference to ver. 19. But the transgressing
party cannot be God, who is one — justitia et sanctitate semper
sibi constans." Cameron puts it thus : " A mediator (Moses)
does not belong to the Sinaitic covenant only, but also to the
Abrahamic or Christian covenant (Christ) ; but God is one —
both covenants originate in Him." Wessel takes the genitive
evbv in the sense of dependence — " the Mediator Christ is not
of one God, i.e. is not subject to Him as a creature, though
officially He became a mediator, nay, He is Himself the One
God;" as if the apostle had wished to vindicate Christ's divinity
from some objection based upon His economic subordination.
Turner regards the verse as an assertion of the great charac
teristic of the gospel, that " the illustrious Mediator thereof is
not the Mediator of one race or class or body of men, as Moses,
but of all, as God is one and the same, equally the Father of
all." The objection to this and other similar interpretations
need not now be recounted. Wieseler's notion is, that the
failure of the mediation of Moses — since it concerned not
God, but man also — arose out of his having to do with men
who have not obeyed the law ; the apostle's purpose being to
show how the divinity of the law may be reconciled with its
sin-working power. The first part of this exegesis is adopted
by Kamphausen in.Bunsen's Bibeb-werk. Hofmann's inter
pretation of the first clause virtually is : " The mediator Moses
did not concern himself with the one united seed, as such a
unity, according to ver. 28, exists only in Christ, but with a
multitude of individuals ;" and his interpretation of the second
clause is, that it stands in contrast to the phrase ".ordained by
angels," and asserts the divine unity as opposed to the multitude
of those spirits. See Meyer and Wieseler on this interpretation.

CHAP. III. 21. 275
Ver. 21. '0 ow vbfiov Kara rcov iirayyeXiebv rov ©eov ; pJr)
yevoiro — " Is then the law against the promises of God ? God
forbid." The ovv aperte collectivam vim pro? se fert. Klotz-
Devarius, ii. p. 717. "Promises" in the plural may refer to
its repetition at various times and in various forms. The geni
tive rov ©eov may, as read in the light of the context, charac
terize the promises as God's in a special sense — His as given
by Him singly, and without any intervention. The sense
proposed by Gwynne, " God in contrast with any other beings,"
is feeble. The question anticipates a natural objection, which
the previous reasoning would suggest — not the statement merely
of the 20th verse (Meyer, Winer), nor merely the clause " be
cause of transgressions" in the 19th verse (Estius, Bengel, De
Wette) ; for neither of these two statements. by itself leads to
the objection which the apostle starts and refutes. The ovv
takes up the entire description. If the law cannot set aside the
promise, — if law and promise are so opposite principles, that
if the inheritance be of law, it can no longer be of promise, —
if the manner in which the promise was given surpasses in true
divineness that in which the law was announced, the query at
once rises — a query that seems to cast discredit on the previous
reasoning by reducing it to an absurdity — "Is the law then
against the promises of God?" No. There is a wide differ
ence, but no antagonism. The promise is not touched or
altered by it, and it had its own function to discharge as a
preparative institute. For firj yevoiro, see under ii. 17. Nay
more —
El ydp iBbQn vbfiov b Bwdfievov fynoiroirjaai, ovreov e/c vbpov
av rjv rj BiKaioavvr) — the order in the last clause having the
authority of A, B, C ; X places rjv before dv, and the Received
Text places dv before e/c vbfiov, while D omits it ; F, G leave
out av rjv, and B has iv vbfico — " for if there had been given a
law which was able to give life, verily by the law should have
been righteousness" — the argument for the firj yevoiro. For
the form of the hypothetical proposition, see Jelf, § 851, 3.
The vb/iov is the Mosaic law, and the article following confines
it to the special quality — to that defined by the participle.
Compare Acts iv. 12, x. 41, Rom. ii. 14 ; Winer, § 20, 4.
The verb %cooiroir)aai is " to quicken," " to impart life," to
bestow that %cor] which Christ speaks of as the sum or result of

276 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
all His blessings, John iii. 16, etc. Life is opposed to that
death which sin has wrought within us, and is not specially a
new moral life (Ruckert, Winer, Matthies, Olshausen, Ewald).
To give life is only here another and more subjective form of
saying to bestow the inheritance, and in using the term the
apostle is mentally referring to vers. 11, 12. If the law could
have given life, truly — ovreov, emphatic in position — " in very
truth from the law (as its origin) righteousness would have
been." AiKaioavvt) is the one indispensable condition or means of
life or justification, and not the result (Wieseler). To give life,
the law must confer righteousness — b BUaiov ^rjaerai. The law
is not against the promises of God ; it comes not into rivalry
with them, for it has a different aim and work, being super
added on account of transgressions. If it could have justified,
righteousness would have sprung from it, and the promises
would have been by it annulled, or rather superseded. But no
one can obey the law, and win righteousness by his obedience
to it. Righteousness is found in a very different sphere — that
of trust in the divine promise, iii. 10-13. Law and promise
are so far removed from one another in character and opera
tion, that the one comes not into collision with the other as if
to counterwork it. The law, as Chrysostom says, is ovk ivavrlov
rrjv j(dpirov dXXd ko\ avvepybv. Nay, as the apostle proceeds
to illustrate, the law cannot be hostile to the promise, for both
are portions of one divine plan carried out in infinite wisdom
and harmony. For the law subserves the promise, one of its
special functions being to produce such convictions of sin as
"shut up" men to faith in the promise as the only means of
salvation — the teaching of the following verse. But this verse
looks back to ver. 18, and its declaration, as the next verse does
to ver. 19, the connection of the law with sin.
Ver. 22. 'AXXd awmXeiaev rj ypaeprj rd irdvra virb dp-ap-
rlav — " But the Scripture shut up all under sin." '^4XXo is
strongly adversative—" but, on the contrary,"— the statement
following being in direct contradiction to the preceding one :
so far from righteousness being of the law, the Scripture em
bodying that law shuts up all men under sin, as unrighteous
and beneath its curse. Therefore the law, which encloses all
under sin and its penalty, cannot by any possibility be the

CHAP. III. 22. 277
source of life. The phrase r) ypacpfj is so far personified, as
doing what God its author does. Rom. xi. 32. It may signify
the Old Testament as a whole, or, as being in the singular, some
special portion of it, as Ps.' cxliii. 2, or Deut. xxvii. 26. Com
pare for use of singular Luke iv. 21, and chiefly in John, as
John xix. 37, xx. 9, etc., in many of which places the quotation
is not given, but only referred to. The avv in the verb avv-
eKXeiaev does not mean that all are shut up together — omnes
simul (Bengel, Usteri), for the verb is sometimes applied to
individuals, and means to hem in on all sides. Sept. Ps.
xxxi. 9 ; Polybius, xi. 2, 10. Compare Herod, vii. 41 ; Pol.
i. 17, 8. Many of the fathers, followed by Calvin, Beza, and
others, suppose that " Scripture " means the law. It indeed
contains, expounds, and enforces the law, but it is not to be
identified with it. Nor does the verb mean merely, convinced
them of sin — rjXeygev (Chrysostom, Hermann), for this sub
jective experience was not always effected as a reality ; but the
Scripture so shut them up objectively under sin as to' bring
out their inability to obtain righteousness by the law. Bishop
Bull and others assign a declaratory meaning to the verb — eon-
clusos declaravit; and similar reference to the verdict of Scrip
ture is alleged by Schott, Winer, Wieseler, Usteri, Hofmann, in
the same way as an analogous dilution — permisit, demonstravit
— is proposed for the same verb in Rom. xi. 32 by so many ex
positors. Such a meaning is only inferential as to result. The
Scripture was the divine instrument of this spiritual incarcera
tion, in which sin has the lordship over its prisoners. Bondage
and helplessness are intended by the phrase — not, however, to
produce despair, but to serve a very different purpose. There
was little need for Jerome's caution, nee vero csstimandum
scripturam auctorem esse peccati, . . . judex non est auctor
sceleris. The neuter plural rd irdvra (not eQvr), Grotius) is
certainly more comprehensive than the masculine, though it
is putting undue pressure on it to extract the signification
of man and man's things (Bengel), — humana omnia, non modo
omnes sed etiam omnia (Windischmann, Hofmann), — Brenz
including especially the lower animals. The statement is
certainly true, but the following verse is rather against such
a view as required by the context, and the masculine is used
in Rom. xi. 32 to express an analogous thought. The neuter

278 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
sets out the comprehensive or unindividualized generality of
the statement. Winer, § 27, 5. Compare John vi. 37,
xvii. 2, 1 Cor. i. 27, Col. i. 20, 2 Thess. ii. 6, and examples
in Poppo, Tliueydides, Prolegom. i.' 104 ; thus, too, qucecunque
for quemcunque, Sallust, vol. ii. p. 68, ed. Kritz. And the
purpose is —
"Iva rj iirayyeXla e/c irlarecov 'Inaov Xpiarov BoQfj roiv
iriarevovai — "in order that the promise by faith in Christ
Jesus might be given to them who believe." The telic iva
expresses the divine purpose of the previous statement. It
cannot mean the mere result, or be taken logice — quo appareret
dari, as Winer, Burton, Peile, Koppe, Semler. The promise,
iirayyeXla, is the abstract, tantamount in this clause to the
blessing promised. ' It is connected with faith — e/c, — for the
words are to be construed with iirayyeXla, and qualify it.
That faith belongs to, rests on, I. X. as its object. Gwynne's
notion of its being a subjective genitive has a precarious founda
tion. The article is not inserted before J. X., as no defining
limitation is intended. Winer, § 20, 2. The antithesis looks
back to e/c vbpov in the 21st verse — the promise springs out of
faith, and is conditioned by it. It has no connection of origin
or stipulation with the law. Originating in faith, and depen
dent on faith, it is given toi? iriarevovaiv — they only being
its recipients. It is harsh to connect e/c irlarecov with BoQjj,
and the repetition of idea is not a mere emphatic tautology
(Winer) ; but the apostle first says that the promise is one
which from its nature is conditioned by faith, and then he adds,
it is given to those in whom this condition is realized, or the de
fining element of this promise and the requisite -qualification for
receiving it are ever one and the same — faith. The Galatians
accepted the last part of the statement, that the recipients of
the inheritance were believers ; but they demurred to the first
part, that the promise is of faith, for they practically held that
it was to some extent connected with works of law, and was
partially suspended on the performance of them. Therefore
the earnest apostle first defines the promise as " of faith," and
then limits the reception of it to those " who believe," that
there might be no possible, mistake as to his meaning. The
shutting up of all under sin shows the impossibility of salvation
by works, and brings out clearly the connection of salvation

CHAP. III. 23. 279
with the promise and faith. The next verses look back to the
clause of ver. 19 in which the intermediate duration of the law
is stated. Ver. 23. Upo rov Be iXQeiv rrjv irlanv, virb vbfiov icppovpov-
fieQa avyKeKXeiapievoi et? rrjv fieXXovaav irlanv diroKaXvcpQrjvai
— " But before the faith came, we were kept in ward, shut up
under the law for the faith to be afterwards revealed." The
perfect participle of the Received Text has C, D3, K, L in its
favour, with several of the Greek fathers, and is adopted by
Tischendorf; while the present avyKXeibfievoi has A, B, D1,
F, N. The last, accepted by Lachmann, is apparently the
hetter supported by mss., though it may be suspected of being
a conformation to the verb ieppovpovpeQa. Ae leads on to
another explanatory thought — to an additional element of con
trast, and it stands third in the clause on account of the pre
positional phrase. Hartung, i. 190; Klotz-Devarius, ii. 378.
The particle is postponed, ubi quo? prceposita particular verba
sunt aut aptius inter se conjuncta sunt aut ita comparata, ut sum-
mum pondus in ea sententia obtineant. Poppo, Thucyd. i. 302.
The article specializes the faith as that just mentioned — " the
faith of Jesus Christ" — not in an objective or theological sense,
the body of truth claiming faith or the gospel, as many of the
older commentators supposed, with Schott, Bisping, Gwynne,
Brown, etc. It is subjective faith placed under an objective
aspect (see under i. 23), or an inner principle personified. It
is not " Christ" (Pelagius, Bullinger), nor " Christ and the
preaching of the doctrine of faith" (Brenz). The faith with
this special aspect and object did not come till Christ came, till
the promised Deliverer or Christ appeared in human nature,
and under the human name Jesus, ver. 22. Under the law,
faith in Him unincarnate did exist, and certainly such faith
did justify; for the " non-justification of the Jew antecedent to
the coming of Christ," asserted by Gwynne, is tantamount to
his non-salvation, and contradicts many utterances and thanks
givings of the Old Testament. The pre-Christian faith resting
ideally on One to come, brought them acceptance and pardon,
for men are saved not by the doctrine, but by the fact of an
atonement ; though faith in Him as really existent, or as Jesus,
came with Himself into the world. Faith came when prophecy
merged into history, and prior to the incarnation the Jews were

280 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
under the pressure of law — the reference in the verb and parti
ciple being to them and their law.
The verb icppovpovpieQa is not asservabamur — the notion of
dacpdXeia is not in the context (Winer, Usteri, Schott), — but
custodiebamur, kept under guard — coairep iv rei^lco nvi (Chry
sostom). They were under guard, being or having been shut
up — literally, concluded^ to retain the translation of the previous
verse ; the avv not referring to those who form the object of
the verb, but expressing the fulness of its action — shut round
so that escape is impossible. The meaning is not that the
psedagogic power of the law — severa legis disciplina (Winer) —
restrained sin, for such a sense is not found in the context,
which refers not to the moral restraint of the law, but the
helplessness of the law to bring righteousness or justification.
The connection of avyKeKXeiapievoi is disputed. Some, as CEcu
menius, Theophylact, Augustine, Raphelius, Wolff, Bengel,
and Hofmann, connect it directly with et'?. If the reading of
the perfect tense be admitted, this connection becomes impos
sible, for it supposes the act to have been done when the law
was given; whereas standing by itself, or unconnected with et'?,
it denotes the completeness and permanence of the state. The
meaning of the participle directly joined to et? has been thus given
by Borger : eo necessitatis redigere ut ad fidem tanquam sacram
anchoram confugere cogatur, or conclusi adeoque reservati atque
adacti ad fidem. The construction is justifiable, for there are
several examples of it. See Fritzsche on Rom. xi. 32 ; Raphel.
in loc. ; Schweighaiiser, Lex. Polyb. sub voce. Yet it does not
fit in here so well, as " shut up to the faith" would imply the
existence of "the faith" during the actor the period of the
incarceration. But during the whole of that period it had not
yet come, as the apostle expressly argues. The et? either of
time or destination is more in harmony with the verb in the
imperfect, icppovpovpieQa — "we were kept in ward until the
faith came," or rather "for the faith about to be revealed."
The law was an institute of intermediate and temporary guard
and bondage, but it had a blessed purpose. Et? is not tem
poral (Borger, Matthies, Brown), a sense it very seldom has,
and one unneeded here after the distinct temporal assertion,
1 Thus Hooker, " The very person of Christ was, only touching bodily
substance, concluded in the grave.''

CHAP. III. 24. 281
" before the faith came." The preposition has its ethical mean
ing of aim or object (not in adventum ejus fidei, Augustine).
Donaldson, § 477 ; Jelf, § 625, 3. The temporally qualifying
epithet fieXXovaav seems taken out of the usual order that it
may have the emphasis, and that the idea expressed by it may
be put into the foreground, as in Rom. viii. 18, x. 4. The faith
was future when the law was given, and from his assumed
standpoint the apostle specializes it ; but it was revealed when
the apostle wrote — revealed — divinely disclosed — the theme and
the mode being alike of God. Matthias connects diroKaXvcp-
Qrjvai, not with fieXXovaav, but with avyKeKXeiapievoi, giving
et? a temporal signification, as if the purpose were to show them
openly as persons who, through the guardianship of that law,
must remain under its curse till they were freed from it by
faith. The Jews, during the continuance of that law, were in
spiritual bondage and seclusion ; as obedience could not win
righteousness for them, they were helpless ; and all this that
they might pass into freedom when the Seed came, and faith
in Him gave them emancipation and acceptance with God.
From a law, the curse of which so terribly enslaved them,
they were to pass into faith and deliverance. The very con
trast should have rejoiced them, as it did the apostle himself,
for his own experience gave proof and power to his theo
logy. And yet they were seeking back to that law, and
ignoring that faith, which unmixed and by itself, had been the
instrument of righteousness to Abraham, and would be the
same to all his spiritual children. The law had its own work
to do, but that work did not result in the gift of the Spirit, or
in the perfection of those under it, iii. 2-5 ; its work was done
in its own sphere which was one of curse and confinement, and
done under an economy which was a parenthesis in the divine
government, brought in and moulded with a view to the intro
duction of a better and nobler dispensation, the characteristic
principle of which is faith. The law was not, and was not
meant to be, a final economy.
Ver. 24. "flare o vbpov iraiBaycoybv rjficov yeyovev et? Xpia
rov — " So that the law has become our tutor (psedagogue) for
Christ." Wycliffe has " under-maister;" "schoolmaster" is
in Tyndale, Cranmer, and the Genevan ; the Rheims has
" pedagogue ; " and the interpolated words to bring us are taken

282 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
from the Genevan, Tyndale rendering "unto the time of
Christ." "flare marks the conclusion from the preceding
statements, and especially from icppovpovpieQa. We are the
children of God; and the law prior to the coming of faith acted
toward us as our psedagogue, with all his vigorous discipline
and vigilant superintendence. The psedagogue was not the
StSocr/coXo? or iraiBbvo/iov,1 — non magister et pater (Jerome).
The term, as its composition implies, is one qui puerum manu
prehensum ducit . . . ad magistrum. The psedagogue was usually
a slave selected for his fidelity, to whom was entrusted the
complete supervision of the children of a family from their
sixth or seventh year till they arrived at puberty.2 Under his
charge they went to and from school — gymnasia; he accom
panied them in their walks and recreations, as responsible for
their personal safety ; and he guarded them against evil society
and immoral influences. Horace, Sat. lib. i. vi. 81, 4. A
psedagogue is accused of the opposite, Athencsus, vii. 279,
Opera, vol. iii. p.. 16, ed. Schweighaiiser. He was therefore
obliged to maintain the rigid discipline which was commonly
associated with the name. Not only were psedagogues called
assidui and custodes, but their functions came to be associated
with moroseness and imperious severity.8 Their countenance
became proverbial for its sourness. It represents in the Jeru
salem Targum the Hebrew JON, "nursing father," of Num.
xi. 12 ; and the Syriac renders it by HsZ, " monitor." The
apostle in 1 Cor. iv. 15 puts psedagogue in contrast with "father."
1 The two are sharply distinguished : n, irxih'xyayoii xxi n, oilxo-
xx\o,, Plato, De Legibus, vii. 14 ; and the corresponding verb is often
used in this distinctive sense. Compare Xenophon, De Lac. Rep. ii. 1 ;
Quintil. Inst. Or. i. 1, 8, 9 ; and on the character and qualifications of a
proper psedagogue, Plutarch, De Liberis Educandis, vii., Opera, vol. i.
p. 12, 13, ed. Wittenbach.
2 Thus, in Plato, Socrates says to the boy Lysis, " Who then governs
you ? My pedagogue, he said. Is it so that he is a slave ? How could
he be otherwise ?— our slave however  And by doing what, then, does
this pasdagogue govern you? Of course, said he, he conducts me to my
masters," etc. Lysis, 208 E, vol. iv. p. 136, ed. Stallbaum.
3 Tristior et pxdagogi vultus. Suetonius, Nero, sxxvii. Sv/ixpirvt
xurip nxilxyayk, nv irxtlot o, yyi hx rqs oaoi, ioXxoi ireptruxovns xxi
x,e*ofti,ov, iireifhifes, xiira hxvporxrx. iElian, Hist. Var. xiv. 20. He is
called Magister in Terence, Andria, i. 1.

CHAP. III. 25. 283
In the later day3 of Rome the young slave psedagogue was deli
cately trained, his office in the palace degenerated into that of
a mere ornamental attendant on his imperial master, and natu
rally psedagogue was shortened into the modern page. The
Rabbins took the word into their language, making it J1J1S, and
associated with it the additional idea of a closer superintendence,
as in food,1 etc.
Thus the surveillance of a psedagogue carried with it the
idea of a strictness bordering on severity, and of an inferior
but responsible position. The law was in the place of a pseda
gogue to the Jews — hard, severe, unbending in its guardian
ship of them when they were in their minority, — it being im
plied in the illustration, however, that all the while they were
children. The psedagogic function of the law was not in the
repression of sins (De Wette, Baur) ; it was given " for the
sake of transgressions," to produce such convictions of guilt
and helplessness as prepared for faith in Christ. Its types and
ceremonial services conduced to the same result. The phrase
et? Xpiarov is very naturally understood as meaning " to
Christ," — the psedagogue bringing the child to the Teacher.
So the Greek fathers, with Erasmus, Eisner, etc. But this
idea does not suit the imagery, for Christ is here not regarded
at all as a Teacher, but rather as a Redeemer, as the following
clause distinctly implies, as well as the commencing imagery of
the next chapter. Nor is the et? temporal, usque ad (Morus,
Rosenmiiller, Ruckert, Bagge), but telic ; it expresses the
spiritual design of the previous psedagogy : it was for Christ,
as its ultimate purpose. Winer, § 49, a. The statement is
therefore a virtual reply to the objection, " Is the law against
the promises of God?"' No, it is a psedagogue with a view to
Christ, and to Christ the Seed were the promises made. The
next clause explains the et? Xpiarov, or shows in what sense
we ought to regard it — in order that we might be justified by
or out of faith; e'/c irlarecov, as in contrast to vbpiov, having
the emphasis. See under ii. 16, iii. 6. See Suicer on vbpov.
Ver. 25. 'EXQovarjv Be rrjv irlarecov, ovKen virb iraiBarycoyov
1 Rex filio pxdagogum constituit et singulis diebus ad eum invisit, inter
rogans eum, Num comedit filius meus ? Num bibit filius meus ? Num in
scholam abiit? Num ex schola rediit? Tanchuma, 35, 1, in Schoettgen's
Horx, i. p. 741.

284 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
iapiev — " But the faith being come, we are no longer under a
psedagogue." The Be is adversative — introduces a contrasted
statement. The preposition virb (" under," " under the power
of," Kriiger, § 68, 45, 2) is here followed, as always in the
New Testament, by an accusative, as in Rom. iii. 9, 1 Cor. ix.
20, Gal. iv. 2, 21 ; but in Attic Greek it is sometimes followed
by a dative. The psedagogy was from its very nature tem
porary ; it ceased when the faith came. The coming of faith
being identical with the coming of the object of that faith—
the Seed or Christ for whom the psedagogy was instituted as
its purpose — marks at the same time the period when the
children pass from the austere constraint and tutelage of the
law into maturity and freedom. The noun, though repeated,
has not the article after the preposition, the personality of the
psedagogue being merged in his work — " no longer under pseda
gogy" (Meyer). Winer, 19, 2, b. And the reason is annexed
— we are not children, but are now sons full-grown — viol, not
7TOtSe?. Ver. 26. Hdvrev ydp viol ©eov iare Bid rrjv irlarecov iv
Xpiarco Trjaov — "For ye all are sons of God through the
faith in Christ Jesus." "You all," Jews and Gentiles also,
spoken to in the second person, the previous clause being in the
first person — himself and the Jewish believers who were once
under the law. 1 Thess. v. 5. Usteri and Hofmann wrongly
on this account take the address in ipieiv to be, " you believing
Gentiles," the former interpolating thus : though " we are no
longer under a psedagogue, how much less you who were never
under him !" The sons of God are sons in maturity, enjoying
the freedom of sons, and beyond the need and care of a rigorous
psedagogue. The viol has the stress upon it in tacit contrast
to vrjirioi, — reKvlov being John's favourite term, with a different
ethical allusion. See under iv. 6, 7 ; Rom. viii. 14. Theodore
of Mopsuest. connects the sonship with reXeibrnv. It was by
the instrumentality of faith that they were sons of God ; and
that faith— the faith already referred to— was iv X. I. ; and
there being no article after irlarecov to specialize it, the clause
represents one idea. See under Eph. i. 15.
Some would join the words iv X. I. to viol ©eov, as Usteri,
Schott, Windischmann, Wieseler, Ewald, Jowett, Hofmann,
Riccaltoun, and Lightfoot. But this construction is against

CHAP. III. 27. 285
the natural order of the words, and would be a repetition of
Sto rrjv irlarecov as expressing mode. THanv stands alone in
the two previous verses, as in direct contrast to vbfiov, and now
its fulness of power is indicated by the adjunct "in Christ
Jesus." The construction with iv is warranted, though Ric
caltoun denies it. Eph. i. 15 ; Col. i. 4 ; 1 Tim. iii. 13 ; 2 Tim.
iii. 15 ; Sept. Ps. Ixxviii. 22 ; Jer. xii. 6. See p. 168. " Sons of
God" — not "ye will be" (Grotius), but "ye are sons." Sons as
His creatures, for Adam was "the son of God;" and the prodigal
son did not cease to be a son, though he was a lost and wan
dered one, nay, the father recognised the unbroken link. " We
are also His offspring," said the apostle on Mars Hill, sustaining
a filial relation to Him, and still bearing His image, though
many of its brightest features have been effaced. But now we
are "sons of God by faith in Christ Jesus" — by that faith
forgiven, accepted, regenerated, adopted — born of God, and
reflecting the paternal likeness — loved, blessed, and disciplined
by Him — trained to do His will and to submit to it — enjoying
the free spirit which cries " Abba, Father," and prepared in all
ways for His house of many mansions.
Ver. 27. "Oaoi ydp et? Xpiarov iBairrlaQnre, Xpiarov iv-
eBvaaaQe — "For as many of you (ye whosoever) as were baptized
into Christ, ye put on Christ." This verse confirms, and at
the same time explains, the statement of the previous verse.
Those who, like Prof. Lightfoot, separate iv X. I. from
irlarecov connect thus : " In Christ Jesus, I say, for all ye who
were baptized into Christ put on Christ." Those, on the other
hand, who keep the words in their natural connection, give this
as the argument: "Ye are sons of God ; for in being baptized,
ye put on Christ who is the Son of God." Si autem Christum
induistis, Christus autem filius Dei, et vos eodem indumento filii
Dei estis. But the statement is not so minute as to show rbv rrjv
yevvrjaecov rpbirov (Theodoret). Chrysostom says that already
they had been proved to be sons of Abraham, but now sons of
God. The phrase et? X. is "into Christ," into union and
communion with Him, and differs from baptism either eV reo
bvbfiari, or even et? rb ovofia. When a purpose is specified, as
fierdvoia, Matt. iii. 11, or depeaiv rcov dfiapneov, Acts ii. 38,
et? means " with a view to ;" but when followed as here by a
person, it has the same meaning as in the phrase, " believed into

286 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
Christ." See under ii. 16. This is the true baptism, Acts viii. 16.
But the thing signified does not always or necessarily accom
pany the sign. Estius remarks, Ex quo liquet non omnes omnino
baptizatos Christum induisse ; and Peter Lombard, Alii per bap-
tismum inducunt Christum tantum Sacramento tenus. See Jerome
and Calvin in loc.1 Both verbs are aoristic, and the two acts
are marked as identical in point of time. The figure of " put
ting on, being clothed with," is a common one in relation to
" power," Luke xxiv. 49 ; " armour of light," Rom. xiii. 12 ;
" the Lord Jesus Christ" as a command, Rom. xiii. 14 ; " in-
corruption, immortality," 1 Cor. xv. 53, 54 ; an " house from
heaven," 2 Cor. v. 3 ; the " new man," Eph. iv. 24, etc. The
figure is also common in the Sept. : " the Spirit," 1 Chron. xii.
18; "salvation," 2 Chron. vi. 41; "the Spirit of the Lord,"
2 Chron. xxiv. 20 ; " shame," Job viii. 22 ; " righteousness,"
Job xxix. 14, Ps. cxxxi. 9 ; " fear" (thunder), Job xxxix. 19 ;
"shame and dishonour," Ps. xxxiv. (xxxv.) 26; "majesty,"
" strength," Ps. xcii. (xciii.) 1 ; " honour and majesty," Ps.
ciii. (civ.) 1; "cursing," Ps. cviii. (cix.) 17; "salvation," Ps.
cxxxi. (cxxxii.) 17 ; "glory," or beautiful garments, Isa. Iii. 2 ;
" garments of salvation," Isa. Ixi. 10, etc. : and often, too, in
the Apocrypha— 1 Mace. i. 29 ; Wisd. v. 19 ; Sir. xiv. 10.
Distinct examples are found in the classics: ovKen fierpid-
fyvrev, dXXd rbv TapKvviov ivBvbfievoi, Dionys. Halicar. xi. 5,
Opera, vol. i. p. 657, ed. Hudson ; iveSvrbv aocpiarrjv, Libanius,
Ep. 956 ; nisi proditorem palam et hostem induisset, Tac. Annal.
xvi. 28. See Wetstein on Rom. xiii. 14, and for some rab-
binnical examples, Schoettgen on the same place. The classical
passages clearly show, that when one man is said to put on
another, the full assumption of his nature or character is meant
— the personation of him in thought and act. There is there
fore no need to resort to any such image as the toga virilis (Ben
gel), or the stoling of the high priest at his consecration (Jatho ;
Deyling, Observ. iii. 406), or to baptismal robes, which were not
then in existence (Beza). Bingham, Antiq. xi. § 11, 1.
What is it, then, to put on Christ ? If to put on a tyrant, as
in one of these examples, be to change natures with him, to put
on Christ is to exchange our natural character for His— is to be
come Christ-like in soul and temperament— is to be in the world
1 See Mozley's Primitive Doctrine of Regeneration, London 1855.

CHAP. III. 28. 287
as He was in the world, the " same mind being in us which was
also in Him," — every one in all things a representative of Him,
— His "life" thus "made manifest in our mortal flesh:" iv
avrco BeiKviiv rbv Xpiarov (Chrys.). Wieseler, overlooking the
striking peculiarity of the language, identifies the phrase with
the putting on of " the new man," Eph. iv. 24, Christ being
only a concrete ideal term. But while the result is the same,
the modes of conception are different ; and in this place the
second clause is moulded from the first, and expresses vividly
the connection of Christ with spiritual renovation as its source
and image. Chrysostom says, " He who is clothed appears to
be that with which he is clothed" — e'/ceti/o cpalverai oirep ivBe-
Bvrai. On Rom. xiii. 14, Opera, vol. ix. p. 767, ed. Gaume.
It is also to be borne in mind, that while it is here said that
those who were baptized into Christ put on Christ, the apostle
elsewhere exhorts those who had been baptized still to put on
Christ, Rom. xiii. 4. Believers baptized professedly put on
Christ, but the elements of the Christ-like are to be ever
developing within them — the new life is ever to be ripening to
maturity. Ver. 28. Ovk evi 'IovBaiov, ovBe "EXXrjv ovk evi BovXov, ovBe
iXevQepov ovk evi dpaev Kal QrjXv — " There is among such
neither Jew nor Greek, there is among such neither bond nor
free, there is not among such a male and a female." The evi
is supposed by Buttmann, Kiihner, Winer, and Robinson fo be
another form of the preposition eV with a stronger accent, after
the analogy of em and 77-opa, — " the notion of the verb being so
subordinated that it is dropped" (Kiihner, § 379, 2). But what
then is to be said of clauses in which evi and eV are used together,
as 1 Cor. vi. 5; Xen. Anab. v. 3, 11 ; Plato, Phcedo, 77 El
Others take it as a contracted form of evean. The sense is not
different, whatever view be adopted. In the New Testament it
is usually preceded by ovk, as 1 Cor. vi. 5, Col. iii. 11, Jas.
i. 17. Ovk evi is a strong negative — " there is not among you,"
almost equivalent in strength to " there cannot be among you."
De Wette denies the reference " in you," and understands it,
" there is not in- this putting on of Christ ;" others give it " in
Christ" (Koppe, Webster and Wilkinson), or in that state
(Hofmann). But this narrows the reference, and does not
harmonize with the last personal clause. In the spiritual family

288 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
of God, the distinctions of race, social position, and even of
sex, are lost sight of. National, social, and sexual distinctions
cease to exercise their special influence. The Jew is not to the
exclusion of the Greek, nor the Greek to the exclusion of the
Jew — oi/Be ; the bond is not accepted to the refusal of the free,
nor the free to the refusal of the bond. Not that in themselves
such distinctions cease to exist, but they interfere not with spi
ritual oneness and privilege. They are so noted in the world
as to divide society : Jew and Greek are in reciprocal alien
ation ; bond and free are separated by a great gulf ; to the male
much was accorded in prerogative which is denied to the female,
such as the ordinance on which the Judaists insisted ; but these
minor characteristics are now merged in a higher unity among
the children of God. Such differences were specially promi
nent and exclusive in ancient times. 1 Cor. xi. 7-9.
The generalized neuters dpaev Kal QrjXv are not connected,
as the previous two pairs, by ovBe, but by /cot (Gen. i. 27 ;
Mark x. 6), for the distinction is not of race or rank, but of
physical and unchangeable organization. Duality is denied :
there is no longer a male and a female — no longer the two, but
only one. The distinction in its ethical consequences ceases
to exist : as a member of the spiritual family, the woman is
equal to the man ; there is not a man and a woman, but simple
humanity. Having put on Christ, the woman is a child of
God, equal to the man in all filial honour and enjoyment. See
under Col. iii. 11. Some minor points of difference yet remain,
as the apostle insists in 1 Tim. ii. 12, v. 9, etc., but they inter
fere not with the general statement. The reason is subjoined —
Ildvrev yap v/ieiv eh iare iv Xpiarco 'Inaov — " for all ye
are one (person) in Christ Jesus." The irdvrev of the Received
Text is well supported, but diravrev is found in A, B3, N. The
masculine is now employed, not the neuter ev, as it implies
conscious oneness. Theodoret says, rb eh dvrl rov h acopia.
The unity is organic, not unconscious or fortuitous juxtaposi
tion, but like the union of all the branches with the root, and
through the root with one another. There may be many dis
parities in gifts and graces, but there is indissoluble oneness in
Christ Jesus, its only sphere, or through union to Him, its
only medium. See under Eph. ii. 15.
Ver. 29. Et Be vpeiv Xpiarov, apa rov 'ABpadfi airep/ia

CHAP. III. 29. 289
eare, Kar iirayyeXlav KXnpovbpioi — " But if ye are Christ's,
then are ye Abraham's seed, heirs according to promise."
Xpiarov is the preferable reading in the first clause ; the other
words, et? iare iv X. I. in D1, T, are a comment; and the Kal of
the last clause of the Text. Recept. is omitted on the authority
of A, B, C, D, N, 17, Vulgate, etc. The moment rests on
vfieh — you the objects of my present appeal. If ye be Christ's,
then (the ovv after dpa being without good authority) Abraham's
seed are ye — the stress being on rov 'ABpadfi — the indubitable
conclusion, for Christ is Abraham's Seed, and you belonging to
Him — one in Him — must be Abraham's seed also. " And if
children, then heirs," — the emphasis is more on Kar iirayyeXlav
(Ewald, Wieseler, Hofmann) than on the concluding word kXv-
povbfioi (Meyer) absolute, or without any annexed genitive
as rov 'Af3padfi, for they are heirs not of Abraham, but co
heirs of the same inheritance with him. Kar iirayyeXlav is
" agreeably to promise," the very point which the apostle has
been labouring to substantiate, as against the claims made for
the law by the disturbers of the churches, — the reference
being to ver. 16. "Heirs according to promise;" for "to
Abraham and his seed were the promises made," and that
promise, containing the inheritance, the law did not and could
not set aside — all in illustration and proof of the starting
premiss in ver. 7, " They which be of faith, the same are the
children of Abraham;" and of the earlier declaration, that
justification comes not from works of law, but through faith
in the divine promise, as Abraham was justified by faith. But
the Galatian legalists ignored these reasonings, and fell into
the error of expecting justification from works ; an error
which, as the apostle has argued, involved the awful conse
quence of making Christ's death superfluous, counterworked
the example of Abraham the father of the faithful, and ignored
the promise of inheritance made by God immediately to him —
a promise still given to all those who believe, as the seed of
Abraham. In a word, he has fully vindicated the sharp words
with which the chapter opens, " O foolish Galatians, who has
bewitched you?" What folly was involved in their sudden
and unaccountable apostasy ! See a paper by Riggenbach on
" Righteousness by faith " — Rechtfertigung durch den Glauben
— in the Stud. u. Kritik. 1868. T

CHAPTER IV.
THE apostle had said in the end of the last chapter that
those who are Christ's are Abraham's seed, heirs ac
cording to promise. The idea suggested by a KXvpovbfiov who
is so not through right, but by promise, dwells in his mind,
and he now illustrates some of its peculiarities. These he
notices, and then works round again to the conclusion — et Se
vlov Kal KXrjpovbfiov — "but if a son, an heir also," through God.
The illustration is parallel in some points to that of the previous
section. Ver. 1. Aeyco Be, iep' baov ^(povov o KXr/povofiov vrjiribv icrriv,
ovBev Biacpepei BovXov, Kvpiov irdvrcov eov — " Now I say, That
the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a ser
vant (bond-servant), though he be lord of all." This formula
introduces a continued explanatory statement : ver. 16; Rom.
xv. 8. Otherwise the apostle writes as at iii. 17, totjto Se Xeyco;
or as in 1 Cor. i. 12, Xeyco Be rovro ; or in 1 Cor. vii. 29, rovro
Be eprjfii. These cases are analogous, but somewhat different in
emphasis. The train of thought which he has been pursuing
suggests the following illustration. "Now I say," carrying
out yet another point of illustration, and by a different figure.
The sense is not, " my meaning is this;" but a new phase of
argument, connected closely, however, with what goes before, is
introduced. For the phrase icp' oaov "xpbvov, see Rom. vii. 1
1 Cor. vii. 39 ; and this period is parallel to that of the pseda
gogy. The apostle states the simple proposition, and does not
use the accusative with the infinitive as in Rom. xv. 8 or on
as in 1 Cor. i. 12. Nrjiriov is an infant or minor, and this
term or dvnBov stands opposed to eepr/Bov (iraiv—dvrjp), one
who had attained to his majority. In Athens icfyrjBela began
at the age of eighteen, and two years elapsed before compfete
emancipation. In Rome infancy ended at the seventh year,
290

CHAP. IV. 2. 291
puberty began at the fourteenth, but tutelage lasted till the
twenty-fifth. In Scottish law pupillarity extends to fourteen
in males, and minority to twenty-one. Among the Hebrews
the period of nonage was thirteen years and a day for males,
and twelve years and a day for females. Selden, de Successi-
cnibus, ix., Works, vol. ii. p. 25. It disturbs and enfeebles the
analogy to attach to vrjiriov any ethical meaning, as if " it im
plied imperfection of understanding as well as of age" (Bagge
after Chrysostom). Doubtless it is because the heir is a child
that tutors are appointed over him, and youth implies inability;
but the apostle refers simply to the fact of childhood in its
legal aspect — not to infancy in any physical sense, as might be
suggested by the composition of the word. We must not put
more into the figure than is warranted by the apostle's own
deductions from it. The phrase b KXtjpovbpiov is like o piealrnv
in iii. 20 — " the heir," any or every heir as the case may be.
Winer, § 18, 1 ; Dionys. Halic. iv. 9, p. 13, vol. ii. ed. Kiessling.
" The heir" is not the possessor, but only the expectant possessor.
The inheritance is in reserve for him, Matt. xxi. 38 ; but he
differs nothing from a servant. The genitive BovXov is used as
in Matt. vi. 26. See on ii. 6. The heir is nothing different
from a bond-servant — the idea being that he has no real posses
sion, no power of independent action — even though he be lord
of all : Kvpiov irdvrcov eov — " being all the while, or though he
be lord of all." This concessive use of the participle is com
mon. Jelf, § 697, d ; Donaldson, § 621. The Kvpibrnv is his
de jure, not de facto — the irdvra being his by right even now
from his birth and position. It is not in eventum, as Meyer
gives it, but now, at the present moment, he is lord of all,
though not the actual possessor ; yet, though lord of all, he is
in dependence and discipline nothing different from a servant
who has no right in the inheritance at all.
Ver. 2. 'AXXd virb iirirpbirovv iarl Kal o'lKovbpovv, d%pi
rrjv irpoQeapilav rov irarpbv — " But is under guardians and
stewards, until the term appointed of the father." The Vulgate
has sub tutoribus et actoribus; Augustine, procuratores et adores;
Wycliffe, " kepers and tutores," — adores = to " doers " in old
Scottish statute. The iirlrpoirov literally is one on whom
charge is devolved, or he might be the guardian of orphan
children — opepav&v eirlrpoirov, Plato, Leg. p. 766, C ; Plutarch,

292 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
Lycurgus, § 3, p. 66, Vitcs, vol. i. ed. Bekker. He is not to be
identified with the iraiBayecyov (Eisner), but the heir is under
his charge — he has the control of his person. On the other
hand, the o'lKovbfiov is entrusted with his property, as indeed
the name implies — who provides for him and manages his
possessions. Luke xvi. 1 ; Gen. xv. 2 ; Xen. Mem. ii. 10, 4.
The word has been disguised into a rabbinical one. Schoettgen,
in loc. et in Luke viii. 3 ; Selden as above. In ordinary New-
Testament use it means overseer, as in Matt. xx. 8, Luke
viii. 3 ; Herod, i. 108 ; Joseph. Antiq. xviii. 6, 6. But it is
here employed in a more restricted meaning as a guardian or
legal representative, called in Attic process Kvpiov. Xen. Mem.
i. 2, 40 ; Ael. Var. Hist. iii. 26. Compare what is said of
Moses in Heb. iii. 5. Neither the person nor property of the
heir are therefore at his own disposal during his minority — the
first is under guardians, and the second under stewards.1 But
the period of subjection is limited, yea, defined —
"A%pi rrjv irpoQeapilav rov irarpbv — " until the term ap
pointed of the father." The term irpoQeafila, meaning " ap
pointed before" — 77-po — prearranged, occurs only here in the
New Testament. It is used substantively, though rjfiepav may
be supplied. The word is a legal term found often in classical
writers, as meaning the time defined for bringing actions or
prosecutions (" Statute of limitations"), and it also denotes the
period allowed to a defendant for paying damages. Some
times it signifies any time pre-fixed — rrjv irpoQeapilav iviara-
fievriv, Joseph. Antiq. xii. 4, 7 ; but here it denotes the period
fixed when the tutorship comes to an end. See Wetstein,
in loc. The general meaning of the apostle is quite plain ; but
some points in the analogy, though they are not essential to
the argument, are involved in difficulty. The apostle is not
to be supposed to treat the subject with forensic accuracy in
minutiae, but only to bring out the general conception, so that
his meaning could be easily apprehended. One question is,
" Is the father of the heir described supposed to be dead or
1 In Scottish law the tutor is vested with the management-both of the
person and the estate of his pupil, while a curator's sole concern is with
the estate ; and this has given rise to the maxim, Tutor datur person*,
curator ret. Lord Mackenzie, Roman Law, p. 143.

CHAP. IV. 2. 293
alive?" Commentators are divided. That the father is sup
posed to be dead is the opinion of Theodoret, Ruckert, De
Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Hilgenfeld, Windischmann, and
Hofmann. The other opinion, that' the father is supposed to
be alive, is held by Cameron, Neubour, Wolf, Winer, Schott,
Wieseler, Matthies, and Meyer. The question is of little im
portance in itself, and the settlement of it is not essential to
the illustration. It may be argued, on the one hand, that the
father is supposed to be dead, because the word iirlrpoirov so
often refers to a guardian of orphans, and the present parti
ciple eov describes a claim or right scarce compatible with the
idea of the father's being alive. There is little force in the
opposite argument, urged by Dr. Brown and others, that the
supposition of a dead father would not be in harmony with the
antitype, the living God of Israel ; for the supposed death of
the father would only symbolize some change of relation on
the part of His children to God. On the other hand, it is in
favour of the supposition that the father is alive, that the ter
mination of the minority is said to be fore-appointed by him,
whereas were he deceased the interval of minority would be
regulated by statute. It may, however, be replied, that the
father might fix the period which the law itself had ordained,
or that there might be exceptional cases of power granted to a
father,1 or that in Galatia the will of the father was more
prominent in such arrangements than in other provinces.2 To
decide either way dogmatically is impossible, though the second
view has some probability. The ingenuity of Grotius in saying
that the father is supposed to be absent, is parallel to that of
Jatho in saying that the child-heir is an adopted child. The
apostle simply states a common case — states it as it must have
1 Thus Justinian, ad certum tempus vel ex certo tempore vel sub condi
cione vel ante heredis institutionem posse dare tutorem non dubitatur: Institut.
i. 14, 3 ; — Gaius, et ideo si cui 'testamento tutor sub condicione aut ex die
certo datus sit, quamdiu conditio aut dies pendet tutor dari potest : Institut.
i. 186 ; — and Ulpian also, tutorem autem et a certo tempore dare, et usque
ad certum tempus licet : Digest, xxvi. 2, 8.
2 Gaius is sometimes quoted to prove this assertion, but he only affirms
that the patria potestas — a power supposed to be characteristically and
exclusively Roman — prevailed in Galatia : nee me prxterit Galatarum
gentem credere in potestatem parentum liberos esse. Institut. i. 55, p. 19, ed.
Booking, 1855. See also Csesar, De Bello Gall. vi. 19.

294 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
often occurred, and as it was best suited to illustrate his argu
ment, in which the sovereign will of the father has a prominent
place. He does not say — and it was not essential to his illus
tration to say — why the heir was thus placed under tutors and
stewards. He merely records the common custom, that the heir
for a definite period limited by the father's will, was usually so
placed, and the occurrence was no rare or abnormal arrange
ment. Nor, in speaking of the spiritual truth so pictured out
under a form of domestic administration, need we be curious or
careful to distinguish the respective spheres of the tutors and
trustees, as if the first referred to the Jews and the second to
the Gentiles (Baumgarten-Crusius), or to inquire who they
were, as if the iirlrpoirov were the law and the o'lKovbfiov the
Aaronic priesthood (Windischmann). It is needless to track
out points of analogy so minutely, for the apostle himself gives
his meaning in the following verse —
Ver. 3. Ovtco /cot rjpeiv, ore rjpev vrjirioi — " Even so we also,
when we were children"- — not individually or in our own pre
vious personal lives, but the reference is to the church in its
past immature state. Kal is used in the comparison — the heir
was for a time vrjiriov, and we too are vrjirioi — in pointed parallel.
Klotz-Devarius, vol. ii. 635 ; Winer, § 53, 5.
Who are meant by rjpeiv has been disputed. The previous
illustration as to spiritual relationship to Abraham and the
spheres of law and faith leads naturally to the conclusion that
the r)p,eiv are Jewish Christians, especially as the Son of God
is declared in the next verse to have been born under law —
that is, Jewish law — to redeem them who were under it. Such
is the view of Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Grotius,
Estius, Usteri, Schott, De Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, and
Wieseler. Others suppose that, while the special reference is
to Jewish Christians, Gentiles are not excluded— as Koppe,
Ruckert, Matthies, Olshausen, and- Ellicott. But it is difficult
to see on what principle the subordinate reference to the Gen
tiles at this point is proved. The language is not in its favour,
the spirit of the context does not imply it, and the direct ad
dress to Gentiles is postponed till ver. 8. The Jewish believers
were children while the law was over them, and the Son of
God was born under that law to redeem them who were under
it. A third party take rjpeh in a general sense— we Christians :

CHAP. IV. 3. 295
so Winer, Borger, Trana, Meyer, Bagge, Ewald, and Webster
and Wilkinson. The heir while a minor is under tutors and
stewards, and differs nothing from a servant ; and we too, as
long as we were in nonage, were in a similar condition —
T77-0 to aroi^eia tov Koafiov rjpev BeBovXeofievoi — " were
under the rudiments of the world kept in bondage." For the
" elements" of the Authorized Version, Tyndale and Cranmer
have "ordinaunces," and the Genevan " rudiments." The heir
was in all respects as a BovXov ; so we have been and are SeSou-
Xeofievoi — perfect participle. Winer, § 45, 1. He is under
tutors and guardians ; ovreov, so we were rjpev under virb to
aroi^eia rov Koafiov. The verb and participle may thus be
taken separately — iarlv — rjfiev ; BovXov — BeBovXeofievoi. The
term aroi^eia, elementa, is used in reference to physical ele
ments in 2 Pet. iii. 10-12, Wisdom vii. 17 ; especially the
heavenly bodies — ovpdvia aroi^eia (Justin, Apolog. ii. 5, p.
294, Op. vol. i. ed. Otto ; and the term by itself has probably
the same meaning, as it is said they " never rest or keep Sab
bath " in Dial. c. Tryph. p. 78, vol. ii. do.). They are defined
as " sun, moon, stars, earth, sea, and all in them" in Clement.
Hom. x. 9, p. 218, ed. Dressel. The common numeration,
reaaapa aroiyeia, occurs in Hernias, Vis. iii. 13, p. 29, Nov.
Test, extra Canonem receptum, ed. Hilgenfeld, 1866 ; Plato,
Timcsus, p. 48, B ; Theophilus, ad Autol. i. 4, p. 14, ed. Otto.
In this sense the word was regarded by many of the fathers
(Chrysostom, Theodore Mops., and Pelagius) as referring to
new moons, Sabbaths, and festivals ruled by the seasons, etc. ;
Augustine taking it to describe the Gentile worship of the
physical elements — a thought excluded by the rjp,eiv ; Hilgen
feld, Schneckenburger, and Caspari, regarding the phrase as
denoting the adoration of the stars as living powers— a form of
nature -worship with which the Mosaic cultus cannot certainly
be identified. But the term aroi%eia means also in the New
Testament rudiments or elementary teaching — primas legis
literas (Tertullian) — as in Heb. v. 12, where it is opposed to
reXeibrrjv ; in Col. ii. 8 it has much the same meaning as in
this place, for there it is opposed to " traditions of men," and
in ii. 20, where it is viewed as connected with " ordinances."
The noun also denotes letters, alphabetical symbols, what is
suited to the tuition of infancy. The genitive toO Kbapiov,

296 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
subjective in meaning, may not have a gross materialistic
sense (Hofmann), nor that of humanity (Wieseler), but a sense
similar to that of its adjective in the phrase dr/iov KoafiiKov —
"a worldly sanctuary," Heb. ix. 1. The words may thus mean
"elementary lessons of outward things" (Conybeare). The
Jewish economy was of the world as it was sensuous, made up
of types appealing to the senses, and giving only but the first
principles of a spiritual system. See under Col. ii. 8, 17.
Cremer, sub voce. Bondage and pupillarity appear to be com
bined in the illustration — the aroiyeia are fitted to the vrjirioi,
and necessary to them. The child-heir, when he was a child,
was taught only faint outlines of spiritual truth suited to his
-capacity, and taught them to some extent by worldly symbols —
the fire, the altar, and the shedding of blood, BiKaicopara aap-
kov, Heb. ix. 10 — a state of dependence and subjection com
pared with the freedom and the fulness of enlightenment and
privilege under the gospel, or after the fulness of the time.
While the "we" seems to refer so distinctly to Jewish be
lievers as under the law, it may be said, that as in the pre
vious paragraphs the Mosaic law in its want of power to justify
represents on this point all law, so this state of bondage under
the elements of the world represented also the condition of the
Gentile races as somewhat similar in servitude and discipline.
Ver. 4. "Otb Se rjXQev rb irXijpcofia toO yjpbvov — " But when
the fulness of the time was come ;" Be introducing the opposite
condition. For irXrjpcopa, see under Eph. i. 23. It is the time
regarded as having filled up the allotted space, or itself filled
up with the inflow of all the periods contained in the irpoQea-
fila of the father. The one clause is parallel to the other.
The BovXela of the heir lasts till the irpoQeapila of the father
arrives ; our spiritual bondage expires with the advent of the
fulness of the time— God's set time. The nonage of the church
was the duration of the Mosaic covenant. But not till the last
moment of its existence, when its time was filled like a reser
voir with the last drop, was it set aside, and the ripe or full
age of the church commenced— ireirXrjpcorai b Kaipbv, Mark
i. 15. The fulness of the time was also the fittest time in the
world's history. See under Eph. i. 10.
'EgaireareiXev b ©eov rbv vlov avrov—" God sent forth His
Son," that is, from Himself. Many passages of Scripture

CHAP. IV. 4. 297
assert this truth of the mission of Christ from the Father.
The verb is a double compound. He sent forth " His Son," so
named here with a reference to the subsequent viol : through
His Son they pass from servants into sons. Christ came not
without a commission : the Father sent Him ; and He under
took the mission, came in love, did His Father's will, " became
obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." He was with
the Father as His Son prior to His mission — His pre-existence
at least is clearly implied, but not impersonal, as Baur (Paulus,
p. 628), or only ideal, according to the representation of Philo
(Leg. Allegor. p. 139, Opera, vol. i. ed. Pfeiffer).
Tevbfievov e/c yvvaiKOV — " born of a woman." The reading
yewcbfievov, defended by Rinck, has only a very slender sup
port, and is found in no uncial MS. (Reiche). The preposition
e'/c indicates origin : Matt. i. 18 ; John iii. 6 ; Winer, § 47.
No specialty is expressed in e/c yvvaiKov, for the reference is
not to the virgin birth of our Lord. The meaning is not de
virgine sponsa (Schott). Nor are Theophylact and GScumenius
justified in regarding the phrase as formally directed against
Docetism — e/c tt)? ovalav avrrjv acofia XdBovra.
The clause, while it contains the profound mystery of the
miraculous conception, does not give it prominence. It says
nothing of the supernatural, save the fact of the divine mission
and the incarnation, for it had no immediate connection with
the apostle's argument. It is the phrase employed to describe
human birth in Hebrew: Job xiv. 1, Matt. xi. 11; as Augustine
says, Mulieris nomine non virgineum decus negatur, sed femineus
sexus ostenditur. But there is an implied exclusion of human
fatherhood, though not a formal expression of it as Calvin
maintains ; but he adopted the reading factum ex muliere of the
Vulgate, — factum being by many of the Latin fathers, as Ter
tullian (De Carne Christi xv.), regarded as in contrast with
natum, and ex with per. So Estius, Calovius, Perkins. But
the phrase " born of a woman " (e'/c, not Bid), though not in
tended for the purpose, furnished a fair argument against
Docetism, — the e/c implying rrjv Koivcovlav rrjv cpvaecov, as Basil
says, De Spiritu Sancto v. 12, p. 13, Opera, torn, iii., Gaume,
Paris. While the previous clause assumes His pre-existence,
this asserts His genuine humanity. But Hegel's philosophy
ventures a transcendental commentary : God sent His Son —

298 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
Das heisst nicht Anderes als, das Selbst-bewusstseyn hatte sich zu
denjenigen Momenten erhoben, welche zum Begriff des Geistes
gehoren, und zum Bedurfniss, diese Momente auf eine absolute
Weise zu fassen. See Mansel' 's Bampton Lectures, v. Schelling
philosophizes away the fulness of the time thus : Die Menschen-
werdung Gottes ist also eine Menschenwerdung von Ewigkeit ;
apparently identifying the incarnation with what divines call
the eternal generation.
Tevbfievov virb vbpov — "born under the law." 1 Mace. x.
38. The phrase is more common with the simple verb of
existence — ch. iii. 25, iv. 21, v. 18. In classic usage a dative
is often employed. Rost u. Palm, sub voce. It would be
forced to change the meaning of this second yevbfievov, and
render it with Scholefield, " made subject to the law ; " or
with Luther, unter das Gesetz gethan. So also Calvin, Winer,
Usteri, Wieseler. For to change the meaning would lose the
emphasis involved in the repetition. Christ was not only born
a man, but He was born a Jew — one of the seed of Abraham.
He was a member of the Hebrew commonwealth by birth, and
by the fact of that birth was under the law ; so that He was
circumcised, presented in the temple by Mary, and baptized by
John ; and He worshipped in the synagogue, kept the Sabbath,
regarded ceremonial distinctions, observed the great feasts, and
paid the tax of the half -shekel. The apostle does not mean that
after becoming man He did, by a distinct and additional volun
tary act, place Himself under the law, but that by His very
birth He became subject to the law whose claims upon Him
He willingly allowed.
According to promise and prophecy, salvation was to be of
the Jews. The woman's Seed was to be specially the Seed of
Abraham, through the line of Isaac and Jacob, of the tribe of
Judah, and the family of David. He was a " minister of the
circumcision," being sent only " to the lost sheep of the house
of Israel."- And the purpose is then described —
Ver. 5. "Ii>o toj)? ij7ro vbfiov i^ayopday — " In order that He
might redeem those under the law." See under iii. 13. Those
under the law are certainly the Jews ; and He was born of a
woman, born under the law, in order that He might redeem
them. As their representative in blood, and in position under
the law, He obeyed its precepts and He bore its penalty, so

CHAP. IV. 5. 299
that they were freed from its curse and from its yoke, and
became disciples of a more spiritual system, which taught truth
in its realities and not in obscure symbols, whose sacrifice was
not " the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of a heifer,"
but " the precious blood of Christ ;" which gave them the privi
lege of kneeling, not toward a mercy-seat of gold, but before
the " throne of grace," and whose High Priest had gone into a
holiest place beyond the skies. We enter not into the question
of the active and passive obedience so often discussed under
reference to this verse, but only say that obedience and suffer
ing were ever combined, so that in obeying He suffered, while
His suffering was His last and highest act of obedience : " He
became obedient unto death."
They were np longer under bondage to a law which Christ
had obeyed alike in its requirements and penalty. To the
bondage of the law, as we may learn from the second verse, the
apostle has special allusion. God's own children living under
that law differed little from slaves. Spiritual freedom was denied
them. Minute prescriptions were given for diet, dress, travel,
labour, for home and for field, for farm and orchard, for pri
vate piety and public worship, for ceremonial purity and ethical
relations, for birth and marriage, for each day and for the
Sabbath-day, for trade and for war, for child and for parent, for
tax and for tithe. The entire and multifarious code lay a heavy
burden upon them, — nothing was left as a matter of choice to
them, — almost in nothing were they masters of themselves ; so
that the national life must have been to a great extent mecha
nical — a routine of obedience into which they were so solemnly
drilled — the service of BovXoi. Law cannot save ; it has no
means of deliverance within itself. Nor could they throw the
burden off. They durst not dismiss the tutors and guardians,
nor proclaim of their own power that their minority had ceased
and that they henceforth assumed the position of men. They
had to wait the fore-fixed time of the father. But now from
the burden of the law they are delivered, as they had been
redeemed from its curse, though certainly the curse was also
an element of the burden. See under iii. 10-14.
"Iva rrjv vloQealav diroXdBcofiev — "in order that we might
receive the adoption of sons." Rom. viii. 15, 23; Eph. i. 5.
The apostle again uses the first person plural, and the use of it

300 EPISTLE TQ THE GALATIANS.
may resemble iii. 14. The redemption of those who were under
the law was necessary to the adoption both of Jews and Gen
tiles. So that the second 'Iva is scarcely co-ordinate with the
first, but introduces a higher ulterior purpose common in its
realization both to Jew and Gentile. Compare iii. 15, Eph.
v. 25. Both clauses are connected with the one finite verb,
but the lines of connection are not parallel, the first clause —
" that He might redeem those under the law" — specially linked
with the one nearest to it — "born under the law," and the
second with the more remote one — " born of a woman." Jelf,
§ 904, 3. The blessing is vloQeala, not simply vlbrrjv — not
sonship natural, but sonship conferred. Riickert, Usteri, Schott,
and Brown deny this, and refer it to the change by which the
heir who had been under tutelage passes to his majority, and
is recognised as a son. That is straining the analogy. Hesy-
chius rightly defines the term — brav rlv Qerbv vlov XafifSdvy.
Diodor. Sic. iv. 39 ; Herod, vi. 57. They had been in bondage ;
but they were freed from it now, and adopted into the house
hold. By no other process could they enter into the family —
they were not of it, but were brought into it. And they are
freed from legal burden before they are adopted ; nay, their
emancipation from servitude is virtually their adoption. Both
are gifts — Christ died to redeem them, and they receive the
other from God. The idea of receiving " back" or recovering
is not in the verb, though Augustine argues, non dixit, accipi-
amus sed recipiamus, and Jowett paraphrases, "receive back
our intended blessing." The 077-0- may sometimes signify
"again," Luke xv. 27; Liddell and Scott. Adam had a
vlbrrjv before his fall— he was vlbv ©eov ; and in this sense our
adoption is reinstating us in the family. But the new sonship
is so different, that it can scarce be termed a recovery, since it
is far more— it is a higher relation than man originally pos
sessed. For it is the image of the second Adam to which we
are to be conformed, and the inheritance is in heaven, and no
mere paradise restored on earth. Nor, as Meyer remarks, was
the vloQeala which belonged to the Jews really lost. Ex. iv.
22 ; Hos. xi. 9. The nation was still in theocratic covenant
with God. Chrysostom gives the verb another meaning— to
receive as one's due, for the promise was made of old (Theo
phylact, Bengel). Such a sense may sometimes be inferred

CHAP. IV. 6. 301
from the context, as in Luke vi. 34 ; in the other passages
—Luke xxiii. 41 ; Rom. i. 27 ; Col. iii. 24— a distinct term is
found which formally conveys this sense. But the idea is here
foreign to the train of thought. Nor can the notion of Schott
and Ruckert -be sustained, that diro- means inde, or as the fruit
of the redemption ; the notion is implied in the context, but
not directly expressed by the verb. The verb is used simply
as elsewhere — Luke xvi. 25 ; Col. iii. 24 — " to receive into pos
session from," pointing ideally to the source. Through faith,
the apostle had said, believers are Abraham's seed, and children
according to promise ; and how faith confers adoption upon us
is told us in these verses. Christ's incarnation and death inter
vening — the curse and yoke of the law being taken away — by
faith in Him he who was a servant is gifted with the position
and privileges of a son. See under iii. 26. That sonship is
now enjoyed, but its fulness of blessing and fellowship waits
the coming of the Lord Jesus. For it is added —
Ver. 6. "On Be iare viol. It is difficult to say whether
on be demonstrative or causal — whether it mean " that" — as a
proof that, or " because " — quoniam in the Vulgate and Claro
montane Latin. The question then is, Is the sending forth
of the Spirit of His Son regarded by the apostle as the proof
or as the result of sonship ? The conjunction will bear either
meaning ; the causal meaning is the simpler syntax, but the
demonstrative meaning is more in unison with the argument.
To render " because ye are sons " seems to interfere with the
formal conclusion of the following verse — eoare — " wherefore
thou art no more a servant, but a son." He would be taking
for granted their sonship before he had proved it as his con
clusion — there would be an assumed result, and then a formal
conclusion. But with the other rendering, "that," or "in
proof that ye are sons," the apostle is only adding another
argument — forging a last link in the demonstration. Christ}
was born a man, and born under the law, to redeem such as ;
were under the law, that we from being servants might be I
adopted as sons ; and that this is your position is proved by j
your possession of His Spirit.
Critics are divided. The causal meaning is held by Luther,
Bengel, Olshausen, De Wette, Hilgenfeld, Alford, Windisch-
mann, Lightfoot, Trana, Bisping, and Meyer in his third edi-

302 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
tion, having maintained the other view in his first and second
editions. The demonstrative meaning is held by the Greek
fathers, who found no difficulty in the construction, by Ambro-
siaster, Koppe, Flatt, Borger, Ruckert, Schott, Jatho, Brown,
Ellicott, and Wieseler who renders somewhat differently by quod
attinet ad id, quod — et? e'/cetw, — on.
In adopting the demonstrative meaning we admit a brevilo-
quence, which, however, can be well defended. Winer, § 66, 1 ;
Demosthenes, contra Pantcen. p. 110, vol. ii. Opera, ed. Schaefer.
In confirmation of the same view the iare speaks, for it has
the emphasis and not viol, and the verb is that of actual pre
sent state. In such a case, too, one would expect vfieov, which,
however, is a correction, probably for this reason, of the better
supported rjficov.
" And that ye are sons." The Be introduces the statement,
not, however, as opposed to what precedes, but as something
yet different — a step in advance. The words rov ©eov found
in D, F, and in the Latin fathers (Augustine, however, ex
cepted), are an unwarranted exegetical supplement.
'E^aireareiXev o ©ebv rb irvevfia rov vlov avrov et? to?
KapBlav rjpeov — " God sent forth the Spirit of His Son into
our hearts." The authorities for the vfieov of the Received
Text are D3, E, K, L, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Augustine,
the Vulgate, Coptic, and Syriac ; while rjpeov has in its favour
A, B, C, D1, F, a, with many of the fathers, such as Basil,
Tertullian, Jerome, and Hilary. The reading v/icov might
have been a conformation to the previous iare. But the change
of person is as in Rom. vii. 4. The appeal is to them directly
in the previous iare ; but the apostle at once and now includes
himself with them, when he adds a clause descriptive of spiri
tual experience. The rb irvevpa rov vlov avrov is the Holy
Spirit, in no sense "spirit" meaning disposition or temper — sensus
christianus—ov a filial nature (Gwynne) ; b ©ebv i^aireareiXev
rbv vlov avrov, and similarly e%aireareiXev b ©ebv rb irvevfia
rov vlov avrov. The mission is first of the Son and then of
the Spirit on the part of the Father, implying by the parallel
language the personality of the Spirit. And He is the Spirit
of His Son, who dwelt in Him, as He has secured His gracious
influences, and as it is His " things" which the Spirit shows,
one of His special functions being to deepen in all the sons their

CHAP. IV. 6. 303
resemblance to the elder brother— the Son of God. Rom. viii. 9.
In the fulness of the time God sent forth His Son, and no doubt ^
in the fulness of the time, too, God sent His Spirit into their j
hearts — the time fore-appointed for their ingathering and con- \
version — in that crisis of their history which Himself had set \
apart, iii. 2. The aorist does not represent the fulness of the I
Spirit's outflow upon them, but the fact that the Spirit was i
sent into their hearts when they believed and were adopted, j
The Spirit of His Son is a token of its adoption to every child, >
for it is the bond of union with Him who is " the first-born j
among many brethren." That Spirit is sent into the " heart," j
the central seat or organ of the inner life and power, which the \
Spirit of God's Son inhabits, and out of which He cries through I
us, Abba, Father. The iare viol seems to have suggested the
correlative appellation toO vlov avrov. There is thus triune
operation — Father, Son, and Spirit — in providing, securing,
and enjoying this adoption. And that Spirit in their hearts is
represented as —
Kpdtyv, 'ABBd b irarrjp — " crying, Abba, Father." Mark
xiv. 36. In Rom. viii. 15 the aspect of thought is, iv ep Kpd'Cp-
fiev 'ABBd, b irarrjp ; and in ver. 26 of the same chapter it is
said of the Spirit, vrrepevrvyydvei virep r)p,ebv. The Spirit in our
hearts cries — no Hebraism meaning " making to cry." But
the Divine Agent Himself, as the Spirit of adoption, is repre
sented as crying. For the impulse is His, the realized son-
ship is of Him, the deepened sense of want is of His creation,
in the heart whence rises the tender and earnest address, Abba,
Father. The nominative is used as the vocative. Matt. xi. 26;
Bernhardy, p. 67 ; Kriiger, § 45, 2, 6, 7. But why the double
appellation, first in Aramaic and then in Greek, as in Mark
xiv. 36, Rom. viii. 15 ? The childlike lisp in the word Abba,
and its easy labial pronunciation, may account for its origin,
but not for its use here (Olshausen) ; nor can Dr. Gill be
listened to in his dream that " the word being the same pro
nounced backwards or forwards, shows that God is the Father
of His people in adversity as well as in prosperity." It is a
superficial explanation of the formula to allege, with Beza,
Schott, Usteri, and Conybeare, that b irarrjp is merely, like
the Abaddon-Apollyon of Rev. ix. 11, explanatory of the
Aramaic Abba. For why should such a translation be made

304 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
by Jesus in the garden, where no human ear heard Him, and
by Paul when writing to the Romans of the Spirit of adoption?
Nor is it more likely that the double appellation is meant to
convey what the elder interpreters find in it — to wit, that it
was uttered to point out the spiritual brotherhood of all men
in all languages. This opinion, so naturally suggested, cannot
certainly apply to the individual address of the Saviour in
Mark xiv. 36. But one may say, in the first place, that en
deared repetition characterizes a true child, as it clings to the
idea of fatherhood, and loves to dwell upon it. In the second
place, the use of the Aramaic term must have arisen in the
Jewish portion of the church, with whom it seems to have been
a common form of tender address. And then, as believing
Jews used another tongue in foreign countries, they appear to
have felt the b irarrjp to be cold and distant, so that, as to the
Lord in His agony, the vernacular term impressed on the ear
and heart of childhood instinctively recurred. 'O irarrjp is
what the apostle wishes to say; but in a mood of extreme
tenderness, speaking of God's children and of their yearning
filial prayerfulness and confidence in approaching and naming
Him, he prefixes the old familiar term 'ABBd. It was no
absolute term at first, like some other names, but ever a rela
tive one. So Jesus, realizing His Sonship with unspeakable
intenseness, in that awful prayer names His Father 'ABBd b
irarrjp. The double appellation could only arise among a
bilingual people, where certain native words were hallowed,
and in moments of strong emotion were used along with their
foreign equivalent. And soon the phrase became a species of
proper name, so that in heathen countries 'ABBd b irarrjp
passed into an authorized formula. As this formula com
mences prayer, so we have a similar concluding one, but in
reverse order, val 'Afirjv, Rev. i. 7. Similar expressions are
found ii} the rabbinical books. Schoettgen, vol. i. p. 252.
Selden's explanation is, that the use of the name implies the
change of a slave to a freeman ; but the apostle is proving
-a different point— that of sonship or adoption. Works, vol.
ii. p. 14. Lightfoot affirms that the form 'ON signifies a master
as well as a father, but the form N3X denotes only a natural
father (Hebrew and Talmudic Exercitations on Mark, Works,
vol. xi. p. 438). In Chaldee with a single 3 it is said to mean

CHAP. IV. 7. 305
a natural father, with a double 3 a father in a spiritual sense.
The Syriac renders simply " Father, our Father."
The apostle now comes to the conclusion or application to
which he has been working in the three preceding verses, con
nected as they are so closely with the illustration which begins
the chapter.
Ver. 7. "flare ovKen el BovXov, dXXd vlbv — " Wherefore
thou art no longer a slave, but a son." The first term intro
duces the statement as a result from what precedes, and it is
followed here by the indicative, as often at the commencement
of a sentence. Winer, § 41, 5 ; Klotz-Devarius, ii. p. 771.
See under ii. 13. The comparative term ovKen refers back to
the BovXela in ver. 3. The address is narrowed down in this
pointed appeal from the first person plural in ver. 5, through the
second person plural in ver. 6, to the second person singular.
Compare Rom. xi. 17, xii. 20, 1 Cor. iv. 7, x. 29, for a similar
form of individualizing appeal.
Et Se uio?, Kal KXrjpovbpiov — " but if a son, also an heir."
The two positions are identical — the one is bound up in the
other. The slave is no heir, but he who is a son is also an heir
by the fact of his being a son. Rom. viii. 17, et Be re/cva, Kal
KXrjpovbpioi. If thou art a son, in addition to such sonship
thou art an heir — an heir of the promise made by God to
Abraham and his seed. See under Eph. i. 11. That thou
art a son is proved from thy possession of the Spirit ; no longer
a slave — thou canst say, Abba ; and if a son, then also an heir.
The Received Text reads, KXrjpovbpiov ©eov Bid Xpiarov —
" an heir of God through Christ" — a reading quite in harmony
with the context. This reading is found in C3, D, K, L, m3,
the Claromontane which reads et hceres Dei per Christum, and
the Gothic version. Chrysostom and Theodoret follow the
same reading, and there are other smaller variations. The
simpler and shorter reading — Bid ©eov— is supported by A, B,
C1 K1, the Vulgate which has hcsres per Deum, Ambrosiaster,
Augustine, Pelagius, with Clement, Basil, Athanasius, Cyril,
Didymus among the Greek fathers. F reads Bid ©ebv, and
some MSS. have Bid 'Irjaov Xpiarov. Some versions seem made
from a text which read simply ©eov, while others must have
read ©eov Bid rov irvevfiarov. This variety of reading shows
that emendation has been at work, and that the similar phrase
V

306 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
in Rom. viii. 17 — KXi)povbfioi fiev ©eov avyKXijpovbfioi Be Xpia
rov— has suggested the different readings. Some indeed — as
Ruckert and De Wette, and as Griesbach thinks probable —
suppose that all the words after KXrjpovbpiov are spurious addi
tions, as in iii. 29. But the MSS. all declare, with one exception
(C at first hand), for some addition. Rinck and Usteri main
tain the reading Bid Xpiarov, as if ©eov from Rom. viii. 17
were first written above Xpiarov and then exchanged for it.
Lachmann and Tischendorf adopt the shorter reading. It is
needless to object with Matthsei that the orthodox wrote Bid
©eov for Bid Xpiarov, for the reading Bid ©eov is as old as
Clement of Alexandria; nor could the hostility to Arianism
suggest such a change. Reiche, Fritzsche, and Hahn defend
the Received Text. Fritzsche supposes that the copyists first
confounded ©eov with Xpiarov per oculorum errorem, then
omitted Bid Xpiarov, and then wrote Bid ©eov — a critical
hypothesis not very credible. If we accept Bid ©eov, the curter
reading, all the others can be, by a series of natural emenda
tions, easily accounted for, and by the desire to express the
mediation of Christ. But Bid ©eov is in harmony with the
whole passage. The agency of God in the process of adoption'
has special prominence. The time " appointed of the father "
is the express terminus of the BovXela in the figure. Then it
is i^aireareiXev rbv vlov avrov, then iifaireareiXev b ©ebv rb
irvevpia— that Spirit which cries o irarrjp ; and the clear and
undeniable conclusion is, we are brought into the position of
sons Bid ©eov — through God's agency. Thus there is no
occasion to adopt the view of Windischmann which takes ©eov
in its widest sense of God — Father, Son, and Spirit, — the
Father sending the Son and the Spirit, the Son redeeming us,
and the Spirit completing our sonship. The noun is anar
throus, as it often is after prepositions. Winer, § xix. It
would seem, too, that God the Father is directly .referred to ;
for He adopts, sends His Son to provide for it, and His Spirit
as the proof of it, so that we become sons, also heirs, " through
Him.'' No genitive follows KXvpovbfiov in this clause, but it
has ©eov in Rom. viii. 17 ; tt}? fiaaiXelav, Jas. ii. 5. The in
heritance is also referred to in iii. 18, 29.
The declaration, " if a son, then an heir," is based on a
general law or instinct—" The parents lay up for the children."

CHAP. IV. 8. 307
Perhaps this common practice is enough for the apostle's argu
ment. But if the statement is regarded as a special declaration
based on legal enactment, the reference cannot be to the Hebrew
law which gave the first-born a double portion and excluded
daughters ; for there is in Christ neither male nor female, and
each one is an heir. The allusion is rather to Roman law,
under which all the children inherited equally. Thus Gaius :
sui autem et necessarii heredes sunt velut filius filiave. — Sui autem
heredes existimantur liberi qui in potestate morientis fuerint, veluti
filius, filiave, nepos neptisve ex filio . . . nee interest utrum natu-
rales sint an adoptivi, suorum heredum numero sunt. — Institut.
ii. 156, iii. 2, ed. Bocking. /Sit?! et necessarii heredes were quite
in this position — if children, then heirs. The Athenian law,
which, however, made no distinction between real and personal
estate, was not so precise : it gave sons an equal right, the son
being merely bound to give his sisters a marriage-portion.1
The apostle now turns to the Gentile portion of the church,
and impresses on them the folly of placing themselves under
bondage to the Mosaic law.
Ver. 8. 'AXXd totc fiev, ovk et'SoVe? ©ebv — " Howbeit at
that time indeed, not knowing God." The dXXo introduces
the statement of their condition, and throws it into striking
contrast with the conclusion arrived at in the preceding verse.
Sons you are now, but the time was when it was different with
yon. In the adverb ToVe the allusion is not formally to ver. 3
(Winer), but generally to their previous state — to the en in
ovKen. It does not signify vaguely irdXai, as Koppe and Flatt
take it, and the stress is on the pAv— " indeed," " truly." The
ovk elBbrev, as Meyer remarks, forms one conceptus — ignorantes.
Winer, § 55, 5 ; Gayler, p. 287. This ignorance of God was
a characterizing fact — no mere opinion of the writer. 1 Thess.
iv. 5 ; 2 Thess. i. 8. See under Eph. ii. 12— dQeoi.
'EBovXevaare toiv cpvaei fir) ovai Qeoh — " ye were in bond
age to them which by nature are not gods," or, " to gods which
1 This division among sons was the same as the custom of gavel-kind
in Kent, which, according to Selden, was all but universal in England
before the time of the Norman conqueror, and the same as the present law
of France, where there is also no preference of males over females, and no
distinction of real and personal estate. See also a dissertation by Fritzsche
in Fritzschiorum Opuscula, p. 143.

308 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
by nature are not." The former negative is historic — ov ; but
this is subjective — firj. The order of the words in the Received
Text is toi? fir) cpvaei oxiai Qeoiv, which is found in D3, F, G,
K, L, some minuscules, and in Chrysostom, Theodoret, and the
Philoxenian Syriac. The other arrangement is found in A, B,
C, D1' 3, E, N, and in the Vulgate, Gothic, Coptic, etc. The
last order, which is also best substantiated, is the more em
phatic — it denies them in the apostle's estimation to be gods
in any sense ; whereas the other order would say less strongly
that they were gods — not so indeed by nature, but converted
against their nature into gods by human superstition. By
the use of firj the apostle gives in his own judgment a denial
of the divinity of those objects of worship (Winer, § 55, 5),
1 Cor. viii. 4, 5, 6, called by him Baipbvia in 1 Cor. x. 20.
The dative cpvaei is that of characterization (Madvig, § 40),
and means " by nature," or essentially, in opposition to what is
accidental or derived from circumstance. See under Eph. ii. 3.
The aorist iBovXevaare refers simply to the past period of their
ignorance. During this period, and confined to that period
over and gone, they were servants (Kiihner, § 401) — in slavery
to gods which in no sense were gods, and had no real right to
be so named. Idolatry characterized them. " Gods and lords
many " were worshipped and served among them in their state
of ignorance, or because of it, as the participle may have a
quasi-causal sense. The Galatians probably inherited the
" abominable idolatries " of their Gallic ancestors. " Natio est
omnis Gallorum admodum dedita religionibus." — Csesar, de Bello
Gall. vi. 16. Diodorus speaks of the Galatian BeiaiBai/iovla,
which led them to lavish gold on their gods and temples, though
they were fond of money to excess, v. 27. The native Phrygian
idolatry may have been partially adopted on the Gallic occupa
tion of the province — the worship of Cybele ; and there may
have been combined with it some elements of Hellenic super
stition. Wernsdorff, De Republica Galat. § 32; Pausanias,
Deserips. Grose, vii. 17, 10, vol. ii. p. 584, ed. Schubart et
Walz. The apostle does not enter into particulars, as there
may have been variations among the three leading tribes, — the
general fact suffices for his purpose. These words cannot be
addressed to Jewish believers, as Theodoret seems to imagine.
The scholiast quoted in Usteri says that the keeping of times

CHAP. IV. 9. 309
marked by sun and moon is to be in slavery to those 'heavenly
bodies — a species of idolatry.
Ver. 9. Nvv Be yvbvrev ©ebv, pdXXov Be yvcoaQevrev virb
©eov — " But now having known God, or rather being known
by God." The vvv Be stands in contrast to the totb fiev.
There seems no true ground for making any distinction here
between etSoYe? and yvbvrev, as is done by Olshausen, as if the
former meant rather external knowledge — mehr bios ausserliche
Wissen, and the second inner knowledge. There is more truth
in Professor Lightfoot's distinction, that the first refers to
absolute and the second to relative knowledge — the difference
between " to know " and " to come to the knowledge of."
1 John ii. 29. At least the following verses do not warrant
Olshausen's distinction, for John vii. 27 — especially John viii.
55 — would seem to reverse it, where Jesus says of His Father :
Kai ovk iyvcoKare avrbv iyco Be oiBa avrov. In 2 Cor. v. 16, the
words et Be Kal iyvcoKapiev Kara adpKa Xpiarov do not certainly
imply an inner or active knowledge. The Galatians had come
to the knowledge of God — of God in Christ, the one living
and true God — the only object of genuine worship and trust.
And this knowledge had been carried to them by the gospel,
and by the preaching of Christ. " No man knoweth the Father
but the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son shall reveal Him."
The apostle, however, at once corrects himself, and adds —
MdXXov Be yvcoaQevrev virb ©eov — " but rather were known
of God." Compare for a similar change of voice, Phil. iii. 12.
In fidXXov Be lies the notion of a climactic correction of the
previous clause. Raphelius, in loc; hie est corrigentis ut scspis-
sime alibi, Stallbaum, Plato, Sym. 173, E ; Bornemann, Xen.
Cyrop. p. 354. Rom. viii. 34 ; Eph. v. 11. The phrase has
been variously understood.
1. The most improbable interpretation is that of Beza,
a Lapide, Koppe, and others, who give the participle the sense
of the Hophal conjugation in Hebrew — scire facti, "being
made to know." It is forced and unnecessary. Winer, § 39,
3, n. 2.
2. Some, as Grotius, give the simple sense of approbati,
which the usage does not warrant.
3. Others, as Borger, Winer, Ruckert, Usteri, Schott, and
virtually Trana and Ewald, attach the meaning anerkannt seid

310 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
— acknowledged by. But this direct meaning does not seem
proved by any distinct instance in the New Testament. Matt.
xxv. 12 ; Phil. iii. 12 ; 2 Tim. ii. 19. The sense, then, seems
to be that of the Greek fathers, that they had not so much
known God, as they had been taken into knowledge by God.
1 Cor. viii. 2, xiii. 12— irpoaXnepQevrev virb ©eov (Theophylact).
It was not that by any- intuition or argument they had arrived
at the knowledge of God ; but the apostle glorifies the divine
agency in their enlightenment, and refers to their condition,
rather than their actual knowledge. God knew them ere they
knew Him, and His knowing them was the cause of their
knowing Him. See many examples from the Old Testament
in Webster and Wilkinson. Nostrum cognoscere est cognosci a
Deo (Luther). Matthies understands the clause as referring
" to the Spirit of God knowing Himself again in them ;" but
Kimmel justly calls this exegesis ein Hegel' scher dem Paulus
fremder Sinn. Jowett's statement is not unlike that of Matthies.
Compare for another form of putting the same truth, 1 John
iv. 10, Isa. lxv. 1. Recognition, conversion, and other bless
ings are implied, though not expressed in the clause. That He
did not know them before the gospel came among them argues
no defect in His omniscience. The language is warranted by
usage. But brought into His knowledge, they saw light in
His light. The gospel, he who preached it, and the Spirit who
accompanied it, were alike of Him, and given to them. Their
privilege thus began with His gracious knowledge of them, not
their apprehension of Him. The apostle feels that this is the
truer way of stating the case — giving the grace of God the
glory, and putting their apostasy in a yet more awful light, it
being an ungrateful rebellion against God's kindness, as well
as a relapse into what was unsatisfying and obsolete.
And the startling question then comes —
Heov iiriarpecpere iraXiv iirl rd daQevrj Kal irrco^d aroiyeta ;
— "how is it that ye are returning again to the weak and
beggarly elements?" In the question begun by tt-oj? that sur
prising inconsistency is rebuked. Their going back is some
thing amazing— "Who bewitched you?" After your high
privilege conferred on you, your emancipation from the servi
tude of idols, your pure theology, yea, and your being taken
into the knowledge of God, how comes it that you, so pre-

CHAP. IV. 9. 311
ciously blessed, are turning, and that without any tempting
bribe, or any plausible benefit — turning "to the weak and
beggarly elements ? " The adverb iraXiv does not mean
"back" — retro — as in Homer, but as usually in the New
Testament, " again " — iterum. Damm. Lex. Homer, sub voce.
Ellicott says that the notion of back is involved in the verb ;
but iiri does not necessarily imply it, for birlaco and et? rd
birlaco are often connected with it. Comp. also Acts xiv. 15,
xv. 19, 1 Thess. i. 9. The present tense shows the act to be
going on — the apostasy to be proceeding. See under i. 6.
For aroi^eia, see under ver. 3.
These elements are stigmatized as daQevrj — " weak," wholly
inadequate to secure justification or provide spiritual deliver
ance (Rom. viii. 3) ; and irrco%d — "beggarly," — an epithet often
used in its literal sense as applied to persons, and here signify
ing that they were endowed with no clusters of spiritual bless
ing, and were not fraught with " the unsearchable riches of
Christ." Heb. vii. 18.
Oh iraXiv dvcoQev BovXeveiv QeXere— "to which ye are
desiring again afresh to be in bondage." Wisd. xix. 6. The
English version, the Syriac, and Vulgate omit the translation
of one of the two adverbs, probably regarding them as synony
mous — an opinion adopted by Borger. The emphasis lies on
irdXiv dvcoQev — once in bondage, and again anew placing them
selves under it, as if the first slavery had been forgotten. "Ye
desire" to be in it again, and are anew beginning to place
yourselves beneath it. Strange to say, of their own accord
they were wishing to be in this servitude " afresh." As their
condition struck him — their divine deliverance, their spiritual
freedom, and their willing relapse into servitude — he natu
rally asks 77-w?, is it possible ? One difficulty lies in iraXiv, if
the aroiyeia as in ver. 3 be restricted to the Mosaic ritual.
Were the Gentiles under aroi^eia previously as well as the
Jews? There is no sure historical ground for alleging that
the persons so addressed had been proselytes (Olshausen,
Credner), though in all probability many of the class existed
in the churches of Galatia and in all the early churches, as
if the meaning were— ye are going again into bondage to the
Mosaic ritual, since in some sense they had been in it, and afresh
they were recurring to its oroi^eta. This notion cannot be

312 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
sustained, and therefore it is probable that the heathen cultus
receives by implication the same name from the apostle as do
the Jewish ordinances. While there was not identity, there
was such similarity between them that they may be both com
prehended under the same epithet, though such a comparison
as that of Grotius between castratio and circumcisio is simply
absurd. The system into which they were relapsing was of
a like character to that under which they had been originally
enslaved. For it was ritualistic in a high degree, with its
orgies and mutilations. Such a ceremonial institute, hedging
in a man with its rigid minutics, and binding him to the
punctilious observance of them, was an intolerable yoke like
Judaism. Besides, even in paganism, with all its follies and
falsehoods, there were rudiments of truth. The worship of
many gods proved the felt need of some god, the altar with
its victims implied convictions of sin, and the lustrations be
tokened the conscious want of purity. Thus under such
systems, and not wholly overlaid by them, were some "ele
ments " of religious verities, in harmony with irrepressible
spiritual instincts and yearnings, educated by such discipline
into an intensity which must in many instances have prepared
for the reception of that gospel which meets all wants and
satisfies all awakened longings — verifying what Tertullian calls
testimonium animcs naturaliter christiance. Augustine also gives
another aspect of the same opinion. He had said in his. treatise
De Vera Religione, written by him when a young man (a.d.
390), that Christianity belonged to later times — nostris tempo-
ribus ; but in his Retractationes, composed towards the close of
his life, he explains the assertion, and distinguishes between the
res and the nomen, the latter having originated at Antioch; but
of the former he uses the following words : nam res ipsa, quo?
nunc Christiana religio nuncupatur, erat apud antiquos, nee defuit
ab initio generis humani, quousque ipse Christus veniret in came,
unde vera religio qua? jam erat, ccepit appellari Christiana. Com
pare Acts x. 34, 35. The Retractationes and the De Vera
Religione are in the first volume of Augustine's Opera, pp.
20, 1202, Ganme, Paris. Other fathers had similar views.
Clement and Origen speak of the dark night of paganism as
having had its stars which called to the morning star which
stood over Bethlehem; Justin Martyr describes a ray of divine

CHAP. IV. 10. 313
light shining in the soul, and turning toward the divine light
as a plant to the sun. " Obey your philosophers," says Theo
doret to the heathen, " for they fore-announced our doctrines."
Grcscarum affectionum Curatio, p. 483, vol. iv. Opera, ed. Sir-
mondi, Lutetise 1642. Clement also asserts of the Greek
philosophy that it led to Christ — iiraiBayebyei . . . et? Xpiarov.
Strom, i. 5, 28. The apostle himself on Mars' hill, penetrating
to the instinctive feeling which underlies idolatry, and recog
nising that inner necessity under which man must worship,
uttered a kindred statement when he virtually identified the
God who had the altar wanting a name with the object of his
preaching : " What therefore, not knowing it, ye worship, that
proclaim I unto you." Not that the "unknown God" was
really Jehovah, but the inscription implied that He was not
found in their lists, and was beyond the circuit of their recog
nition ; and taking up this idea of a divinity above and beyond
their pantheon, he expanded and applied it. Acts xvii. 23.
See also Pressense"s Religions before Christ: Clark, Edinburgh;
Max Miiller's Chips from a German Workshop, Preface, and
Essays in first volume, London 1867. It may be said, too, the
apostle argues that the abrogation of the Mosaic law in the
death of Christ was essential to the adoption of the Gentiles —
to their becoming the seed of Abraham, or free children ; so that
the Mosaic institute — this thing of weak and beggarly elements
— prior. to Christ's death really held Gentiles in bondage, and
why should they now relapse into servitude under it ? They
differed nothing from servants, as truly as the Jews while the
Jewish law* was in force ; how was it, then, that they were de
siring to go back to that law, and be in subjection to it over
again ?
The apostle now adduces a specimen of the bondage into
which they were so willing to fall — the ritualistic observance
of certain portions of the Jewish sacred kalendar —
Ver. 10. 'Hfiepav iraparnpeiaQe, /cot fiijvav, Kal Kaipovv,
Kal iviavrovv — " Ye are observing days, and months, and
seasons, and years." The force of the middle voice cannot be
expressed in English, but it deepens the sense = religious
assiduity. Many give this verse an interrogative form, as
Koppe, De Wette, Hilgenfeld, Meyer, Bisping, and Trana ; as
also the editors Griesbach, Knapp, Tischendorf, and Lachmann.

314 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
But the form of solemn statement is in better harmony with
the context. The question had been put already, ircov — how
comes it ? It may appear incredible, but alas it is true — " Ye
are observing days,'5 etc. And the statement lays foundation
for the mournful declaration of the following verse — epoBovp.ai
ifidv. The compound verb iraparnpeiv in its original sense is
" to watch carefully," as being 77-apa, near to, Acts ix. 24 ; next
" to watch closely," Ps. cxxix. 3, and with evil purpose, Mark
iii. 2, Luke vi. 7 ; and then, as here, " to observe carefully," to
keep in a religious spirit, — not however superstitiously, as Sar
dinoux, Winer, and Olshausen assert, for the verb is applied to
the keeping of the seventh day or Sabbath by Josephus, Antiq.
iii. 3, 5. The observance may appear superstitious to the on
looker, but the idea is not contained in the verb, nor that of
prater fidem (Bengel, Wessel, Wordsworth). " Days ye are
observing," the moment being on rj/iepav, as their observance
would of course be more characteristic in its frequency. The
" days" were the Jewish Sabbath, with other times of religious
observance appointed by the law. The " months " were pro
bably the new moons — days indeed, but observed with periodical
exactness : Isa. Ixvi. 23. The seventh month had a sacredness
attached to it like the seventh day. The /catpot were the seasons
of festival, as the passover, pentecost, and feast of tabernacles :
Lev. xxiii. 4; 2 Chron. viii. 13. The iviavrol, years, may be the
seventh or sabbatic year and the year of jubilee. Compare
Judith viii. 6 ; Philo, De Septen. p. 286. The two last terms
do not stand for Kaipoiiv iviavrov (Borger, Wahl).
The order of the terms is progressive — days, months, seasons,
years. The last, supposing it to refer to the sabbatic year,
they could not have observed more than once ; and to infer
from the present tense of the verb that they were then in
the act of observing such a year, is in the highest degree pre
carious. Wieseler so calculates it, that from autumn 54 to
autumn 55 there was a sabbatic year, within which period the
epistle was written during the apostle's sojourn at Ephesus.
Chronologic des Apostolischen Zeitalters, p. 287. But the
epistle may have been written from Macedonia two or three
years later. Michaelis, from the allusion to a sabbatic year in
1 Mace. vi. 53, which he places 162 years B.C., finds that the
49th year after Christ was the thirtieth sabbatic year from that

CHAP. IV. 10. 315
period, and therefore he dates this epistle in 49. But he admits
his ignorance as to the Jewish mode of calculation, whether
they uniformly adhered to the seventh year on its recurrence,
or began a new reckoning from the year of jubilee; as in
the former case the 56th year would be the sacred year, and
in the other it would be the 57th. " Introduction" by Marsh,
vol. iv. p. 11. The sabbatic year and that of jubilee applied
only to Canaan, its soil and the people on it ; and it is not
easy to see how it could be kept in other countries where Jews
might own no land, nor engage in its cultivation. The re-
constitution of society every fiftieth or jubilee year belongs
also to the promised land, as really as the sacrifices to the
central altar in Jerusalem, and its arrangements could not have
been to any extent carried out among foreigners. If the state
ment in 2 Chron. xxxvi. 21, "Until the land enjoyed her
sabbaths, for as long as she remained desolate she kept sabbath
to fulfil threescore and ten years," mean that those years of
desolation are a penalty chronologically parallel to a series of
neglected sabbatic years, then the neglect must have extended
backward 490 years, dating from the time of Solomon. These
sabbatic years might be early neglected; for a nation that could
subsist without Cultivation of the soil for a year must either
store up with cautious forethought, or enjoy a signal blessing
from the God of the seasons. Such storing was not enjoined,
as direct fulness of blessing was promised ; but during so many
periods of apostasy the promise of temporal abundance would
be suspended, and the observance of the sabbatic year fall into
desuetude. Lev. xxv. 18-22. But the year of jubilee, fraught
with so many kind provisions to the slave, the debtor, and
the poor, and involving so many changes of social relation
to rural property, was more likely to be partially observed,
for those to be especially benefited by it would naturally
clamour for it. The prophets do not upbraid the nation for
neglecting it ; Josephus asserts that it was kept ; and there is
no ground for Michaelis and Winer to question its observance,
or for Kranold and Hupfeld to deny it. Diodorus also makes
allusion to the strict entail of Jewish property, and the testi
mony of Jewish tradition is unanimous on the point. Saalschiitz,
Das Mosaische Recht, xiii. ; Keil, Handbuch d. Bib. Archaol.
vol. i. p. 374. No such stress can be laid, as Ginsburg does,

316 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
on Ezek. xlvi. 17 as to the uniform keeping of the jubilee ; for
the chapter is an ideal sketch of a re-distribution of the terri
tory, and the re-organization of the national worship. Art.
Jubilee, Kitto, Bib. Cyclop. 3d edition.
It is going too far on the part of Bullinger and Olshausen
to affirm, that in this verse by synecdoche a part is put for the
whole, i.e. the customs mentioned stand for all the customs.
Nor can it be, as Ruckert says, that only such customs are
mentioned as were common to Jews and Gentiles ; for, as
Olshausen remarks, no relapse to Gentilism is apprehended.
The apostle does not certainly speak of two of the Jewish
"elements" — distinction of meats and drinks, and circumcision.
There is no substantia] evidence for saying that, as proselytes,
those Galatians had been circumcised already ; for it may be,
as Meyer observes, that they had not yet relapsed so far as to
be circumcised : v. 2, 3, 12, vi. 12, 13. The accumulation of
terms of time, not meant to be exhaustive, may denote gene
rally sacred periods, or it may be " a rhetorical description of
those who observed times and seasons" (Alford). Dean Alford
adds, " Notice how utterly such a verse is at variance with any
and every theory of a Christian Sabbath, cutting at the root,
as it does, of all obligatory observance of times as such'' This
generalization is far too sweeping ; for,
1. It makes assertion on a subject which is not before the
mind of the apostle at all. Nothing is further from his thoughts,
or his course of rebuke and expostulation, than the Christian
Sabbath and its theme — the resurrection of Christ.
2. The apostle is not condemning the obligatory observ
ances " of times as such," but he is condemning the observance
only of the times which the Galatians, in their relapse into
Judaism, kept as sacred ; for their keeping of such Jewish fes
tivals was the proof and result of their partial apostasy.
3. Nor is it even Jewish festivals as such which he con
demns, for both before and after this period he observed some
of them himself.
But, first, he condemns the Galatian Gentiles for observing
sacred Jewish seasons, which, not being intended for them,
had therefore no authority over them. The Gentile keeping
of Jewish sabbaths, or of passovers, pentecosts, new moons,
and jubilees, was in itself a wrong thing— a perilous blunder

CHAP. IV. 11. 317
then as it would be a wretched anachronism now. And
secondly, he condemns the observance of these "times," be
cause the Galatians regarded such observance as essential to
salvation, and as supplementing faith in the atoning work of
Christ. These limitations are plainly supplied by the context,
and the true theory of a Christian Sabbath, or rather Lord's
day, is not in the least involved in the discussion.
The apostle having described their perilous and unsatis
factory condition, adds in sorrowful tone —
Ver. 11. $oBovp,ai ifiav, firj ircov e'iKrj KeKoirlaKa et? vpav —
"I am afraid of you, lest perhaps I have in vain bestowed
labour on you." Winer, in his Commentary and in his Gram.
§ 66, 5, a, regards this construction as a species of attraction —
that in which the principal clause attracts something from the
dependent one ; and he is followed by Usteri, Wieseler, Hil
genfeld, and Jatho. But the supposition is not necessary. In
such cases the object of the one clause is the subject of the
other ; but the pronoun is object here in both clauses, and the
repetition of it intensifies the meaning, or gives distinct emphasis
to the declaration. I am afraid of you is a definite idea, and
the reason of the epoBov is then stated. The Kara suggested by
Turner is not needed, as in such a sense the verb governs the
simple accusative — the accusative of equivalent notion. Jelf,
§ 550, b ; Kiihner, § 857. Compare Plato, De Leg. x. p. 886,
A ; Diodor. Sic. iv. 10 ; Soph. Old. Tyr. 767.
In the perfect /ce/co7rt'a/ca, and after p,77 ircov, is the idea of
enduring labour, and the indicative means that the apprehension
expressed by cpoBovfiai (Winer, § 56) is realized — the fear has
become a matter of fact. Gayler, p. 317 ; Klotz-Devarius, vol.
i. 129. See under ii. 2. So Theodoret, but not Chrysostom,
who gives it a different turn — "the wreck has not happened,
but I see the storm travailing with it." Comp. under Phil. i. 16,
Col. iv. 17.
In the phrase et? vfidv the preposition implies direction,
Rom. xvi. 6, not in vobis as the Vulgate, nor propter vos even,
but in vos, upon you, as having been directed to them. Bern
hardy, p. 217. His labours had them for their special aim and
object. It must have been a sad thought to the large-hearted apostle
that his toils, anxieties, and prayers were proving themselves so

318 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
far in vain. Surprised was he at the speedy revolution of
sentiment, and indignant also toward the false teachers who
had been seducing them. It cannot, however, be inferred from
vpav after cpofSovpai that the apostle is blaming them as if the
Judaizers could not have done it without their assistance.
However true the sentiment may be, that they were a willing
prey to the false teachers, these simple words will not bear it ;
and the passage in Acts v. 26 adduced by Storr in defence is
quite different in structure.
Ver. 12. TlveaQe eov iyco, on Kayco eov lifieh — "Become ye
as I am, for I also am become as you are." For somewhat
similar phraseology, itoa ^D3, compare 1 Kings xxii. 4, 2 Kings
iii. 7. These brief and terse words can only be explained from
the context. He has been speaking of their returning to
Judaism — to the weak and beggarly elements, and of the
anxiety which their dangerous state caused him. As a personal
argument and illustration he refers now to himself and the posi
tion he sustained toward the same weak and beggarly elements.
"Become ye as I am, for I too am become as you," — become free
from Judaism as I, for I also am free from it like you — as if I
too were a Gentile. Or, become ye as I — elp.1 or yeyova being
supplied — free from the law, in no sense recognising its obliga
tion upon you, — for I have become as you ; a Jew though I be, I
am as regards the law quite like you Gentiles ; or, Reciprocate
my feeling and relation to Judaism : ii. 14 ; 1 Cor. ix. 20, 21 ;
— me imitamini gentiliter viventem, quia et ego gentiliter vivo, as
Pelagius gives it. Such generally is the view of Usteri, Winer,
Hilgenfeld, Fritzsche, De Wette, Meyer, and Wieseler. The
appeal is direct : I am afraid of you, lest my labour upon you
be in vain. It will not be in vain if ye will become as I am
in reference to the law ; for toward that law I have become as
you Gentiles to whom that law was not given, and over whom
therefore it has, and was meant to have, no jurisdiction.
Another view has been given by the Greek fathers. " Be
come as I am, for I was once a very zealot for Judaism, as vou
are." Thus Chrysostom: rovrov efyov irdXai rbv tfiXov aepoBpd
rbv vbfiov iirbQow. Vatablus, Semler, and Matthies hold this
view : " I once thought as you do, but I have changed my
opinion ; so do ye :" ye will not be the first who renounced the
Mosaic law ; or, ye can do what I wish you to do, since I have

CHAP. IV. 12. 319
done it. But the words will not bear this interpretation. For,
first, the appeal is not to Jews, but to those who had been
Gentiles ; and secondly, rjfirjv, the word to be supplied, in that
case must have been written, as the emphasis would be on it :
so, as has been remarked, Justin, Orat. ad Grcecos, writes,
ylveaQe eov iyco on Kcvyco rjfinv eov vfieh, p. 12, vol. i. Opera,
ed. Otto.1 The context would only warrant the supple
ment of iyevofir/v, which would not bear the sense assumed.
Others, as Jerome, a Lapide, Ruckert, and Olshausen, take
another view. Thus Olshausen : " I always sought to look at
matters from the same point of view as you did ; so do ye act
now also in the same spirit toward me." But this is too vague,
and puts the two clauses out of unison.
Different is the interpretation of a fourth party, who suppose
the words to refer to a reciprocation of love : Love me as I
love you. This view is held by Luther, Beza, Calvin, Gro
tius, Cramer, Gwynne, Bagge, and Brown. 1 Kings xxii. 4.
But the Greek phrase ylveaQe eov certainly will not bear such
fulness of meaning. It is true, at the same time, that the
apostle's under-current of appeal is to his love to them and
their former attachment to him. Afraid of them he was, yet
he would have them act in love to him, so as to imitate him ;
and he goes on to refer to that affection which once subsisted
between them. This interpretation has been thought by some
to derive some countenance from the following clause, as they
understand it: "I love you still, I do not feel. toward you as
an injured man." But the next clause begins apparently a new
declaration, and is indeed a motive for them to become as he
was. The apostle adds, however —
'ABeXepol, Beofiai vfieov — " Brethren, I beseech you." These
words have been taken to refer to the following statement by
Chrysostom and his followers, with Ruckert, Koppe, and others.
But there is no request contained in the following clauses at
all, so that the phrase cannot be a preface to them. The re
quest lies in the previous part of the verse.
The paragraph now commencing extends to the sixteenth
1 Cureton found this treatise in a Syriac recension ascribed to some
one called Ambrose, " a chief man of Greece," Spicilegium Syriacum, xi. 61.
Otto after Tillemont and Maran defends its genuineness, but Grabe, Semisch,
Neander, and others have doubted or denied it on good grounds.

320 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
verse. It is an appeal to their previous conduct and attach
ment, and it is adduced as a motive why they should follow the
earnest counsel, ylveaQe ebv iyco. The succession of aorists
shows that the apostle writes of a previous point of time, pro
bably his first visit to them. So that he says generally —
OvBev pe rjBiKrjaare — " in nothing did ye wrong me;" on
the contrary, they did treat him with extreme kindness. But,
1. Beza, Bengel, and Ruckert give by a meiosis this turn to the
words, that " he forgave the anxiety and sorrow which they
had occasioned him;" that "he would forgive and forget all"
(Ewald). 2. The clause is not a mitigation of the previous
rebuke, or something said in contrast to soothe them (Chry
sostom, Estius, Winer). 3. Some, as Ambrosiaster, a Lapide,
and Schott, put the emphasis wrongly on pie, and bring out
this contrast : " ye did not wrong me, but ye wronged your
selves." 4. Grotius and Rettig give it another point : " you
have done nothing against me, but against God and Christ."
These four forms of evolved contrast are alike to be rejected.
They do not give the aorist its proper past signification which
it must have, as is indicated by the following series of verbs in
the same tense.
Ver. 13. Ot'SoTe Se — "But ye know." So far from doing
me any injury, your treatment of me was the very opposite — ye
wronged me in nothing ; on the other hand, Se, ye know that.
Ae is wanting in D1, F, but found in A, B, C, and it is sup
ported by the Vulgate. The demonstrative on introduces the
series of clauses describing the facts of his first reception, which
were matter of knowledge to them. He does not say, Ye re
member, as if an act of reminiscence were needed, but, Ye
know. And first he says —
"OTt St' daQeveiav rrjv aapKOV evayyeXiadpinv vpuv rb irpb-
repov — " that on account of weakness of my flesh I preached
the gospel unto you the first time." The phrase to irpbrepov
—Vulgate, jam prius— might point to an early time, or for
merly: John vi. 62, vii. 51, ix. 8; Sept. Deut. ii. 12, Josh.
x. 9 (Usteri). But it here refers to the apostle's first visit.
Heb. iv. 6, vii. 27. Had he been once only in Galatia, the
phrase would have been superfluous. The article gives em
phasis to the expression. Some indeed affirm that Paul paid
only one visit to the Galatian province. Thus Grotius inter-

CHAP. IV. 13. 321
prets against the true construction — nempe cum prcssens essem,
nam et absens eos docet; but a simple docet falls short of that
oral teaching which is expressed by the verb evcuyyeXiadpvqv.
The phrase St' daQeveiav rrjv crap/co?, literally rendered, can
have only one meaning — " on account of infirmity of the
flesh," that is, on account of bodily weakness. Winer, § 49, c.
This meaning of adpl; is found in Acts ii. 26, 31, Col. i. 22,
and such is the regular sense of Sta with the accusative. On
account of bodily infirmity the apostle preached during his
first visit to Galatia. We cannot explain it. Either, travelling
through the country, he was seized with sickness, and being
unable to prosecute his journey, he employed his leisure in
preaching ; or, some malady detaining him longer in the pro
vince than he had intended or expected, he devoted what
strength he had, or what strength was returning to him, to
a hearty and successful proclamation of the good tidings. This
strictly grammatical sense given to the clause is in complete
harmony with the context, as the exegesis of the following verse
will show ; and to suppose a change of case is contrary to any
real example in the New Testament. It is wrong, therefore,
to evade this literal and only admissible meaning by giving the
preposition the meaning of " under," as is done by not a few
commentators. Thus Chrysostom : " While I preached to you,
I was scourged, I suffered a thousand deaths ; yet ye thought
no scorn of me." CEcumenius and Theophylact explain it as
pier' daQeveiav, and the Vulgate, per infirmitatem. Luther,
too, Olshausen, Matthies, follow this exegesis ; and Brown says
it is equivalent to iv daQeveia. Jowett's explanation is similar,
and also that of Turner. In such a case Sta would require the
genitive, for such a phrase as Bid viiKra belongs to poetry.
Bernhardy, p. 236. Some dilute the meaning, as Calvin :
abjectus et in hominum conspectu nullius pretii; and similarly
Rosenmiiller, Koppe, and Borger. Others understand the
phrase of persecutions. Thus Grotius : per varios casus, per
niille pericula rerum perrexi, ut vos instituerem. Jatho, going
still beyond this, and taking adp% as denoting sinful humanity,
gives the weakness of humanity to save itself as the ground of
all Paul's preaching. Bengel gets clear of the supposed diffi
culty by the allegation that sickness was not the cause of the
preaching, sed adjumentum cur Paulus efficacius prcsdicaret.
x

322 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
Similarly Schott — that the apostle continuing to preach assidue
et alacriter, notwithstanding his sickness, had a great effect on
the minds of the Galatians. Semler thinks that the phrase
refers to timidity, which kept the apostle from openly with
standing the supporters of Judaism ! Baumgarten-Crusius
takes the allusion to be to some Befangenheit und Verlegenheit —
perplexity and dilemma — occasioned by the antipathy to him
of the Jewish element in those communities. Lastly, Jerome
propounds this strange explanation : Per infirmitatem autem
non sua? sed audientium, qui non poterant carnem subjicere
verbo Dei. Estius, Hug, and Eettig follow him. But there
wants some qualifying particle to bring out such a -meaning,
and the fiov of the following verse seems to decide that the
reference is to himself. Gwynne denies that the gramma
tical sense suits the context, and suggests that it would have
fitted the apostle, instead of saying " on account of," to say
" in spite of, my weakness in the flesh." Peile also calls the
proper translation " utterly irreconcilable" with the context,
adding, " we would gladly read St' daQeveiav." Jowett thus de
fends his view : " In the interpretation of Sto we have to choose
between ordinary Greek usage and the sense of the passage ;"
but how, except through the Greek usage, can the sense of
this or any Greek passage be ascertained ? Nor have the pre
positions such " uncertainty of usage " as he ascribes to Paul.
Classical precision may not be uniformly predicated of them,
but their generic sense is always preserved even in rhetorical
accumulations. The plain meaning then, without resort to
grammatical torture, undue dilution, or remote reference, is,
that in some way or other unknown to us, but quite known to
the Galatians, bodily weakness led the apostle to preach, or
to continue to preach, in Galatia at his first visit ; and he goes
on to say, that .in spite of this, he met with a most cordial
welcome, and with great success. It is needless to allege that
if he had been sick or ill, he could not have preached. For
what know we of the real nature of the malady ? It mio-ht be
so severe or of such a character as to prevent him from tra
velling, but not from preaching. What know we of his bodily
infirmities, caught by infection or brought on by persecution"?
—for " he was in stripes above measure, in prisons more fre
quent,"— or created by numerous causes, for he was " in weari-

CHAP. IV. 14. 323
ness and painfulness, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often,
in cold and nakedness." What know we of the maladies and
sudden attacks incident to a constitution which had been so
tried and enfeebled, and into which had been sent also a thorn
in the flesh ? (Suicer, sub voce daQeveia.)
Ver. 14. Kat rbv ireipaapbv Vfieov iv rrj aapKi fiov ovk i%ov-
Qevfjaare ovBe i^eirrvaare — " And your temptation in my flesh
ye despised not nor loathed"—" abhorred," Tyndale and the
Genevan. The reading of the first part of this clause is involved
in difficulty, whether it should be rbv ireipaapbv vpeov, or rbv
ireipaafibv pov rbv of the Received Text. The first reading,
vfieov, is found in A, B, C2, D, F, a\ 17, 39, 672 (C2 having
v/i&v rbv, x3 rbv). It is also found in the Coptic and Latin
versions, and among the fathers in Jerome, Augustine, Ambro-
siaster, Sedulius. Mill in his appendix adopts it, and so does
Lachmann. On the other hand, the received reading fiov
rbv is found in D2' 3, E, K, L, the great majority of mss., in
the Syriac and Gothic versions, and in Chrysostom, Theodoret,
CEcumenius, Basil, etc. It is adopted by Tischendorf, Gries-
back, Hahn, and Reiche. Diplomatic or uncial authority and
that of versions is in favour of vpeov. This pronoun vfieov, in
the interpretation of the Greek fathers, would appear to them
unintelligible ; for they understand the trial of dangers and
persecutions, and there was thus a temptation to omit it or
change it. Lachmann wrongly places a colon after iv rrj
aapKi fiov. The reading with vpeov is the more difficult, and
was therefore more liable to be altered. There is no occasion
to render /cat, et tamen, as Winer does ; it simply connects the
clauses. The two compound verbs rise in emphasis. The first
verb i^ovQeveco (ovQev being a later form of ovBev, Phryniohus,
ed. Lobeck, p. 181) is " to set at nought," "to despise." The
second verb iKirrvco means " to spit out," as in Homer — ctto-
fiarov B' i%eirrvaev dXfinv iriKprjv, Od. v. 322 ; and this, as well
as the compound with eV, is used only in the natural sense.
Then it means to spit as if in disgust — to loathe. Some of
the other compounds are treated in Phrynichus, ed. Lobeck, p.
17. The simple verb is used in the earlier Greek, Soph. Antig.
649 and diroirrveiv would have been the more correct form
here ; but apparently the preposition of the first verb is repeated
in the alliteration. The absolute ov is followed by the relative

324 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
oiiSe, the second clause not being intended when the first was
formed in the mind of the writer. Jelf, § 776, 1, b. The
verb describes a feeling excited by what is revolting. See
Kypke in loc. The Vulgate has non reprobastis aut respuistis.
By ireipaapbv the apostle characterizes something which had
a distinct tendency to produce those feelings — something
in the physical malady or in his appearance under it which
subjected the Galatians to the temptation of contemning and
loathing him. Either the disease of itself had a tendency to
produce this disgust and revulsion, or it may be that there was
a temptation to set at nought and nauseate a professed teacher
of a new religion so afflicted and disabled, reject his claims,
and turn a deaf ear to his teaching. The words iv rfj aapKi
fiov define the seat of the ireipaapbv, and being without the
article, form with it one conception. Winer, § 20, 2. It has
also been shown that ireipdtis.iv iv occurs, as in Plato, Phil. p.
21, A. The expression is elliptical. " Your trial you did not
reject" = that which originated or caused the trial. For nouns
in pov, see Lobeck, Phryniohus, p. 511. So far from his weak
ness in the flesh tempting them to cherish any such feeling
toward him, he adds in very graphic phrase —
'.4XX' eov dyyeXov ©eov iBe^aaQe fie, ebv Xpiarov 'Inaovv —
" but ye received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus."
The vivid contrast in dXXd is, that so far from in any sense
contemning him, they honoured him with an eager and intense
welcome — they received him as an angel of God. Of course,
in- both clauses the apostle speaks in accordance with their
present knowledge of divine revelation, not according to any
knowledge they had possessed before he preached to them, for
that would imply that he found them in possession of the gos
pel on his first visit to them. He therefore speaks of angels
and Christ, as they understood them now, since their conver
sion. They received him as an angel. 1 Sam. xxix. 9; 2 Sam.
xiv. 17, xix. 27. The angel is the highest and most glorious
among creatures, and many appearances and visits of angels
are recorded in the Old Testament. They received him not
only as a " legate of the skies," but as Christ Jesns, the Lord
of the angels. As you would receive an angel, nay, as you
would receive Christ Jesus, did you receive me. Compare
Luke x. 16, 2 Cor. ii. 10, v. 10, 11. The apostle, in spite of

CHAP. IV. 15. 325
bodily malady, was most enthusiastically welcomed and revered.
He says this to their credit, and he affectionately recalls it.
How lovingly they greeted him, and how studiously they con
sulted his welfare, untempted by what might have produced a
very opposite result !
Ver. 15. Mournfully but sharply does he now turn round
and ask —
Tt? ovv o puKapiapbv v/icbv ; This reading has D, K, L
in its favour, with the majority of MSS. and fathers. Another
reading — irov ovv b p.aKapiap.bv — is found in A, B, C, F, G,
K, and in the Vulgate and Syriac versions. The Greek fathers
refer to the various reading. Theodoret says, o ydp rlv dvrl
rov irov reQr/Ke, and he and Theodore Mops, and Severianus
explain Tt? by irov. The particle irov, though well supported,
has the aspect of an emendation in that it appears to simplify
the question — Where has it all gone to ? "Where is the blessed
ness ye spake of ? " With Tt?, rjv must be supplied, as it is
written in D, E, K ; F (G having 77) : " Of what sort or nature
was your boasted blessedness ? " The adjective refers to quality,
as it usually does, not to quantity, though this last sense is
given to it by Luther, Beza, Borger, Hilgenfeld, Reiche,
Wieseler, and Brown. The question has more point if Tt?
bear its common significance. The ovv is simply retrospective,
implying here no logical inference. Donaldson, § 548, 31.
The noun fiaKapiapbv — not fiaKapibrvv, blessedness — means
pronouncing blessed, as does the allied verb fiaKapl^eo. Rom.
iv. 6, 9 ; Luke i. 48 ; James v. 11 ; Sept. Gen. xxx. 13 ;
Ast, Lexicon Platon. sub voce. Bengel gives another mean
ing to Tt? : quo? causa — what was the ground of this gratu-
lation? — and he is followed by Jatho, Matthies, Schott, and
to some extent Alford — "worth what?" "of what weight or
value?" That the fiaKapiapbv was by Paul on the Gala
tians, is on the one hand the opinion of Jerome, who says,
vos eo tempore quo evangelium juxta carnem susceperatis —
beatos dicerem, — of Theodoret and the Greek fathers. On
the other hand, Estius, Locke, and Wordsworth understand
that the apostle himself is the object of the congratulation
on the part of the Galatians. Locke's paraphrase is, " What
benedictions did you then pour out upon me!" and his note
is, " The context makes this sense of the words so necessary

326 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
and visible, that it is to be wondered how any one could
overlook it." If the apostle had meant felicitation upon him
self, he would have stated it in some distinct way, but Vfieov
stands without any addition. They had felicitated themselves
on the apostle's ministry among them, even though they
knew that it was what might be called an accident of illness
which kept him so long in their province, apparently in oppo
sition to his original plan of travel. Amidst their earnest
self-congratulations, they forgot not the instrument of the
blessedness which they boasted of. They pronounced them
selves happy in enjoying such a ministry, and they vied with
one another in kindness to the minister ; for in proof he says —
Maprvpcb ydp vpiiv on el Bwarbv roiiv bcpQaXpovv vfieov
e^opv^avrev eBcoKare fioi — " for I bear you record, that if it
had been possible, ye would have plucked out your eyes and
have given them to me." The verb fiaprvpeo is here followed
by the dative of person in favour of whom the paprvpla is
given, and also, as frequently, by the demonstrative 6Vt, equi
valent to an accusative with the infinitive.
The participle i^opv^avrev is often employed in this idiom —
perhaps more frequently than other terms. The imperative efeXe
is used in Matt. v. 29, and e/c/9aXe in Mark ix. 47. Compare
Judg. xvi. 21 ; 1 Sam. xi. 2 ; Joseph. Antiq. vi. 5, 1 ; Herod.
viii. 116. The phrase roiiv bcpQaXpovv Vfieov is not "your own
eyes," as Ellicott remarks, but simply " your eyes." No em
phasis is intended. Compare John iv. 35. " Ye would have
given them to me." The dv before iBcoKare in the Received
Text is rejected on the authority of A, B, C, D1, F, G, k.
The use of dv would have indicated hypothetical reality, but
without dv it is more rhetorically emphatic, and means that
the act would have been done if the restriction in et Bwarbv
had not intervened. John ix. 33, xv. 22. Hermann, de Par-
ticula dv, Opuscula, vol. iv. cap. xi. p. 57 ; Jelf, § 858, 1. The
phrase et Bwarbv is not to be pressed as meaning an abso
lute impossibility, but in a popular sense that such a token of
love was impracticable— pro evangelico lumine sua lumina tra-
didissent. What higher expression of self-denied and ardent
attachment to himself could the apostle describe ? As Alford
remarks, "The position of the words tov? bepQaXfiovv v/iebv
strongly supports the idea that the apostle uses the clause

CHAP. IV. 16. 327
proverbially." And the expression is a common one based on
nature, and found in a great variety of authors. Compare
Deut. xxxii. 10, Ps. xvii. 8, Prov. vii. 2, Zech. ii. 8 ; Callim. in
Dion. p. 21, ed. Blomfield ; in Latin, Horace, Sat. ii. 5, 33;
Terence, Adelph. v. 7-5; Catullus, iii. xiv. See Wetstein in
loc. The meaning then is, that they would have parted with
anything, even the most precious — have endured no common
self-torment — in the depth of their professed attachment to him.
But some give the phrase a more literal significance, or
rather suppose a more literal reason for the use of the figure.
They suppose that the daQeveia was some kind of ophthalmic
disorder. The meaning in that case is, the Galatians would
have parted with their eyes to him, could the gift have relieved
the apostle. Lomler, Ruckert, Schott, and others advocate this
view, which is favoured also by Conybeare. We would not, how
ever, call it with Schmoller abgeschmackt, nor say with Bisping
fast Idcherlich ist es ; for some form of it may have been mixed
up with his malady. But, as has been remarked, the emphasis
is neither on bfieov nor fioi. Nor is there any distinct proof in
the apostle's language at any time, or in the record of his life,
that he was vexed with any eye-illness. See Essay at end. of
this section.
Ver. 16. 'flare i%Qpbv vpicbv yeyova dXrjQevcov vpZv ; — " So
then, have I become your enemy because I tell you the truth ? "
By wore an interrogative inference is made — "so then," or
" as matters now are." Ergo is so used in the Latin versions.
Plato, Phcedrus, 231, B ; Klotz-Devarius, vol. ii. 776. Meyer
connects eoare directly with Tt? ovv b ptaKapiapitv vfieov, but the
connection is better taken with the entire verse or paragraph —
not a direct conclusion, as the result of the previous statement.
The term e'^r5pd? is taken in a passive sense by Estius, Koppe,
Rosenmiiller, Trana, and Meyer in his second edition. The
context agrees with such a sense. Their feeling toward him
had been that of extreme kindness and indulgence, and he
might ask, Have I, who once was the object of your intense
affection, become the object of your hatred? the two states
being brought into distinct contrast. The genitive is probably
used because iyQpbv is a virtual substantive — Am I become the
hated of you ? But we prefer the active sense, with many of
the ancient versions, and with Bengel, Beza, Grotius, Ruckert,

328 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
Schott, Hilgenfeld, Meyer, and Ellicott. Such is the prevail
ing meaning of the word, adjective and substantive, in the
New Testament ; and it is followed here, as usually, by the
genitive of person (Sophocles, Ajax, 500; Demosthenes, de
Legat. 439, 19, p. 279, vol. i. Opera, ed. Schaefer), whereas in
the passive sense it takes the dative. The perfect y'eyova ex
presses the change as over, and as resulting in a permanent
state — Am I become your enemy ? Nor is this meaning out
of harmony with the context. There had been mutual ascrip
tions of blessedness because they enjoyed the labours of such a
benefactor. Have I then, from being esteemed and welcomed
as your best benefactor, come to be regarded as your enemy %
There is no ground for Olshausen's supplement, " and can
those be your friends?" as there is no eycb expressed. At a
later period, as we have seen, the Judaizers called him o e'^pri?
dvQpcoirov. Clement. Hom. p. 4, ed. Dressel. The participle
dXrjQeveov has a causal force — " because I tell the truth to you ;"
the use of the present not confining it to the moment of writ
ing ; nor is it " because I have told you the truth," though the
idea of the past is not excluded. The state is expressed in its
whole duration. Winer, § 40, 2, c, § 45, 1; Schmalfeld, pp. 91,
92, 405 ; Acts xix. 24; 1 Pet. iii. 5. The participle probably
means simply " speaking the truth" — referring to oral address,
and not to upright conduct. Matthias, as his wont is, would
alter the punctuation, and connect dXvQeveov with the next verse.
To what period, then, does the apostle refer? Not (1)
to the letter he is writing, as he could not know of its
result, though this is the view of Jerome, Luther, Koppe, and
others ; — nor (2) to his first visit, for they received him then
as an angel, nay, as Christ Jesus Himself ; nor then could
the Judaizing teachers have had any scope for labour. Some
time had elapsed before they made their appearance, as is im
plied in iii. 2-5, and expressly stated in v. 7 : " Ye did run
well." So that (3) the probability is that he refers to what
took place on his second visit, when the evil was fermenting
which speedily developed into such pernicious results. That
the speaking of unwelcome truth creates enmity has' passed
into a proverb. Terent. Andr. i. 1, 40. While the apostle
could go far in the way of accommodation to prejudice, and
in matters indifferent, he would on no account sacrifice any

NOTE ON THE " INFIRMITY IN THE FLESH.'' 329
element of truth. Whatever on any pretence or to any degree
endangered truth met at once from him with vehement and
persistent opposition, no matter what hostility, misapprehension,
or prejudice his fidelity might create against himself. The
truth was Christ's, and he dares not compromise it; himself
was Christ's, and in Christ's spirit he " endures all things for
the elect's sake." And as the truth endangered in Galatia was
truth alike precious and prominent in the gospel — truth resting
on the perfection of Christ's work, and involving the freeness
of His salvation — it must be upheld at all hazards. Still the
apostle must have keenly felt this revulsion of sentiment toward
himself ; for his was not an impassible nature, with nerves that
never tingled and a surface that no weapon could pierce. On
the contrary, with a woman's tenderness, his sympathies were
acute, profound, and ever active : " Who is weak, and I am
not weak ? who is offended, and I burn not ?" Had the change
of feeling toward him been only characteristic caprice, he would
have cared less ; but it involved a departure from the gospel
which he had proclaimed, and which was divine alike in origin,
substance, and results.

NOTE ON PAUL'S "INFIRMITY IN THE FLESH"— "THE THORN
IN THE FLESH."
GrAL. IV. 13, 14, 15. Oi'Sare Se on di dcrdevtiiav ttjs crap/cos evrjyye\i-
crapvv vpiv to 7rporepov, Kal rbv irtipao-pbv ipmv it/ rrj crapxi pov ovk
i^ovBevrjO-are ovok iS-eTrrvaan' aXV cos ayyekav 6eo0 e'8e£ao-#e /xe, cos
Xptcrrov 'incrovv. Tiff ovv t\v 6 paKapicrpbs vpeov ; paprvpco yap vp.1v otl et
Svvarov rovs debdaXpoiis vpeov i^opii-avres cScoxare pot — " Ye know how,
on account of infirmity of the flesh, I preached the gospel unto you
at the first. And your temptation which was in my fiesh ye despised
not, nor loathed ; but received me as an angel of God, even as
Christ Jesus. What then was the blessedness ye spake of? for I bear
you record, that, if it had been possible, ye would have plucked out
your eyes, and have given them to me."
2 COK. XII. 7. Kal rfi {mepfioKfi r&v cmoKakv^r^atv "iva pit] lirepaipcopai,
idodn poi crKoXoyjf tj erapKi, ayye\os 'S.arav Iva p.e Ko\aCpi(j), iva pr) virepai-
piopai — " And lest I should be exalted above measure through the

330 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the
flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted
above measure.''
According to one probable hypothesis, the Epistle to the
Galatians and the second Epistle to the Corinthians were
written about the same period, and it is a natural conclusion
that the reference in the two preceding paragraphs is to the
same sharp distressing visitation. But surmises as to the
nature of the malady so referred to in both epistles in these
strong and significant terms, have been numerous and conflict
ing. Plainly it was no merely inner disease, the effects or
concomitants of which were either not visible, or, if perceptible,
affected no one with disgust — igeirrvaare. But it was an
infirmity which could not be concealed, which obtruded itself
on all with whom the apostle came into contact, and was so
revolting in its nature as to excite nausea in spectators, and
tempt them to reject his preaching. The apostle does not dis
guise its tendency, though he does not unfold its nature or
give it any specific name. The Galatians knew it so well that
the merest allusion was sufficient for them. Their perfect
knowledge of it is thus the cause of our ignorance of it. But
there are allusions to some sickness or other peculiar malady in
other portions of the second Epistle to the Corinthians so strik
ing and peculiar, that there is every probability of their identity
with this daQeveia. Thus 2 Cor. i. 8-10 — " For we would not,
brethren, have you ignorant of our trouble which came to us
in Asia, that we were pressed out of measure, above strength,
insomuch that we despaired even of life : but we had the sen
tence of death in ourselves, that we should not trust in our
selves, but in God which raiseth the dead; who delivered us
from sO great a death, and doth deliver; in whom we trust
that He will yet deliver us." These remarkable words have
been referred by many, as Neander and Wieseler, to the
tumult at Ephesus, as told in Acts xix. The objection, that
Paul would have written " in Ephesus," and not vaguely " in
Asia," if he had alluded to that city, is without real force,
though he generally so names it, as in the first epistle, 1 Cor.
xv. 32, xvi. 8. But the life of the apostle does not seem to
have been in peril at Ephesus ; the tumult was stupid and aim-

THE APOSTLE'S WEAKNESS. 331
less, and did not last long ; and if he had been martyred, it
would have been in the sudden confusion and excitement.
Hours of dreadful anticipation would in that case have been
spared him. Nay, so far as the record tells, it could not be
said of him, that during the riot he was in anguish or felt
himself in danger. But in the verses quoted he speaks of
being " weighed down beyond strength, so that we despaired
even of life." These terms certainly are inapplicable to such
a sudden or momentary terror as the swift gathering of a mob
might produce ; they rather describe the result of sore personal
sickness, so long, heavy, oppressive, and continuous, that " we
utterly despaired even of life." That sickness was KaQ' virep-
fSoXrjv in itself grievous, and on this account virep Bvvafiiv,
beyond our power of endurance. The visitation so character
ized must have a load of unwonted pressure, for the apostle is
of all men least prone to exaggerate in personal matters. To
" despair even of life," implies a period of suffering so tedious
and heavy that it gradually extinguished all hope of recovery.
The expression, to " have the sentence of death in ourselves,"
inclines us again to the same view : the malady was felt to
be a deadly one ; the prospect of restoration to health was so
wholly gone, that his trust was not in God for it, but for a
blessed resurrection — " in God which raiseth the dead ; "
and his unexpected recovery was signally due to Him " who
rescued us from so great a death." Such is a probable
meaning of the paragraph. In ver. 4 the apostle speaks gene
rally of tribulations, and, viewed in a special aspect, they
are called " the sufferings of Christ," as He still endures
them in His members. But in ver. 8 he passes from the
general reference to a specific instance, which indeed might be
aggravated by surrounding persecution, and by his deepening
anxiety for the welfare of the churches — " affliction, anguish
of heart, and many tears," 2 Cor. ii. 4. In 2 Cor. x. 10
the apostle quotes a bitter criticism of his opponents on himself
and his writings, in which occurs the phrase, rj Be irapovala
rov acbpiarov daQevrjv — a sentence referring not to stature
or physical constitution, but to the impressions of frailty and
sickness which his appearance indicated. Nay, he had said
to the same church, 1 Cor. ii. 3, " I was with you in weak
ness, and in fear, and in much trembling : " the weakness was

332 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
probably physical weakness, nervous susceptibility increased
by his intense anxiety as to the results of his preaching. He
could not indeed be what Jowett calls him, " a poor decrepid
being afflicted with palsy ; " for surely in such a case he could
not have done the work which so few could have done, or borne
the trials which so few could have faced. One may remark,
too, the specialty of emphasis in the phrase, " Luke the beloved
physician," as if he had endeared himself to the apostle, who
stood in need so often of his medical sympathy and skill. He
might not be unlike what Luther calls him, ein armes diirres
Mannlein wie Magister Philippus (Melancthon) ; for there is
throughout his epistles a deep current of allusion to weakness,
to mental depression, to nervous apprehension, to hindrances in
his labours which distressed him, and a consequent sense of
humiliation which always chastened him. These were morti
fying drawbacks to his eagerness and success.
Still farther, there is a very strong probability that in the
apostle's malady there was some prominent characteristic, to
which passing allusions are thus made, and of which a more
formal account is given by himself in 2 Cor. xii. 1. Even there
the result is dwelt upon, but the nature of the infliction is not
clearly described. He had been describing many of his outer
sufferings, and the last of them, referred to so solemnly and
under an adjuration, must have made an indelible impression
on him- — the kind of ignominy and humiliation attaching to
his undignified mode of escape from Damascus — " through a
window, in a basket was I let down by the wall." He almost
shrinks from telling the adventure : such is its nature that he is
afraid that his sober statement may not be credited, and there
fore it is prefaced, " The God and Father of our Lord Jesus
Christ, which is blessed for evermore, knoweth that I lie not."
Perhaps, however, these words belong to the previous catalogue
of sufferings, or they form a preface to some other statements,
which after all have been withheld. He then comes at length
to his inner experiences, connected with his highest glory and
with his deepest and most trying weaknesses. In these infir
mities would he glory, as they were either coincident with or
resulted from the noblest privilege which he had enjoyed. He
proposes to give them— for he was forced to it — a specimen of
his glories and his infirmities, his enjoyments of visions and

THE RAPTURE. 333
revelations — those states of spiritual ecstasy in which, with a
partial or total cessation of self-consciousness, he was brought
into immediate communing with the Master, beheld His glory,
and listened to His voice ; in which truth in its beauty and
power was flashed upon him, and glimpses into the glories and
mysteries of the spiritual world were suddenly vouchsafed to
him. Both forms of ecstasy combined (for the vision included
the revelation) had already been enjoyed by him. The person
of Christ was usually the object of the vision, and the disclosure
of His will the theme of the revelation. And the amazing
incident is told by him as of a third person while he unfolds
the exalted and perilous honour, but he resumes the first person
when he comes to speak of the resulting infirmity. " I know a
man in Christ, fourteen years before, whether in the body I
know not, or out of the body I know not, God knoweth, — (I
know) such an one snatched up as far as the third heaven.
And I know such a man, whether in the body or without the
body I cannot tell, God knoweth, that was caught up to para
dise, and heard unutterable utterances, which it is not lawful
for a man to speak." This repetition with a difference refers
apparently to two raptures ; and we may almost infer from the
construction, broken and resumed, asserted and repeated, that
the remembrance of the indescribable glory, and his untraceable
translation into it, produced a momentary maze or mental be
wilderment like that which preceded or followed the mysterious
ascensions. The " third heaven" is evidently the highest heaven
— it was no common honour ; and paradise may not be a dis
tinct, loftier, or remoter region, but perhaps a portion of the
same glorious abode. Probably, as this name was given to the
garden of Eden, the scene of original innocence, it was trans
ferred to that peculiar sphere of the third heaven where human
spirits are gathered together in restored purity and felicity, in
the immediate presence of God on His throne — that paradise
where the Saviour unveils His glory, and admission into which
He promised to the penitent thief on the cross. That the apostle
saw the divine essence is maintained by Augustine, Anselm,
Aquinas; but what he saw he tells not, what he heard could not
be disclosed. If we were even allowed to repeat the songs and
voices, still language would be wholly inadequate as a vehicle,
for words want power to bear on them a description of the

334 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
" far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory." But how
he reached the third heaven he knew not, only it was under a
swift and sudden spell— he was snatched away, and by no self-
analysis could he unravel the psychological mystery. So con
trary was it to all experience, so little was he under the guidance
of ordinary consciousness, and of the common influences of
space and time, that he could not tell whether he was in the
body or out of the body. Yet he speaks of himself as a man
caught up, of passing from one region to another, and of hear
ing words. His whole inner nature was under the influence of
the divine charm, in whatever way it was effected, though
hearing in the ordinary sense implies organs of sensation. " Of
such a one will I glory" — one so strangely honoured as to be for
a season among the blessed in their exalted sphere, — of such an
one so singled out would he glory, but he would not glory of
himself; not denying the identity of " such an one" with himself,
but drawing probably this distinction, that in enjoying the
translation he was not himself, but in some way beyond him
self. Still he would boast of his infirmities, for these were
himself, elements of continuous consciousness, struggle, and
depression. Nay more, if he did glory, he should not be "a fool ;''
for in referring to visions and revelations he was only speaking
the truth without exaggeration ; but he, forbears, for this reason,
that he does not wish to be judged by such an abnormal
standard — this enjoyment of ecstasies which they could not
comprehend. He would not be the object of any idolatrous
veneration because access had been given to the light inacces
sible ; but he would be judged by the common criterion — what
they saw him to be, what they heard of him, that is, by their
own experience of him, in his daily life, and by his work which
was ever patent and palpable to them. He would glory in his
infirmities ; and he adds, " And for this purpose, that through
the excessive abundance of the revelations I might not be un
duly exalted, there was given unto m£ a thorn in the flesh, a
messenger of Satan, that he may buffet me, that I might not
be unduly exalted," The language implies that the aKoXoty
ry aapKi was produced by the excess of the revelations, or it
was so connected with them in time and circumstance that it
was felt to have resulted from their excess — ry virepBoXfj, —
they were so many and so grand, that while the spirit might

THE THORN. 335
enjoy them, the flesh was so weak that it was worn out by
them. This conscious link between the thorn and the revela
tion was the appointed means of keeping the apostle humble :
what he had enjoyed might have elated him, but it had a sting
left behind it which ever abased and tortured him. That the
visitation had wrought out its purpose is apparent from many
allusions, and from this late record of his unprecedented honours,
for he does not seem to have told them before. The words
imply that there might have been undue elation, but that it
was most surely prevented. It may be added that Lucian
sneers at the apostle's rapture, calling him dvaepaXavrlav, iirlp-
pivov, depoBarrjaav, Philopat. 12, p. 249, Opera, vol. ix. Bipont.
The visions are also mocked in the Clementines, xvii. 19.
The term aKoXo-^r occurs only here in the New Testament,
and originally signifies a pointed stake, defined by Hesychius
%vXov b£v, for fixing heads on ; as in Homer, 11. xviii. 177,
KecpaXr/v . . . irrj^ai dvd aKoXoirireaai, — or for impaling a person,
Eurip. Bacchae, 983 ; 77 aKoXo-tyi irrjgcopev Bepav, Iph. in Taur.
1431. Lucian calls Jesus rbv ev rfj HaXaiarlvn dvaaKoXo-
iriaQevra, De Morte Peregrini, 12, p. 279, vol. viii. Bipont. In
the Septuagint it seems to be employed to denote a sharp-
pointed stake, but one not so large as that a head could be set
on it or a body impaled on it — a stake in miniature, virtually a
thorn : aKoXoirev ev roiv bepQaX/ioiv v/iebv, " thorns in your eyes,"
Num. xxxiii. 55 ; similarly Ezek. xxviii. 24, and in Hos. ii. 6,
where it represents the Hebrew T'D, spina. "AKavQai Kal
aKoXoirev bBvvav arjfialvovai Bid rb b%v, Artemidorus, Oneiro-
critica, iii. 33, p. 280, vol. i. Opera, ed. Reiff. The Syriac
renders by ¦ ..mA\ jlaj, " a thorn in my flesh." It is
therefore extreme in Dean Stanley to take the image as that
of impaling or crucifying, or at all analogous to the phrase, " I
am crucified with Christ." Impalement would scarcely be a
congruous image for physical suffering in one who travelled and
laboured like the apostle. The references to crucifixion and
its agonies are of a different nature. But he might bear about
a sharp-pointed stake in his flesh which no power could extract,
and which was producing a rankling festering wound and tor
ture. Now the rfj aapKi here appears to be parallel to the iv
rfj aapd fiov of Gal. iv. 13 — something which had its origin in

336 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
those superabundant revelations, which vexed and humiliated
the apostle, and was of a nature so visibly painful, and withal
so offensive, that it became a trial to spectators and listeners.
The thorn was " given him " by God, and was also " an angel
of Satan that he may buffet me"— the last clause describing
the action not of the thorn, but of the angel of Satan. It is a
superficial and unbiblical supposition of Turner, that this clause
may have no more real meaning in it than the popular expres
sions, " St. Vitus' dance" or " St. Anthony's fire," in which
there is not the least idea of supernatural agency. Scripture
does not so sport with the awful names and agencies of the
fallen spirit-world. "The devil and his angels" is a phrase
found in Matt. xxv. 41. The thorn was employed by this evil
spirit as a means of buffeting him. That he might be humble
was God's purpose ; that he might be humiliated was the pur
pose of Satan's angel, — that is, brought into contempt, and
restrained in his work, his influence lessened, and himself
harassed and agonized. May not this help to explain the
allusion in 1 Thess. ii. 18, " We would have come unto you,
but Satan hindered us ? " This buffeting might produce ner
vous tremors, apprehensions, and a chronic lowness of spirits.
Amid all his enthusiasm and chivalry, he needed frequent
comfort and assurance ; so that we find the voice saying to him
at Corinth, "Be not afraid;" in his confinement in Jeru
salem, "Be of good cheer;" and during the voyage to Rome,
"Fear not." Acts xviii. 9, xxiii. 11, xxvii. 24. Another result
in such circumstances might be, that strong craving for human
sympathy which is often manifested by him. See Howson,
Ledures on St. Paul, p. 72, 2d edition.
It is difficult to say at what period these revelations were
given. It was fourteen years before he wrote his second epistle
to the Corinthians. The period could not therefore be that of
his conversion, as is thought by Damasus, Thomas Aquinas,
CEder, Keil, and Reiche, for considerably more than fourteen
years must have elapsed since that turning-point in his life.
Others identify the rapture with the trance in the temple, and
the vision and commission connected with it, which himself
describes in Acts xxii. 17-20, as Spanheim, Lightfoot, Rinck,
Schrader, Osiander, Wieseler. If this vision took place at his
first visit to Jerusalem three years after his conversion, the

PERIOD OF THE INFLICTION. 337
dates are more in harmony, though the chronology of the
apostle's life is very uncertain. The year of his conversion
cannot be definitely fixed, opinions varying from the years 33
to 42 a.d. But if it happened, as there is strong probability
for believing, in the end of 37 or in 38, and the 2d Epistle to the
Corinthians was written in 57 or 58, then the "three years after"
of Gal. i. 18, the date of his first visit to Jerusalem, would be
in 40 or 41 — more than fourteen years before this allusion in
2 Cor. xii. 2. There are other ways, however, of manipulating
these dates : Wieseler, for example, places the conversion in the
year 40. Still, though on such a computation the dates might
thus be brought to correspond, the two accounts are by no means
in unison ; for the apostle " utters " what he saw in the temple,
and recounts also what he " heard." Wieseler argues, indeed,
that as the description of the rapture follows close on the refer
ence to the escape from Damascus, its date must naturally be
assigned to the first visit to Jerusalem : Gal. i. 18. But, as
Meyer remarks, the apostle in the beginning of 2 Cor. xii. goes
on to tell something distinctly new, and quite different from the
incidents of previous rehearsal. Wieseler also labours hard to
prove against Ebrard and Meyer, that the dppr/ra prjp,ara are
not things impossible, but only unlawful for a man to utter :
die nicht gesagt werden durfen, — quo? non licet homini loqui.
But dpprjra prj/iara is a phrase not to be identified with dXd-
Xr/roi arevayfiol, Rom. viii. 26, for those groanings are often
inarticulate suspiria de profundis. Nor does this interpretation
much help him ; for certainly the apostle felt at liberty to record
what was said to him in the temple ecstasy, though it is pos
sible that some other portion of that revelation may come under
the category of "unutterable utterances." At all events, the two
accounts do not present any palpable data for their identifica
tion ; so that the period and place of the " visions and revela
tions" are unmarked as an epoch in the history of the Acts of
the Apostles. He did not so glory in the honour as to be often
alluding to it ; it had left him a broken and shattered man.
We can only form an inferential judgment as to the nature
of this stake in the flesh, and can more easily assert what it was
not than define what it really was. But —
I. The reference in Galatians cannot be to the carnal style
of his preaching, the first of four interpretations given by

338 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
Jerome — Quasi parvulis vobis atque lactentibus per infirmitatem
carnis vestrcs jam pridem evangelizavi . . . apud vos pene balr
butiens. This notion is wholly unwarranted by the pointed
words. II. Nor can the thorn be anything external to him, such as
persecution, or any form of fierce and malignant opposition on
the part of enemies, or of one singled out as ayyeXov Xardv,
like Alexander the coppersmith, or Hymenasus, or Philetus,
who are instanced by Chrysostom. Thus Chrysostom explains
" my temptation in the flesh :" " While I preached unto you, I
was driven about, I was scourged, I suffered a thousand deaths,
yet ye thought no scorn of me." Similarly Eusebius of Emesa,
Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret, GScumenius, Theophylact,
Ambrosiast. ; and also Calvin, Beza, Fritzsche, Schrader,
Hammond, Reiche. Augustine, on the verse in Galatians,
says, Neque respuistis, ut non susciperetis communionem peri-
culi mei. It was very natural in those days, when the gospel
everywhere encountered fanatical opposition and numbered
its martyrs by hundreds, to suppose that the eager apostle, so
often thwarted and maligned, so often suffering and maltreated,
summed up all elements of antagonism into the figure of a
thorn in the flesh, and personified them as a messenger of Satan
buffeting him. The Canaanites, the ancient and irritating
enemies of the chosen, are called " thorns." But this opinion is
baseless. For, 1. His weakness is identified with himself : it
clung to him, and he could not part with it ; it was a stake in
his flesh. But he might occasionally avoid persecution, as when
he escaped from Damascus and when he left Ephesus. 2. Such
persecution could not load him with a sense of humiliation in
presence of others, or produce that loathing to which he refers.
3. These persecutions, whether from Judaizers or other foes,
were so bound up with his work, that he could scarcely seek
in this special and conclusive form to be delivered from them,
vers. 8-10.
III. A third theory refers the thorn to some inner tempta
tion which fretted and distracted him. And,
1. Some describe those trials as temptations to unbelief, the
stirring up of remaining sin, or as pangs of sorrow on account
of his own past persecuting life. So generally Gerson, Luther,
Calvin, Osiander, Calovius. Gerson describes it as consisting

ITS NATURE. 339
de horrendis cogitationibus per solam suggestionem inimici phan-
tasiam turbantis obtingentibus. Luther supposed them to be
blasphemous suggestions of the devil, as if they had been a
parallel to his past experience and conflicts. Calvin says, more
distinctly, Ego sub hoc vocabulo comprehendi arbitror omne genus
tentationis quo Paulus exercebatur. Nam caro hie, meo judicio,
non corpus, sed partem animo? nondum regeneratam significat.
Now no statement of such a nature occurs in any other part
of the apostle's letters; and though the second descriptive clause,
" a messenger of Satan," may correspond so far with the hypo
thesis, the first phrase, " thorn in the flesh," indicates something
not in his mind, but acting from without or from his physical
organism upon it. And it is called daQeveia — daQeveia aapKov.
2. Not a few, perhaps led by the stimulus carnis of the
Vulgate, take the phrase to mean temptation to incontinence.
It is not to be wondered at that such should be the opinion of
celibates and of monks who fled from the world and from duty,
but felt to their vexation that they could not flee from them
selves. There seems to have been an early impulse to this
view. Augustine's words tend in that direction — aceepit stimu-
lum carnis. Quis nostrum hoc dicere auderet, nisi ille confiteri
non erubesceret ? — Enarrat. in Ps. Iviii. p. 816, vol. v. Opera,
Gaume. Jerome, too, says : Si apostolus . . . ob carnis aculeos
et incentiva vitiorum reprimit corpus suum. — Epist. ad Eustoch.
p. 91, vol. i. Opera, ed. Vallars. Primasius gives it as an alter
native, alii dicunt titillatione carnis stimulatum. Gregory the
Great describes the apostle after his rapture thus : Ad semet-
ipsum rediens contra carnis bellum laborat. — Moral, lib. viii. c.
29, p. 832, vol. i. Opera, ed. Migne. In mediaeval times this
was the current opinion, as of Salvian, Thomas Aquinas, Bede,
Lyra, Bellarmine, and the Catholic Estius, a Lapide, and
Bisping. Cardinal Hugo condescended to the time of the
temptation, viz. after the apostle's intercourse with the charm
ing Thecla, as related in the legendary Acts. Zeschius de
stirnulo carnis, in the Sylloge Dissertationum of Hasseus and
Ikenius, vol. ii. 895. See Acta Apost. Apocrypha, Tischen
dorf's edition, p. 40. Thecla's heathen mother complains of her
as wholly absorbed in Paul's preaching, and waiting on it "like
a cobweb fastened to the window" in which she sat; and it is in
this legend, so old that Tertullian refers to it, that the apostle's

340 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
appearance is described — ofSpa piiKpbv rfj fieyeQei, tyiXov rfj
KecpaXfi, dyKvXov rah Kvrjpiaiv, eveKrimv, avvocppvv, p,iKpcbv eVt-
pivov, ydpirov irXrjpr). — Acta Apostolorum Apocrypha, p. 41,
ed. Tischendorf. The words of Estius are : Apostolum per
carnis stimulum indicare voluisse incentivum libidinis quod in
came patiebatur, adducing in proof 1 Cor. ix. 27 and Rom. vii.
23, neither of which places refers to sensuality. And a Lapide
claims something like infallibility for this opinion, insisting on
it as an instance of the vox populi, vox Dei.
The objections to this view are many and convincing. For,
(1.) Such a stimulus could not be said to be given him by
God as a special means of humbling him, and in coincidence
with superabundant visions and revelations.
(2.) Nor could the apostle have gloried in this temptation,
ver. 9.
(3.) Nor would it have exposed him to scorn or aversion ;
the struggle would have been within, and could not have' been
described as in this passage of Galatians.
(4.) And lastly, the apostle declares his perfect freedom
from all such temptations. "I would," he affirms, referring
to incontinency and to marriage, — "I would that all men were
even as I." 1 Cor. vii. 7. " Ah ! no, dear Paul," Luther says,
" it was no such trial that afflicted thee."
IV. The trial and the thorn in the flesh seem to be rightly
referred to some painful and acute corporeal malady which
could not be concealed, but had a tendency to induce loathing
in those with whom he had intercourse, which he felt to be
humbling and mortifying to him as a minister of Christ, and
which seems to have been connected with the many visions and-
revelations having a tendency to elate him. Generally, that
is the view of Flatt, Billroth, Emmerling, Riickert, Meyer,
De Wette, Professor Lightfoot, Alford, Howson, Chandler.
Bottger, who regards Galatia as comprising Lystra and Derbe,
thinks that the illness was caused by the stoning in the former
of those places. But from that stoning there was an imme
diate recovery, and it could scarcely be the " thorn in the
flesh." See Introduction.
One hypothesis on this point, viz. that feeble or defective
utterance is meant, has been suggested by the statement of the
apostle, when he says that, in the judgment of his opponents,

NOT DEFECTIVE VISION. 341
his " speech was contemptible." This adverse criticism, how
ever, does not refer to articulation, but to argument ; for he
" came not with the enticing words of man's wisdom." Still the
words may imply that his oratory had some drawbacks, which
made it inferior in power to his epistolary compositions.
Others, again, take the malady to be defective vision,1 and
the opinion is based to a large extent on what he says in the
verses prefixed to this Essay : " I bear you record, that if it
had been possible, ye would have plucked out your eyes and
have given them to me." The theory is plausible, but it wholly
Avants proof, unless some unauthorized additions be made to the
inspired statements. For —
1. The translation of the verse on which such stress is laid
is wrong : it is not " your own eyes," but simply your eyes, un-
emphatic. See on the verse.
2. The mere defect of vision could not of itself induce that
contempt and loathing which his trial implies, as in ver. 14.
3. The thorn in the flesh was given him fourteen years
before he wrote his second Epistle to the Corinthians ; but his
conversion, accompanied by the blinding glory of Christ's ap
pearance, to which his ophthalmic weakness has been traced,
happened at a considerably earlier period.
4. The arguments adduced to prove that the apostle's eye
sight was permanently injured by the light " which shone from
heaven above the brightness of the sun" at mid-day are not
trustworthy. That he was blinded at the moment is true, but
he recovered his sight when there "fell from his eyes as it were
scales." All miracles appear to be perfect healings, and resto
rations of vision are surely no exceptions. The verb drevl^eo,
which is referred to in proof, will not bear out this conjecture.
For in Acts xxiii. 1 drevlaav characterizes the apostle's act
before he began his address, and describes naturally a sweep
ing and attentive scrutiny, but with no implied defect of vision.
In Luke iv. 20 the same verb describes the eager gaze of the
synagogue of Nazareth upon Jesus about to address them — ol
bcpQaXfiol rjaav drevvCpvrev avrco. In Luke xxii. 56 it depicts
the searching survey of the damsel in the act of detecting
Peter as one of the twelve — /cat drevlaaaa avrcp. In Acts
1 See an ingenious paper in Dr. John Brown's Horx Subsecivx, written
by one of his relatives.

342 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
i. 10 it paints the long and wondering look of the eleven after
their ascending Lord — a>? drevl&vrev rjaav. In Acts iii. 4 it
marks the fixed vision of Peter on the man whom he was
about to heal; in vi. 15 it represents the rapt stare of the
audience on Stephen, " when his face shone as the face of an
angel ;" in vii. 55, the intense vision of Stephen himself, when
he " looked up and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing
at the right hand of God;" and in x. 4, the awestruck look
of Cornelius at the angel. See also Acts xiv. 9. In these
examples from Luke — and twice the reference is to Paul,
xiii. 9, xxiii. 1 — the look is one of earnest and strong vision,
and therefore the occurrence of the same verb in xxiii. 1 can
not form any ground for the opinion which we are controvert
ing ; for in making a virtual apology the apostle does not say,
" Pardon me, I did not see," but " I wist not" — perhaps = I
forgot at the moment- — " that he was the high priest." The
allusion also to the "large letters" in which he wrote the
Galatian Epistle, and to the marks of the Lord Jesus which he
bore, admit of a different and satisfactory interpretation.
5. Nor can the interpretation of St' daQeveiav in the paper
referred to be sustained. The writer gives it this sense : " By
the infirmity of my flesh I proclaimed to you the good news ;"
that is, his defective vision was a lasting proof of his conver
sion and of the truth of Christ's resurrection and glory, and
such evidence so adduced they did not despise nor reject. But
" reject" is not the rendering of the last verb, and St' daQe
veiav can only mean " on account of" — certainly not " by
means of." See on the verse.
6. Lastly, if the thorn in the flesh be identified with de
fective vision produced by the light which blinded him at his
conversion, then, as we have said, the proposed identification is
contradicted by the apostle's own chronology in 2 Cor. xii. 2.
The hypothesis of some severe physical malady was among
the earliest started on the subject. The language of Irenaeus
is vague indeed, yet it seems to refer to corporeal ailment ; for
in illustrating the infirmities of the apostle, he adds, as given in
the Latin version, homo, quoniam ipse infirmus et natura mor-
talis, v. 3, 1.
But of the precise form of the malady there are very
various opinions. Hypochondriacal melancholy is supposed by

OPINIONS CONCERNING IT. 343
some (Bartholinus, Wedel). Haemorrhoids is the conjecture
of Bertholdt. Thomas Aquinas gives as one opinion, not his
own, morbus Iliacus, seu viscerum dolor} Basil held the
opinion that the thorn was some disease ; for, treating of the
use of medicine, he speaks of it in connection with, or under
the same category as, the healing of the impotent man at
Bethesda, Job's affliction, and the ulcered beggar Lazarus.
Regulce Fusius Tractates, Opera, vol. ii. 564, Gaume, Paris
1839. Gregory of Nazianzus, at the end of his twentieth
Oration, solemnly appeals to his departed brother — el) Qeia Kal
lepd KeepaXrj — to arrest some malady in him which he calls by
Paul's words, aKoXoira rrjv aapKov. His annotator Nicetas de
scribes it as a disease of the kidneys or of the joints — iroBdypa,
adding that some explained Paul's thorn in the same way.
Greg. Naz. Opera, ii. p. 785, ed. Paris 1630. Baxter thought
the disease may have been stone — his own torment ; his 'tor
mentor is preserved in the British Museum. An old and pre
vailing opinion refers it to some affection of the head. This
opinion is alluded to by Chrysostom — Ttve? fiev ovv Keepa-
XaXylav nvd ecpaaav. Primasius gives as an alternative :
Quidam enim dicunt eum frequenti dolore capitis laborasse : ad
2 Cor. xii. Patrolog. vol. lxxviii. p. 581, Migne. Tertullian
says : Sed et ipse datum sibi ait sudem . . . per dolorem, ut
aiunt, auriculas vel capitis (De Pud. cap. v.), and his editor
Rigalt wonders at the opinion. In another allusion, in a
passage where he is discussing the power of Satan, he simply
says : In sancto 8 humiliandos per carnis vexationem. De Fuga
in Persecutione, cap. ii. Pelagius, while recording the opinion
that persecutions are meant — persecutiones aid dolores — adds :
Quidam enim dicunt eum. frequenter dolore capitis laborasse :
ad 2 Cor. xii. Jerome, too, in giving other conjectures,
speaks in general terms : Aut certe suspicari possumus, apos-
tolum eo tempore quo primum venit ad Galatas csgrotasse . . .
nam tradunt eum gravissimum capitis dolorem scepe perpes-
sum. This ancient and traditionary notion of some physical
ailment is the correct one, though of its special character we
are necessarily ignorant. But mere headache, grievous and
overpowering, could scarcely have produced such an effect as
1 The axohoty in this case was supposed probably to refer to impale
ment : adactum per medium hominem qui per os emergat stipitem.

344 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
is implied in the verbs " despised not nor loathed." Its ac
companiments or results might, however, have this tendency.
Ewald makes it fallende Sucht, or something similar, and also
Ziegler, Holsten, and Professor Lightfoot. This opinion has
several points in its favour. If mental excitement, intense or
prolonged, produces instant and overpowering effect on the
body, how much more the ecstasy which accompanies visions
and revelations ! An " horror of great darkness " fell upon
Abraham when a vision was disclosed to him (Gen. xv. 13).
The prophet Daniel " fainted, and was sick many days," after a
revelation from the angel Gabriel ; and after a " great vision,"
he says, " There remained no strength in me : for my comeli
ness was turned in me into corruption, and I retained no
strength" — " straightway there remained no strength in me,
neither is there breath left in me." Dan. viii. 27, x. 8, 17.
The" beloved disciple who had lain in His bosom says, " When
I saw Him, I fell at His feet as dead." Rev. i. 17. If com
munications of the more common kind, like those vouchsafed
to Daniel, produced such debility and reaction, what would be
the result of such a. bewildering rapture into paradise, and the
visions which followed it? If his nervous system had been
weakened by previous manifestations, might not this last and
grandest honour bring on cerebral exhaustion, paralysis, or
epileptic seizure, with all those results on eye, feature, tongue,
and limb which are so often and so shockingly associated with
it ? And the infliction was a chronic one, as may be inferred ;
it was a stake in his flesh, hindering his work as directly as
Satan might wish, exposing him to the contemptuous taunts of
Jews and Judaists, and to loathing on the part of his friends.
This theory appears to suit all the conditions of this myste
rious malady. Its paroxysms seem to have recurred -at in
tervals, the first attack being fourteen years before the writing
of the second Epistle to the Corinthians — that is, perhaps,
about the year 44 ; another at his first visit to Galatia, pro
bably in 52 ; and then when he was writing the second Epistle
to the Corinthians and this to the Galatians, perhaps about 58,
according to the view we have given in the commencement of
this paper.
One is amazed at the work which men with a strong will
can brace themselves up to do in the midst of extreme suffering

OTHER EXAMPLES. 345
and weakness. Chrysostom, King Alfred,1 William the
Third, Pascal, Richard Baxter, Robert Hall, and Robertson
of Brighton are examples of " strength made perfect in weak
ness." 1 Asser's Life of Alfred, p. 66, etc. A mysterious disease — a " sudden
and overwhelming pain," which from childhood had seized him, and re
curred in another form with frightful severity at his marriage-feast—
"tormented him day and night from the twentieth to the forty-fourth
year of his life. If even by God's mercy he was relieved from this infir
mity for a single day or night, yet the fear and dread of that dreadful
malady never left him, but rendered him almost useless, as he thought, for
every duty, whether human or divine." — Bohn's Antiquarian Series : Six
old English Chronicles. In describing the battle of Landen, Macaulay
characterizes the two great leaders, William and Luxemburg, as "two
sickly beings, who in a rude state of society would have been regarded as
too puny to bear any part in combats. In some heathen countries they
would have been exposed while infants. ... It is probable that among the
hundred and twenty thousand soldiers who were marshalled round Neer-
winden under all the standards of Western Europe, the two feeblest in
body were the hunchbacked dwarf who urged forward the fiery onset of
France, and the asthmatic skeleton who covered the slow retreat of Eng
land." — History of England, vol. iv. pp. 409, 410.

CHAPTER IV. 17-31.
AWARE by what means this alienation of feeling had been
produced, he now reverts to those by whose seductive
arts and errors it had been occasioned — •
Ver. 17. ZnXovaiv vpdv ov koXcov — "They are paying
court to you, not honestly." I may be reckoned your enemy
because I have told you the truth; but these men, who so
zealously court you, and profess such intense regard for you,
are not actuated by honourable motives, — their purpose is
selfish and sinister. Hofmann connects this verse with the
preceding one, as if it were the result — grjXovaiv vfidv. But
the connection is unnatural, and coare in such a case would pro
bably be followed by an accusative with the infinite. A. Butt
mann, p. 210. The verb, like others in oco, seems to have a
factitive sense — to show or display £77X0? ; but it may be shown
in various ways, and from a variety of motives — for one or
against one. Matthias translates it eifern machen sie euch —
they create zeal in you — a meaning unproved. Followed by
an accusative of person or thing, it may mean to desire him
or it ardently, to be eager for: 1 Cor. xii. 31, Soph. Ajax,
552 ; and sometimes in a bad sense it denotes to be jealous or
envious of : Acts vii. 9, James iv. 2, Sept. 2 Sam. xxi. 2.
Calvin, Beza, and others give the meaning, " they are jealous
of you ;" but the same verb in the next clause cannot bear this
signification. Some of the fathers assume the sense of envy or
emulation ; Chrysostom explaining it thus : " They wish that
they may occupy the rank of teachers, and degrade you who
now stand higher than they to the position of disciples." See
Plutarch, Mor. p. 831, vol. iv. Opera, ed. Wittenbach. Their
obsequious attentions were ov KaXebv — in no honourable way,
but insincerely, and for their own unworthy ends : Jas. ii. 3 ;
and ecpQiQ' ov jcaXibv describes the manner of Agamemnon's
346

CHAP. IV. 17. 347
death, iEschylus, Eumenides, 461. The apostle gives no
formal nominative to the verb : who the persons so stigma
tized were, all parties knew in the Galatian churches, and he
does not condescend even to name them. This wooing of
their converts is one of the elements of that witchery re
ferred to in iii. 1. The word "affect" in the Authorized
Version, from the Latin affectare, is used in its older sense,
as in Shakspeare —
" In brief, sir, study what you most affect ;"
And in Blair's Grave —
" While some affect the sun, and some the shade."
The apostle explains ov KaXeov in the next clause, or rather
gives one illustration of it —
'AXXd e'/c/cXeto-at iifidv QeXovaiv — " nay, they desire to ex
clude you." 'AXXd here has a limiting or corrective power.
Kiihner, § 322, 6. It introduces a different idea, yet not one
directly opposite. Klotz-Devarius, ii. 23. Instead of vpidv,
Beza conjectured rjfidv ; but the reading has no support. De
Wette, however, advocates it on account of the easy sense
which it suggests — " they wish to exclude us from all fellow
ship with you and influence over you." For the same reason
Macknight says, " I suppose it to be the true reading." Beza
suggested it ex ingenio. The Syriac translator seems to have
read iyKXeiaai, as the rendering is ^ ¦ *~>» ocn ^ona nK»V?N —
" they wish to include " or " shut you up."
The reference in e/c/cXetcrat has been understood in various
ways — they desire to exclude you, from what or whom?
1. Erasmus, followed by a Lapide, supposes the exclusion
to be from Christian liberty, — the former giving it as a liber-
tate Christi, and the latter a Christo et christiana libertate.
So Estius, and Bagge who explains " from gospel truth and
liberty." Prof. Lightfoot has "from Christ." This does not
tally, however, with the design alleged in the next clause.
2. Wieseler and Ewald suppose the exclusion to be from
salvation — aus dem Himmelreiche, from the kingdom of heaven,
according to the former, — vom dchten Christenthume according
to the latter ; and the notion of Borger, Flatt, and Jatho is not
dissimilar — "from the Christian community." But though such

348 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
might be the feared result, it is not alleged. The Judaists
made it their distinctive dogma that salvation was to be had
through faith in Christ, but only on compliance with the Mosaic
law, so that a church of circumcised believers would be to them
a true object of desire. The next clause suggests also a sepa
ration of persons.
3. Chrysostom, Theophylact, and CEcumenius suppose the
exclusion to be " from perfect knowledge, having had imparted
to them what is mutilated and spurious." Thus Theophylact :
iKBaXXeiv rrjv reXeiordrnv iv Xpiarco Karaardaecov Kal yveoaeeov.
4. Some take it to mean exclusion from the apostle him
self, as Luther, Calvin, Bengel, Olshausen, Winer, Gwynne,
and Trana. Reiche has ab apostolo ejusque communione. But
with a meaning so definite, pointed, and personal, one would
have expected the genitive pronoun to be expressed.
5. Some suppose the exclusion to be from the sounder
portion of the church. Hilgenfeld writes : aus dem Pauli-
nisehen Gemeindeverbande. Meyer includes the apostle also.
This generally seems to be the idea. Their desire was to re
move these Galatian converts from the sounder portion of the
church, adhering of course to the apostle in person and doc
trine, and form them into a separate clique. The emphasis
from position lies on the verb, and the avrovv of the next
clause suggests a personal contrast. The allusion is thus left
general ; the antithesis to the avrovv is only understood —
" they" as a party naturally stand opposed to the party who
hold the Pauline doctrine, and bear no altered relation to
the apostle. The idea of compulsion found in the verb by
Raphelius, Wolf, and Zacharise, does not belong to it ; the
examples quoted for the purpose fail to prove it (Meyer).
And their design was —
"Iva avrovv fyjXovre — " in order that ye may zealously affect
them." They attach themselves to you, that by drawing you
off from those who are of sound opinion, ye may attach your
selves to them. The verb must have the same sense in the last
clause as in the first. The syntax is somewhat solecistic. The
verb tyjXovre, though preceded by 'Iva, is in the present indica
tive — not the Attic future, as Jatho says ; for the instances
adduced by him from Thucydides are presents, and not futures.
There is no difference worthy of the name among the MSS.,

CHAP. IV. 18. 349
though Fritzsche lays stress on MS. 2192, which reads ^nXeore.
So also in 1 Cor. iv. 6 'Iva is followed by the present indicative.
The connection is illogical in thought — design implying some
thing future, possible, etc. Some therefore are disposed to
take 'Iva as an adverb ; Meyer, followed by Matthias, rendering
it ubi, quo in statu, and he rests his interpretation on gramma
tical necessity. There- is no instance, however, of such an ad
verbial usage in the New Testament, for the passages sometimes
adduced will not support the conjecture. Mullach, Grammatik
der Griechischen Vulgar-sprache, p. 373. The idiom is English,
however: "now is the hour come that" — 'Iva — or "when," "the
Son of man should be glorified ;" but 'iva has its usual telic
significance in the original text. Far rather may it be admitted
that the construction is one of the negligences of the later
Greek, or it may be traced to some peculiarity in the concep
tion of the apostle. Winer, § 41, 5, 1. In both instances
found in the New Testament the verbs end in oco. A. Butt
mann, p. 202. The usage of 'Iva with the indicative present is
found in later Greek, of which Winer has given instances —
as from the apocryphal books : Acta Petri et Pauli 15, but
Tischendorf's text reads a7roX77Tat; Acta Pauli et Theclo? 11,
and there too various readings are noted by Tischendorf, Acta
Apocrypha, Lipsias 1851. An additional clause, ijqXovre Be rd
Kpelrrco %aplafiara, taken from 1 Cor. xii. 3, is here inserted
by D1, F, and is found in Victorinus, the Ambrosian Hilary,
and in Sedulius.
Ver. 18. KaXov Be tyfXovaQai iv KaXeo irdvrore — " But
it is good to be courted fairly at all times." The reading to
tyjXovaQai is found in D, F, G, K, L, and almost all mss. A,
B, C omit to ; B and N read IjrjXovaQe (with the Vulgate —
cemulamini — and Jerome), which from the Racism was the same
in sound with fyjXovaQai ; tyjXovaQai without to' is the reading
of A, C, D, F, K, L, and is preferable. The Be is, as usual,
adversative. The interpretation given of the previous verse
rules that of the present one. They display zealous attentions
toward you, and desire to form you into a clique that you
may display zealous attentions toward them. It is not the
mere zealousness I object to. To have zealous attentions
shown toward one in a good cause always is a good thing.
Such seems the natural order of thought : the words are re-

350 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
peated from the previous verse. Such paronomasia, or rather
annominations, are not unfrequent, and are very common in
the Old Testament. Winer, § 68, 2 ; Lobeck, Paralip. p. 501.
The previous kcCXcov suggests koXov and ev /coXoj ; grjXovaiv and
fyXovre suggest gnXovaQai. This last word is to be taken in a
passive sense, for no instance of a middle voice sense has been
adduced. The infinitive has more force with the article.
Winer, § 44, 2, a. The use of iv KaXco for koXcov is sugges
tive : the exchange implies a difference of meaning ; and we
agree with Meyer, that it refers not to manner, like the adverb,
but to sphere — " in a good thing." Nor does this, as Ellicott
objects, alter the meaning of the verb from " ambiri" to admi-
rari; for surely one may say it is good to be courted in a good
way, or to be courted in a good cause, though we do not hold
to the sense of the Greek fathers, as if the phrase pointed out
that which excited the fyjXovv. The reference is not to that
which draws forth the tyjXovv, but to that in which it operates,
implying also the motives of those who feel it. Such seems
the most natural construction of the words. The goodness of
the 5(7X0? depends upon its sphere, the emphasis being on koXov
— good it is to be courted in a good thing, as when the gospel
in its simple truth is earnestly urged upon you. The apostle
does not object to the mere fact of zealous attention being
shown to the Galatians, but first to its way — ov koXcov, that
it was dishonourable ; and then to the sphere of it, that it was
not in a good thing — iv KaXeo, for it was pressing on them a
subverted gospel, and endangering their soul's "salvation. The
statement is a general one — a species of maxim; but to the
Galatians, as the objects of the verb, the apostle plainly refers.
The phrase eV KaXeo does not refer to purpose (Reiche), nor is
the meaning so vague as bona est ambitio in re bona (Wahl,
Schott). Ilavrore, "always," — a word refused by purists.
Phryniohus, p. 105, says, that instead of it eKaarore and Sta-
iravrbv are to be used ; similarly Zonaras, Lex. p. 1526. It is
added —
Kal pi) povov iv ra irapeival p,e irpbv xipdv — " and not only
when I am present along with you." In 77-po? i/idv, as in later
usage, the idea of direction is almost wholly dropped. John
1. 1. The infinitive again has the article, giving it force and
vividness. The, language plainly implies that the iifieiv are

CHAP. IV. 18. 351
supposed to be the objects of the previous QqkovaQai, and the
meaning is : The being paid court to in a good cause is praise
worthy, not only at all times, but by every one ; in my absence
from you, in my presence with you : I claim no monopoly of it.
I do not wish to have you all to myself. Whoever in my
absence shows you zealous attentions, if his zeal be in a good
thing, does what I cannot but commend.
But there are other interpretations which cannot be enter
tained. Locke gives iv KaXeo a personal reference — " it is good
to be well and warmly attached to a good man," that is, him
self the apostle — " I am the good man you took me to be."
Estius writes, Ut cemulemini magistros vestros, qualis ego im
primis sum, id enim intelligi vult. He is followed by Chandler,
whose words are, " I am still worthy of the same share of your
affection, though I am absent from you ; therefore it is neither
honourable nor decent for you to renounce my friendship," etc.
Macknight's paraphrase is, " Ye should consider that it is comely
and commendable for you to be ardently in love with me, a
good man, at all times." But this surely is not the apostle's
usual mode of self-reference.
Some again regard the apostle himself as the object of
QjXovaQai (Reiche, Hofmann) ; and Usteri gives this sense :
" How much was I the object of your £77X0? when I was with
you ! As it has so soon ceased in my absence, it must have lost
much of its worth." But this takes off the edge of the state
ment, and its consecutive harmony with the preceding verse ;
and in such a case, as Meyer says, you would expect fie to have
been expressed.
Others, as Bengel, take tyjXovaQai in the middle — zelare inter
se — to be zealous for one another ; but we have no example of
such a meaning. Others, taking the word in a passive sense,
bring out nearly the same meaning, referring to what is said
in vers. 13-15 — their warm reception of the apostle and his
doctrine when he was present, and their revolution of feeling
as soon as he was absent.
Some adopt the meaning of the middle or active voice.
Thus Olshausen generally, but away from ihe context, " Zeal
is good when it arises in a good cause, tyjXovaQai being equiva
lent to fyXovv;" Luther, Bonum quidem est imitari et csmulari
alios, sed hoc prcestate in re bona semper. While Beza makes the

352 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
apostle the subject of the verb— absens absentes vehementissime
conpledor,— Morus makes him the object : Laudabile autem est
sectari prceceptorem in re bona semper. Koppe thus writes : Optem
vero ut hanc istorum hominum erga vos invidiam concitetis semper
constanter sequendo doctrinam meam. He is virtually followed
by Paulus, Riickert, and Brown who thus renders Koppe's
thought: "Ye were once the subject of their envy, and I
would God ye were the subject of their envy still. I wish
your place in their estimation had been the same in my absence
that it was when I was present with you." But this sense,
allowing the verb to have the meaning " to envy," does not
tally with the same interpretation of the previous verse ; for, as
Meyer hints, they had not been the objects of such envy in the
apostle's presence, as the last clause of this verse with such an
interpretation would plainly intimate. Lastly, Bagge strangely
gives this translation : " It is good to call one's self blessed
in the truth at all times."
The apostle suddenly changes his tone ; his mood softens
into tenderness, like the mother beginning with rebuke and
ending in tears and embraces.
Ver. 19. TeKvla fiov— -"My little children." B, D1, F1, X,
read reKva, a reading which Lachmann adopts, though it is an
evident emendation. TeKvla has in its favour A, C, D, K, L, K3,
with Chrysostom and Theodoret among the Greek fathers, and
also the Vulgate. The apostle is not in the habit of using the
diminutive ; its use here is therefore on purpose : 1 Cor. iv. 14,
17 ; 2 Cor. vi. 13, xii. 14 ; Phil. ii. 22. But the Apostle John
employs it frequently : John xiii. 33 ; 1 John ii. 1, 12, 28, iii.
7, 18, iv. 4, v. 21; though with the genitive ©eov he uses rmva.
This clause is joined, or, as one might say, is tacked on, to the
previous one by Bengel, Ruckert, Usteri, and Schott ; and such
is the punctuation in the text of Knapp, Scholz, and Lachmann.
See Hofmann. But such a connection is exceedingly unsatis
factory, as there is no direct address. The Se of the following
verse (20) has led some to this mode of division, as if it began
a new thought.
Ovv iraXiv cbBlvco — " whom I travail in birth with again."
This change of gender according to the sense is frequent.
Matt, xxviii. 19 ; Rom. ix. 22, 24 ; Winer, § 24, 3. The verb
cbBlvco is spoken of the mother, not of the father— parturio,

CHAP. IV. 19. 353
Vulgate. It does not mean in utero gestare, as is the opinion
of Heinsius, Grotius, Koppe, Ruckert ; but is "to travail," to be
in the throes of parturition. Rev. xii. 2. Compare Num. xi.
2 ; Ps. vii. 14 ; Cant. viii. 15 ; Isa. xxxiii. 4, xxvi. 17, 18, liii.
11, lxvi. 7, 8 ; Rom. viii. 22, 23. The image of paternity is
the usual one with the apostle : 1 Cor. iv. 15 ; Philem. 10.
There does not seem to be any foundation for Wieseler's idea,
that in irdXiv the allusion is to rraXiyyeveala ; it is simply to
the previous agonies of spiritual birth when he was present
with them. At the first he had travailed in birth with them ;
and now the process, with all its pain and sorrow, was being
repeated. The sense of the verb in such a context is not mere
sorrow, but also enduring anxiety and toil. No wonder that
those who had cost him so much were so dear to him — remila
fiov — whom he had begotten in the gospel. See Suicer, Thesaur.
sub voce.
''A'xpiv ov popcpcoQfi Xpiarov iv vpiv — " until Christ be
formed in you." The words d-^pi and p^pt are distinguished
by Tittmann, as if the first had in prominence the idea of ante,
the entire previous time, and the second that of usque ad, the
end of the time specially regarded — a hypothesis which Fritzsche
on Rom. v. 14 has overthrown. Klotz-Devarius, ii. p. 224.
The passive fiopepcoQfj with the stress upon it, not used else
where, expresses the complete development of the fiopcprj — the
form of Christ. Sept. Isa. xliv. 13. The metaphor is slightly
changed, and the phrase does not .probably refer to regene
ration (it is not till Christ be born in you), but to its fully
formed and visible results. The Galatian churches might be
regenerate, for they had enjoyed the Spirit : the apostle's
anguish and effort were, that perfect spiritual manhood might
be developed in them. The figure is therefore so far changed;
for they were not as an embryo waiting for birth, — -the child is
formed ere the pangs of maternal child-bearing are felt. The
apostle's maternal pain was not because a full-formed child was
to be born, but because his little children were dwarfing and not
rising up to manhood — were still reicvla. See under Eph. iv. 13.
These earlier pangs he had felt already when they became his
little children ; but, now that they were born, he was in labour
a second time, irdXiv, that they might come to manhood, and
be Christians so fully matured that indwelling truth should be
z

354 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
their complete safeguard against seduction and error. It is no
argument against giving iraXiv a reference to his first visit that
he describes it as joyful ; for his spiritual anxiety was none
the less deep, and his agony of earnestness none the less in
tense, till the truth of the gospel should take hold on them
and Christ be formed in them — their life. Besides, the mere
pain of parturition is not the only point of comparison. The
formation of Christ. within them is the purpose of his travail of
soul. For " Christ" is the one principle of life and holiness, —
not Christ contemplated as without, but Christ dwelling within
by His Spirit; not speculation about His person or His doctrine,
nor the vehement defence of orthodox belief, not the knowledge
of His character and work, nor profession of faith in Him with
an external submission to the ordinances of His church. Very
different — Christ in them, and abiding in them : His light in
their minds, His love in their hearts, His law in their con
science, His Spirit their formative impulse and power, His
presence filling and assimilating their entire inner nature, and
His image in visible shape and symmetry reproducing itself in
their lives. Rom. viii. 29. What Christian pastor would not
toil, and pray, and yearn for such a result, to "present every
man perfect in Christ Jesus ?" Col. i. 28; Eph. iv. 13. Calvin
says well : " If ministers wish to do any good, let them labour
to form Christ, not to form themselves in their hearers." The
figure is virtually reproduced in describing the fruits of mar
tyrdom, as Prof. Lightfoot remarks, in the Epistle of the
Churches of Vienne and Lyons; but there is this difference,
that in that epistle it is the church, the "virgin mother," who
brings forth. Euseb. Hist. Eecles. v. 1, § 53, etc.. The notion
of a second conversion urged by Boardman cannot be based
on this verse: Higher Christian Life, pt. iii. See Waterland, vol.
iv. p. 445. Yet Calvin writes, and Gwynne calls him " drowsy
and oblivious" for so writing : Semel prius et concepti et editi
fuerant, jam secundo procreandi erant post defectionem ; but he
adds, Non enim abolet priorem partum, sed dicit iter urn fovendos
utero esse, tanquam immaturos foetus et informes. Augustine
says: Formatur Christus in eo, qui formam accipit Christi.
Ver. 20. "HQeXov Be irapeivai irpbv vpdv dpri— "I could
wish indeed to be present with you now." The Se is not re
dundant (Scholefield), but is used after an address, as often

CHAP. IV. 20. 355
after questions, and after a vocative with a personal pronoun.
Bernhardy ; A. Buttmann, p. 331. There is a subadversative
idea in the transition. He had spoken of his being present
with them ; in his memory a chord is struck ; it vibrates for a
moment while he calls them little children, for whom he is
suffering birth-pangs ; and then he gives expression to his feel
ing, " I could wish, yea, to be present with you." Hilgenfeld's
separation of this verse from the one before it, as if it began a
new sentence, is unnatural. His absence stands out in con
trast to his ideal presence. The imperfect rjQeXov is rightly
rendered "I .could wish," — a wish imperfectly realized, but still
felt ; for there underlies the idea, " if it were possible," si
possim, or wenn die Sache thunlich ware. Acts xxv. 22 ; Rom.
ix. 3. It is the true sense of the imperfect, the act being un
finished, some obstacle having interposed. Bernhardy, p. 373;
Kiihner, § 438, 3 ; Hermann, Sophocles, Ajax, p. 140, Lipsia?
1851. The particle dv is not understood (Jowett); for the use
of dv, as Hermann remarks, would have brought in a different
thought altogether — " but I will not." Opuscula, i v. p. 56. See
Fritzsche on Rom. ix. 3. For 77-po? hfidv, see under ver. 18,
and for apTt, see under i. 9.
Kat oXXa^at rrjv epeovrjv fiov — " and to change my voice."
The tense of the verb is altered, and such an alteration is not
infrequent. Winer^ § 40, 2. Could we lay any stress upon
the alteration here, it might point out that the change of voice
was the effect of the realized wish to be present with them.
Qcovrj may refer more to the tone than the contents of speech,
for it would still be dXrjQevcov. But of what nature is the
change expressed by the verb ?
1. The change seems to be in oral address — cpcovrj, and not
in allusion to anything which he was writing, for he could
easily change the tone of the epistle. He supposes himself
present, and may allude to strong and indignant declara
tions and warnings made during his second visit. 2. The
change is not from milder to sterner words, as is wrongly held
by Wetstein, Michaelis, Rosenmiiller, Riickert, Baumgarten-
Crusius, Webster and Wilkinson, for hard words are not
written by him now, but his soul is filled with love and longing
— reKvla fiov. 3. According to Hahn, the change is from
argument to accommodation and the allegory of the following

356 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
paragraph. Biblical Repository, vol. i. p. 133. But such an
explanation is artificial and unnatural. 4. The change, as
Meyer and others think, is to a milder tone than that which he
had just been employing. Such appears to be the dictate of
his present mood of mind as he pens this sentence. His soul
is softened toward them — molliter scribit, sed mollius loqui
vellet (Bengel). 5. A variety of changes are supposed to
lurk in the word by many expositors, for they imagine the
change to be suited to changing circumstances. Such is the
view of Theodoret, Luther, Winer, De Wette, Schott,
Brown, Estius, and Bisping. Thus Luther : " That he
might temper and change his voice, as he saw it needful."
Thus, too, a Lapide: Ut quasi mater nunc blandirer nunc
gemerem nunc obsecrarem nunc objurgarem vos. But the simple
verb oXXo^ot will not bear such a variety of implied meanings,
and, as Meyer suggests, such a clause would have been added
as 7rpo? rr/v xpelav, Acts xxviii. 10. Fritzsche's notion is un
tenable in its extravagant emphasis : Vel severius, vel lenius
cum Us agere, prout eorum indoles poposcerit. In the two ex
amples of the phrase cited by Wetstein, the first, referring to
the croak of the raven, has iroXXaKiv qualifying the verb, and
the second is precise and simple in meaning. Artemidorus,
Oneiro. ii. 20, p. 173, vol. i. ed. Reiff ; Dio Chrysostom,
Orat. 59, p. 662, vol. ii., Opera, ed. Emperius, 1854. Lastly,
the meaning assigned by Wieseler to the verb cannot be sus
tained ; for, according to him, dXXdaaeiv means austauschen,
to exchange, not simply to change, as if the apostle longed to
exchange words or to converse freely with them. It is true
that dXXdaaeiv and fieraXXaaaeiv, both followed by iv, are
used in Rom. i. 23 and 25 in senses not very different, save
that the compound is the more emphatic, and the latter in ver.
26 is followed more distinctly by et'?, though dvrl is a common
classical usage, or a genitive — ti, rivov. In order to bear out
the sense given by Wieseler, some supplementary clause with
a preposition is therefore indispensable. The passages quoted
from the Septuagint will not bear him out, as there is only
the accusative here ; in Lev. xxvii. 3, 33 there is also a dative,
koXov irovrjpep ; in Ps. cv. 20 the preposition iv follows the verb
as in Romans; and in Ex. xiii. 13 there occurs the simple dative.
Comp. Jer. ii. 11? xiii. 23; Gen. xxxi. 7; Esdras vi. 11, etc.

CHAP. IV. 21. 357
The apostle adds the reason —
' On diropovpiai iv v/iiv — " for 1 am perplexed in you."
Hofmann unnaturally connects iv vfiiv with the previous clause,
and Matthias, with as little reason, joins the whole clause
to the following verse, as the ground of the question which
it contains. The verb airopeco (diropov, impassable, as applied
to hills or rivers) signifies "to be without means," to be in
difficulty or in perplexity. In the New Testament it is con
strued with et'?, referring to a thing, Acts xxv. 20, and also
with 77-ept, Luke xxiv. 4, as well as iv. The verb is here
passive with a deponent sense. Grammatically, in the purely
passive sense it might mean, " I am the object of perplexity,"
as the passive of an intransitive verb. Bernhardy, p. 341 ;
Jelf, § 367. The meaning would then be that assigned by
Fritzsche, Nam hcsretis quo me loco habeatis, nam sum vobis
suspectus; and this meaning coalesces with his interpretation of
the previous clause. But the usage of the New Testament is
different, as may be seen in John xiii. 22, Acts xxv. 20, 2 Cor.
iv. 8. Gen. xxxii. 7 ; Sirach xviii. 7 ; also, Thucydides,
ii. 20 ; Xen. Anab. vii. 3, 29 ; Schoemann, Iscsus, p. 192. The
phrase ev vfiiv points to the sphere of his perplexity. Winer,
§ 48, a; 2 Cor. vii. 16. The doubts of the apostle were not
merely what to think of them or of their, condition, but how to
reclaim them. How to win them back he was at a loss ; and
therefore he desired if possible to be present with them, and if
possible to adopt a milder tone, if so be they could be recovered
from incipient apostasy. The iv is not propter (Bagge), but
has its usual meaning, denoting the sphere in which the emo
tion of the verb takes place. Such is apparently the spirit of
the verse.
Ver. 21. Aeyere fioi, ol virb vbfiov QeXovrev elvai, rbv vbfiov
ovk aKovere ; — " Tell me, ye who desire , to be under the law,
do ye not hear the law?" The appeal is abrupt — urget quasi
prcesens (Bengel). The parties addressed are not persons of
heathen birth (Flatt, Ruckert), nor specially of Jewish birth
(Schott, De Wette), but those who had a strong desire to place
themselves under the law, in whom the Judaistic teaching had
stirred up this untoward impulse, which Chrysostom says came
from their aKalpov cpiXoveiKlav. The phrase, " Do ye not hear
the law?" is supposed by Meyer and others to mean, "Do ye

358 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
not hear the law read ?" But the plain meaning of the terms
is the best. The verb aKovere is not to be taken as signifying
"do ye understand?" (Jerome, Borger, Olshausen, Kiittner,
and others), nor as denoting, " Do ye not submit to the law V
(Gwynne), which is utterly wrong, or as having any modifi
cation of that sense ; but it is, " Ye who would submit to the
law, give ear to its statements." The reading dvayivcbaKere is
an old gloss found in D, F, found also in the Latin version
(legistis) and in several of the fathers, and may have been
suggested by the reading of the law in the synagogues, or by
a wish to give a more palpable form to the question. The
repetition of vbpiov is emphatic : in the first clause it is the legal
institute ; in the second with the article it is the book of the
law. Luke xxiv. 44 ; Rom. iii. 21. Hofmann needlessly takes
the whole verse as one thought — " Tell me (ot' relative), ye
who desiring to be under the law do not hear the law ;" but
this view does not harmonize with the beginning of the next
verse. The apostle now- sets before them a striking lesson of
the-law, so presented and interpreted as to be specially intel
ligible to them, as being also quite in harmony with their
modes of interpretation —
Ver. 22. Teypairrai ydp, on 'ABpadfi Bvo vlovv ecryjef eva
e'/c rrjv iraiBlaKnv, Kalteva e'/c T77? eXevQepav — " For it is written
that Abraham had two sons ; one by the bond-woman, and one
by the free woman." The yap introduces illustrative proof.
It tacitly takes for granted a negative reply to the previous
question, and thus vindicates the propriety of putting it :
Klotz-Devarius, ii. 234 ; or it may mean profedo — doch ivohl :
Ellendt, Lex. Soph. i. 332. The two mothers Hagar and Sarah
are particularized by the article as well known : Gen. xvi. and
xxi. HaiBlaKn sometimes, however, means a free-born maiden,
as in Ruth iv. 12, Xen. Anab. iv. 3, 11. But in Gen. xxi. 10
it represents in the Sept. the Hebrew HDX, and in Gen. xvi.
1 the Hebrew nna^, and in the New Testament it is used
only in the sense of slave. Nedviv was the earlier Greek term.
Phrynichus, ed. Lobeck, 239; Cremer's Lex. sub voce iXev-
Qepov. The apostle refers to some very remarkable points in
Abraham's domestic history with which they must all have
been well acquainted —

CHAP. IV. 23, 24. 359
Ver. 23. 'AXX' 6 p,ev e/c T77? iraiBlaKnv, Kara adp/ca 76767/-
vrjrai- o Be e'/c rrjv iXevQepav, Bid rrjv iirayyeXlav — "Howbeit
he of the bond-maid was born after the flesh, but he of the
free woman by the promise." 'AXXd—" howbeit " (though
both were sons of the same father) — introduces the difference
between the two sons in their birth, probably with the under
lying idea of difference, too, in their character and destiny.
Kara adpKa (Rom. ix. 7-10) means that Ishmael was born in
the usual course of nature, and implies that Isaac was not ; for
he was born " by virtue of the promise," as is recorded in Gen.
xviii. 10. There was a promise also connected with Ishmael's
birth, though that birth in itself implied nothing out of the ordi
nary course of nature; whereas in Isaac's case there was miracle,
when Sarah, " past age," gave birth to a son in fulfilment of
the promise. Gen. xvii. 15, 16, xviii. 10, 11, 14; Rom. ix. 9.
But for the promise, there would have been no such birth.
Ver. 24. "Anvd ianv dXXrjyopovpeva — ¦" which things,"
" which class of things," or " all those things are allegorized" —
quo? sunt per allegoriam dicta, Vulgate. The meaning of .the
clause is not, " which things have been allegorized" already —
namely, by the prophet Isaiah in the quotation made afterwards
from Isa. liv. 1 (Brown after Vitringa, Peirce, and Macknight).
For the quotation comes in as part of the illustration, not as an
instance or example. A formal reference to an allegory framed
by Isaiah, or to one found in his prophecies, would have neces
sitated a past participle ; but the use of the present participle
describes the allegory as at the moment under his hand. " Arwa
brings together not the persons simply, but in their peculiar
relations ; not the births merely, but their attendant circum
stances. The verb aXXo — cuyopeveiv is to express another sense
than the words in themselves convey. Wycliffe renders : " the
whiche thingis ben seide bi anothir understondinge." Suidas
thus defines dXXr/yopla : rj pieraepopd, aXXo Xeyov rb ypdppa Kal
aXXo rb vbrjpa. The verb signifies either to speak in an alle
gory (Joseph. Ant. fntrod. iv.), or to interpret an allegory.
Plutarch, Op. Mor. p. 489, D, vol. iv. ed. Wittenbach ; Clem.
Alex. Strom, v. 11, p. 563. An allegory is not, as it has been
sometimes defined, a continued metaphor ; for a metaphor as
serts one thing to be another, whereas an allegory only implies
it. To be allegorized, then, is to be interpreted in another than

360 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
the literal sense. The simple historical facts are not explained
away as if they had been portions of a mere allegory, like the
persons and events in Bunyan's Pilgrim ; but these facts are
invested with a new meaning as portraying great spiritual
truths, and such truths they were intended and moulded to
symbolize. But to say that a portion of early history is alle
gorized is very different from affirming that it is an allegory, or
without any true historical basis. Luther says that Paul was
" a marvellous cunning workman in the handling of allegories,"
and he admits that " to use allegories is often a very dangerous
thing," — adding : " Allegories do not strongly persuade in divi
nity ; but, like pictures, they beautify and set out the matter.
... It is a seemly thing to add an allegory when the foundation
is well laid and the matter thoroughly proved." The allegory
used by the apostle here is quite distinct from the rvirov in
1 Cor. x. 11, where certain historical events are adduced as
fraught with example and warning to other men and ages
which might fall into parallel temptations. Yet Chrysostom
says, " Contrary to usage, he calls a type an allegory ;" but
adds correctly : Kara-yprjariKcbv rbv rvirov dXXvyopiav e/coXecrez/ ;
" This history not only declares what appears on the face of it,
but announces somewhat further, whence it is called an alle
gory." The allegory is here adduced not as a formal or a pro
minent proof, but as an illustrative argument in favour of
what had been already proved, and one fitted to tell upon
those whose modes of interpreting Scripture were in harmony
with it. " Ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear
the law?" Prefaced by this personal appeal, it starts up as
a vindication on their own principles, the justness of which
would be recognised by the apostle's Judaistic opponents. His
early rabbinical education, and some familiarity, too, with the
peculiarities of the Alexandrian school of thought and theo-
sophy, may have suggested to him this form of discussion as
an argumentum ad hominem; but it would be rash to say that
the apostle invented this allegory to suit his purpose. It is not
as if he had said, Those things may be turned to good account
in a discussion of this nature ; but his inspiration being ad
mitted, his meaning is, they were intended to convey those
spiritual lessons. Such an allegorical interpretation is therefore

CHAP. IV. 24. 361
warranted, apart from his employment of it in the present in
stance. It is not wholly the fruit of subjective ingenuity — ein
Mosses Spiel seiner Phantasie (Baur) — or an accommodation to
rabbinical prepossession. The history by itself, indeed, affords
no glimpse into such hidden meanings. But Abraham and his
household bore a close historical and typical connection with
the church of all lands and ages, and God's dealings with them
in their various relations foreshadowed His dealings with their
successors, as well the children by natural descent and under
bondage to the law — Hagar, Ishmael — as those after the
Spirit and in the possession of spiritual freedom — believers —
blessed in Abraham, along with believing Abraham, and heirs
through promise. Faith and not blood is the bond of genetic
union ; but the natural progeny still hates and persecutes the
spiritual seed, as at that time in Galatia. God repeats among
the posterity what He did among their ancestors ; the earlier
divine procedure becomes a picture of the later, and may there
fore on this true basis be allegorized. To take out the lasting
lessons from the history of Abraham's family, and the divine
actings in it and toward it, is to say in the apostle's words,
" which things are an allegory." The migration from Ur is
somewhat similarly treated, though not in the same form, in
Heb. xi. 14, 15, 16. If the outlines of such allegorical treat
ment were current in the apostle's days, — if it was an acknow
ledged method of exposition, — then one may conjecture that
the favourite allegory among Jewish teachers would be to pic
ture Isaac as the Jewish church, and Ishmael as the Gentiles ;
but the apostle affirms the reverse, and makes Hagar's child
the Jewish representative.
Philo allegorizes those points in Abraham's history which
are selected here for the same purpose by the apostle. But
a comparison will show that the process and aim of the two
writers are widely different. According to various assertions
met with in Philo's Treatises, Abram is the soul in its advance
toward divine knowledge ; the very name, which means " high
father," being suggestive, for the soul reaches higher and
higher, through various spheres of study, to the investigation
of God Himself. Salvation implies change of abode ; there
fore Abraham left his native country, kindred, and father's
house, — that country being the symbol of the body, his kindred

362 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
of the outward senses, and his father's house denoting speech.
A somewhat different explanation is given in his De Mut.
Nom. Abram signifies high father, but Abraham elect-father
of sound, — sound being equivalent to speech, father the same
as mind, and elect a special quality of the wise man's soul.
Sarai, signifying " my princess," stands for " the virtue which
rules over my soul ;" but she does not as yet bring forth for
Abraham — divine virtue is barren to him for a time. He
must first cohabit with Hagar; there must be a preparatory
connection with the handmaiden ; and she represents the en
cyclical knowledge of wisdom and logic, grammar and geo
graphy, rhetoric and astronomy, all of which are mastered by
an initiatory course of mental discipline.1 Philo describes at
length the various elements of this intermediate instruction.
Hagar, in her race, name, and social position, is profoundly
symbolic ; for she is of Egypt, the land of science, her name
means emigration, and she is slave to the princess. The same
relation that a mistress has to her handmaidens, or a wife to a
concubine, Sarah or wisdom has to Hagar or worldly educa
tion. Hagar at once bears a son ; that son is Ishmael, who re
presents sophistry. Abraham then returns to Sarah, and she
too at length bears a son : her son is Isaac, who typifies wis
dom; and this is happiness, for the name Isaac signifies laughter.
That is to say, the mind, after previous initiation and discipline,
enters profitably on higher prolific study ; or when Sarai, " my
authority," is changed into Sarah, "my princess" — generic
and imperishable virtue, then will arise happiness or Isaac.
Then, too, the rudimentary branches of instruction, which bear
the name of Hagar and her sophistical child called Ishmael,
will be cast out. "And they shall suffer eternal exile ; God
Himself confirming their expulsion, when He orders the wise
man to obey the word spoken by Sarah." " It is good to be
guided by virtue when it teaches such lessons as this."— De
Cherub, p. 2, vol. ii. Op. ed. Pfeiffer. Thus Philo and Paul have
in their allegory little in common, save the selection of the same
historical points. In the hands of Philo the incidents become
fantastic, unreal, and shadowy— fragments of a dim and blurred
1 Not unlike the studies of the Trivium and Quadrivium, thus expressed
in a mediaeval line :
"Lingua, tropus, ratio, numerus, tonus, angula, astra.''

CHAP. IV. 24. 363
outline of spiritual and intellectual elevation and progress. The
allegory of Clement is similar to that of Philo. Strom, p. 284,
ed. Sylburg. But the apostle's treatment, on the other hand,
is distinct and historical, without any tinge of metaphysical
mysticism. In a word, the difference between Paul's allegoriz
ing and that of Philo and of the Christian fathers, such as
Clement and Origen, is greatly more than Jowett asserts it to
be — is greatly more than a difference " of degree." For there
is on the part of the apostle a difference of style and principle
in the structure of it, and there is a cautious and exceptional
use of it. It never resembles the Emo of the Jewish doctors,
or the dreamy theosophy of the Cabbala. See Maimonides,
Moreh Nevochim, iii. 43. See Professor Lightfoot's note.
The Old Testament has many historical facts which surely
involve spiritual lessons, and . pre-intimate them as distinctly,
though not so uniformly, as the Aaronic ritual typifies the
great facts of redemption, it being dvrlrvira, virbBeiypia, aKid.
The prospective connection of the old economy with the new
is its great characteristic — the connection of what is outer and
material with what is inner and spiritual in nature. But this
connection must be of divine arrangement and forecast, other
wise it could not furnish such illustrations as are presented in
this paragraph. While this is the case, every one knows that
allegorization has been a prevailing vice in biblical exposition—
that the discovery of occult meanings, and of typical persons and
things, has done vast damage to sound commentary. There is
scarcely an event, person, or act, that has not been charged with
some hidden sense, often obscure and often ludicrous, the ana
logy being frequently so faint that one wonders how it could ever
have been suggested. Amidst such confusion and absurdity
which defy hermeneutical canons and apostolical example, it is
surely extreme in Dean Alford to characterize as " a shallow
and indolent dictum, that no ancient history is to be considered
allegorical but that which inspired persons have treated allego-
rically." We may at least be content with the unfoldings of
the New Testament ; and he who " reads, marks, learns, and
inwardly digests" the Scriptures will be under little impulse to
handle the word of God so fancifully as to be accused of hand
ling it deceitfully.
The apostle now unfolds the allegory —

364 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
^43Tat 7<zp elaiv Bvo BiaQrJKai — " for these women are two
covenants." The article at before the last noun is omitted on
the preponderant authority of all the uncials, though it occurs
in a1, but not in K3. The auTot are the two mothers Hagar
and Sarah, not Ishmael and Isaac (Jowett), nor is avrai for
TauTO (Balduin, Schmoller) ; and in the allegory they repre
sent two covenants, not revelations (Usteri). The construction
is as in Matt. xiii. 39, xxvi. 26-28, 1 Cor. x. 4, Rev. i. 20.
Mia fiev dirb opovv ~Zivd, eh BovXelav yevvebaa, tjtiv eanv
'Ayap — " one indeed from Mount Sinai, bearing children into
bondage, which," or, " and this is Hagar." The local diro
indicates place or origin — this covenant originated or took its
rise from Mount Sinai. The particle p,ev, solitarium, is followed
by no corresponding Be, as the other point of the comparison is
not brought into immediate prominence, but passes away into
the general statement. Winer, § 63, 2. For yevvebaa, see
Luke i. 13, 57 ; Xen. De Rep. Lac. i. 3. The last words are
" for bondage," or " into a state of bondage ; " the children of
the bond-mother according to law inherit her condition. Hof
mann connects the words "from Mount Sinai" closely with
the participle " bearing children." The pronoun ^Tt?, quippe
qucedam, is a contextual reference. The Sinaitic covenant is
thus represented by Hagar.
What the apostle says in the following verse has given rise
to numerous differences of opinion, and there is also conflict
about its various readings. The Received Text has —
Ver. 25. To yap 'Ayap %ivd opov iarlv iv rfj 'ApaBla —
"For Hagar (not the person, but the name) is Mount Sinai
in Arabia" — the neuter rb with the feminine "Ayap in its
abstract form specifying the thing itself in thought or speech.
Kiihner, vol. ii. § 492 ; Winer, § 18 ; Eph. iv. 9. In the
Clementine Homilies, xvi. 18, occurs to ©ebv ; rb B' vp,eh
orav eiireo rrjv irbXiv Xeyco, Dem. Pro Corona, p. 162, vol. i.
Op. ed. Schaefer.
But the reading has been disputed. To Be "Ayap has
the authority of A, B, D, E, and of one version, the Mem-
phitic ; but ydp has in its favour C, F, K, L, K, the Vul
gate, Syriac, and many of the fathers. The first reading
given is found in K, L, the great majority of cursives, both
Syriac versions, and in the Greek fathers. On the other hand,

CHAP. IV. 25. 365
the reading to yap ~%ivd bpov iariv, omitting "Ayap, is found
in C, F, G, K, the old Latin, the Vulgate-, the Greek fathers
Origen (according to the Latin version), Epiphanius, Cyril,
Damascenus, in Ambrosiaster or the Ambrosian Hilary, in
Augustine, Jerome, Pelagius, and, as Prof. Lightfoot says, pro
bably " all the Latin fathers," — apud omnes Latinos interpretes,
says Estius. Beza omitted "Ayap in his first and second edi
tions, but afterwards inserted it — nolui tamen receptam Grcecam
ledionem immutare. Now, to account for these variations, it
may be said on the one side, that the juxtaposition of ydp
"Ayap may have led to them, so that the one or other of the
like words was omitted, and Se inserted, either for the connec
tion, or as suggested by the fiev in the previous verse. So
Tischendorf, Meyer, Reiche, Winer, Ewald, Ellicott, and
Alford. It may be replied, however, on the other side, that
the words to ydp might be easily turned into rb "Ayap, "Ayap
being found in the immediate context, while Se or ydp was
inserted for the contextual sequence. With this hypothesis
the other variations may also be more easily accounted for.
Our reading is adopted by Lachmann, Fritzsche, De Wette,
Hofmann, Wieseler, Prof. Lightfoot, and by Bisping and
Windischmann who may be supposed to be pjartial to Latin
authority. Bentley adopted the same view, as may be seen in
his text, as given in Ellis's Bentleii Critica Sacra, p. 108, Lon
don 1862 ; and in his letter to Mill (p. 45) he supposes that the
verse was originally a gloss : ea verba de libri margine in ora-
tionem ipsam irrepsisse. Mill was not averse to the same con
jecture, as his note indicates, and Kuster adopted the same
view. This reading is moreover natural and plausible : " for
Sinai is a mountain in Arabia," not according to the order of
the words, " for Mount Sinai is in Arabia." The moment is
on the last words, " in Arabia ;" that is, among the descendants
of Hagar, or beyond the limits of Canaan in a land of bond
men. The site and origin of the one covenant, which is Hagar
bearing children into bondage, is Sinai, and that Sinai is a
mountain in the country of Hagar's offspring. The Arabs are
named from Hagar 'Ayaprjvol in Ps. Ixxxiii. 7, in parallelism
with Ishmaelites ; 'Ayapaioi, 1 Chron. v. 10, 19 ; Baruch iii.
23. The Targumist renders Shur (wilderness of Shur) by
Hagar — K"Un — Hagra, as in Gen. xvi. 7. Compare Ewald,

366 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
Geschichte des Volkes Israel, vol. i. 452, 3d ed., and his Nach-
trag iiber den Namen Hagar-Sinai, in his Die Sendschr. d.
Apost. Paulus, p. 493. Strabo, on the authority of Eratos
thenes, joins with the 'Aypaioi the Nabatasans and Chaulo-
teans, xvi. 4, 2 ; Pliny, Hist. Nat. vi. 32. The clause then is
a parenthetical remark suddenly thrown in, to sustain and
illustrate the allegory of Hagar the bond-woman representing
the covenant made at Sinai, — for indeed that Sinai is a moun
tain in Arabia, the country of Hagar's descendants.
If the common reading be adopted, there are several diffi
culties in the way of interpretation : " For this Hagar (the
object of allegory, not the person) is Mount Sinai in Arabia."
The meaning of the clause is not, the woman Hagar is a type
of Mount Sinai (Calvin, Estius) ; the neuter article forbids it.
Others suppose the meaning to be : Hagar is the name of
Mount Sinai in Arabia ; or, that mountain is so named by the
Arabians — apud Arabes (Meyer) ; is so named in the Arabian
tongue : Matthias, offering to supply StaXe/cro). But iv rfj
'ApaBla is taken most simply and naturally as a topographical
notation. The apostle is thus supposed to refer to the meaning
of the word Hagar, and to say that in the tongue of the natives
it is the name' of Mount Sinai, or, as Tyndale renders, " for
Mount Sinai is called Hagar in Arabia." There is, however,
no distinct proof of this assertion. It may be true, but there
is no proper evidence of its truth. The tribes sprung of Hagar
might give the great mountain their own name and that of
their famous ancestress ; but no instance of this has been
adduced by any one. A Bohemian traveller named Harant
visited the country in 1598, and he says " that the Arabian
and Mauritanian heathens call Mount Sinai Agar or Tur."
His work, named Der Christliche Ulysses, published at Niirn-
berg in 1678, was translated out of Bohemian into German
(see Prof. Lightfoot), and the quotation from it is generally
taken from Biisching's Erdebeschreibung. Granting that he
reports what he heard with his own ears, it is strange that his
statement has been confirmed by no succeeding traveller. His
authority is rendered suspicious also by some of Prof. Light-
foot's remarks.
It has been alleged, tdo, that the words Hagar and Sinai
are the same in sense, and that the apostle meant to assert by

CHAP. IV. 25. 367
the way this identity of meaning. But granting that Sinai, ^D,
means " rock" or " rock-fissures," the Hebrew name "Uri— js-la,
hajar, in Arabic — cannot bear such a signification, for it denotes
" fugitive" or " wanderer," or, as Jerome gives it, advena vel
conversa. It is true that there is an Arabic word of similar
sound, ,«j=-, which means " stone," but it would be represented
in Hebrew by Ijn, hhagar — the words differing distinctly in
the initial consonants. Freytag, sub voce. These consonants
are indeed sometimes interchanged, but "ijn and 13n belong to
different families of words. It will not do to allege with Meyer
that allegory interpretation is easily contented with the mere
resemblance of names, as in the case of Nazarene, Matt. ii.
23 ; Siloam, John ix. 7 ; or to allege that yet, with all these
objections to the common reading, it may be held that Paul,
when he went into Arabia, as he says in i. 17, may have heard
Sinai get the provincial name of Hagar. There was appa
rently a place of this name not far from Petra, but Petra itself
never seems to get the designation of El-hhigr. Hilgenfeld
refers for a similar clause to a reference to Ramah in Justin
Martyr, Dial. c. Tryph. c. 78.
Xvarowei Be rfj vvv 'lepovaaXrjp, — " and indeed she rank-
eth with the present Jerusalem." Tyndale and Cranmer
render " bordereth upon ;" the Vulgate, conjundus est ; and the
Arabic translator gives it as "contiguous to," — rendering Arabia
by El-Belka, which was on the east of the Jordan. Jerome,
Chrysostom (dirrerai), and Theophylact hold this view, which
is also adopted by Baumgarten-Crusius ; but it is geographi
cally wrong, unless you maintain with some that Sinai belongs
to the same mountain range with Sion — a very strange con
jecture (Genebrardus, ad Psal. cxxxiii.). The erroneous mons
qui conjundus est of the Vulgate is explained away by Thomas
Aquinas, as referring not to spatii continuitas but to similitudo.
Wycliffe, however, translates it, " whiche hil is ioyned to it,"
that is, to Jerusalem. The nominative is either "Ayap or Bia-
QrJKrj, as in the Claromontane Latin quce, but not rb bpov, as in
the Vulgate mons qui (Jerome, Chrysostom, Hofmann). The
verb in military phrase signifies " to be of the same file with,"
Polybius, x. 23, Op. Tit. Ill, p. 39, ed. Schweighaeuser. The
corresponding noun is used of alphabetic letters pronounced by

368 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
the same organ, or metaphysically of things in the same cate
gory. The meaning is not " stands parallel to" (Winer,
Ruckert), but "corresponds to." The Se marks something
additional or new in the progress of the statement. The Jeru
salem "that now is" is not opposed by this epithet to the ear
lier Salem (Erasmus, Michaelis), but to the Jerusalem of that
day, the Jewish metropolis under the law in contrast with the
Jerusalem which is from above ; though the first is character
ized temporally, and the other from its ideal position. The
" Jerusalem that now is" is the symbol of the nation, under
the bondage of the law —
AovXevei ydp perd rcov reicvcov avrrjv — "for she is in bond
age with her children." Matt, xxiii. 37. The reading 7<zp has
preponderant authority over Se. The nominative is not Hagar
nor BiaQrJKv (Gwynne), but the "Jerusalem that now is," as
the clause assigns the reason for the correspondence of the 77
vvv 'IepovaaXrjfi with 'Ayap or BiaQrJKn. Jerusalem is in
bondage with her children, as Hagar the bond-mother with her
son Ishmael. It cannot refer to civil bondage to Rome (Bagge).
Augustine, on Ps. cxix. (cxx.), expounds this allegory at some
length : the word Kedar in the last clause of ver. 5, inhabitavi
cum tabernaculis Cedar, naturally suggested Ishmael and the
allegory, p. 1954, Opera, vol. iv. Gaume. The apostle has
been describing this very bondage — " under the law," " under
psedagogy," " under tutors and governors," " in bondage unto
the elements of the world."
Ver. 26. 'H Be dvco 'lepovaaXrjp, iXevQepa iariv, rjnv iarl
prjrvp {irdvrcov] fjficbv—" But the Jerusalem above is free, and
she is our mother." The irdvrcov is doubtful, though received
by Lachmann on the authority of A, C3, K, L, Xs; but is
rejected by Tischendorf on the authority of B, C1, D, F, K1,
with the Syriac, Latin, and Coptic versions, and the majority
of the fathers. The insertion may have come from the parallel
clause, Rom. iv. 16, irarrjp irdvrcov fjpiebv. The phrase with
the addition is found, as Prof. Lightfoot quotes, in Polycarp,
§ 3, and in Irenaeus, v. 35, 2, at least in the Latin translation—
mater omnium nostrum, p. 815, Op. vol. i. ed. Stieren. The
Se is opposed to the last clause : " on the contrary." The epithet
dvco cannot refer in a temporal sense to the Salem of Melchi-
sedec (Michaelis, Paulus), nor in a local sense to the upper

CHAP. IV. 26, 27. 369
city — the city of David, the Acropolis (Vitringa, Eisner,
Zacharias), — for it is the new covenant that Sarah symbolizes,
and the vvv of the previous verse is opposed to it. Nor does it
mean the New Testament (Grotius, Rollock), based on the
meaning of Jerusalem as signifying " vision of peace." Nor
is it directly the church of the New Testament (Sasbout,
a Lapide, Bullinger). It is the heavenly — dvco — as opposed to
the earthly Jerusalem, the ideal metropolis of Christ's kingdom
— the church before the second advent and the kingdom of
glory after it — the "heavenly Jerusalem," Heb. xii. 22; but
different in conception and symbol from the new Jerusalem,
Rev. xxi. 2. The phrase is also a rabbinical one, for the
Rabbins speak of the Jerusalem r6l|0 ?E>. But their heavenly
Jerusalem was merely the counterpart of the earthly one in
everything; as the book Sohar says, "Whatever is on earth
is also in heaven," — one argument being that the pattern of the
tabernacle in heaven was shown to Moses, so that the one con
structed might be a fac-simile ; and the tabernacle is called by
the apostle " the pattern of things in heaven." Schoettgen's
Horcs Heb. vol. i. p. 1205 ; Wetstein in loc. ; Witsius, Miscel
lanea Sacra, vol. ii. p. 199. Not that the apostle thought of it
as the Rabbins did ; it was to him the metropolis in which be
lievers are now enfranchised as citizens, Phil. iii. 20, not the
triumphant church in heaven (Rosenmiiller, Winer), nor what
Hofmann calls die in der Person Christi schon himmlisch vollen-
dete Gemeine. And she — rjnv — " is our mother," — no one of us
is excluded ; for the Jerusalem is not the visible church with
many in it who are not believers, but the invisible or spiritual
church, all whose members, whether Jews or Gentiles, are true
disciples. The apostle does not develop the contrast with tech
nical fulness. It might have been, Bevrepa Be dirb opovv 2icbv
et? kXevQeplav yevvebaa, rjnv iarl %dppa . . . ervaroi^ei Be rfj dvco
'lepovaaXrjp,. The parallel is broken in the apostle's haste ; he
seizes only on the salient points ; the doctrine imaged out was
of more importance than the formal or rhetorical symmetry of
the figure. The apostle, as has been remarked, uses 'lepov
aaXrjp,, the more sacred name, as in the Apocalypse, but in
referring to the earthly capital in i. 18, ii. 1, he uses 'Iepo-
crbXvpia, the name found also in the fourth Gospel.
Ver. 27. Teypatrrai ydp, EveppdvQrjri areipa r) ov rUrovaa-
2 A

370 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
prj^ov Kal jSbrjaov rj ovk cbBlvovaa' on iroXXa to reKva rrjv
iprjpov fidXXov fj rrjv i^ovanv rbv dvBpa — " For it is written,
Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not ; break forth and cry,
thou that travailest not : because many are the children of the
desolate one more than of her who has an husband," or " the
man." The quotation is according to the Septuagint from
Isa. liv. 1, and the idiomatic variations between it and the
Hebrew are of no real importance — the Greek using the article
and present participle for the Hebrew prseterite. After prjgov,
cpeovrjv may be understood, or Borjv, or evcppoavvnv, but such an
ellipse is common. The term n|">, " joyous shouting," is omitted
by the Seventy. The Hebrew idiom |p ca-] is correctly imi
tated in the Greek iroXXa rd reKva . . . fidXXov rj, and is
different from irXelova rj, for both are to have many children,
but the children of the desolate are far to outnumber the other;
and the past participle npiya is paraphrased by Tf? i^ovarjv rbv
dvBpa — " the man " whom the desolate woman has not. The
two women contrasted, in the apostle's use of the quotation,
are Sarah, and Hagar who had Abraham — rbv dvBpa — when
Sarah gave him up to her, and was the first of the two to have
children. The address of the prophet is to the ancient Israel, not to
Jerusalem simply, or because in it no children were born during
the Babylonish exile. Her desolate condition is to be succeeded
by a blessed prosperity, and by the possession of Gentile coun
tries. Zion in her youth had been espoused by Jehovah to Him
self, but the nuptial covenant had been broken and she had been
repudiated, and had suffered the reproach of such widowhood,
" forsaken and grieved in spirit." But re-union is promised on
the part of the divine Husband under the claim of a Goel or
Redeemer, and by a new and significant title, "God of the
whole earth." In a gush of wrath He had hidden His face a
moment, but in everlasting kindness would He have mercy on
her (compare li. 2). The result is a numerous progeny. What
the precise historic reference of the prophecy is, it is needless
to inquire. Under its peculiar figure, so common in the pro
phets, it portrays, after a dark and sterile period, augmented
spiritual blessings, and suddenly enlarged numbers to enjoy
them, as the next chapter so vividly describes. In the apostle's
use of the quotation, and in accordance with the context,

CHAP. IV. 28, 29. 371
Hagar — she that hath tot dvBpa — is the symbol of the theocratic
church with its children in bondage to the law ; and Sarah —
she that was desolate — is the symbol of the New Testament
church, composed both of Jews and Gentiles, or the Jerusalem
above which is our mother. Compare Schottgen in loc. The
prophecy is adduced to prove and illustrate this maternal rela
tion. Some of the fathers took a different view of this pro
phecy. The Roman Clement, Origen, Chrysostom, and many
others, suppose her " that bears not, the barren one," to be the
Gentile church as opposed to the Jewish church or synagogue ;
but this is against the scope and language of the allegory. The
Jerusalem that now is is the Jewish dispensation, the children
of the bond-maid Hagar ; the Jerusalem above, which prior to
the advent was sterile and childless — Sarah — is now a fruit
ful mother, her children greatly more numerous than those
of her rival, for all believers like her son Isaac are the seed
of Abraham, children of promise.
Ver. 28. 'T/ieiv Be, dBeXcpol, Kara 'IaaaK, iirayyeXlav reKva
iare — "But ye, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of pro
mise." The Received Text has r)p,eh iapiev, and the reading is
well supported, having in its favour A, C, D3, K, L, k, four
mss., the Syriac, Vulgate, Coptic, and Gothic versions, with
several of the Greek fathers and Augustine. The other read
ing has in its favour B, D, F, four MSS., the Claromontane
Latin, Origen, Irenaeus, Ambrose. This difference of read
ing would seem to show that iapiev, supposed to look back
to rjficbv in ver. 26, has been probably conformed to ver. 31,
whereas the other reading is free from any such suspicion.
The Se is more than transitional ; it implies a contrast to the
children of her who had the husband. The idiomatic phrase
Kara 'IaaaK is, after the example of Isaac, he being the norm
or pattern. Winer, § 49 ; Eph. iv. 24 ; Col. iii. 10 ; 1 Pet.
i. 15; Kypke in loc. And being not children Kara adpKa,
" ye are children of promise," as Isaac was, as has been stated
in ver. 23. The genitive iirayyeXlav denotes the source, and
is equivalent in sense to Sto, as the context shows. It does
not mean liberi promissi (Bloomfield, Brown), nor children
possessed of the promise, but distinctly children by means of
the promise.
Ver. 29. '.4XX' coairep rbre b Kara crdpKa yevvnQelv iBlcoKe

372 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
rbv Kara irvevfia, ovtco ko.1 vvv— "But as then he who was born
after the flesh persecuted him who was born after the Spirit, so
it is also now." The dXXd is adversative, warning those who
like Isaac are children of promise to anticipate and prepare for
persecution. For Kara adpKa, see under ver. 25 ; Kara irvevfia
is the opposite — the one was born naturally, the other super-
naturally, or by promise, realized by the agency of the Holy
Spirit. The verb iBlcoKev is imperfect — the action in some
shape yet ideally continues. Winer, § 40, 3. What the per
secution was, it is difficult to decide. The Old Testament im
plies it, and Jewish legend amplifies it ; so that as a fact it
was well known at least to one section of the Galatian church.
The words in Gen. xxi. 9 are pny» . . . ijn"!?""? rn'B> *nrn, ren
dered in the Septuagint — IBovaa Be %dppa rbv vlov 'Ayap . . .
iraltpvra perd 'IaaaK rov vlov avrrjv. Lightfoot conjectures
that the Hebrew verse may have originally ended Pf^a rUra,
and that the words implied in the Greek may have dropped
out on account of the homoeoteleuton. The Hebrew then is,
" And when Sarah saw the son of Hagar laughing." Sarah's
consequent anger implies that he was laughing at, mocking or
jeering, her son Isaac. Isaac's own name was laughter, and
Ishmael may have turned it into boyish ridicule. He was
laughter to his mother in one sense, but to his brother in a
very different sense — the one laughed for him, the other at
him. For iral^eo, Prov. xxvi. 19, Jer. xv. 7, xxxi. 4. That
the Hebrew word has such a meaning is plain from Gen. xix.
14: "Lot seemed as one that mocked;" Gen. xxxix. 14: "He
hath brought in an Hebrew unto us to mock us ;" and in ver.
17. In 2 Sam. ii. 14 a word from the kindred root pnc> de
notes the " combat" which Joab proposes, and which he grimly
calls a " play" or sport. These instances dispose of Jowett's
statement, that "the word neither in the Hebrew nor the
Seventy admits the sense of mocking." It was natural that
Ishmael, now sixteen years of age, and for many years re
garded and no doubt courted as the heir of Abraham's wealth,
should regard with peculiar jealousy the younger child who
had ousted him ; and it was natural for him to make mockery
of him, or to laugh at or make himself merry over the idea of
one so much younger and feebler becoming the ultimate pos
sessor. Some such sense belongs to the Hebrew term, for it

CHAP. IV. 30. 373
must account for Sarah's displeasure, since it was not without
cause ; so that, as Kalisch says, " the Septuagint and Vulgate
translations are inappropriate." See Keil and Delitzsch, and
Tuch in loc. The traditions took two different shapes — one,
that of insolence and blows, as Beresch. R. 53 : Tulit Ishmael
arcum et sagittas, et jaculatus est Isaacum, et pro? se tulit ac se
luderet. Beer, Leben Abraham, p. 49, and his authorities, p. 169.
Lusio ilia illusio erat (Augustine). The other shape was that
of merriment, as at the weaning feast. The Book of Jubilees
(Ewald, Jahrb. iii. 13) represents Ishmael as dancing, pleasing
Abraham, and creating jealousy in Sarah. The narrative in
Genesis thus sustains of itself the use which the apostle makes
of it, especially when set in the light of those national legends
with which many of his readers must have been well acquainted.
The enmity began early as between the representative Ishmael
and Isaac ; it was continued between their descendants, Hagar-
ites and Israelites (Ps. lxxxiii. 7 ; 1 Chron. v. 10, 19) ; and it
was still manifested in the enemies of a free spiritual faith — -
those after the flesh, Jews and Judaists, Abraham's natural
progeny — trusting in carnal ordinances, and persecuting those
after the Spirit, who are his spiritual children through faith in
Christ. As it was then, ovtco /cat vvv, " so is it now." 1 Thess.
ii. 15. What the nature of the opposition carried on in Galatia
was, we know not. But it is alluded to in iii. 4, v. 11. The
Judaizers were keen and unscrupulous opponents, and must
have had at command many weapons of insult, raillery, and
persecution. Heidegger, Hist. Patriarcharum, ii. p. 205.
Ver. 30. 'AXXd Tt Xe7et 77 ypacpfj ; "EKBaXe rrjv iraiBlaKnv
Kal rbv vlov avrrjv, ov ydp fir) KXr/povopirjan 6 vlov rrjv iraiBlaKnv
perd rov vlov rrjv iXevQepav — " Nevertheless what saith the
Scripture? Cast out the bond-maid and her son, for the son
of the bond-maid shall in nowise inherit with the son of the
free woman." This quotation is from the Septuagint, with a
necessary alteration. The words in Gen. xxi. 10 are those of
Sarah : ttJ? iraiBlaKnv ravrvv fierd rov vlov pov 'IaaaK, as D ,
F, and some of the fathers read; but her wish became the
divine command, and the apostle naturally adapts it as rrjv
iraiBlaKnv fierd rov vlov Trjv iXevQepav. Nothing is Said of
Sarah as to her jealousy or heartlessness, for it was her prema
ture plot to expedite the promise that led to the birth of

374 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
Ishmael ; and nothing is said of Abraham's natural displeasure
at Sarah's request, for those domestic incidents belong not to the
allegory, with which alone the apostle is concerned. See Turner,
Genesis, p. 283. What saith the Scripture ? The dXXd intro
duces a thought in cheering contrast to the previous statement.
The significant question leads to a conclusive and definite
reply : " Cast out the bond-maid and her son ;" their doom was
immediate and complete expulsion from the Abrahamic house
hold. There could be no division of the inheritance, no joint
heirship. For the son of the bond-maid shall in nowise inherit
— ov fit) KXvpovop,rjar), the verb having the emphasis, the future
KXvpovoprjaei being read in B, D, X, as in the Septuagint. As
Winer remarks, on account of the various readings, and the
use of the- subjunctive more than of the future in the New
Testament, the rule of Hermann is not to be pressed. Her
mann says, Note on Soph. CEdip. Col. 848, that the aorist sub
junctive is used aut in re incerii temporis, sed semel vel brevi
temporis momento agenda ; while the future, ad ea pertinet qua?
aut diuturniora aliquando eventura indicare volumus, aut non
aliquo quocunque, sed remotiore aliquo tempore dicimus futura
esse. The application of this canon to the New Testament or
the Septuagint has no sure ground. Thiersch, Pent. p. 109.
The remark applies to the later Greek also. Gayler, De Part.
neg. pp. 433, 440; Baumlein, Griech. Part. p. 308; Winer,
§ 56, 3. The double negative is intensive, at least in this
place, though it had become a familiar unemphatic formula,
and it is of frequent occurrence in the Septuagint. An expla
nation will be found in Donaldson, Cratylus, § 394, and Gram.
§ 544. The command is precise and unambiguous. Ishmael must
be sent away, that Isaac alone may inherit. Ishmael had no
title. The case of Jephthah's disinheritance is not wholly
analogous, for he was the son of "an harlot," "a strange
woman," not of a secondary wife. Selden, De Success, cap.
iii., Works, vol. ii. p. 11. The two children, so different in
temper and social position, could not have lived together ; co-
heritage was divinely prohibited ; the purpose of God neces
sitated separation. The bond-mother and her son must go out
into the wilderness. Isaac, the free woman's child, remains at
home, and succeeds to the inheritance. The lesson from this

CHAP. IV. 31. 375
portion of the allegory is, that Judaism is in no sense to be
combined with Christianity; that they were intended to be kept
asunder, and to no extent to be amalgamated ; that they are so
opposed in genius and working — flesh and spirit, bondage and
freedom — that any compromise between them is impossible.
The inheritance belongs alone to Abraham's spiritual seed, and
cannot be obtained by mere natural descent from the patriarch.
And all this on highest authority, that of Scripture, to whose
teachings they professed to yield implicit obedience. Not many
at this period could acquiesce in this teaching ; for Judaism was
still tenaciously clung to by myriads who believed, and who
could not so fully emancipate themselves from early bias and
national prepossession as did the apostle of the Gentiles. See
under ii. 1-10.
Ver. 31. ^Ito, dBeXcpol, ovk iafiev iraiBlaKnv reKva, dXXd rrjv
iXevQepav — " Wherefore, brethren, we are children not of a
bond-woman, but of the free woman." The dpa of the Re
ceived Text is not very strongly supported, and there are other
minor variations, apparently emendations suggested by some
difficulty felt about Bib. According to Meyer, followed by
Ellicott, this verse begins a short semi-paragraph, which passes
on in the next verse to an exhortation. The common interpre
tation, on the other hand, is to regard the verse as the conclusion
from the previous argument. This appears to be the most
natural form of connection. Prof. Lightfoot remarks that the
particle is chosen " rather with a view to the obligation involved
in the statement, than to the statement itself : Wherefore, let
us remember that we are, etc." The apostle's use of Sto is so
various that no argument can be based on its occurrence here.
Donaldson, Cratylus, § 192. He- may refer back to KXnpovo-
firjan (Alford), but he rather sums up the whole argument. We
are children of promise, he had said, persecuted it is true, but
the persecution does not prevent or interrupt our heirship ; the
bond- woman's child is expelled, the free woman's son inherits
alone : we inherit by the same title ; " wherefore " our inherit
ance by such a title is a proof that we are the children not of a
bond-woman, but of the free woman. While Sto — St' o — may
begin a new paragraph, but not without connection with what
has preceded, it often connects clauses : Rom. iv. 22, 2 Cor.
iv. 13, v. 9, xii. 10, Phil. ii. 9 ; and it precedes an inference in

376 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
Matt, xxvii. 8, Luke i. 35, Rom. i. 24, xv. 7. The article is
omitted before iraiBlaKnv, not perhaps because it is emphati
cally prefixed to its governing noun (Middleton, Greek Art.
p. 50; Winer, § 19, 2, b), but as generalizing the assertion — not
of a, or any, bond-woman (compare iv. 11),- for this noun has
the article throughout the paragraph. The next verse is the
practical appeal which, based on the allegory, is suddenly and
somewhat sternly addressed to them, and followed up by a
series of severe and solemn warnings.

CHAPTER V.
VER. 1. This verse is closely connected with the imme
diately preceding one, and is, as we have just said, the
prime inferential and practical lesson. But it is difficult, if not
impossible, to fix on the correct reading, there being so many
variations affecting both the sense and the connection.
The Stephanie text reads : rfj iXevQeplei ovv fj Xpiarov
rjpAv r)XevQepcoae, arrJKere. The ovv, the 77, and the 77/^.0? are
matter of doubt and of various reading. Ovv is omitted in D,
in the Latin and Syriac, and in Theodore Mops. Theodoret,
Jerome, Ambros., Pelagius, C3, K, L, many cursives, Dama-
scenus, Theophylact, GScumenius, place ovv after iXevQeplei;
while it is put after arrJKere in A, B, C1, F, N, the Coptic ver
sion, and in Origen, Cyril, and Augustine. The best authority
places the particle after arrJKere. Then 77 is omitted in A, B,
C, Dl, x ; but it (rfj iXevQeplei §) is found in D3, E, K, L, in
the majority of cursives, and in the most of the Greek fathers,
and is adopted by Tischendorf, Scholz, Rinck, Reiche, Ellicott;
while the reading § iXevQepla is found in F, G, — the Claro
montane Latin and Vulgate reading also qua libertate, fol
lowed by the Gothic, Victorinus, Augustine, and Jerome. The
authority for this peculiar reading is chiefly Latin, and it may
haye been a re-translation of the Latin idiom qua libertate.
But the omission of fj makes the clause and the connection
difficult, though the omission is really well supported. The
omission is adopted by Alford — " with liberty did Christ make
you free," beginning thus the new statement. It may be said
that 77 was omitted from its closeness to the same letter begin
ning 17^0? (Wieseler), and it may be replied that it got in from
an unwitting repetition of the same first letter (Meyer). The
rjfidv stands before Xpiarov in A, B, D, F, n ; but after it in C,
K, L, X3, and in several of the versions, in some of the Greek
377

378 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
fathers, and many of the Latin ones, the Vulgate having
Christus nos, and Ulphilas uns Christus. The first order is
therefore the better sustained, and Xpiarov rjfidv may have
been written to avoid fj rjfidv, found in the codices referred to.
According, then, to diplomatic evidence, the best supported
reading is —
Tfj iXevQeplei rjfidv Xpiarov rjXevQepcoae- arrJKere ovv — " For
freedom did Christ free us : stand therefore." This is adopted
by Lachmann, Meyer, Usteri, Hofmann, and Alford. Prof.
Lightfoot does not set it aside altogether, but retains it as an
alternative reading. See Mill, Griesbach, Winer.
1. Retaining the §, some join the first clause to the pre
vious verse — "We are children not of the bond- woman, but
of the free woman, in that freedom with which Christ made us
free." So Schott, and Prof. Lightfoot who puts the alterna
tive : " Ye are sons by virtue of the freedom which Christ has
given, or children of her who is free with that freedom which
Christ has given us." So Wycliffe, the Genevan and the
Rheims versions. But the connection is loose and pointless,
and arrJKere becomes in that case abrupt and unsupported.
2. Some connect it with arrJKere, and give the dative the
sense of quod attinet ad — stand fast in respect to, or rather in,
the liberty for which Christ did make us free (Ellicott, Winer).
The fj may be by attraction, or it may be ablatival — " with
which." Piscator, Ruckert, Hilgenfeld, Wieseler, and the
Vulgate — qua libertate.
3. Adopting the reading which we prefer, the sense will
be : " with liberty did Christ make us free (the dative instru
mental) : stand therefore ;" or, " for liberty Christ freed us ;
make a stand," — it being the dativus commodi, and the stress
being on iXevQeplei. A. Buttmann, p. 155. We are children
of the free woman— beyond doubt it is ; for liberty Christ did
free us : v. 13 ; John viii. 36. The verb arrJKere, unknown in
classical Greek, derives its specialty of sense from the context.
2 Thess. ii. 15. See under Phil. i. 27. Chrysostom says by
the word "stand fast" he indicates their vacillation— rbv adXov.
The verb iveXo/iai.is " to be held in" or " by," either physi
cally, as rfj irdiyrj, Herod, ii. 121, or ethically, as Bbyficwiv,
Plutarch, Symp. ii. 3. See Kypke in loc. It means to be held
fast in, or so held that there is difficulty or impossibility of

CHAP. V. 2. 379
escape. Mark vi. 19; Luke xi. 53; Sept. Gen. xlix. 23; Ezek.
xiv. 4. The phrase %vyeo BovXelav is the " yoke of bondage,"
though both nouns want the article. Winer, § 19, 1 ; Soph.
Ajax, 944 ; Sept. Cant. v. 1. The genitive BovXelav, which
deprives its governing noun of its article, denotes the charac
terizing quality or element of the yoke. The 7roXii> is explained
by a reference to iv. 9, if the allusion be definite — once under
a yoke of heathenism, they would be involved again in a yoke
of heathenism ; or if the genitive be indefinite, the meaning
would be — once in bondage, and again to be held fast in it,
without formally specifying its nature.
Ver. 2. "IBe iyco HavXov Xeyco vfiiv — " Behold I Paul say
to you." The proper accentuation of I'Se has been disputed.
In later Greek it is a paroxyton, but in Attic Greek an oxyton.
Winer, § 6, 1 ; Moeris, p. 193. This accentuation is followed
by Lachmann and Tischendorf. The particle occurs frequently
in the Gospels, t'Sou being commoner in the Epistles ; and here
it sharply summons attention to what follows, as a warning of
highest moment. In the iyco JlauXo? is the direct interposition
of the apostle's own authority, as in 2 Cor. x. 1, Eph. iii. 1.
The name would suggest what he has said so solemnly of him
self in the beginning of the epistle — " Paul an apostle, neither
of men nor by man," etc. The words are therefore decidedly
more than what Jowett calls " an expression of his intimate
and personal conviction." Other allusions given to the phrase
by commentators seem to be inferential and distant. Thus
Grotius — apostolus . . . quod illi vestri dbdores de se dicere non
possunt ; Koppe — cujus animi candorem et integritatem nostis ;
Wetstein, followed by Prof. Lightfoot — ego quern dicunt circum-
cisionem predicare ; Wieseler — in Gegensatze zu dem Irrlehrer ;
Borger— ego vero, idem ille Paulus quern tarn impudenter calum-
niantur ; Brown — " who ardently loves you, and whom you once
ardently loved;" Sardinoux — il pose son nom . . .par sentiment
paternel de la oonfianoe que les Galates avaient pour lui. Of course,
when the apostle asserts his authority, he virtually puts himself
into opposition to the false teachers, and the name might sug
gest many associations in connection with his previous residence
among them. But the phrase especially places his personal or .
official authority in abrupt and warning emphasis. It is in no
sense a pledge — pignori quasi nomen suum obligat (Trana), nor

380 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
an oath (S. Schmid), nor is it based on any suspicion that the
Judaizing teachers gave out that they were at one with him in
doctrine (Jatho).
"0™, idv irepirepvnaQe, Xpiarov vfidv ovBev cbepeXrjaei —
"that if ye be circumcised" — "if ye be gettjng yourselves
circumcised " — " Christ shall profit you nothing." (See under
i. 8.) The present subjunctive indicates the continuance of
the habit. He says not, that they had been circumcised, but
"if ye be getting yourselves circumcised." Klotz-Devarius,
vol. ii. 455. The future form of the second clause is referred
by Meyer, as is his wont, to the second coming — the parousia.
But the future here simply indicates certainty of result. Winer,
§ 40, 6; Matt. vii. 16. The warning is strongly worded. Cir
cumcision and salvation by Christ are asserted to be incom
patible. The false teachers said, " Except ye be circumcised,
ye cannot be saved ;" and the apostle affirms, in the teeth of
this declaration, " Of what advantage shall Christ be to you,
if ye are trusting in something else than Christ — in the blood
of your foreskin, and not in His atoning blood ? " It is of
course to the Gentile portion of the church that the apostle
directly addresses himself. The circumcision of one who was
a Jew wholly or on one side might be pardoned as a conformity
to national custom, and as a sacred token of descent from
Abraham, if it was meant to involve no higher principle. But
when heathens were circumcised, they wore a lie in their flesh,
for they had no connection with Abraham ; and to declare cir
cumcision to be essential to their salvation was not only en
forcing a national rite on those for whom it was never intended,
but was giving it a co-ordinate value with the death of Christ
— as if that death had failed to work out a complete salvation.
Conformity to Judaism so taught and enjoined, interfered with
the full and free offer of pardon by the Son of God : it raised
up a new condition — interposed a barrier fatal to salvation; for
it affirmed that the Gentile must become a proselyte by ini
tiation, and do homage to the law, ere he could be profited by
faith in Christ. It brought two contradictory principles into
operation, the one of which neutralized the other: if they
trusted in Christ, there was no need of circumcision ; if they
observed circumcision, they would get no benefit from Christ,
for they were seeking justification in another way. " What a

CHAP. V. 3. 381
threat!" exclaims Chrysostom ; "good reason for his anathe
matizing angels."
Ver. 3. Maprvpopai Be iraXiv iravrl dvQpcbirep irepire/ivo-
pevcp — "Yea, I testify again to every man getting himself cir
cumcised" — circumcidenti se, Vulgate, the chief stress being on
iravrl. Acts xx. 26 ; Eph. iv. 17. But Chrysostom's explana
tion dilutes the sense, "Lest you suspect that I say it of enmity,
I testify not to you only, but to every one." The particle Be
is more than transitional (Wieseler), but is neither enim nor
potius ; according to Hermann, ad Vigerum, No. 343, it is in
this connection represented by autem, as in the Vulgate. Hil
genfeld supposes that ©ebv is understood after p,aprvpop,ai, as
if he called God to witness. But such an accusative is not
necessary. "I obtest" — I solemnly do testify. Josephus, iii.
8, 3. In irdXiv reference is not made, as Meyer and Wieseler
suppose, to previous oral warnings when he was with them, but
plainly to the Xeyco of the previous verse — "I say" — "once
more I testify." It is out of the question to give it the mean
ing of porro with Borger, or contra with Koppe and Wahl.
The verse does not indeed repeat the statement of the preced
ing one ; but the apostle makes an extended affirmation, which
is also an additional one — irdXiv, the second verb being a solemn
repetition of the preceding one. He has said, if ye be circum
cised ; and now he obtests to every one not as having been cir
cumcised, but as now submitting to circumcision ; not simply
assuming the possibility of the occurrence, or regarding it as
actually accomplished, but vividly representing every one who
gets himself circumcised as putting himself under covenant to
obey the whole law. The obtestation is not to the Jews who
may have been circumcised in infancy, nor to the heathen who
may at any earlier period, and prior to the introduction of the
gospel, have become proselytes ; but to the Gentile converts
who might persist in undergoing the rite on the principles and
with the motives of the Judaizing teachers. And his solemn
averment is —
"On bcpeiXerrjv iariv oXov rov vopov iroirjaai — " that he is a
debtor to do the whole law." Circumcision, as the initiatory
rite — inaugurale sacramentum (Dickson) — is to be regarded not
merely in itself, but in the connected obligations under which
it brought one. It was a pledge to obey the whole law. The

382 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
person who on purpose submitted to circumcision did by that act
place himself under the law, as he who is baptized is brought
into a similar relation to the law of Christ, or as a foreigner
whose naturalization pledges him to observe the law of the
land. And such circumcision bound a man not to obey this or
that department of ordinances, but to do the "whole law" —
the emphasis being on oXov. The law is a code one and indi
visible in origin and authority, however ramified its statutes ;
therefore an elective obedience to preferred precepts is not to
be permitted. Chrysostom thus illustrates the obligation in
reference to the ceremonial law : A man circumcised is bound
to offer sacrifices, and such oblations necessitate the observance
of sacred seasons and the visitation of sacred places. The precise
allusion or inference which the apostle has in his mind has
been disputed. Some, as Usteri and Ruckert, suppose it thus :
A debtor to obey the whole law, which you can never do, so
that you are under the curse. But in order to such an appli
cation, the apostle did not need to emphasize oXov, for law in
no sense can justify : iii. 1. Winer brings out this conclusion,
Debetis totam legem recipere, h. e. religionem Christianam omnem
abjicere. But the object of the apostle seems to be, not to
prove that by being circumcised a man places himself under
stipulation to obey the whole law — an impossibility, and there
fore subjects himself to the curse, — but rather to show the utter
incompatibility between the law and the gospel, or that any
one so acting places himself under the very yoke from which
Christ came to redeem him. He has spoken of this bondage
in the previous section, which is wound up with " stand fast,
and be not entangled again in the yoke of bondage." It is the
bondage rather than the curse of the law which at the moment
is uppermost in his mind ; and this voluntary circumcision is a
first step toward self-subjugation, for it binds a man to do the
whole law. Perhaps, as Estius has remarked, the Judaists
disguised or evaded this inference of the apostle, that circum
cision puts a man under covenant to do the whole law, as in
deed their own conduct seems to have illustrated. See vi. 13.
Compare Rom. ii. 25.
Ver. 4. KarvpyrjQvre dirb rov Xpiarov, oinvev iv vbfiep
BiKaiovaQe—" Ye were done away from Christ, whoever of you
are being justified by law." The article tov is doubtful. It

CHAP. V. 4. 383
is omitted in B, C, D1, F, X, and by Lachmann ; but it is
found in A, D3, K, L, and almost all MSS., and it is inserted
by Tischendorf. The first verb denotes the dissolution of all
connection between them and Christ. It is not common in
classic Greek, or even in the Septuagint where it occurs only
four times; but it is one of the compound verbs often used
by the apostle, and is here followed by dirb. Rom. vii. 2, 6.
Fritzsche suggests that it is a structura prcsgnans — KarapyeiaQat
ko.1 ycopiQeaQai dirb, Ad Rom. vii. 2, vol. ii. pp. 8, 9 ; Winer,
§ 66, 2 ; Poppo's Thucydides, i. 1, 292. The tense of the verb
points to a previous time, the time when they began their
course of defection — then they were done away from Christ.
The sentence is an asyndeton, or without any connecting par
ticle, and the syntax is changed to the second person — a sudden
and striking application of the previous verse — as if reverting
to the vp.lv and vfidv of the second verse. He had said, Christ
shall profit you nothing ; and he explains the reason : Ye were
done away from Christ, for He profits only those who are in
union with Him. The branch cut off from the living trunk
soon withers and dies. The emphasis is on the verb beginning
the sentence (CEcumenius), on the perilous state described by
it ; and, that there may be no mistake, he adds with special
point —
O'lnvev iv vbficp BiKaiovaQe — " whoever of you are justified
by the law," or " as being persons who." The compound
o'lnvev points them out as a class — quippe qui. The iv is not
distinctly instrumental, but as usual indicates the sphere,
though it may be what Donaldson calls instrumental adjunct,
§ 476. The law is regarded as that within which the supposed
justification takes place, or, in another aspect, it is supposed to
be the means of it. The present BiKaiovaQe is what is called
the subjective present — justified in their own feeling or
opinion, ebv viroXapBdvere (Theophylact). Schmalfeld, p. 91.
De Wette and Windischmann give it the sense of justified in
your idea and intention ; " who seek to be justified," Ruckert
and Baumgarten ; and Bagge puts it .still more remotely, " who
think that ye are to be, and so seek to be justified." But it
is not the seeking of justification, but the dream of having it,
that the apostle describes. When in their heart they thought
themselves justified in the sphere of law, they became nullified

384 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
from Christ ; yea, he adds, rrjv ^optTO? i^eireaare — " from grace
ye fell away." 'Et-eireaare is the Alexandrian mode of spelling
for i%eireaere. Lobeck, Phryn. p. 724; Winer, 13, 1. With
the genitive it signifies tropically " to fall off" or " away from."
2 Pet. iii. 17 ; Sirach xxxiv. 7 ; Ast, Lexicon Platon. sub
voce. Xdpiv is not here the subjective influence of grace, but
is in opposition to iv vbfico. The contrast is implied in Rom.
v. 2. Compare 2 Pet. iii. 17. Law and grace are jn direct
antagonism. Justification by the one is of debt, by the other
is of favour. The justified person works out his acceptance in
the one case; he simply receives it in the other. If a man
then imagines that he is justified by law, he has renounced
grace as the principle of justification. He who is circumcised
comes under pledge to obey the whole law ; but obedience to
law is wholly different in nature and operation from faith in
Christ, so that he who looks to law renounces connection with
Christ. Christ's method of justification is wholly of grace, and
those who rely on law and merit are in opposition to grace —
are fallen out of it. The clause has really no bearing on the
doctrine of the perseverance of the saints, or on their possible
apostasy. See, however, Wesselius in loc.
Ver. 5. 'Hpeh yap Uvevpan e'/c irlarecov iXirlBa BiKaioavvrjv
direK.Bej(bpeQa — ¦" For we by the Spirit are waiting for the hope
of righteousness from faith." Tyndale's translation is an exe-
getical paraphrase : " We look for and hope in the Sprite to be
justified thorow fayth." The 7<zp introduces the proof, based
on a contrary experience. The Judaists and their party thought
themselves justified by works of law ; we, on the other hand,
by the Spirit, who cometh not through works but faith, are
waiting for the hope of righteousness, which has also faith as
its source. The T^et? are the apostle and those who, like him,
so thought and felt that Christ did profit them, who also still
clung to Christ, and had a living interest in His gracious
process of justification.
Hvevpari is the dative of instrument — by the assistance of
the Spirit— not as if it were iv irvevpan. It plainly in such a
context refers to the Holy Ghost, though, like a proper name,
it wants the article. The older interpretation of Wolff, Ram-
bach, that the word means doctrina evangelii, is baseless. 2 Cor.
iii. 6, adduced in proof, presents a sentiment of a different

CHAP. V. 5. 385
nature and contrast. Nor is it spiritus pro fide (Beza), nor
evangelium (Seb. Schmid), nor promissio gratiosa (E. Schmid).
Middleton, Peile, Brown, and Windischmann take it adverbi
ally — "spiritually," or in a spiritual manner, nach geistiger
Weise. Middleton, Greek Art. p. 126. Grotius, Borger, and
Fritzsche are disposed to regard it as referring to the human
spirit ; the first explaining it by intra animam, the second by
interioribus animi sensibus, and the third by mente : Opuscula,
p. 156. This interpretation takes a very low and incorrect
view of the apostle's statement. Akin to it is another opinion
which takes irvev/iari as the human spirit enlightened and
spiritualized by the Holy Spirit (Rosenmiiller, Morus, Paulus,
Winer). Winer explains it, in Christi communione ; Baum
garten-Crusius, der hbhere, heilige Lebensgeist. But the apostle
often refers to the Spirit of God as the gift of Christ, as dwell
ing and working in the heart of believers, and creating and
sustaining such graces as that of hope here referred to. Many
expositors suppose an ideal contrast in irvevfian to o-ap/ct', as
characterizing the genius and form of Jewish observance. But
the apostle refers not so much to legal observance by contrast
in this verse as to the result of it, — not to the pursuit of right
eousness on the part either of legalists or believers, but to the
condition into which those who trust in Christ are brought by
the Spirit, who cometh from the hearing of faith. Rather,
perhaps, the contrast is : Ye are fallen away from Christ ; we,
on the other hand, are enjoying the Spirit of Christ given
to those redeemed by Him, trusting in Him, in union with
Him, and therefore no longer under the law, but heirs, and
full of the hope of future blessing : iii. 5, 6, 7 ; Rom. viii. 15 ;
Eph. i. 13.
Luther and some others wrongly join irvevfian to e'/c irlarecov
— spiritu qui ex fide est — since, as Meyer remarks, no contrast
is made with any other spirit ; it is the contrast to iv vb/ico of
the previous verse. The double compound verb direKBe^ppai
signifies " to wait for," and so to be in earnest and constant
expectation of (Rom. viii. 19, 23, 25 ; 1 Cor. i. 7 ; Phil. iii. 20 ;
Heb. ix. 28 ; 1 Pet. iii. 20), the sub-local reference being to
the place whence the object is expected to come. Fritzschiorum
Opusc. p. 156 ; Eurip. Alcest. 130. It is needless to suppose
that there is a pleonasm (Jowett), or to imagine that the
2 B

386 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
apostle originally intended to write e%op,ev (Winer, Usteri,
Schott) ; or, with Matthies, to give the verb the unjustifiable
sense of aocipimus, wir fassen. 'EXirlv is used with another
compound, irpoaBe-xopai, in Acts xxiv. 15 and Tit. ii. 13. It
is not formally, but in thought, a cognate accusative, like %rjv
Blov, though Winer in his commentary styles it a pleonasm,
and likewise Usteri. Lobeck, Paralip. p. 501. Wieseler
objects that the noun and verb are not synonymous in mean
ing; but in these passages quoted, the accusative connected
with the verb contains the object of hope, — future good or
blessing being the object of expectation, for hope is the expec
tation combined with the desire of blessing to come.
In the phrase eXirlBa BiKaioavvnv the difficulty is to define
the relation of the genitive. First, it may be the genitive
of object, righteousness itself being the object of hope. So
Theophylact, Winer, Usteri, Ruckert, Schott, Olshausen, and
Meyer. In that case the meaning is, we wait for the hoped
righteousness — justitia sperata — righteousness itself being the
object of hope. But the genitive, even with such a meaning,
can scarcely be that of apposition (Wieseler, Gwynne). Or,
secondly, it may be the genitive of subjective possession — the
hope which belongs to righteousness, or that blessing connected
with righteousness which is the object of hope. So Pelagius,
Hunnius, Bengel, Borger, Windischmann, Bisping, Bagge, and
Jowett. Thus Beza makes it coronam glories — spem quam jus
titia prcebet. Rosenmiiller and Koppe err when they give
BiKaioavvr) the meaning of omnis felieitas. In this view of the
relation indicated by the genitive we are inclined to concur.
For, 1. To expect hoped-for righteousness is an idea that en
feebles the argument, and places believers in no strong position
as against legalists. They think themselves justified — we
hope to be justified. To describe a condition opposed to then-
delusions about justification, something stronger than mere
hope might be expected.
2. Righteousness to believers is a present possession, and as
such the apostle usually represents it. Faith brings righteous
ness now, and such is the illustration in the third chapter.
Ellicott's objection to this, that the Jew regarded BiKaioavvr)
as something outward, present, realizable, is of little weight ;

CHAP. V. 6. 387
for what is inner may be regarded equally as present and
realizable. It is true, as Neander says, that BiKaioavvr) is one
of those divine results which " stretch into eternity ;" but it is
perfectly possessed in time, though not in its fullest develop
ment. Thus acorvpla is enjoyed as soon as faith is possessed ;
but that salvation has a fulness still to be revealed, as is indi
cated in Rom. xiii. 11, Heb. ix. 28. Adoption m,ay be de
scribed in similar terms.
3. Alford remarks that iXirlBa has the emphasis : this,
however, does not favour his view, but ours. We believers
have not only righteousness really now, but we are waiting also
for the realization of the great hope wrapt up in it ; we be
lievers have now and in reality what you legalists imagine you
have — justification ; nay, we are cherishing the hope which it
excites and sustains. Rom. viii. 30. The hope belonging to
this righteousness is final acceptance — future blessedness and
glorification, though we do not, as Ellicott, affix this idea to
Biicaioavvr) itself, but take it as one of the assured and hoped-
for results to which it leads.
The phrase e/c irlarecov is opposed to iv vb/ico, and probably
belongs to BiKaioavvr), though some would connect it otherwise,
as if the meaning were — We by the Spirit and out of faith do
expect. It is noticeable that all the nouns in this and the fol
lowing verse want the article. Gersdorf, Beitrage zur Sprach-
charact. p. 273, etc.
Ver. 6. 'Ev yap Xpiarco 'Inaov ovre irepiro/irj Tt la^vei
ovre aKpoBvarla — " For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision
availeth anything nor uncircumcision." The clause e'/c 7rto--
recov is prominent and regulative in the previous verse, and the
reason is given in the verse before us. nianv stands opposed
to everything legal — to law, to ritual, to works of any sort.
And why ? The reason is introduced by 7ap.
The phrase iv Xpiarco 'Inaov is sadly diluted if made to
mean in lege Christi (Grotius), in Christi regno (Pareus), or
Christi judicio (Koppe and Flatt), or as if it were irapd Xpiarco,
or Christi religio (Morus). The union is that of personal
union; and, as Ellicott remarks, the addition of 'Irjaov is not to
be overlooked. Circumcision availeth nothing — does not create
a deeper union into Christ Jesus, or excite a livelier hope, or
confer a firmer hold on righteousness. This is an idea imme-

388 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
diately present to the apostle's mind, and the one which per
vades the previous verse, nay, is the very text of the epistle.
But he adds —
Ovre aKpoBvarla. See under ii. 7. It is a very wrong
and perilous thing to be circumcised in order to righteousness,
as he has so strenuously insisted ; but he is not to be misunder
stood, for the mere fact of uncircumcision has in itself no merit,
and helps not to a deeper interest or fellowship in Christ. The
uncircumcised has nothing to boast of over the circumcised ;
if both be in Christ, their condition is equal — is influenced
neither by the presence of the mere external rite, nor by the
want of it.
'AXXd irlanv St' 07077-77? ivepyov/ievrj — " but faith working
through love" is of avail — n la^vei. The emphasis is on
irlanv, as might be expected. The theological dispute is con
cerning ivepyovfievn — whether it has an active or a passive
signification. That it may have the latter is undoubted, as
Polybius, i. 13, 5; Joseph. Antiq. xv. 5, 3. See Rost und
Palm sub voce. But ivepyeiaQai, not used of persons in the
New Testament, has uniformly an active meaning — operatur,
Vulgate. Winer, § 38, 6 ; Rom. vii. 5 ; 2 Cor. i. 6, iv. 12 ;
Eph. iii. 20; Col.i. 29; 1 Thess. ii. 13 ; 2 Thess. ii. 7 ; Jas.
v. 16. The faith shows from itself its efficacy through love —
the real signification of the dynamic middle voice. Through
love it operates, manifests its vitality and power — {cbaa BeUvvrai
(Theophylact). He on whom faith is reposed, becomes natu
rally an object of love. If I believe that the Son of God in
my nature died for me, and, yet wearing that nature, in it
reigns over me, pleads for me, and fills me with His Spirit
that I may finally and fully bear His image— such a faith
must induce love within me toward Him and towards all that
bears His image. And thus the three grand graces are re
ferred to here— faith, hope, and love. 1 Thess. i. 3 ; Col. i. 4.
While faith is child-like and hope is saint-like, love is God-like.
Tertullian, however, renders— fides qua? per dilectionem per-
ficitur; Bellarmine and Estius take the same view; and the
Council of Trent cites the clause so translated in proof of their
favourite doctrine of fides formata, Sess. vi. c. 7. Bisping and
Windischmann, though they do not hold the participle to be
passive, will not part with the doctrine which the passive is

CHAP. V. 7. 389
adduced to support ; the one saying, that in any case the essen
tial meaning of the clause is unchanged, and the other, that
either way it remains a strong proof of the Catholic doctrine.
But the theory sets aside the Pauline theology of justification.
The apostle then recurs to the Galatians in direct personal
appeal, referring to their previous state of spiritual prosperity,
and how they had so quickly declined from it ; warning them
at the same time of the rapidity of spiritual declension when it
once begins, and throwing blame on their seducers whose arts
had prevailed.
Ver. 7. 'Erpe^ere koXcov — " Ye were running well." The
meaning of the figure is apparent : ii. 2 ; Phil. iii. 14 ; 2 Tim.
iv. 7. They had been making rapid progress in the right
course, but they had suddenly and unaccountably deflected.
Legalism and internal dissensions (ver. 15) had got in among
them. Ye were running well, and the hope was that ye should
reach the goal and win the garland. The second member of
the verse drops the transparent figure, which it identifies with
obedience to the truth. Truth was the course, and obedience
was the progress. Such is the eulogy ; and now, without any
connecting particle, the sudden question is put — a question of
sorrow and surprise —
Th vpdv iveKotyev rfj dXnQela fir) irelQeaQai ; — " Who did
hinder you that ye should not obey the truth?" The Received
Text has dveKoyjrev on the authority of a few minuscules, while
the other reading has vastly preponderant authority. Erasmus
edited dz/e/coijre, and from him it passed into the Elzevir copies.
Usteri is inclined still, but on feeble grounds, to receive it ; and
he reckons the next words a gloss. The verb iyKoirreiv is " to
strike in," to hinder as by breaking up a road, and is used clas
sically with the dative of a person, as in Polybius, xxiv. 1, 12 ;
but it is also construed with the accusative : Acts xxiv. 4 ;
1 Thess. ii. 18. Compare Lucian, Nigrinus, § 35, vol. i. p.
24, ed. Dindorf.
Tfj dXrjQela firj irelQeaQai— " that ye should not obey the
truth." The article rfi is wanting in A, B, and n. Chrysos
tom omits this clause; and after irelQeaQai F and G add finBevl
irelQeaQe — nemini consenseritis in Lucifer and Ambrosiaster —
evidently an interpolation, though it is defended by Koppe and
Semler. Jerome remarks in reference to those words, that

390 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
they are found nee in Grcecis libris, nee in his qui in apostolum
commentati sunt. Windischmann, however, is not wholly ad
verse to it, if thus connected with the former clause — "be
persuaded by no one not to obey the truth." The fir) before
irelQeaQai is not properly pleonastic, though the two translations
correspond in sense — " who hath hindered that ye should not
obey the truth ? " or, " who hath hindered you from obeying
the truth?" Meyer indeed says, it is das gewohnliche pleonas-
tische nach verbis des Hinderns. See Hermann, Vigerus, No.
271. The opinion is common, but the particle ^77 expresses
the intended negative result contained in the infinitive. Jelf,
§ 749 ; Klotz-Devarius, vol. ii. p. 668 ; Madvig, § 210.
The truth is the truth of the gospel. See under ii. 5, 14.
That truth is opposed in the apostle's mind not simply to what
is false, but to every modification or perversion of it, under any
guise which would rob it of its efficacy, mar its symmetry, or
in any way injure its adaptation to man. And the truth is to
be obeyed ; not simply understood or admired, but obeyed.
This clause omitted by Chrysostom has been wrongly placed at
the end of iii. 1 in the Received Text.
Ver. 8. 'H treiapovrj ovk e'/c rov KaXovvrov ipdv — " The
persuasion is not from Him who calleth you." The change of
77 into rj by Vomel is needless, though Tyndale's version is not
unlike — " even that counsel that is not of Him," etc. — an
answer to the previous question, " who was a let unto you, that
ye should not obey the truth?" The verse is also regarded
by Erasmus and Beza as the answer to the previous question,
Who hindered you?— the persuasion not of Him that calleth
you. But, as De Wette remarks, the article would in that
case be repeated after ireiafiovrj. The word ireiafiovrj, sug
gested by the paronomasia, presents a difficulty ; it occurs
very rarely, being found neither in classic Greek nor in the
Septuagint. It is found in the commentary of Eustathius
on Homer several times, and in Justin Martyr, Apol. i. 53,
Chrysostom on 1 Thess. i. 4, and Epiphanius, Hares, xxx. 21.
The citation from Ignatius is more than doubtful, as the Codex
Colb., instead of ov ireiapovrjv rb epyov, reads ov aicoirrjv fiovov
rb epyov, and the reading is adopted by Dressel. The question
is, whether the word should be taken in an active or a passive
sense— whether it signify Ueberredung or Folgsamkeit, assen-

CHAP. V. 8. 391
tiendi facilitas aut persuadendi sollertia, persuading or per-
suadedness. The signification of credulitas given by Estius,
of obstinacy by Bengel, of Eigensinn by De Wette, may not
be admitted. The noun, as far as its form is concerned, may
have either meaning. 1. The Greek fathers give it the passive
sense. Theophylact explains it by rb irelQeaQai, and CEcu
menius by to ireiaQrjvai. This interpretation is adopted by
many — as Winer, Ruckert, Matthies, Olshausen, Reiche, and
Prof. Lightfoot. The meaning then would be — this convic
tion or state of mind you are in, cometh not of Him that calls
you. But this would be a truism, and the active sense of
ko-Xovvtov is in that way overlooked. 2. But secondly, the
ireiapiovrj and koXovvtov are in contrast : it comes from a
source opposed to the divine call. It is not the state of being
persuaded, but the art or process- of persuading, which comes
into direct conflict with divine call. The Judaistic arts and
arguments were not in harmony with the effectual calling of
God. The one is ireiapiovrj — persuasion — iv ireiQoh aoeplav
Xoyoiv — art and arguments — on merely human and specious
principles ; the other is KXrjaiv, the summons of God to life
and truth in Christ. The apostle goes back in idea to Tt? vpidv
iveKo^jrev; the Judaizers are present to his mind from this
question on through several verses and to the end of the twelfth
verse. It is their work which he thus pictures ; their 7retcr-
fiovrj was the preaching of another gospel, the bewitching of
the Galatians. Were the apostle repeating the idea in firj
irelQeaQai, he would probably have expressed it in its negative
form, and with the addition of a pronoun, as indeed is supplied
by Jerome who gives both views, and by Augustine and Ambro-
siaster. The active meaning is abundantly warranted. Justin
Martyr, Apolog. i. 53 ; Epiphanius, Hares, xxx. 21. This is
the meaning given by Beza, Piscator, Borger, a Lapide, Usteri,
Schott, Hilgenfeld, Meyer, Wieseler, and Trana. Reiche,
adopting the passive sense, proposes to read the verse interro
gatively, and wonders that nobody has thought of it : Is not
persuasion — obedience — from God who calls you ? This is not
very different from omitting ovk altogether : Persuasion is of
Him that calleth you ; and so ovk is omitted in D1 and some
Latin codices referred to by Jerome who, however, after saying
that in some Latin codices the reading ex Deo was a corrup-

392 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
tion from ex eo, assigns a theological reason for the omission
of the negative ov : verum simpliciores quique putantes se deferre
Deo ut persuasio quoque nostra in ejus sit potestate, abstulerunt
partem orationis non. In the phrase e/c rov koXovvtov vpdv,
the present participle, as Meyer suggests, may be taken sub
stantively (Madvig, § 180), or it may bear its usual meaning
—who is calling you still. Winer, § 45, 7. The reference is
to God, as in i. 6, 15, not to the apostle (Locke, Paulus,
Doddridge, and Macknight), nor to Christ (Theophylact).
Because of the use of the uncommon word ireiafiovrj, and
the various readings of this and the previous verse, Schott
says that he conjectures, haud temere, the whole verse to be
a gloss ; it is wanting, he adds also in proof, in the .iEthiopic
version. Ver. 9. MiKpd tyfin oXov rb epvpapia £iyxot — " A little
leaven the whole lump leaveneth." This is a proverbial say
ing, delivered here as a warning. Matt. xiii. 33, xvi. 11 ;
Mark viii. 15 ; Luke xiii. 21 ; 1 Cor. v. 6. The figure — ap
plied in a bad sense, save in Matt. xiii. 33, Luke xiii. 21— may
refer either to the false teachers or to their doctrine. Luther,
Chrysostom, Calvin, a Lapide, Matthies, and Meyer refer it to
the latter. The meaning in that case is, that the introduction
of minute error has a tendency to corrupt the whole mass of
truth. Alford differently — " corrupts the whole mass of Chris
tians," taking typrj in the abstract and cpvpapa in the concrete.
It refers to persons, Rom. xi. 16, and here the Judaists are
in the apostle's mind. True indeed, as Meyer says, the apostle
nowhere lays stress on their number ; yet the following 6
rapdaacov might seem to indicate that the Judaists were not
many. The question is, Who hindered you ? and the assertion
that the hindrance was occasioned by the ireiapiovrj refers to
the teachers ; so that the proverb may mean, that though like
leaven they may appear small in comparison with the lump,
yet by assiduity and influence they may and will infect and
debase the entire society — oXov being emphatic. Such is the
better view, as being more in harmony with the context.
Theophylact refers the little leaven to circumcision— fila ovaa
ivroXrj ; but that can scarcely be the apostle's reference : it is
the doctrine connected with it which he has chiefly in view.
Ver. 10. The apostle so far modifies his statement, or

chap. v. 10. 393
rather expresses a confidence that the whole lump will not be
so leavened. Still there is no connecting particle ; each state
ment stands out vividly by itself —
'E70J ireiroiQa et? vpav iv Kvpleo — "I have confidence in"
or "toward you in the Lord." The emphatic use of the pronoun
iyco is, "I for my part." There is a tacit contrast to what
goes before, which some copyists filled in by Se, as in C1, F,
and which Lachmann so far acknowledges as to put it within
brackets in his text. The verb is used with eVt and an accu
sative — icp' vp,dv — 2 Thess. iii. 4, 2 Cor. ii. 3 ; it has also, as
here, the momentous adjunct iv Kvpleo, in Phil. ii. 24, 2
Thess. iii. 4 ; with a different aspect of relation it is also fol
lowed by eTrt with a dative, 2 Cor. i. 9, Heb. ii. 13, and by the
simple dative, Phil. i. 14, 2 Cor. x. 7, which designates the
region or ground of confidence. Eh vpav is " in reference
to you." Wisdom xvi. 24 ; Winer, § 49, a, c ; Bernhardy, p.
220. He based his confidence not on his own pointed reproof,
solemn expostulation, or tender reminiscences ; not on their
affection toward him, or their probable recognition of the truth
and reappreciation of it when they should bethink themselves.
He might not overlook those elements indeed, but he says
boldly, eV Kvpleo. Compare Rom. xiv. 14. We have in these
three verses in succession, irelQeaQai — rreiapovfj — ireiroiQa. His
confidence was —
"On ovBev aXXo eppovrjaere — " that ye will think nothing
different" — that is, that ye will be of the same mind with
me. Acts xxviii. 22 ; Phil. i. 7, iii. 15. The reference seems
directly to be to what he has been enjoining and illustrating
in the previous sections ; but as that includes the germ of his
preaching, the inference is fair, that the entire circle of the
apostle's public instruction is comprehended. We do not, like
Ellicott, make the last the immediate reference ; nor does the
use of the future justify the supposition, for it naturally refers
to the period when the epistle should be read, not excluding, of
course, the anticipated and lasting result.
The apostle's confidence was, that the persuasive arts of the
Judaizers should fail ; that their success should be only tempo
rary ; and that the mass, after the novelty had worn off and
they had come to themselves, should be of his mind — should
settle down into harmony with him in reference to all the dis-

394 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
tinctive or characteristic truths of the gospel which he had
proclaimed. See under Phil. iii. 15.
The apostle has been verging for some time toward the
next declaration — the stern censure of the false teachers —
'O Be rapdaaeov vpav Baardaei rb Kplfia — " but he that
troubleth you shall bear his judgment." The Se marks a con
trast between the apostle's confidence in returning harmony of
opinion with himself, as just expressed, and the perversions and
disturbances created by the Judaists. The singular 6 rapda
aeov is not collective for ot rapdaaovrev (i. 7), nor is it used as
representing a class. Winer, § 27; 2 Cor. xi. 4. Nor, probably,
does it specify any particular individual or any well-known per
son directly, as Erasmus, Bengel, Usteri, and others suppose ;
for the bar iv dv § generalizes the expression. The phrase
simply takes an individual of a class, and holds him up for the
moment to notice, so that what is true of him is true of the
entire party of which he is the representative. Madvig, § 14.
It matters not —
"Oanv av § — " whoever he may be." Acts iii. 23. There
is in this clause no direct reference to personal character, rela
tion, or state, though they may be all included. The common
reference has been to station — high station ; as by Theophylact
and Theodoret — fieydXoi, dgibiriaroi, and they are followed by
Luther, Ruckert, and De Wette. The sentiment may be true,
but it is not directly expressed. Whoever he may chance to be
— no matter what his position, influence, or pretensions — he shall
bear his judgment. Lightfoot's filling up, " however he may
vaunt his personal intercourse with the Lord," is a very un
likely supposition. Some, according to Jerome, found in this
clause a quiet reference to Peter.
Baardaei rb Kplpa. Kplfia is the judgment or sentence
— whatever its nature — pronounced by the Kpirrjv, and by con
textual reference it is here a condemnatory judgment. Rom.
iii. 8. We have XapiBdveiv Kplfia in Luke xx. 47, Rom. xiii. 2,
Jas. iii. 1. In the Septuagint it represents the Hebrew XK>3 in
its various senses. Compare 1 Cor. xi. 29, 1 Tim. v. 12. The
image of a load in Baardaei is found in Hebrew usage. Locke,
Borger, and Macknight regard the Kplpa as excommunication ;
Jatho refers it to other church penalties, and placing a comma
after cppovrjaere, he supposes the apostle to express his confi-

chap. v. n. 395
dence that the church would agree in judgment with him
against the offenders ; but the apostle refers the judgment to
God — di/T07roSoo-t? ©eov (Hesychius). Tischendorf writes idv,
after A, B, k. See on this spelling, Winer, § 42, 6 ; Her
mann, ad Viger. 835. Kplfia is accented Kpip,a in classical
writers. See under ii. 9. Lipsius, Grammatisehe Untersuchungen,
p. 40. The apostle immediately adds —
Ver. 11. 'E70J Se, dBeXcpol, el irepirofirjv en Knpvaaco, ri en
BicoKop,ai ; — " But I, brethren, if I still preach circumcision,
why am I still persecuted?" The first eVt is omitted in
some MSS. The difficulty of the temporal allusion may have
suggested the omission. He never or at any time preached
circumcision since he became an apostle. The iyco is again
emphatic in position and expression — " as for me ;" and the Se
is not transitional simply, but indicates a contrast. There were
troublers among them, and they shall bear their judgment.
Such a crimination did not apply to him, though he had been
unjustly charged. It would seem that some of these troublers
alleged his patronage, and were sheltering themselves under
his example. He had circumcised Timothy ; nay, to Jews he
became as a Jew ; and his practice, misunderstood, might be
quoted in favour of Judaizing inconsistency. But, in direct
opposition to all arguments and apologies, he says, " As for
me, if I still preach circumcision, why am I still persecuted ? "
El Krjpvaaeo — if I preach — if it be a fact that I preach. See
under i. 9. The eVt refers to a period prior to his conversion,
when, of course, circumcision was a prominent article of his
creed and advocacy. He may have taken the word Knpvaaco
from his present form of labour, and applied it, though not
with perfect accuracy, to his previous maintenance of Judaism
in its integrity (i. 14). The present tense is used, as if bor
rowed from the allegation of his opponents — he preaches yet
circumcision, — irepirofirjv having the stress. To preach cir
cumcision is to maintain the observance of it to be necessary
to salvation, and that all Gentile converts should submit to it
as essential to their admission to the church, and their hope of
final acceptance.
The apostle's reply to the charge of preaching circumcision
is decisive — Tt en BicoKOfiai — " why am I still persecuted ? "

396 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
This second en may be regarded, but not necessarily, not as
temporal, but as logical— Rom. iii. 7, ix. 19— "If I preach cir
cumcision, what reason is there that I should be persecuted?"
The fact of his being persecuted by the Jews and Judaists was
surely a proof that he was neither preaching circumcision, nor
was regarded by them as preaching it. Had he been preaching
circumcision, would not they have joyfully clung to him? The
conclusion is inevitable —
"Apa Karrjpynrai rb aKavBaXov rov aravpov — " then the
offence of the cross is done away with." 1 Cor. i. 23. A and
C, 39, 40, add rov Xpiarov, and so Jerome with the Coptic and
iEthiopic versions. The addition is an exegetical emendation.
The Syriac version takes the clause interrogatively, and Knapp
and Vater so point it. Bengel is not disinclined to it, and
Usteri and Ewald adopt it. But there is no necessity for it,
and the statement by such a turn becomes feebler in character.
The particle opo leads to a somewhat unexpected conclusion
(Klotz-Devarius, ii. p. 160. See under ii. 17, 21) — -"those
things being so" — " then after all," ergo in the Latin versions.
The noun aKavBaXov occurs often in the New Testament and the
Septuagint, and properly is not offence, but that at which one
stumbles or takes offence — found with its literal meaning, Lev.
xix. 14 — direvavn rvcpXov ov irpoaQrjaeiv aKavBaXov, but only
tropically in the New Testament. Morus and others under
stand aravpov figuratively, as denoting suffering on account
of Christ. But this sense weakens the declaration, for the
apostle speaks directly of Christ's cross as involved in the
controversy, and in the phrase adduced from Matt. xvi. 24 it
is his own cross that a man is asked to take up. The offence
of the cross is the offence which the Jews took at the idea of
salvation through the Crucified One, and Him alone : vi. 12 ;
1 Cor. i. 17 ; Phil. ii. 8. Salvation by the blood of the cross
was a sore stumblingblock to their national pride — an open
affront to their cherished theology ; for He that died on Cal
vary had been rejected by their people, and doomed for blas
phemy and treason to a public execution. To speak of that
instrument of shame and agony as the means of salvation in
flamed their bitterest prejudices, and chafed them into an
unscrupulous and malignant hostility, which plumed itself on
doing God service when it put down and thwarted in every

chap. v. 12. 397
way, even unto death, the preachers and disciples of a crucified
Messiah. 1 Thess. ii. 15.
Ver. 12. "OepeXov Kal diroKotyovrai ol dvaararovvrev hfidv
— " I would that they would even cut themselves off who are
unsettling you." The verb dvaararovv is defined by Hesy-
chius as dvarpeireiv. Acts xvii. 6, xxi. 38. The term is of
deeper meaning than rapdaaovrev in i. 7 — not only troubling,
but unhinging you. The ordinary classic phrase is dvdararov
iroieiv. Sturz, De Dialect. Alexandrind, p. 146. Symmachus,
however, employs the verb, Ps. lix. (Iviii.) 11 ; and Aquila, Ps.
xi. (x.) 12. Bengel takes quite a peculiar view of the con
nection. "OepeXov, according to him, should stand by itself, as
being a curt answer to the previous clause taken interrogatively
— "Is then the offence of the cross ceased?" "I wish it were;
he shall bear his judgment, . . . and they who are unsettling
you shall be cut off." (Similarly Bagge.) Besides the dis
jointed construction, the insulation of bcpeXov and the wrong
translation of the middle verb forbid this exegesis. "OepeXov
is very rarely joined with the future, so that D, F have
diroKo^eovrai — an evident emendation. Lucian gives such a
connection as an example of a solecism, Pseudosophista, p.
216, vol. iv. Bipont. The word is allied to ebepeiXe — cocpeXov.
Matthias, § 513 ; 1 Cor. iv. 8 ; 2 Cor. xi. 1 ; Klotz-Devarius,
516. D3, K, L have cocpeXov. The future is here used vir
tually for the optative, and the word is treated as a mere par
ticle, Winer, § 41 ; A. Buttmann, § 185. In the use of the
term in 1 Cor. iv. 8, 2 Cor. xi. 1, there is a tinge of irony.
What then is the meaning of diroKwi/-ovrai% 1. It cannot
bear the passive sense — the abscindantur of the Vulgate, or
" were cut off" of the English version. Winer, § 38, 4. The
usage, though it occurs in classical writings, does not seem to
be found in the New Testament. The Gothic, too, has vainei
jah usmaitaindau ; and the Syriac has the common idiom,
" cutting were cut off." Calvin interprets it in the same way.
— exitium imprecatur impostoribus Mis, and he vindicates the
exegesis : " And yet I should not wish that a single individual
perish thus ; but my love of the church, and my anxiety for
her interests, carry me into a kind of ecstasy — quasi in ecstasin
— so that I can think of nothing else." Bagge explains it —
" cut off from a position of hope that they may ever accept

398 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
the salvation of Christ." The interpretation of Wieseler and
Schmoller is similar to Calvin's ; so Hammond, and Chandler
who renders — " excluded from the church, disowned by you
as brethren;" — "were themselves cut off from the society of
the church with the circumcising knife of excommunication"
(Boston).1 But the passive translation is grammatically un
tenable ; and if excommunication were the penalty, the apostle
in his plenary authority would have pronounced the sentence
himself. 2. Retaining the proper middle signification, the verb has
been supposed to mean " cut themselves off, or get themselves
cut off, from fellowship with you." Generally this view is
held by Erasmus, Beza, Piscator, a Lapide, Bengel, Windisch-
mann, Webster and Wilkinson, Ellicott, and Gwynne who
renders—" that they would even beat themselves away !" But
this meaning is unusual ; the /cot in this case also loses its
emphasis ; and why in such a crisis did the apostle only wish
for the severance and not at once command it, as in 1 Cor. v.
11 ? There may be an allusion to the eVe/c<tye of ver. 7, both
being compounds of the same verb ; but the paronomasia will
not bear out Gwynne's idea — "Instead of intercepting the
progress of others, make away with yourselves," for the /cot
again becomes meaningless, and the wish amounts to little.
But the words of the apostle are sharp and precise.
3. The meaning is keener than this, that they may be de
prived of all opportunity of seducing you (Wolf, Baumgarten),
and greatly stronger than that of doing penance— Busse thun.
4. Nor is the meaning merely in a tropical sense, utinam
spadones fient propter regnum ccelorum, et carnalia seminare
cessabunt; the view of Thomas Aquinas, and of Augustine who
calls it sub specie maledictionis, benedictio. Some admit in the
phrase a reference to circumcision— " would execute upon
themselves not only circumcision, but excision also" (Cony-
beare). Bengel too : Quemadmodum praputium per circum-
cisionem abscinditur, ut quiddam, quo carere decet Israelitam ;
ita isti tanquam praputium rejiculum de communione sanctorum
abscindentur et anathema erunt.
5. Another and literal sense has been given, which some
1 Paraphrase on Galatians. Whole Works of Thomas Boston ofEttrick
vol. vi. p. 273, Aberdeen 1849. '

CHAP. V. 12. 399
brand as indelicate, which Bagge calls "a positive insult to
St. Paul," which Gwynne stigmatizes as " a filthy witticism,"
and of which even Le Clerc writes, Imprecatio scurra est non
Pauli, viz. I would that they would not only circumcise, but even
castrate themselves ; — Chrysostom saying, firj irepirepiveaQeoaav
fiovov, dXXd Kal diroKoirreaQeoaav ; and Jerome as decidedly,
non solum circumcidantur sed etiam abscindantur — would not
only circumcise, but eunuchize themselves. Now, 1. this is the
proper meaning of the term, to hew off limbs — Kapn, av%eva,
revovrav : Iliad, ix. 241 ; Odyss. x. 127 ; Rost u. Palm sub
voce. 2. This verb and its noun are the technical terms em
ployed for this act : Arrian, Epictetus, ii. 20. TdXXov b dirb-
koitov rjroi b evvov-xpv, Hesychius ; Lucian, Eunuchus, p. 210,
vol. v. Opera, Bipont. 3. The word bears the same meaning in
the Septuagint : ovBe diroKeKop,p,evov, Deut. xxiii. 1 ; also Philo,
De Leg. Spec. § 7 ; De Victis Offer. § 13. See Wetstein in loc.
A portion of the passage quoted by Bentley (Critica Sacra,
p. 48) from Dio Cassius is a various reading. Dio Cassius,
lib. lxxix. 11, p. 448, vol. ii. Op. ed. Dindorf. 4. Both the
name and the thing were familiarly known in Galatia, espe
cially in the town of Pessinus, where, on Mount Dindymus,
Cybele had her shrine, which was served by emasculated priests.
Lucian, Cronosolon, § 12, p. 16, vol. ix. Op. Bipont. Justin
Martyr also uses the verb of the priests of the mother of the
gods : I.Apolog. p. 70, E, p. 196, vol. i. Opera, ed. Otto. See also
Bardesanes, Cureton's Spicileg. Syr. p. 32. Strabo also men
tions the diroKoiroi PdXXoi, xiii. 4, 14, p. 87, vol. iii. Geograph.
ed. Kramer. Reference may also be made to the wild wail of
the Carmen, Ixiii. of Catullus. Diodorus Siculus, iii. 31, p.
247, vol. i. Opera, ed. Dindorf. Such a mutilation must have
been so well known in the province of Galatia, that the apostle's
words in connection with the irepirofirj of the previous verse
could scarcely have conveyed any other allusion to a Galatian
reader ; and this reconciles us to this third interpretation. The
verb could not have the same hard sound to them as it has to us.
5. The /cot in this way preserves its ascensive force — not only
circumcise, but even eunuchize themselves. In a similar spirit
and play of terms, the apostle says, Phil. iii. 2, 3 : BXeirere r-rjv
Kararofirjv rjpieh yap r) irepirop,rj. Circumcision to a Gentile was
a mere bodily mutilation of the same kind as that of the priests

400 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
of Cybele. See under Phil. iii. 2. Such an airoKoirrj was quite
on a level with their irepirofirj : let them show their extrava
gant attachment to the rite by imitating the degraded ministers
of Cybele. Luther writes, Allusit ad circumcisionem, q. d.
cogunt vos circumcidi utinam ipsi funditus et radicitus excindantur.
Such is the view of all the Greek fathers, of Jerome, Ambrosi-
aster, Augustine, and of Winer, Matthies, Schott, Olshausen,
Usteri, De Wette, Hilgenfeld, Alford, Ewald, Jowett, and Prof.
Lightfoot. It is needless to apologize for the apostle's words,
as springing either from Judaieus furor, as Jerome says, or, as
he further hints, from human frailty, since the apostle was a
man adhuc vasculo clausus infirmo. Nor does it serve any
purpose to call the imprecation simply prophetic (Pareus) or
ecstatic (Calvin). It is a bitter sarcasm on the fanatical fond
ness for circumcision, and the extravagant estimate of its value,
which these Judaistic zealots cherished, and which they were
putting into prominence with persistent vehemence — a scornful
and contemptuous estimate of the men, and of the mere muti
lation for which they had such a passion.
Ver. 13. 'Tpeh yap iir eXevQepla iKXrjQr)re, dBeXcpol—" For
ye for your part were called to liberty, brethren"— vfieiv being
emphatic from its position. Tap is "not merely a particle of
transition" (Brown) ; nor is it to be referred to a more remote
sentiment — " Let them not revolutionize you, for ye were called
to freedom" (Webster and Wilkinson) ; nor is it connected
with ocpeXov—" Would that the offence of the cross were done
away ; would that the Jews no longer rejected the doctrine that
the law cannot justify, for ye were called" (Bagge). Gwynne
needlessly throws the connection back to the last verse of the
^previous chapter. But ydp refers back to the immediately
preceding statement, and is a justification of the strong and
indignant feeling expressed against the Judaizers, since they
were fighting against the very freedom into which they had
been called. Some difficulty about the meaning and reference
of ydp seems to have suggested the alteration into Se, as in F,
G, and in Chrysostom. The iirl expresses the object or design
of the verb— called that you might be free. 1 Thess. iv. 7 ;
Eph. ii. 10; Xenophon, Anab. vii. 6, 3 ; Winer, § 48, c ; Jelf^
634, 3. It is the state for which, or for the permanent enjoy
ment of which, they had been called. To a state of liberty,

CHAP. V. 13. 401
permanent and unvarying, had they been summoned — freedom
from that legal yoke under which the reactionists would bind
them, and from which they had been delivered so wholly that
they were under no obligation to conform either occasionally
or partially, for such conformity impaired the breadth and
fulness of their liberty. Law and its bondage were in direct
antagonism to faith and its freedom. For KXrjaiv, see under
i. 6, Eph. iv. 1. And he names them " brethren," in affec
tionate counsel. Possibly iKXfjQrjre here was suggested by the
previous phrase, e'/c tov koXowtov : the persuasion to bow to the
servitude of the law did not come from Him who called them
to freedom. But he adds the salutary caution —
Movov pir) rrjv iXevQeplav et? depopfir/v rfj aapKi — " only turn
not your liberty into an occasion for the flesh." The ellipse is
emphatic in its conciseness. F, G supply Bebre after aapd; and
so Jerome and the Vulgate, detis. Meyer proposes rpeirere, De
Wette rpe^re, and Hofmann e^ere. The want of a verb in
similar cases with firj is not uncommon. Winer, § 64, 6; Matt.
xxvi. 5; Sophocles, Antig. hll ; Klotz-Devarius, ii. 669; Har
tung, ii. 153. Some versions get out of the difficulty by re
curring to the nominative. Thus the Syriac — " Only let not
your liberty be for an occasion to the flesh ;" and similarly
Tyndale and the Genevan. The noun dcpoppifj signifies in mar
tial phrase, a base of operations, as in Thucydides, i. 90 ; then
a starting-point, an occasion or opportunity — with XafiBdveiv to
take it, or with StSoVat to afford it. The dative aapKi is that
of dativus commodi — the flesh taking advantage of the occasion.
Rom. vii. 8, 11 ; 2 Cor. v. 12, xi. 12 ; 1 Tim. v. 14. The
adpi; is man's unrenewed nature, — not simply his corporeal
organism with its passions and appetites, but his whole nature
ethically viewed as under the dominion of sin — sense and
selfishness. See under ver. 19, and under Eph. ii. 3. See also
Wieseler's long note. They had been exhorted to stand fasti
in the liberty, but they are specially cautioned not to abuse it. \
They were to be on their guard against antinomian licentious
ness ; for, though they were not under the law as a means of
justification, they were still under it as their rule of life. The
probable reference, as the succeeding context hints, is to what
ever is opposed to the mutual service of love enjoined in the
next clause, — perhaps that selfishness and self-importance which
2 C

402 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
some among them seem to have cherished, — and to their con
temptuous disregard for such as had not arrived at their cherished
independence. The making freedom an occasion for the flesh
is an extravagance which has been often witnessed; as with
the German Anabaptists in the peasant wars of the days of
Luther, and among the Fifth Monarchy men of the English
Puritans. In the quaint words of a recent Irish theologian,
" If the devil cannot stop the coach, he mounts the box and
Irives." Compare Rom. vi., Jude 4.
' 'AXXd Bid rrjv dydirrjv BovXevere dXXrjXoiv — " but by love
be in bondage to," or " be serving, one another." A different
reading, rfj 0707777 rov Hvevparov, is found in D, F, 31, in the
Claromontane, Vulgate, Gothic, and Coptic versions ; but it is
evidently an emendation, or an attempt to express a contrast
to aapKi. The article T77? emphasizes the love as possessed
and manifested by them-and Bid points it out as the instrument
of this mutual service. VWhile there was iXevQepla, there was
also to be BovXela ; not that of fear, as under the law, but that.
which springs from a faith working by love. Mutual service
in their spiritual freedom was to be the result of mutual love,
each serving and being served in turn, — a result which could
not be obtained if they remained apart in cold and haughty
isolatiomv Comp. Rom. xvi. 8, 22 ; 1 Cor. ix. 19; 1 Pet. ii.
16 ; 2 Pet. ii. 19. The law had occasioned no little disputation
among them, was the source out of which had sprung those
factious alienations; and yet what is the spirit of that very law?
Is it not as follows ?
Ver. 14. O ydp rrav vbpov iv evi Xoyco ireirXrjpcorai — " For
the whole law has been fulfilled in one word." Codices K and
L have X070? instead of vbpov — an evident blunder. D1 and
F prefix cv vpiv to ev evi Xbycp — a plain interpolation; Ter
tullian has in vobis. Marcion, as quoted by Epiphanius, sub
stituted vfiiv for ev evi Xbycp, and he seems to have read the
verse thus : o ydp irdv vbfiov iv vpJiv ireirXrjpcorai ; thus out of
enmity against the Mosaic law, as some alleged, altering the
apostle's meaning, and omitting iv <rco that the following clause
might not seem to be a quotation.
The reading ireirXrjpcorai is found in A, B, C, X, 17, 21,
23, 37, 39-71, in Marcion as quoted by Epiphanius, in Ter
tullian against Marcion, in Damascenus, and Augustine, who,

CHAP. V. 14. 403
however, often reads impletur. The reading is adopted by
Lachmann and Tischendorf. nXnpovrai of the Received Text
has in its favour D, F, K, L, Chrysostom, Theodoret, and
many of the versions, as the Claromontane and Vulgate, the
Gothic, Coptic, and Syriac. It is also advocated by Reiche at
some length. The external testimony for irXnpovrai is not
however preponderant, and it is impaired by the suspicion
which Meyer alleges, that the mechanical copyist did not
understand the full force of the perfect. The present, besides,
would mean that the process of fulfilment was still going on ;
whereas the perfect signifies, has been and is still fulfilled, is
in a fulfilled state, or has received its full complement of obedi
ence in this : " Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." A.
Buttmann, p. 172.
The position of the words o yap irdv vbpov is peculiar,
but not without example : Acts xx. 18 ; 1 Tim. i. 16. In ydp
the connection is manifest : by their love they were to be
serving one another, and for this reason, that love by divine
appointment was the fulfilment of the law. The phrase iv
evi Xbycp means, in this one utterance or precept — 7rct? and evi
being in contrast. But,
1. The notion attached by Grotius to irXvpovrai is peculiar :
The law is filled up, or is fulfilled — sicut rudimenta implentur
per doctrinam perfectiorem. That is, the law itself gets an
addition which perfects it. But the apostle is not speaking of
the law as a code which may receive any enlargement, but of
the obedience which it exacts. How could the Mosaic law be
made perfect by the addition of one of its own precepts, and
how could irdv stand in such a statement as Grotius supposes ?
2. Not a few give ireirXrjpcorai the meaning of — is summed
up, comprehenditur, like avaKecpaXaiovrai in Rom. xiii. 9. This
is the view of Luther, Calvin, Borger, Jaspis, Winer, Usteri,
Reiche, and Olshausen. But though the meaning of the two
phrases be not dissimilar, still the verb before us will not bear
the signification thus assigned to it. Its proper meaning is
distinctly to be given it, as other clauses of the New Testa
ment show. So that we prefer —
3. The interpretation which gives the verb its common
signification ; and such is the view of Chrysostom and his fol
lowers, of Riickert, Matthies, Schott, De Wette, Meyer, Baum-

404 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
garten-Crusius, and Wieseler. Thus Matt. iii. 15, Rom. viii. 4,
Col. iv. 17, Gal. vi. 2, Acts xiii. 25, Rom. xiii. 8. See under
next clause.
The apostle adds —
'Ev reo, 'Ayairrjaei<; rbv irXnalov aov ebv aeavrbv — " is
fulfilled in this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."
The repetitive words iv rep are omitted by D1, F, the Itala
and Vulgate, by Marcion, and many of the Latin fathers, as
Jerome and Pelagius, but without any ground. Aeavrbv has
the authority of A, B, C, D, E, K, K, etc. ; eovrbv is read only
in F, G, L, and many cursives. It is, however, defended by
Meyer, but now abandoned by Tischendorf. It is true that
eovrbv does not change the sense, for it may be used in the
second person : Winer, § 22, 5 ; Matt. iii. 9 ; John xii. 8 ;
Acts xiii. 46 ; Phil. ii. 12 ; A. Buttmann, p. 99. But the ex
ternal authority for aeavrbv preponderates, and the accidental
dropping of a a after ebv, ending with the same letter, may have
given rise to the variation.
The quotation is from Lev. xix. 18, li»3 TSnj> nanai, trans
lated in Septuagint as it is found here : " And thou shalt love
thy neighbour as thyself." The future for the imperative is
common in Hebrew. Thiersch, De Pent. p. 156, etc. The
meaning of irXnalov in the quotation is somewhat different
from the original, where it denotes brother Jews. Here its
reference seems specially to fellow-Christians, and generally
to fellow-men. See Augustine, De Doct. Christ, i. 31. The
question, "Who is my neighbour?" was in its wide sense
answered by Christ in the parable of the good Samaritan ; and
that answer is, Every one needing thy help, be his blood or
creed what it may, is thy neighbour.
1. But what Is meant by loving one's neighbour as one's
self ? It does not mean with the same amount, but with the
same kind of love, — which realizes or acts out the spirit of
brotherhood, — which seeks for a neighbour what you seek for
yourself, and feels his welfare involved in your own. Accord
ing to Gwynne, it comprises both " manner and degree."
2. But how does this love of a neighbour fulfil the law?
And the first question then is, What is the law referred to ?
Some, as Koppe, Brown, and Gwynne, suppose it the law of
Christ ; others, as Beza and Locke, the second table of the law ;

CHAP. V. 14. 405
others, as Schottgen and Ruckert, the divine law generally ;
others only the moral law, as Estius and Baumgarten-Crusius ;
others, as Macknight, hold that " the whole law" signifies those
parts of the Mosaic law which enjoined men's duty to their
neighbour; and similarly Turner. It seems a certain and
necessary conclusion, that the whole law is that very law to
which the apostle has referred so often in a variety of aspects. '
In what other sense could those who had heard the epistle read
understand it? What is said is true of the Mosaic law in
itself, and as a representative portion of God's great legislation.
Secondly, the difficulty yetjgmains^Jraw.Jpving one's neigh- p.,
bom^ulfils the whole law ? Did the whole law mean only the I
whole lawThnFeTeren^^lo^our neighbour, it would be easily '
understood. Love of neighbour would fulfil it in its various
precepts ; for what but the want of love, what but selfishness,
leads any one to kill, or commit adultery, or steal, or perjure
himself, or covet ? If he loved his neighbour as himself, no
such breaches of the divine code would be possible for him —
murder would be to him as suicide, and false witness like self-
crimination. The great Teacher has said, " Thou shalt love
the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul,
and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength. This is the
first commandment." Mark xii. 30. But if one obeys the
second commandment, which is " like unto" the first, he also
obeys the first. For right love of neighbour implies the love
of God, and is one of its tests or visible fruits. " If he love
not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God
whom he hath not seen?" No one can love his neighbour
with the prescribed measure and character of love, unless
he love God ; for that neighbour is loved because he is God's
child and bears His image. The love of the child presupposes
as its root the love of the All-Father ; obedience to the second
commandment depends upon and comprises obedience to the
first ; and therefore Jove, in its_inngr__spring, essence, anc
motive, fulfils the law.'" Disputes about that law were apparently]
running high" among the Galatians, and were creating aliena
tion, schism, and hatred ; and yet the spirit of that law is love, ]
showing itself in mutual service. Thus the apostle says, He
who loves his neighbour vbfiov ireirXrjpcoKe ; and again, irXrjpcopa ])
Rom. I

ovv vbfiov rj dydirrj — " love is the fulfilment of the law." Rom ¦

406 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
xiii. 8, 10. And this is the royal law. Jas. ii. 8. Calvin says
" that the doctors of the Sorbonne argued, that as the rule is
superior to what it directs, so the love of ourselves must always
hold the first rank." This, he affirms, is not to interpret but
to subvert our Lord's words, adding — asini sunt qui ne mioam
quidem habent caritatis.
Ver. 15. The apostle enforces these thoughts by the em
phatic warning —
El Be dXXrjXovv BaKvere Kal KareaQlere — " But if one another
ye bite and devour." The image is taken from the preying of
wild beasts. The first verb Bokvco — used literally, Xen. Anab.
iii. 2 — is employed in this tropical sense in Arrian's Epict. ii.
22. It means more than to vex or thwart (Robinson) ; it is to
inflict deep piercing spiritual wounds — to lacerate character and
feeling. A similar figure occurs in Ps. xxvii. 2 ; and Horace has
dente mordeor invido : Carmina, iv. 3. The second verb denotes
an action consequent upon the first. The animal bites, and
then devours. The idiom is different in Greek and English :
the first is, - " to eat down," " to eat up." The verb — used
literally of animals, Matt. xiii. 4, etc. ; and of the action of
fire, Rev. xi. 5 — signifies here the utter spiritual waste which
animosity creates and hurries on. Not content with wounding
others, it would trample them and spoil them in its voracity
and rage. 2 Cor. xi. 20. Both Cyprian and Marian. Victor
have for the second verb, accusatis. Chrysostom says : " To
bite is to satisfy a feeling of anger, but to devour is a proof of
extreme savagism — QrjpicoBlav iaxdrnv." And the caution is
added —
.BXe7reTe p.77 £77-0 dXXrjXcov dvaXcoQrjre — "see that by one
another ye bj3 not consumed ;" the emphasis lylng'on'oXX^XQji/
— a reciprocal pronoun, realizing vividly the scene or object of
the action, and in contrast to the previous clause— " serving
°2SJffS&erJs. love." BXeirere is followed as often by p.77 and
the subjunctive aorist. Winer, § 56; Gayler, 323. ' ' Ava-
XlaKco, which appears to be climactic after BaKvere and Karea
Qlere, is often used of killing or destroying. 2 Mace. ii. 10 ;
iEschylus, Agam. 570, Tt toj>? dvaXcoQevrav iv ^77^0) Xeyeiv ';
Thucydides, viii. 65. It is also employed in the' sense of
^pending or squandering money, and thereby exhausting it.
Here it pictures spiritual devastation and wreck, when, in con-

CHAP. V. 16. 407
sequence of brawling and contention, the spiritual life should
go out, and the community itself be broken up and ended.
Mutual destruction is the natural result of fierce mutual
quarrel. Neither gains the victory — both perish. Koppe re
fers the result cautioned against to the interference of the
Roman magistrates, who might interdict their religion ; and
Grotius points to it as a divine judgment. Both opinions are
contrary to the verse and context.
Ver. 16. A'eyeo Be, irvev/ian irepiirareire — "Now I say,
According to the Spirit walk." The first words are a formula
introducing a further explanation, and refer back to the first
part of ver. 13 — et? depopprjv rfj aapKi; the intervening verses
being suggested by the last clause of the same verse — Bid rrjv
dydirrjv. . . A'e is not merely continuative, but points to the
difference of theme. Had the apostle referred, as Gwynne sup
poses, to the immediately preceding verse, and merely proceeded
with a specific and opposed injunction, Xeyco would have been
superfluous. It always introduces continued explanation : iii.
17, iv. 1. For irepiirareire, see under Eph. ii. 2. The dative
irvevfian is that of norm — Kara irvevfia, Rom. viii. 4 (Meyer,
Usteri) — indicating the rule or manner. Winer, § 31, 6 ; Gal.
iii. 17 ; Rom. iv. 12 ; Phil. iii. 16. Fritzsche regards it as
the dativus commodi (on Rom. xiii. 13), because in such a verb
as the one occurring in this clause, nulla notionis eundi ratio
habetur ; and Hofmann similarly refers it to the power of the
Spirit, like irvevfian tyjv. Wieseler takes it as instrument, the
Spirit being the path in which they walk. Similarly Gywnne
— " the Spirit, the agent, being regarded as the instrument."
Uvevpa is the Holy Spirit ; for it is the same Spirit that is
spoken of in vers. 18 and 22, and therefore is not the spiritual
part of our nature, nor the human spirit in unity with the
Divine Spirit (Beza, Ruckert, De Wette, Schott, Olshausen,
and Brown) ; some epithet or addition would need to be added
to the simple irvevfia to give it such a meaning. Nor can the
phrase be diluted into " after a spiritual manner " (Peile, and
Theodoret who calls it ivomovaav ydpiv). The want of the
article does not forbid the reference to the Holy Spirit ; for
irvevfia came at length to be treated as a proper name. See
under Eph. i. 17.
Their whole course of life in thought and act, in all its

408 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
manifestations, was to be in the Spirit who is the source of
all good and gracious impulse. He is within believers the
living, ennobling, and sanctifying power ; and susceptibility of
influence— of check and guidance— from Him, in all points of
daily life, was to characterize them —
Kal iiriQvfilav aapKov ov fir, reXeanre—" and (so) ye shall
not fulfil the lust of the flesh." This translation is accepted
by perhaps the majority of expositors. The clause is a conclu
sion following an imperative — do the one, and the other shall
follow ; the /cat being consecutive. Winer, § 53, 3 ; Matt.
xxii. 32 ; Luke vi. 37 ; 2 Cor. xiii. 11. See under Phil. iv. 7.
The double negative ov firj is intensive, as if it were finBapfbv.
Lobeck, Phryniohus, p. 724; Winer, § 56, 3. See under iv.
30. The aorist subjunctive is often employed in such negative
utterances, especially in later Greek. Donaldson, Cratyl. 394 ;
Kriiger, § 53, 7, An. 6.
But another rendering has been adopted, and the verb is
taken as an imperative—" and fulfil not the lust of the flesh ;"
the verse consisting in this case of an affirmative and a nega
tive imperative connected by the simple copula. This is the
view of Castalio, Beza, Koppe, Usteri, Baumgarten-Crusius,
Ewald, and Meyer. The verb may indeed be taken in an im
perative sense, there being apparently similar instances of such
an imperative use of the second person subjunctive, and the
aorist subjunctive being abundantly used in later Greek for the
future. Gayler has given many examples from the classics,
and a table of them from the Sept., p. 440, 1, etc. But there
is no clear example of this construction in the New Testament,
and there is often difference of reading in such cases as here.
D3, E have ov pr) reXeaere, as if from the Latin versions, which
give non perficietis. The context following plainly presupposes
an assertion made, not a prohibitive command given, and assigns
the reason for making it : If ye walk by the Spirit, ye shall not
fulfil the lusts of the flesh; for the two courses are incompatible
— the one excludes the other. It is questionable if the use of
reXeiv will bear out the inference of Calvin — " The spiritual
man may be often assaulted by the lusts of the flesh, but he
does not fulfil them." See the use of iroieiv in John viii. 44,
Eph. ii. 3, compared with Rom. ii. 27, Jas. ii. 8. For adpj;,
see under Eph. ii. 3 ; Delitzsch, Bib. Psychol, v. 6, die unauf-

CHAP. V. 17. 409
gehobene Antinomie ; Miiller, die Christ. Lehre von der Siinde,
vol. i. p. 442, etc.
Ver. 17. 'H ydp adp% eiriQvpiei Kara rov irvevpiarov, rb Be
irvevpia Kara rrjv aapKOV — "For the flesh lusteth against the
spirit, and the spirit against the flesh." The reason or ground
of the previous statement is assigned — ydp. The flesh and
spirit are powers in one and the same person. The same verb
iiriQvfiei, as a vox media, is used of both, to mark the reflex
antagonism. There is no zeugma (Bengel), and no similar
verb needs to be supplied, as is done by Prof. Lightfoot. The
verb is often followed by the genitive, accusative, or infinitive ;
but here by Kara, as marking the direction of the eiriQvfila, — a
hostile direction being implied — Matt. x. 35, xxvii. 1 ; Acts vi.
13 ; 1 Cor. iv. 6, etc. — though not overtly stated, as by avri.
The flesh longs and wrestles for its former predominance ; it
is ever in the position of lusting against the spirit, and the
spirit is always and unweariedly beating back and resisting the
impulses and yearnings of the flesh. According to Meyer,
Wieseler, and others, it is wholly or partially wrong to com
pare this mutual struggle with that depicted in Rom. vii. which
in their opinion characterizes the unrenewed, as in such the
struggle is between adpl; and vovv. See Hodge in loc. Flesh
and the spirit are ever so opposed, that to walk by the spirit is
to preclude the fulfilment of the lust of the flesh. This inner
warfare is not unknown to classical writers; it is in some aspects
a matter of daily experience with all men. Euripides, Medea,
1077; Arrian, Epietetus, ii. 26; Xenophon, Cyro. vi. 1, 41;
Cicero, Tusc. ii. 21; Ovid, Metam. vii. 19; Seneca, Ep. 25.
See Wetstein in loc. and Schoettgen, vol. i. p. 1178.
Tavra yap oXXt^Xoi? dvriKeirai — " for these are opposed
the one to the other." The order of the Received Text is
found only in K, L, N, some versions and fathers. But its Be
is Supported by A, C, D3, K, L, a,3, etc., and is accepted by
Tischendorf, 7th ed. ; while 7op is found in B, D1, F, K1, the
Latin versions and fathers, and is preferred by Lachmann.
The evidence is pretty fairly balanced. But it may be said on
one side, Se may have been inserted by copyists to avoid the
repetition of 7ap ; on the other, that 7op was inserted to pre
vent the repetition of Se. The recurrence of Se, however, would
not be so strongly felt as that of ydp, and would less likely lead

410 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
to change ; moreover, 7<zp repeated is a characteristic of the
apostle's style. Were the sentence a repetition of the preceding,
Se, as De Wette argues, would be the more appropriate ; but it
explains, or rather assigns a reason for the reciprocal hostility
— " for they are contrary the one to the other." The pronoun
ravra is not the rb iiriQvpeiv rrjv adpKa rb irvevfia (Baum
garten-Crusius, Gwynne), a mere truism, but irvevfia and adp%
themselves. They maintain this reflex warfare, and they can
not coalesce, for they are contrary the one to the other. There
is no use in making the clause an explanatory paraphrase
(Ruckert and Schott), and giving it this sense — " for they are
in their nature opposed to one another." But there is at the
same time no tautology, and the apostle is describing an actual
contest. "Iva prj d dv QeXnre ravra iroirjre — " that ye may not do
those things whatsoever ye may wish." For the use of dv, see
Winer, § 42, 3, b ; Kiihner, § 428, a. "Iva is not to be ex
plained ecbatically, or as denoting simply event — wo-Te firj, as
in our version, "so that," and by Luther, Usteri, Baumgarten-
Crusius, De Wette, Bisping, Brown, Gwynne, Prof. Lightfoot,
and several others. The conjunction is therefore to be taken
in its full telic force — the constant mutual contest has this in
view — 'Iva. The emphatic oXXt^Xoi? of the- previous clause
governs the interpretation. On either side is the will influ
enced and counteracted. It is therefore one-sided, on the one
part, to give this meaning only in reference to the second
clause of the verse ; that is, by the struggle of the spirit ye
may not do what things your fleshly will would prompt you to
do. Such is the view of Chrysostom — "that you may not
permit the soul to proceed in its evil desires." He is followed
by Theodoret, CEcumenius in one of his explanations, Grotius,
Beza, Bull, Neander. Though QeXco may refer to the carnal
will in John viii. 44 and in 1 Tim. v. 11, there is no reason to
impose such a sense upon it in this place. Dr. Brown, in vin
dication of the same view, argues that the clause is an illustra
tion of the statement, " If they walked by the spirit, they would
not fulfil the lusts of the flesh." But this is to forget the vital
connection of the two clauses. Bagge holds the same view,
adding, " How any other sense than this is to be extracted from
the words of the apostle, I do not comprehend." And it is as

CHAP. V. 17. 411
one-sided, on the other part, to give the opposite meaning in
sole reference to the first clause of the verse ; that is, that by
the struggle of the flesh ye may not do. what the spirit prompts
you to do. Such is the opinion of Luther, Calvin, Estius, Usteri,
Schott, De Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Bisping, and virtually
Prof. Lightfoot. 0e'Xa> points indeed, in Rom. vii. 15, etc.,
which Lightfoot calls " the parallel passage," to the will in its
direction toward good, as the context very plainly shows ; but
there is no such contextual guidance found in this place. Both
these interpretations are therefore wrong ; for the words are
used of actual contest, not of decided mastery on either side.
The phrase oXXT^Xot? dvrUeirai describes not only actual anta
gonism, but undecided result. It is true in the case of all who
are born again, that the conflict ends in the victory of the
spirit ; but the apostle here does not include the issue, he
speaks only of the contest. So that the exegesis is preferable
which includes both sides of the statement : " The spirit
wrestles against your doing the things which ye would on the
impulse of the flesh, and the flesh struggles against your doing
the things which ye would on the impulse of the spirit." In
this case no inferred ethical notion is attached to QeXrjre, and
the clause describes the nature of the contest between the flesh
and the spirit. Thus G^cumenius in one of his interpretations,
Bengel, Meyer, and Winer, who has, soil, rb irv. impedit vos
quo minus perficiatis rd rrjv aapKov, contra rj adpl; adversatur
vobis ubi rd rov irvevpiarov, peragere studetis. The idea of
Wieseler is somewhat different, and amounts to this, that the
man does not do the thing, rovro, which in each particular case
he would do. If he wills to do good, he cannot do it ; if he
wills to do evil, he cannot do it : whatever he does is in oppo
sition to his will. But this view is too precise and definite for
the more general picture which the apostle presents. Hofmann's
notion is, that the object of the willing is not to be thought of,
whether good, or bad, or both; but that, while the contest
lasts, your deed is not one of your self-willing, and that when
the contest ends, you come to peace when you walk by the
Spirit of God. This is true ; but it is rather an inference from
the statement than a reproduction of the statement itself. The
apostle depicts the inner warfare of renewed men, especially in
the earlier stages of faith, when the old nature has not been

412 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
beaten back and conquered, and the new nature has not risen
up to the fulness of mastery — when the feebleness of a partial
sanctification is unable to work out its purposes, through the
many temptations and hindrances yet lurking in the heart.
He states a general principle which every one acknowledges as
verified in his own experience. The soul in which dwells the
Spirit of God is unable to realize its own ideal on the one
hand, though it is still approaching it ; and on the other hand,
it is kept not from sinning, but from falling into many sins to
which the power of former habit most especially exposes it.
The Galatians were in such a distressing condition at that
moment, recurring at the same time to carnal ordinances in
stead of giving His own place and pre-eminence to the Spirit ;
going back from their higher experiences to lower and legal
institutions. See under iii. 3. Gwynne says somewhat incon
sistently, that the experience of ver. 17 is not " of the regene
rate character ; " but in whom else than a regenerate man does
the Spirit of God so dwell ? He admits that the experience of
the persons spoken of, though it do not belong to the regenerate
character, may apply to such as are " babes in Christ ;" but the
" babe" is surely the child of the new birth.
Ver. 18. El Be irvevpari dyeaQe, ovk iare biro vofiov — " But
if ye be led by the Spirit, ye are not under the law." Ae intro
ducing a new and contrasted thought : in opposition to this
fluctuation of purpose and impotence of will-^" but." The
dative irvevfian is that of instrument. Winer, § 31, 7 ; Kriiger,
§ 48, 6, p. 286; Rom. viii. 14 ; in another aspect, 2 Tim. iii. 6.
To be led by the Spirit, in the full sense of it, is to be under
His benign and powerful influence in all thoughts, aspirations,
and acts, — to be yielded up to His government without reserve,
— to have no will without His prompting it, no purpose without
His shaping it, — is to be everywhere and in all things in willing
submission to His control, and always guarding against any
insubordination which may " grieve the Holy Spirit of God."
When men are in this condition, it is true of them — " Ye are
not under the law;" not, ye will not be as a result, but "ye
are"— a parallel condition. To be led by the Spirit is much
the same as to walk by the Spirit, ver. 16." In what sense are
those led by the Spirit not under the law ?
Not, 1. Because you have no need of it— the opinion of

CHAP. V. 18. 413
Riickert, Matthies, Schott ; — ov Beirai rrjv dirb rov vbpov
BonQelav, rlv xpela vbfiov ; (Chrysostom). This idea is not in
the full extent of it warranted by anything in the context.
Nor, 2. Because the law is something foreign — an alien
principle ; for the law of the Spirit is engraven in his heart
(Usteri). This is not fully found in the context. Nor is it,
3. Because the law finds in you nothing to forbid or con
demn (Meyer, Wieseler, Ellicott). This is a strong statement,
and one that actual experience does not verify. If the apostle
be supposed to describe an ideal state, in which no element of
the flesh had any power, and in which the whole man was
under the willing, unresisted government of the Spirit, the
statement would be true ; for in a perfect saint the law would
" have nothing to forbid, because nothing forbidden is desired,
and nothing to be condemned, because nothing condemnable
is done" (Windischmann). So far, indeed, as a man is guided
by the Spirit, so far the law has nothing to condemn in him,
— the law cannot be against the fruits of the Spirit. But the
apostle is not describing what might be, or what ought to be,
but what is. But,
4. As to be under law is to be under its authority, to be in
bondage to it, so not to be under it is to be freed from its yoke
— terrente, premente, vindicante (Estius, Lightfoot, Hofmann).
The Galatians were putting themselves again in subjection to
law, and ignoring the free government of the Spirit. To be
led by the Spirit is incompatible with being under the law.
See the beginning of chap. iii. To be under the law is thus to
acknowledge its claim, and to seek to obey it in hope of merit
ing eternal life ; but the believer dies to the law, and rises into
" newness of life," — is influenced by the Spirit of God as a
guiding power within him ; and " where the Spirit of the Lord is,
there is liberty." According to Ruckert and Schott, one might
expect the apostle to say, If ye are led by the Spirit, perficietis
quod tanquam irvevpiariKol volueritis. It serves no purpose to
make the verse a parenthesis (Koppe, Flatt). The adp% and
vbfiov are placed under the same category. In the former verse
it was flesh and spirit, here it is spirit and law. For the flesh
is in subjection to the law, and the law condemns it. All about
it is under the law, which at the same time, so far from check
ing or subduing, only irritates it, and helps it to develop its

414 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
worst manifestations. See under iii. 19. The law is helpless
for its deliverance. In this special case believers in Christ
entered into a new dispensation, the special characteristic of
which was the Spirit, according to Christ's promise ; and all
who possessed His gracious influences were no longer under
the law — a ministration of death, but had come into the pos
session of spiritual power and freedom, — their will, moved
by a higher will, was growing able to realize its own pur
poses. Or, more generally, believers pass out of the dominion
of law — mere law, having died to it ; their hearts filled by
the Spirit of God are under the government of a new prin
ciple. In this sense the law does not condemn them, as they
are forgiven, and obedience to it is not the condition of their
forgiveness ; for there is " no condemnation to them which are
in Christ Jesus." Nor are they under the law in regard to
their sanctification : as long as they were under it, they were
disobeying it, and were slavishly struggling to escape its penalty.
Not that they allow themselves to act contrary to it, but a
higher power legislates within them, able at the same time to
ensure obedience to its edicts, — that obedience being not a
servile submission to law, but a willing conformity to the ex
ample of Him who loved us and gave Himself for us. They
are not under the law to command them sternly; they are
guided and influenced by the Spirit of God— a divine law, an
enshrined authority within them. There is in these statements
no antinomianism, or "going on in sin that grace may abound."
The Spirit by whom we are led is the Spirit of holiness, and
the flesh is crucified. The difference is as between formal law
in outer statute, cold and dead as the tables of stone on which
it was engraved, and a law within, a living power, fulfilling
itself in love, and gradually working out a universal compli
ance ; for " sin shall not have dominion over you, for ye are
not under law, but under grace," and Christ is Sanctification as
well as Righteousness. Ov vbfico direiXown BovXoiv, irvevfian
Be reo dyovri reKva ©eov. Cramer's Catena in loc. Luther
writes, " When I was a monk, I thought by and by that I
was utterly cast away, if at any time I felt the lust of the
flesh, if I felt any evil emotion. If at that time I had rightly
understood those sentences of Paul, I should not have so
miserably tormented myself, but should have thought and said

CHAP. V. 19. 415
to myself, as I commonly now do — Martin, thou shalt not
utterly be without sin, for thou hast flesh ; thou shalt therefore
feel the battle thereof. Despair not, therefore, but resist it
strongly." Ver. 19. <I>avepd Be iariv rd epya rrjv aapKov — " Now
manifest are the works of the flesh ;" — epavepd having the stress
upon it, yet not so as to mean that the works of the flesh are so
open that one led by the Spirit does not first need the teaching
of the law about them — what to do, what to refrain from, in
reference to them (Hofmann). Meyer connects this clause
with the one before it, and as a closer explanation of " ye are
not under the law" — to show what the sinful principle pro
duces when the Holy Spirit does not lead men ; and Ellicott
more distinctly calls it " the open difference between the works
of, the flesh against which the law is ordained, and the fruits
of the Spirit." Probably this is too narrow a connection.
The flesh is spoken of in the entire short paragraph in its lust
ing and warrings, in contrast with the Spirit in its wrestlings
and leadings. Those who are guided by the Spirit are not
as such under the law; but the flesh is under law, under its
sentence and dominion : manifest are its works, and the law
cannot but condemn them as ep7o — works — done by the evil
and unrenewed nature. It is needless to press a contrast in
epavepd with the fruit of the Spirit as being more hidden, and
as needing to be educed and specified. The works of the flesh
are notorious, and notoriously of a corrupt origin. Xdp% is,
very plainly, greatly more than the sensual part of fallen
nature, for many of these ep7o are intellectual or spiritual in
nature. See under Eph. ii. 3, and under ver. 16. The apostle
proceeds to give a specimen catalogue —
"Anvd ian — " of which class are" — qualia sunt (Jelf, 816,
5), or less likely, quippe qua (De Wette). They are sins no
doubt very common in the Gentile world, and characterized the
Galatian people. Thomas Aquinas well says — cum apostolus
in diversis locis diversa vitia et diversimode enumerat, non intendit
enumerare omnia vitia ordinate et secundum artem, sed ilia tan
tum in quibus abundant et in quibus excedunt Mi, ad quos scribit.
The Received Text begins with fioi^ela, on the authority of
D, F, K, L, N3, the Claromontane Latin, the Gothic, the Phil.,
Syriac, and many of the Greek and Latin fathers ; while F,

416 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
G make it plural, with several of the following words, as does
Origen. But the preferable reading omits the word, as in A,
B, C, K1, 17, Vul., Cop., etc. Probably the insertion was a
reminiscence of Matt. xv. 19, Mark vii. 21.
Hopvela—" fornication." 2 Cor. xii. 21. Scarcely reckoned
a sin in heathen opinion.
'AKaQapala — " uncleanness," " impurity," including unna
tural lusts, so common in Greece and the East. See Dollinger's
The Gentile and the Jew, vol. i. 377-431; vol. ii. 197, 238,273,
etc., Eng. trans.
'AaeXyeia — " lasciviousness " — probably from o — QeXyco.
Mark vii. 22 ; 2 Cor. xii. 21 ; Eph. iv. 19. Donaldson de
rives it from a and aaXwy., foulness. Benf ey ( Wurzellexicon,
sub voce) proposes another derivation : from ocr., satiety, and
0X7. dXyov, die Sucht. Suidas takes it from a, and %eXyr),
a Pisidian town of notorious debauchery. It is defined in
the Etymologicum Magnum as eroifibrr/v irpbv ' irdaav rjBovrjv.
That it did not signify lasciviousness always, is plain from
its use by Demosthenes, where it means insolence. The blow
which Meidias gave was in character with 77 daeXyeia — the
outrageousness — of the man. Orat. cont. Meid. 514, p. 327,
vol. i. Opera, ed. Schaefer. In a similar way, the term wan
tonness, which had at first a more general signification, has
passed in English into the meaning of open sensuality. It is
the self-asserting propensity indulged without check or regard
to ordinary propriety, especially in libidinous gratification.
Tittmann, De Synon. p. 81 ; Trench, Synon. p. 64 ; Wetstein
in loc. Ver. 20. ElBcoXoXarpela — " idolatry" — worship of images or
false gods, not a species of the former sensualities (Olshausen),
though perhaps not without reference to the idol feasts, which
were often scenes of revelry and lust. 1 Cor. v. 11. The
worship of God might be mingled with that of the national
divinities. Acts xv. 20 ; compare 2 Kings v. 18. The word
was also applied to various sins, as undue devotion to any
thing to the exclusion of the Highest. See under Eph. v. 5 ;
Col. iii. 5.
$app,aKela — not poisoning, or the use of cpiXrpa (Plat. Leg.
xi. 12), but, from its connection with the previous sin, " sor
cery," or, as defined by Suidas, yonrela. It is often used in

CHAP. V. 20. 417
this sense in the Sept. : Ex. vii. 11, 22, viii. 18, Isa. xlvii. 9, 12 ;
and in the Apocrypha : Wisdom xii. 4, xviii. 13. QdpfiaKov is
found also in 2 Kings ix. 22, and along with iropveiai is ascribed
to Jezebel. The words again occur twice over, Nah. iii. 4, in
a description of the sin and doom of Nineveh. Comp. Rev.
ix. 21, xviii. 23, xxi. 8, xxii. 15. The term, from its association
with idolatry, denotes incantation — superstitious dealings with
the spirit- world. These practices were common in Asia Minor.
Acts xix. 18.
"EyQpai — " hatreds " — breaches of the law of love, apt to
deepen into malignity. Sept. 1 Mace. xiii. 6, 2 Mace. iv. 3.
"Epiv—" strife." Codices C, D2- 3, E, F, K, L have the
plural ; the singular being found A, B, D1, K, and it is pre
ferred by Lachmann and Tischendorf. Rom. xiii. 13. In
2 Cor. xii. 20 the three next words occur in the same order.
In such strife, love by which the law is fulfilled becomes wholly
lost, for it springs out of these " hatreds," and is nursed by
them. ZrjXov. Codices C, D2, 3, K, L, K, and very many versions
and fathers, have the plural ; but B, D1, E (fyjXovv, a misprint,
being read in F) have the singular, and it is found in several
of the fathers. Amidst such variations, it is hard to say whether
the singular or plural ought to be adopted. Only there was some
temptation from the following plurals to change these singular
forms into plural ones for the sake of uniformity. ZrjXov is
used in a good sense, John ii. 17, Rom. x. 2, 2 Cor. ix. 2 ;
and also among the classics : tfjXov tw dplarcov, Lucian, Adv.
Indoct. 17 ; £77X0? /cat /ilpunaiv, Herodian, ii. 4. But here it
signifies rivalry, jealousy in the dark sense, mingled with envy
(Rom. xiii. 13; 1 Cor. iii. 3; 2 Cor. xii. 20), and burning like
fire : irvpbv £77X0?, Heb. x. 27 ; Sept. iv irvpl £77X01/, Zeph. i. 18,
iii. 8, as applied to God ; also tfjXov iriKpbv, Jas. iii. 14. Trench,
Syn. p. 99. See under iv. 17.
©vfiol — " outbursts of anger." The word comes from Qvco,
and it, according to Donaldson (Cratyl. § 471), from Qe, to
place, as in rlQrjfii, which, on the principle that " the same root
may suggest contrasted ideas," signifies also to run, as in Qeeiv,
like "fast" in English, which means both "fixed" and "rapid."
The noun therefore means — impulse toward a thing ; and in
Plato, De Republica 440, it signifies the "will" — " disposition"
2 D

418 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
in general, Legg. v. 731, B, though he explains it as signifying
anger in the Cratylus, 419, E : Qvphv Be dirb rrjv Qvaecov /cat
^eaecov rrjv ¦^rvyfjv eyoi av rovro rb Svopa. See Stallbaum's
note. It is therefore more demonstrative than inimicitia hominis
acerbi et iracundi, for it is excandescentia (quum bitumen et sul
phur additum est, excandescet). Cato, R.' R. 95. The plural
Qvfiol denotes here, concrete manifestations of the abstract sin.
Lobeck, Soph. Ajax, p. 274, 3d ed. Similarly aocplai, Aristoph.
Ran. 688 ; epiXoaocplai, Plato, Theaet. 172, C ; Qdvaroi, a'l/iara,
etc., Bernhardy, pp. 62, 63. ©vpol are those explosions of
rage that proceed from a vindictive heart and an ungovernable
temper. See under Eph. iv. 31.
'EpiQeiai — " caballings." The word is not derived from
ept?, though both may come from the root epeo, epBco. It is
allied to ipiQevco as BovXela to BovXeveo. The Homeric epiQov
is a day-labourer, one who works for hire — used of reapers and
slaves, and is connected by some with eptof, wool. It means first
of all, labour for hire, then intriguing or canvassing for office —
/cat 7ap 77 epiQeia e'lpnrai dirb rrjv piiaQov Bbaeeov, Aristot. Pol.
v. 2, 3 ; Suidas, sub voce BeKa^eaQai. It then comes naturally
to signify party-spirit, — thus Hesychius, 'HpiQevero . . . iepiXo-
veUei, — and is opposed to ^pnaropiaQela in Ignat. Ep. ad Philad.
§ 8. In the New Testament it is opposed to dydiri), Phil. i.
16, 17 ; in Jas. iii. 14, 16 it is coupled with £77X0? as here, and
as something more active and mischievous, leading to aKara-
araala ; in Phil. ii. 3, with KevoBo^la, vainglory, which often
prompts to it, and as opposed to avpsSfvyoi, rb ev cppovovvrev,
and to T77 raireivoeppoavvrj dXXrjXovv rjyovfievoi virepevpvrav
eavrcbv. It stands between Qvfiol and KaraXaXial in 2 Cor.
xii. 20. See Rom. ii. 8. It is thus dark, selfish, unscrupulous
intriguing, that alike sacrifices peace and truth to gain its end.
See under Phil. i. 17.
Aixoaraalai—" divisions," the decided and violent taking
of a side on selfish and unyielding grounds.
A Ipeaeiv—" factions," the result of the former— divisions
organized into factions, but without the ecclesiastical meaning
which a Lapide, Crocius, and others assign to the term. The
word is applied to the party of the Sadducees, Acts v. 17 ; to
that of the Pharisees, Acts xv. 5 ; to that of the Christians—
rcbv Nafapalcov alpeaeeov, Acts xxiv. 5; and in 1 Cor. xi. 19 it

CHAP. V. 21. 419
is applied to parties within the church. The Judaizers were
producing such results in the Galatian churches by their self-
willed and bitter reactionary agitations.
Ver. 21. $Qbvoi, cpbvoi — " Envyings, murders." The second
term cpbvoi. is omitted in B, K, several cursives and fathers,
Jerome ; but it is found in A, C, D, F, G, K, L, majority of
mss., and in the Latin and Syriac versions. It is admitted by
Lachmann, but rejected as doubtful by Tischendorf. The
omission was probably owing to the similarity of sound (Gleich-
klang) ; but the paronomasia is in the apostle's style. Rom.
i. 29, epQbvov, cpbvov ; Winer, § 68 ; cpQbvov, epbvov re, Eurip.
Troades, 770-1 ; Botticher, de Paronom. Lipsise 1828.
$Qbvov — envy — is the desire to appropriate what another
possesses. It has no redeeming feature about it : iirieiKev
iariv o £77X0? /cat iirieiKcbv, rb Be epQoveiv epavXov Kal epavXcov,
Arist. Rhet. ii. 9, 10 ; or irpebrov fiev £77X0? dirb £77X01/ Se
epQbvov, Plato, Men. 242 ; Trench, Synon. 1st ser. p. 99.
$bvoi — " murders" — the sudden or the deliberate sacrifice
of any human life that stands in the way of self-advancement,
or it may be a deed of vengeance.
MeQai, Kcbfioi — "drunkenness, carousals." " Drunkenessis,
immesurable etyngis" (Wycliffe) ; " ebrieties, commessations"
(Rheinis); "dronkenes, glottony" (Genevan). The last Greek
term is the more comprehensive one. Judith xiii. 15, iv rah
fiedaiv avrov. In Rom. xiii. 13 the words are joined ; also in
Dio Cassius, ovBev aXXo rj peQai re /cat kco/ioi, p. 272, Opera,
vol. ii. ed. Bekker. The second term — in Latin comissationes
— is described by Hesychius as being daeXyrj aafiara, iropviKa,
avpnrbaia, eoBai. So Plato, Theaet. 173, D; Herod, i. 121.
See Becker's Charicles, vi., and Gallus, x. Compare Isa. v.
11, 12, Amos vi. 4-6, 1 Thess. v. 7, 1 Pet. iv. 3.
And not only these sins, but —
Kat rd ofioia rovroiv — " and such like." Luther says —
addit et Us similia quia quis omnem lernam carnalis vita recen-
seat? Ed. 1519.
These works of the flesh have been often divided into four
classes. Any classification or system, however, is scarcely to
be expected ; but each term of the catalogue may have been
suggested by some law of association, especially as some of the
terms are similarly arranged in other places. In the first class

420 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
are sensual sins — fornication, impurity, wantonness ; in the
second class are sins of superstition — idolatry and sorcery ; in
the third class, sins of malice and social disorder — hatred, strife,
jealousy, wraths, caballing, .divisions, heresies, envying, murders;
and in the fourth class are sins of personal excess — drunkenness
and revellings. In the first class, the first term, which has a
distinct meaning, may have suggested the other and allied vices
— miscellaneous and grosser aspects of forbidden indulgence.
The two terms of the second class are somewhat similar, — the
first more precise in meaning, and the second more comprehen
sive — all occult dealings with the powers of evil. In the third
class there is a climactic enumeration — hatreds ripening into
strife ; jealousy venting itself in passionate outbursts ; cabals
yet darker and more selfish ; divisions, the result of deepening
hostility; envyings quite fiendish in nature ; and murders — the
extreme result, and no uncommon thing in such countries, to
obtain an end and consummate an intrigue by the removal of
a rival. In the fourth class are first the simple term drunken
ness, and the more inclusive term after it, referring either to
scenes of dissipation so gay and wanton, or to orgies so gross
and sensual, that they may not be described ; and the terms
stand each in its own prominence, unconnected by any particle,
— an asyndeton common before such phrases as rd roiavra, ol
aXXoi. Jelf, § 792, 2.
' A irpoXeyeo vp.lv, koQcov koI irpoeiirov — " concerning which
I tell you before, as also I did foretell you." Engl. Ver. : " as
I have also told you in time past." The /cat is not in B, F, n'
nor in the Vulgate, and is bracketed by Lachmann ; but it is
retained on the authority of A, C, D, K, L, x4, almost all MSS.,
and the majority of versions. The a. is not governed by 77-pao--
aovrev (Olshausen, Schott), but by irpoXeyeo, as an accusative
of contents (Inhalt), and may be resolved by " was anbetrifft "
—quod attinet ad ea qua. Scheuerlein, p. 55 ; Thucyd. ii. 62
and Poppo's note. The anacoluthon and the position of the
relative, used in a sense absolutely, emphasize it. John viii.
54. The 77-po in both verbs is " beforehand"— not before they
come to light (Matthies) ; nor does the Trpo in TrpoetTTw mean
^already" (Baumgarten-Crusius), but before the event, 1 Thess.
iii. 4, or the day of retribution. He gives them a present fore
warning, ere it is too late ; and this was by no means the first

CHAP. V. 22. 421
warning he had given them — " as also I did foretell you ;"
that is, when he had been with them ; both during his first and
second sojourn, he had forewarned them as he now is writing
to them. The theme of forewarning then and now was —
On ot to roiavra irpdaaovrev BaaiXelav ©eov ov KXijpovo-
firjaovai — "that they who are doing such things shall not
inherit the kingdom of God." The contents of the irpoXeyeo
are prefaced by on, and described by rd roiavra — such things
as these — the sins referred to and all similar sins, the article
to specifying the things as a class ; " de toto genere eorum qui
tales sunt, usurpatur." Kiihner, Xen. Mem. i. 5, 2. The verb
iroieiv and irpdaaeiv may sometimes be distinguished, as John
iii. 20, 21 ; Xen. Mem. ii. 9, 4 ; but as, with these exceptions and
John v. 29, the verb occurs only in Luke and Paul, and cha
racterizes their style, it would be wrong to lay any stress on its
use. The persons described are they who are doing and con
tinuing to do such things, and are not XvirnQevrev eh perdvoiav
— they shall not inherit the kingdom of God. 2 Cor. v. 10 ;
Rom. xiv. 10. They prove by their perseverance in such
practices that they are not led by the Spirit ; that they are not
justified through faith ; that they are not children, and there
fore not heirs of the promise : 1 Cor. vi. 9, 10. See under
Eph. v. 4. Heaven, according to the popular adage, is a pre
pared place for a prepared people. The kingdom of Christ
exists on earth, with Him as its Head and Defence, and only
those who are qualified, through a change inwrought and sus
tained by His Spirit, are admitted into it in its ultimate and
glorious form in heaven. The inheritor of the kingdom must
be brought into congenial harmony with its occupations and
enjoyments. They " which do such things" prove their want
of meetness "for the inheritance of the saints in light," and
therefore cannot enter it ; it has no attraction for them, and
they could find no enjoyment in it. See under Col. i. 12.
Ver. 22. 'O Be Kapirbv rov irvevfiarov — "But the fruit of
the Spirit," — passing by Se to this contrasted catalogue. Both
ep7o and Kapirbv are, as Meyer says, in themselves voces media,
no ethical quality being essentially attached to them. Nay, we
find them reversed in Sept. Prov. x. 16, ep7a BiKalcov — Kapirol
Be dae/3cbv. Still one may suppose that the terms are here
changed for good reason, inasmuch as Paul uses Kapirbv on the

422 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
good side; and, as Ellicott remarks, even in Rom. vi. 21 it
means, " what good result had ye in those things whereof ye
are ashamed?" If, then, there be an intended distinction,
what is it? Not because those graces are regarded more as
feelings or dispositions than as acts (Riickert, and virtually
Hofmann) ; nor because they are beneficent and delightful
(Winer, Usteri, Schott, Alford) ; but because they spring out
of one living root, as the singular seems also to indicate. The
Kapirbv may show itself in ep7a which in their collective form
make up the Kapirbv ; but here it is regarded in its unity of
source and development. Its origin is " the Spirit ; " not man's
spirit, or the new and better mode of thinking and feeling to
which men are formed by the Holy Spirit (Brown), but the
Holy Spirit Himself, the Author of all spiritual good. Those
who are led by the Spirit not only do not do the works of
the flesh, but they bring forth the fruit of the Spirit. It is
wrong and forced to seek a detailed antagonism in the two lists.
The apostle's eagerness did not give him leisure to arrange
such parallels or work out symmetrical antitheses.
The first of the graces is dydirrj — "love" — the root of all
the other graces, — greater than faith and hope, for " God is
Love;" love to God and all that bears his image, being the
essence of the first and second tables of the law, — all the other
graces being at length absorbed by it as the flower is lost in
the fruit. 1 Cor. xiii. ; Rom. xii. 9.
Xapd—" joy." Joy is based on the possession of present
good, and here means that spiritual gladness which acceptance
with God and change of heart produce. For it is conscious eleva
tion of character, the cessation of the conflict in its earlier stage
(v. 16, 17), the opening up of a new world, and the hope of final
perfection and victory. It is opposed to dulness, despondency,
indifference, and all the distractions and remorses which are
wrought by the works of the flesh. This joy is the spring of
energy, and praise wells out of the joyful heart. Where the
heart is gladness, the instinctive dialect is song. May not the
joy of restoration at least equal the joy of continuous inno
cence? It is therefore here not merely nor prominently Mit-
freude, joy in the happiness of others (Grotius, Zacharise, Stolz,
Koppe, Borger, Winer, Usteri, Hofmann), nor joy as opposed
to moroseness (Calvin, Michaelis), though these aspects or

CHAP. V. 22. 423
manifestations are not excluded. This joy is " joy in the Holy
Ghost" (Rom. xiv. 17), the "joy of faith" (Phil. i. 25), "joy
of the Spirit" (1 Thess. i. 6), "joy in the Lord" (Phil. iii. 1) ;
and the welcome addressed to the faithful servant is, " Enter
thou into the joy of thy Lord."
Elprjvrj — " peace" with God primarily, and peace within
them ; and not simply so, but concord — peace with those around
them. See under Phil. iv. 7.
MaKpoQvpila — " long-suffering" (longanimitie, Rheims) — is
opposed to shortness of temper — b%v6vfiia, Eurip. Andr. 728.
It enables us to bear injury without at once avenging our
selves : f3paBiiv et? bpyrjv, Jas. i. 19 ; 1 Cor. xiii. 4. See under
Eph. iv. 2.
Xprjarbrnv — "kindness" — occurs in Paul's writings only,
as in 2 Cor. vi. 6, where also it is joined to the previous term ;
in Tit. iii. 4, where, along with epiXavQpcoirla, it is ascribed to
God our Saviour ; and in Rom. xi. 22, where, along with diro-
ropila, it is also ascribed to Him. Compare Rom. iii. 12 ; Eph.
ii. 7 ; Col. iii. 12; Sept. Ps. cxliv. 7, lxvii. 11. Plato defines it as
rjQovv difXaarla pier evXoyiarlav, Defin. p. 412, E. Phavorinus
also defines it as evairXayxyla, rj irpbv roiiv ireXav avvBidQeaiv,
rd avrov ebv oiKeia IBioiroiovfievn. The meaning is kindness —
gentleness, affability, the benign heart and the soft answer,
"the gentleness of Christ;" or a serene, loving, and sym
pathizing temper, the fruit of that Spirit who descended in
the form of a dove upon our great Exemplar, and abode upon
Him. 'AyaQcoavvrj — " goodness." The word is Hellenistic (Thorn.
Mag. p. 921), and occurs in Rom. xv. 14, Eph. v. 9, 2 Thess.
i. 11. It is difficult to distinguish it from the previous term.
Jerome calls the first benignitas sive suavitas, and the second
bonitas, differing from the former quia potest bonitas esse tristior
et fronte severis moribus irrugata, bene quidem facere et prastare
quod poscitur. It may signify beneficence, specially Gutigkeit,
(Ewald, Wieseler) — kindness in actual manifestation. 2 Chron.
xxiv. 16 ; Eccl. vii. 15.
JTto-Tt?— "faith" (" faythf ulnes," Tyndale, Cranmer)— not
simply faith in God in the theological sense (Jerome, Theo
phylact), — that being implied, as the Spirit dwells only in those
who have faith, — nor merely fidelity or good faith (Meyer), nor

424 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
veracity (Winer) ; but trust generally, trustfulness toward
God and towards man. Confidence in God, in all His promises,
and under all His dispensations ; and a spirit of unsuspicious
and generous confidence towards men, — not moved by doubts
and jealousies, nor conjuring up possible causes of distrust, and
treasuring up. sad lessons from previous instances of broken
plight. 1 Cor. xiii. 7.
npavrrjv — "meekness." The word — so written in A, B,
C, K — is sometimes spelled irpabrrjv, as in D, E, F, G, K, L.
The last is the more Attic form (Photii Lex. 447, ed. Porson),
though the other may be the earlier. Lobeck, Phryn. 403 ;
Lipsius, Gramm. Untersuch. pp. 7, 8. See also A. Butt
mann, p. 23. It is also sometimes spelled with iota subscribed
in both forms, but not by Lachmann and Tischendorf. This
Christian grace is universal in its operation — submission God-
ward, meekness manward, which seems to be its special refer
ence. Compare 2 Cor. xi. 1, Matt. v. 5, xi. 29. The meek
man bears himself mildly — submissively — in all things, " like a
weaned child ;" neither arraigns God, nor avenges himself on
man. See under Eph. iv. 2 ; Ecclus. xiv. 4 ; and the definition
in Stobaaus, Flor. i. 18, p. 8, vol. i. ed. Gassford.
'EyKpdreia — " temperance " — self-control — the holding in
of passions and appetites, distinguished by Diogenes Laertius
from acocppoawn in that it bridles iiriQvfilav acpoBpdv, the
stronger desires. Suidas defines it as 77 eft? drjrrijrov r)Bovcbv.
Acts xxiv. 25; 2 Pet. i. 6 ; Sept. Sir. xviii. 30. The word is
to be taken in its widest significance, and not principally in
reference to sexual sin— as Origen: to BeBopievov dirb ©eov
acbpa dppev rrjpnreov, Comm. in Matt. vol. i. p. 369, ed.
Huet. This virtue guards against all sins of personal excess,
and is specially opposed to drunkenness and revellings as works
of the flesh.
_ The Cod. D1, F, the Vulgate, and Claromontane Latin,
with some of the Latin fathers, but not Jerome or Augustine,
add to the catalogue dyvela, castitas. Indeed there are twelve
terms in the Vulgate for the nine of the Greek text— patientia,
modestia, castitas— -as if it had read viropiovr, and iirieUeia.
These fruits of the Spirit may be divided into three clusters,
with three terms under each. The first three are more dis
tinctive in character, yet of true individual experience— love,

CHAP. V. 23. 425
joy, peace — graces peculiar, to Christianity ; the next three are
social in their nature, and are climactic illustrations of the
command, " Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself" — long-
suffering, kindness, beneficence ; and the three occurring last —
trustfulness, meekness, temperance — are perhaps selected and
put into contrast with opposite vices prevailing in the Galatian
community. The apostle adds —
Ver. 23. Kara rcov roiovreov ovk eanv vbfiov — " Against
such there is no law." For rd roiavra, see under ver. 21. A
similar catalogue from Aristotle occurs in Stobseus, containing
Xpnarornv, iirielKeia, evyvcofioavvr), eXirlv dyaQrj, and ending
with Kal rd roiavra. Florileg. i. 18, p. 16, vol. i. ed. Gass-
ford. The gender of roiovreov is matter of dispute. Is the
meaning, "against such" persons as possess the fruit of the
Spirit there is no law? or is it, "against such" graces there
is no law ? The masculine is preferred by the Greek fathers,
by Erasmus, Grotius, Bengel, Koppe, Ruckert, Hofmann, and
Gwynne. But there is no immediate personal reference in the
context. To roiavra are naturally the virtues or elements of
Spirit-fruit which have now been enumerated, and all such —
all like them ; and they apparently correspond to the rd roiavra
of the 21st verse : so that the neuter is rightly preferred.
Those who adopt the masculine reference explain the phrase
thus : either such do not need the law, or such the law does
not condemn (Ruckert, Hofmann). A similar phrase is used
by Aristotle : Kard Be rebv roiovreov ovk eari vbfiov, avrol ydp
elai vbfiov, Pol. iii. 13, 14, p. 83, vol. x. Opera, ed. Bekker.
Similar explanations have been given with the neuter refer
ence. 1. Some introduce a meiosis, as Beza, Estius, Flatt, and
De Wette — non adversatur, sed commendat — so far is the law
from forbidding such graces, that it much more bids or en
joins them.
2. Winer and Schott thus interpret : " The law is not
against those virtues — it has only a negative power to restrain
the outbreaks of a sinful will ; but in the fruits of the Spirit
there is nothing to restrain, and therefore no law exists against
them:" 3. Usteri and Matthies understand it thus : " Where such

426 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
virtues exist, the law is superfluous"— an inference rather than
an explanation. 4. But the simplest and easiest reference and meaning are
preferable— " against such there is no law," i.e. to condemn
them. Meyer takes the clause as explanatory of the latter part
of ver. 18 : " ye are not under the law, the law has no power
over you." Probably this may be included, but the direct
meaning is, that these graces are condemned by no law ; and
you may say that this happens, first, from their very nature,
and secondly, because, as the fruit of the Spirit, they belong to
those who are led by that Spirit, and therefore are not under
the law. 1 Tim. i. 9, 10.
Ver. 24. Ol Be rov Xpiarov VIncrov\ rrjv adpKa earavpeoaav
— " Now they who are Christ's crucified the flesh." The Re
ceived Text is found in D, F, G, L, in the Latin versions, and
in many of the versions and fathers. On the other hand, to?3
Xpiarov Trjaov is found in A, B, C, N (the last adding also
rov Kvpiov, which has been erased), and in some of the versions,
as the Ethiopic and Coptic, and in Cyril and Augustine. The
order is indeed unusual. The testimony of these old codices is,
however, of great weight. Where a similar phrase occurs, as
in Acts xvii. 3, Eph. iii. 1, there are also various readings, as
might be expected. The Be is not resumptive of ver. 18 (Bengel),
nor yet of ver. 16 (De Wette), nor is it for 7op (Beza). It
introduces a new or contrasted view of the subject. The works
of the flesh, when the flesh is unchecked, exclude from heaven,
but the fruit of the Spirit has no law against it. The Spirit
indeed is lusted against by the flesh ; and he adds, " now," or
" but they who belong to Christ [Jesus] crucified the flesh,"
and the Spirit has therefore unresisted predominance. Hof
mann also connects it closely with the previous verse, and with
roiovreov as masculine. Chrysostom inserts a question : they
might object, "And who is such a man as this?" this verse
being the answer to the objecting interrogation.
The genitive toO Xpiarov [^Irjaov] is that of possession :
they belong to Him as bought by Him, delivered by Him, and
possessed by Him, through His Spirit producing such fruit.
" Christ liveth in me." They who are Christ's cannot but be
characterized by the fruit of the Spirit, for they crucified the
flesh, — not "have crucified" (Luther, Matthies, Schott), the

CHAP. V. 24, 25. 427
aorist referring to an indefinite past time, when the action was
done. The action is described and then dismissed (Ellicott);
That the effects of the crucifixion still remained, is indeed very
plain, but the aorist does not say so ; it puts it only as a single
and separate fact. Donaldson, p. 411. Nor does it mean qua
fieri soleant — such a meaning assigned to the aorist is wrong —
vulgo putatur. Wex, Soph. Antig. vol. i. p. 326. The flesh is
not the flesh of Christ, as Origen and some of the fathers sup
posed, meaning, either because our bodies are members of Christ,
and therefore one with Him, or corporea scriptura intelligentia
qua nunc caro Christi appellatur ; or, as Jerome gives it, Cruci-
fixit Christi carnem, qui non juxta carnem historia militat, sed
spiritum allegoria sequitur praviantem. The flesh was crucified
once for all when they believed, and it remains dead ; it has
lost its living mastery through a violent and painful death.
They were crucified with Christ in a somewhat different
sense, when with Him and in His death they died to the law.
The apostle says, "I have been crucified with Christ;" but
that I includes more than the adpl;, which was also nailed
to the cross. See under ii. 20. But here it is said that they
crucified the flesh, their old unrenewed nature : when they
believed and were converted, they inflicted death upon it.
Col. iii. 5 ; Rom. vi. 6. In and through union with Christ,
believers themselves die to the law and escape its penalty ; but
at the same time the flesh is also crucified, its supremacy is
overthrown. Thus justification and sanctification are alike
secured to believers through their union with Christ in His
sufferings and death.
Xvv roiv iraQrjfiaai Kal rah iiriQv/ilaiv — " along with the
passions and lusts." See under Col. iii. 5 ; 1 Thess. iv. 5 ;
Rom. vi. 5, vii. 5. HaQrjp,ora, allied to irdQov, are mental
states more passive in character, and iiriQvptlai are desires more
active in pursuit, in reference to all those spheres of forbidden
gratification to which the Qvpibv is ever prompting. It has
attached to it such epithets as KaKrj, Col. iii. 5, aapKiKal, 1 Pet.
ii. 11 ; and such genitives as tt}? dirdrnv, Eph. iv. 22, cpQopdv,
2 Pet. i. 4. Trench, Synon. p. 161, 2d ser.
Ver. 25. El %cbp.ev irvevpian, irvevpian /cot aroiylbfiev — " If
we live by the Spirit, by the Spirit also let us walk." The
£cb/iev has the stress in the first clause, and the repeated

428 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
irvevfian has it in the second. There is no connective particle,
the asyndeton making the inferential counsel based on the
previous condition assumed to be true, all the more viyid.
The dative irvevfian is not that of manner— "if we be
spiritually affected." Middleton (Greek Art. 349), who adds, " I
understand it as a caution against the mischievous consequences
of trusting to the all-sufficiency of faith." But such a dilution
robs both'verse and context of the contrast between adp% and
irvevfia ; the Spirit being represented, too, as the source of life,
of guidance, and of all superiority to the works of the flesh.
Nor is the dative to be rendered "to the Spirit" (Prof.
Lightfoot), as in the clauses t»7 dfiaprlcL diroQaveiv, Rom. vi.
2, 11, or Kvpleo {cbpev, Rom. xiv. 6, 8 (Fritzsche on Romans,
vol. iii. p. 142) ; for in that case it would not differ materially
in meaning from the clause which follows it as the inference, —
to live to Him and to walk in Him, being only differing phases
of the same relation. They are all but identical, and the one
could not therefore form a ground for the other. The Spirit is
plainly viewed here as having so close a connection with our
life, that it forms the basis of a solemn injunction, which no
one recognising such a connection would think of gainsaying.
The dative is probably instrumental (Ruckert, Schott, and
Hofmann), or as Meyer calls it, ablatival. Winer, § 31, 7.
Thus, the first dative may be used somewhat loosely, from
correspondence with the second, in an injunction so brief and
distinct, and in which the very order of the words imparts
point and emphasis. The second dative, as the usage of the
verb indicates, is that of norm, as in ver. 16. Fritzsche gives
it in paraphrase : Si vitam spiritui divino debemus, ad spirilum
etiam dirigamus vitam — Ad Rom. vol. iii. p. 142 ; A. Buttmann,
p. 160, 22, b. The verb signifies to advance in order or in a
row — in battle order, and hence, ethically, to walk according to
rule ; perhaps, from its literal meaning, having the sense of a
more definite walk than the vaguer irepiirareiv. Polyb. xxviii.
5, 6 ; Sext. Empir. p. 640, ed. Bekker ; Phil. iii. 16 ; Rom. iv.
12 ; and Acts xxi. 24, where an explanatory participle is used
instead of a dative.
The apostle announces a general maxim, and puts himself
among those whom he addressed. He takes for granted that
his first principle will not be disputed, that the one source of

CHAP. V. 26. 429
life is the Spirit ; and his argument then is : If we live by the
Spirit, if the flesh being crucified there springs up a new life,
and if that inner life be originated and fostered by the Spirit,
let our whole conduct be in harmony with the character and
workings of this holy Life-giver. Should not the outer life be
in unison with its inner source ? Should not the fruit of the
Spirit adorn him who lives by the Spirit ? It would be grievous
inconsistency for us to admit as an undoubted fact that we live
by the Spirit, and yet to be producing the works of the flesh.
Though we had the law, we could not live up to the law, the
adpl; was only irritated and condemned by it. But with this
higher principle of life within us, let us walk according to His
guidance and strength. He gives ability to follow His im
pulses, for He enjoins no duty for the performance of which
He does not implant sufficient grace. Nay, if we walk by the
Spirit, it then becomes an impossibility for us to fulfil the lusts
of the flesh : ver. 16.
Ver. 26. Mrj ylvcopeQa /cepoSofot — " Let us not become vain
glorious." The verb is to be taken with its proper significance;
not vaguely, let us not be, but " let us not become " — Vulgate,
efificiamur — not simus, as Beza and Calvin. Beza's dogmatic
objection to efificiamur is, that men are born such by nature ;
but, as Meyer remarks, believers have been born again. They
were in circumstances and under temptations by which they
might easily become vainglorious. In the verb itself and its
person, by which the apostle classes himself among them, is a
spirit of mildness in rebuke and warning. KevoBoljla is glory
without basis, conceit, and is defined by Suidas parala nv
irepl eavTov oivaiv. See under Phil. ii. 3, where it is opposed
to raireivoeppoavvr) ; Wisd. xiv. 14 ; Polyb. xxvii. 6-12, xxxix.
1, 1 ; 2 Mace. v. 9. This vainglory is unworthy of us. 1 Cor.
i. 31, " He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord." 2 Cor.
x. 17. The exhortation of the apostle is genera], and is not to
be confined to Judaizing sympathizers on the one side (Theo
phylact), nor, on the other side, to those remaining true to the
apostle (Olshausen) — their vainglory resting on their continued
faithfulness. Quisque gloria cupidus est ... a vera gloria
discedit (Calvin).
'AXXrjXovv irpoKoXovfievoi — " provoking one another" — as
Chrysostom adds : et? cpiXoveiKlav Kal epeiv. The verb means

430 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
to invite or challenge to combat. Xen. Cyr. i. 4, 4 ; Diodor.
Sic. iv. 58 ; often in Homer, II. iii. 432, vi. 50, 218, 285 ;
Polyb. i. 46, 11 ; Wetstein in loc. Such provocation was the
natural result of that vainglory against which he is warning.
'AXXrjXoiv epQovovvrev—" envying one another." B, G,
several MSS. and Greek fathers, read dXXrjXovv, which is adopted
by Lachmann and Lightfoot ; but the text is supported by A,
C, D, F, K, L, N, etc. The other reading may have arisen
from a careless repetition of the previous dXXrjXovv. The verb
epQoveiv, which does not occur elsewhere, governs here the
dative of person. There are, however, other constructions in
classic writers. Kiihner, § 578. The provocations referred to
excited responsive envyings ; the strong challenged the weak,
and the weak envied them in turn. Perhaps, however, it is too
precise to make such a distinction, for those even of the same
party might occasionally provoke and envy one another.
The apostle in this verse " works around," as Lightfoot
observes, to the subject of ver. 15. The divisions in the church
were naturally destructive of brother-love, and showed them
selves in those works of the flesh — hatred, strife, jealousy,
angers, intrigues, divisions, separations, envyings. But against
these are ranged the fruit of the Spirit — love, joy, peace, long-
suffering, gentleness, goodness, trustfulness — graces specially
needed by the Galatian churches in this crisis, as they were
tempted to vainglory, to challenge and envy one another ; the
epQovovvrev of this verse recalling the epQbvoi of ver. 21.

CHAPTER VI.
SOME begin this chapter with the previous verse ; such as
Meyer, Olshausen, Brown, and Hofmann. But there is
really no ground for such a division. Nay, while there is a
succession of hortatory statements down to ver. 10, there is a
change of person in this first verse ; while dBeXcpol often marks
a transition to a new subject, though, from the nature of the
case, it is here closely connected with the preceding paragraph.
So much statement about the Spirit as our life, and about its
fruit, may have suggested the appeal to the irvevpariKol, and
the use of that term. At the same time, the restoration of a
fallen brother in a spirit of meekness, is a duty quite opposed
to that vainglory which the apostle has been condemning.
Ver. 1. The apostle, in drawing to a close, becomes the
more affectionate and direct in his practical counsels and warn
ings ; and he calls them again, in pointed and prominent love,
dBeXcpol, the emphasis being on this term, as if the clouds were
lifting and the sun were shedding a parting ray.
'Edv Kal irpoXrjpepQfj dvQpcoirov iv rivl irapairrcbpan — " if
a man be even surprised in any trespass." The phrase idv koi
does not put a case for mere illustration, like koi el. Klotz-
Devarius, vol. ii. p. 519. For the Alexandrian spelling of the
verb, as supported by the best mss., see Tischendorf's Prolego
mena, p. xlvii. The meaning of the verb has been variously
given, the difficulty lying in the reference indicated by 7rpo.
1. Some deny, indeed, that the meaning of the verb is at all
modified by the 7rpo ; at all events, the Greek fathers make no
account of it : ovk elirev idv irpd^n, aXX' idv irpoXrjepQfj, rovr-
eanv idv avvapirayfj (Chrysostom). But the influence of 7rpo
is felt in the signification of the verb, which is, to take before
a certain time, or before another ; to get the start, or in some
431

432 EPISTLE TO THE galatians.
way to anticipate, etc. The Vulgate renders, etsi praoccu-
patus. 2. What may be called the incidental temporal reference may
be discarded, either that Trpo means before the arrival of the
epistle— anteaquam hac epistola ad vos veniat (Grotius), or to a
repetition of an offence committed before— iterum peocantem
(Winer, Matthies), or that the Xa/iBdveaQai takes place before
the Karaprlteiv (Olshausen). In the first two cases the emphasis
of /cot irpoXvpcpQfj is not brought out ; and the last opinion is a
truism, for it is implied in the very terms of the injunction.
The idea of Bengel, that the meaning is, ante captus fuisse
dicatur, qui nos, non laesus, laesit — who injures us before we
injured him — is quite foreign to the context.
3. The most common mode of interpretation has been to give
the Trpo the notion of " before one is aware," as in the English
Version, " if a man be overtaken," be surprised, by a fault,
before he has time to think of it. This idea is implied in the
interpretation of the Greek fathers, and is followed by most :
Si quis improviso (citius quam expedaverit s. quam sibi cavere
potuerit) peccato quodam fuerit abreptus; or as Thomas Aquinas,
imprudenter et ex surreptione lapsus. That the verb may bear
such a meaning is not denied, but iv must then be regarded as
instrumental or local (Ruckert) — taken as if in a snare. Such
a meaning evidently extenuates the sin referred to, and such
an extenuation is contended for by this class of commentators.
But such an extenuation diminishes also the necessity for so
solemn an injunction as to restoration. A man surprised or
betrayed suddenly into sin has an apology which in itself con
tains a claim for restoration, and it scarcely needed an admoni
tion to remind the spiritual members of this duty. Besides,
the /cot has its intensive force, and irpoXnfiepQfj is emphatic in
position, indicating that the offence or sin is something which
in its nature might repel sympathy and preclude restoration.
4. So that we prefer to take the verb as meaning, " if a man
be surprised in a fault," not into a fault — caught in it, not by
it — overtaken in a fault, by detection, and before he can escape.
So Ellicott, Alford, Prof. Lightfoot, and Meyer* in his first
and second editions. Thus Wisdom xvii. 16 : et ti 7<xp yecopybv
rjv Tt? rj iroip,r)v . . . irpoXncpQeiv rr)V BvadXvKrov epevev dvdyKrjV.
Kypke, Observ. ii. 298. See John viii. 4.

chap. vi. 1. 433
This exegesis preserves the unity of the sentence. For the
Kal is intensive, — not a case put for argument, as by koI el, but
a strong case which might occur. Klotz-Devar. ii. 519. The
noun irapdirrcopa has not the idea of inadvertence in it, but is
an act of sin, a falling away from a divine precept, — any parti
cular trespass. See under Eph. ii. 1 ; Rom. v. 15, 16, 20. It
is the translation of various Hebrew words in the Sept. : Ps.
xix. 13 ; Ezek. xiv. 13 ; Job xxxvi. 9 ; Ezek. iii. 20 ; — 2 Cor.
v. 19 ; Eph. i. 7 ; Col. ii. 13.
Luther lays stress on the dvQpcoirov. " This term, a name
of man, helpeth somewhat also to diminish or qualify the matter,
as if he should say, What is so proper to man as to fall, to be
deceived and to err ? (Lev. vi. 3.)" But though the idea of
weakness may 'be found in the word in certain positions, as
when it is in contrast with God, the term is here only a general
expression. The appeal is direct and immediate —
'Tfieh ol irvevfiariKol KarapriC,ere rbv roiovrov — " do ye the
spiritual ones restore such a person." The verb often means
to refit or repair what is injured. Matt. iv. 21 ; Mark i. 19. It
is applied in Galen to the setting of a bone ; but Beza's appli
cation of such an image here is not at all necessary : Nitimini
eum, quasi luxatum membrum. So Hammond, Bengel, Brown.
The ethical sense is a common one. Herodotus, v. 106, Keiva
irdvra Karaprlaco . ..iv reovrb. Chrysostom renders it BiopQovre,
Theodoret arnpl^ere.
The irvevpariKol are not the presbyters (Hammond), nor
those who thought themselves spiritual (Windischmann), but
those in possession of that irvevpa on which such stress has
been laid in the previous paragraph, those truly endowed with
this divine gift ; and because they were so endowed, they were
to restore the fallen brother. Those ruled by the adpl; could
not do this duty; the spirit of provocation and envy already re
ferred to quite unfitted them for such delicate work ; they might
only taunt, rebuke, and glory over an offending brother taken
flagrante delicto. The irvevp,ariKol were therefore the best
class in the church — the ripe, the experienced, the advanced
in Christian excellence ; and such a class is opposed to the a>?
crapKiKol, ebv vrjirioi iv Xpiarco, in as far as £77X0? /cat ept? had
place among them. 1 Cor. iii. 1-3. The ot irvevpariKol are
2 E

434 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
thus different from ol Bvvarol, Rom. xv. 1 ; at least it is a very
different relation of parties in the church which is there referred
to, for it is the strong and the weak in reference chiefly to die
tetic ceremonialism.
The restoration of the sinning member to his normal state
is to be carried out —
'Ev irvevpian irpavrnrov — " in the spirit of meekness."
The genitive is that of the characterizing moral quality — die
dominirenden Eigenschaften, Scheuerlein, p. 115. Winer, § 34,
3, b. It is not to be diluted into irvevfia irpav (Borger, Koppe,
Brown) ; nor is irvevfia directly or immediately the Holy Ghost,
as the Greek fathers and many after them suppose ; nor is it
a mere abstract characterization (Moeller), but rather their own
spirit. The " spiritual," led and endowed by the Spirit, had
as one of His gifts — as one of His inwrought elements of
character — a spirit of meekness. In 1 Cor. iv. 21 we have the
phrase iv dydirr) irvevparl re irpctornrov, where the two nouns
refer alike to inner disposition. See under v. 22, 23. The
restoration of a fallen brother is not to be undertaken in a
distant or haughty spirit, or in a hard, dictatorial, or censorious
style, which dwells bitterly on the sin, or brings its aggravations
into undue relief, or condemns in self-complacent severity the
weakness which led to the fall. The spirit of meekness com
passionates while it must blame, soothes while it may expostu
late ; its fidelity is full of sympathy — itself the image of that
gentleness which in the benign Exemplar did not " break the
bruised reed, nor quench the smoking flax." In the exegesis
of Riickert and Usteri the term irvevfia is all but superfluous.
And the duty of restoring an erring brother is to be done all
the while under this self-applied caution —
AKoireov aeavrbv p,r) Kal av ireipaaQfjv — " considering thy
self, lest thou also shouldest be tempted."' The apostle suddenly
appeals to each and every one of the spiritual. This indivi
dualizing use of the singular is no such solecism as Jerome
apologizes for— profundos sensus aliena lingua exprimere non
valebat. This change of number is not uncommon : ch iv 7
Jelf, § 390; Winer, § 63, 2. D1 and F change the second
person into the third— an evident and clumsy emendation.
The participle may have its temporal meaning, this self-
consideration being an accompaniment of the duty enjoined.

CHAP. VI. 2. 435
Calvin regards it as a warning against sin in the form of
harshness exceeding the due limits; and again he says, "What
ever be our acuteness in detecting the faults of others, we are
backward to acknowledge our own." But these interpretations
do not tally with the caution given in the next clause. The
participle rather gives a subsidiary reason why the restoration
is a duty, and especially why it should be gone about in a spirit
of gentleness. Schmalfeld, § 207, 2, 3. For it is added, " lest
thou also (as well as he) shouldest be tempted." The subjunc
tive aorist is used — the thing apprehended, being still future,
may not happen. Winer, § 56, /3-; Gayler, p. 325. See
1 Cor. vii. 5, 1 Thess. iii. 5, Jas. i. 14. That which has hap
pened to him who has been caught in a fault may happen to
any of you. Each of you is liable to temptation, and under a
sense of that liability should act toward the lapsed one in a
spirit of gentleness : his case may be thine ; for thou art what
thou art only by the grace of Him " who is able to keep thee
from falling." The statement is in contrast to that vainglory
which leads to provocation and envy ; and these beget self-con
ceit and censoriousness. Lachmann connects this clause with
the following verse. But the connection is unnatural. The
liability of one's self to fall through temptation has a natural
relation to the duty of restoring a fallen brother — not so much
with bearing one another's burdens ; the /cat av refers to
roiovrov, but the reference would be virtually lost in Lach-
mann's construction with dXXrjXcov.
Ver. 2. 'AXXrjXeov to Bdpn Baard&re — " One another's
burdens do ye bear." This verse broadens the sphere of duty
enjoined in the previous verse; or it presents that duty in a
form not specialized as in the first verse : the spirit that restores
a fallen brother should pervade ordinary Christian relations.
The Bapn have been unduly narrowed in the definition of them.
They are not weaknesses simply, as in Rom. xv. 1, but also errors,
trials, sorrows, sins, without any distinct specification. And they
are not merely to be tolerated, they are to be taken up as " bur
dens;" for the verb implies this. Matt. xx. 12; Acts xv. 10.
Whatever forms a burden to our brethren we are to take upon
ourselves, and carry it for them or with them, in the spirit of
Him "who bore our sins and carried our sorrows." The burden
to be borne is not to be limited to tyvyrj virb rrjv rov dfiaprfj-

436 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
parov avveiBrjaecov BeBaprjfievrj. Theodore Mops. There does
not therefore seem to be any covert allusion to the self-imposed
burdens of the law (Alford). The emphasis is on 0XX77XWI',
giving distinctness to the duty as a mutual duty : " Weep with
them that weep." Mutual interposition in sympathy and for
succour in any emergency — fellow-feeling and fellow-helping —
is the duty inculcated, as opposed to that selfish isolation which
stands aloof, or contents itself with a cheap expression of com
miseration, or an offer of assistance so framed as to be worthless
in the time or the shape of it. The apostle exemplifies his own
maxim, 2 Cor. xi. 29.
The reading of the next clause is doubtful. The Received
Text has /cot ovreov dvaTrXvpebaare rbv vbfiov rov Xpiarov —
" and so fulfil the law of Christ." This reading is supported
by A, C, D, K, L, N, nearly all MSS., and is found in the Syriac
(Philox.), and in many of the Greek fathers. It is also adopted
by Griesbach, Scholz, Reiche, Alford, and Tischendorf in his
7th ed. The other reading is the future avairXvpebaere — "and so
ye shall fulfil the law of Christ." It is supported by B, F, G, two
mss., the Vulgate and Claromontane Latin, the Syriac (Peschito),
the Armenian, Coptic, Sahidic, and Ethiopic versions, Theo
doret (ms.), and some of the Latin fathers ; and it is admitted
by Lachmann, Meyer, and Ellicott. Diplomatic authority is
in favour of the common text ; but the versions give decided
countenance to the other reading in the future, which Alford
regards " as a probable correction, the imperative aorist being
unusual" (Winer, § 43). The difference is but that of a single
letter, and one may suppose that a copyist might change the
future to make both clauses imperative. The present would
have been "natural" (Ellicott), but the /cat ovreov seems to point
to the future. It is impossible to come to a definite conclusion,
and the meaning is not really affected whatever reading be
adopted. Borger, Ruckert, Brown, and others are wrong in assigning
the compound dvairXrjpovv the mere sense of the simple irXrj-
povv. The preposition gives the idea of a complete filling, of a
filling up. Col. i. 24 ; Phil. ii. 30 ; 1 Thess. ii. 16 ; Sept. Ex.
xxiii. 26 ; Strabo, vi. p. 223 ; Joseph. Antiq. v. 6, 2 ; Tittmann,
De Syn. p. 228 ; Winer, De verborum cum prap. composit. in
N. T. usu, iii. pars 11.

CHAP. VI. 3. 437
The " law of Christ" is not simply the law of love, or His
new commandment which is only one precept of His law
(Theodoret, De Wette, Usteri), but His entire code, which
indeed is summed up in love. Whoso, from right motive and
in true form, bears the burdens of others, has so drunk into the
spirit of Christ who carried our burdens, has so realized the
gentleness and sympathy of His example who " came not to be
ministered unto, but to minister," that he fully obeys His law,
— a law which reprobates all hard, sullen, and self-absorbed
individualism, and is fulfilled in love to God and to all that bears
His image. The explanation of Chrysostom, Koivfj irdvrev —
" fulfil it in common by the things in which ye bear with one
another, each completing what is wanting in his neighbour," —
is not to the point. The injunction is meant for Christians, and
there is a contrast recorded (Rev. ii. 2) in praise of the church
of Ephesus : 6Vt ov Bvvy Baardaai kokovv. There may be a
tacit reference to the vbpov which the Galatians, under the
teaching of the Judaizers, were taught to obey, but which was
not in authority or contents the law of Christ. See under
v. 14. Ver. 3. El ydp BoKei nv elval n, pinBev eov — " For if any
one think himself to be something, while he is nothing." This
verse is closely connected by ydp with the one before it, either
as an argumentum e contrario for the immediately preceding
clause (Meyer), or as a confirmation, by showing the evils of
the opposite course (Ellicott). Hofmann refers it more to the
mutuality of the duty than to the duty itself. The apostle
had already said, " Considering thyself, lest thou also be
tempted ;" consciousness of frailty leads to mutual attachment,
and shows the need of mutual support. But self-importance
based on self-ignorance is the grand hindrance to the duty of
mutual burden-bearing. If a man thinks himself so perfect that
he can have no burden which others may carry with him, or for
him ; if he regards himself so far above frailty, sin, or sorrow,
that he neither needs nor expects sympathy nor help, — he will
not readily stoop to bear the burdens of others. On the mean
ing of elval n, etc., compare Acts v. 36, 1 Cor. iii. 7, xiii. 2,
2 Cor. xii. 11. The phrase pnBev eov is expressive—" being
nothing," all the while he is thinking himself something,— the
condition affirmed in eov underlying the mental action in So/cet.

438 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
The participle has its common temporal signification. The use
of the subjective finBev is not, as Ellicott warns, to be over-
pressed, since it is the prevailing usage with participles in the
New Testament. Here, however, and in such a verse, it may
have its proper signification— not simply objective ovBev,^ but
pvBev : " nothing," .not ironically, nor merely in the writer's
opinion (Gwynne); nor "if he would come to himself, and look
on the real fact, nothing" (Alford); but in sober judgment, ac
cording to true estimate, nothing. On So/cet, see Trench, Synon.
ii. § 30. The phrase is a common one. Plato, Apolog. 41, E,
idv BoKibal Tt elval pnBev ovrev ; Arrian, Epidet. ii. 24, Bokcov
pev n ehai ebv B' ovBelv ; Euripides, Electro, 370, dvBpa . . . to
fivBev bvro ; Supplices, 424, irovnpbv d^lcofi dvrjp . . . ovBev eov.
See examples in Wetstein ; in Kypke, ii. 291 ; and in Raphel.
ii. 457. See also under ii. 6, 9. Some, as Baumgarten, Hensler,
Jatho, and Hofmann, connect the words with the concluding
sentence— he deceiveth himself, as being one who is nothing ;
but the connection weakens the force of the declaration, and
takes away the point and antithesis of the previous clause.
Such a one —
ePpevairara eovrbv — " deceiveth his own mind " — an ex
ample of "vainglory." The Received Text, which reverses
this order, has good but not decisive authority ; A, B, C, K
giving the order we have preferred. The verb is only found
here in the New Testament, but in no earlier Greek writers,
though it occurs afterwards in the ecclesiastical authors. The
noun eppevairdrnv, however, is found in Tit. i. 10. The word,
probably coined by the apostle, denotes a self-deception of a
nature solely subjective; corresponding, therefore, to the previous
So/cet in the premises. Comp. Jas. i. 26. This self-conceited
and in result self-duped man is incapable of bearing others'
burdens, and is insensible to the obligation. The true estimate
of ourselves, which we ought to cherish, is given us in Luke
xvii. 10.
Ver. 4. To Be epyov eavrov BoKifia^erco e/cao-To? — " But let
each one prove his own work." While a momentary introspec
tion may lead to morbid self-exaltation, the actual judgment
passed on deeds may conduce to a proper estimate ; Be being in
contrast with what is said in the previous verse of self-inflation
and self-deception: let there be account taken of " work." The

CHAP. VI. 4. 439
stress is from its position on epyov, which is deepened by eavrov,
and which, as Meyer remarks, is collective in meaning, as in
Rom. ii. 15, 1 Pet. i. 17, Rev. xxii. 12. See Winer, § 27, 1,
and the limits which he gives to the collective singular. His
work — his own work — himself embodied in act, — rbv eavrov
f3lov (Theodoret), — the outer shape and expression of the inner
realities, — let him test this, put it to the proof ; the BoKifid^eiv
responding to the So/cet, and being its grand corrective. Such
is the meaning of the verb — to prove, to put to the test, Luke
xiv. 19 ; 1 Cor. iii. 13, xi. 28; 1 Thess. ii. 4. It does not mean
probatum reddat, so. deo, as is thought by Beza, Piscator,
Wesselius, Justinianus, Ruckert, Matthies. Theophylact thus
explains : i^era^erco p,erd aKpiBelav to? eavrov rrpdljeiv, rovro
ydp to, BoKip,at,erco. CEcumenius, more pointedly : /cat eavrov
ipevva aKpiBcbv.
Kal rore et? eavrov fiovov to Kav-yr\pa e£et, /cat ovk eh rbv
erepov — " and then he shall have ground of boasting only in
relation to himself, and not in relation to the other." Let him
put his work to the test, — not this act or that act, but his whole
work in its complex unity, — " and then," /cat totc, that is, when
he shall have done this; it being implied that his work has stood
the test, though there is no formal ellipse, as Estius, Borger,
Turner, and others suppose. Kavyrjfia, not /catr^crt?, is not
glorying (Bagge), but the ground of glorying, Rom. iv. 2, com
pared with Rom. iii. 27 ; 1 Cor. v. 6, ix. 15, 16 ; Phil. i. 26, ii.
16. Ellicott takes the article to in its pronominal meaning —
his ground of boasting. Middleton, Gr. Art. v. 3. But it may
be quite as well taken in its ordinary signification — that ground
of boasting which he may find after putting his work to the
proof. The future efet refers to the having as subsequent to
the previous testing, and carries in it no allusion to the last
judgment, though many expositors hold such an opinion. The
phrase et? eavrov fiovov If et is taken by some to mean, " and
then he shall hold his glorying to himself." So Hilgenfeld :
seinem Ruhm fiir sich selbst zu behalten, mit gegen Andere geltend
zu machen. So Koppe, Storr, Flatt, and Usteri. But while
the verb may have such a meaning, it is better to take the words
in their ordinary signification, especially as et? is employed,
which does not stand exactly for Kara, as in Theodoret — Kard
aeavrbv aefivwov; nor for Trapo, as in Winer's opinion, quoting

440 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
Rom. iv. 2; the next clause showing the inapplicability of such a
meaning here. Nor does it mean contra (Schott), as apparently
in Luke xii. 10; for "against himself" would not in this clause
be a natural idea, though it would apply in the last clause,
as " against the other." De Wette, giving et? the same trans
lation, fur, in both clauses, alters the indicated relation in the
second, making the first zu seiner eigenen Freude, and the second
um sie damit zu reizen und herauszufordern. Jatho also gives
the preposition the sense of fur in the first clause, and of gegen
in the second. But et? must bear the same meaning in both
clauses, and it signifies " in reference to," quod attinet ad. Acts
ii. 25 ; Rom. iv. 20; 2 Cor. xi. 10 ; Eph. iii. 16 ; Xen. Anab.
i. 9, 16 ; Kiihner, ii. § 603 ; Bernhardy, p. 221. In reference
to himself— eavrov emphatic— he shall have ground of glorying,
/cot ovk et? rbv erepov—" and not in reference to the other," —
that is, the other with whom he brings himself into ideal com
parison or contrast. Ovk is objective — not as matter of opinion,
but as matter of fact ; and the article is not to be overlooked.
Rom. ii. 1, xiii. 8 ; 1 Cor. vi. 1, x. 24. But in this Kavxvpa,
real or imaginary, is there a slight irony ? Theophylact, after
Chrysostom, says that the apostle speaks avyKaraBariKcbv ov
vopoQeriKcbv; and that there is irony in the clause is the opinion
of Justinianus, Bengel, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, and
Alford. This, however, does not appear likely ; for the apostle
is not bitter or scornful in tone : he does not deny that there
may be matter of glorying ; he only shows how it often and
wrongly bases itself on vain and fallacious comparison with
others. A man may test his own work ; but he cannot know
" the other," and test his work. The Pharisee did not, could not,
know the downcast suppliant when he thanked God that he was
so much better than " this publican." But if a man examine
himself, and find not only faults and frailties, but also germs of
grace and goodness, then has he ground of glorying, in reference
to himself, not certainly in himself, but in the mercy and power
of the Saviour in him. This is really glorying in the Lord.
1 Cor. i. 31 ; 2 Cor. x. 17. Compare xii. 5, 9, where to glory
in infirmities is really to glory in that grace which such infir
mities attract to themselves, but for which His grace could not
have proved its sufficiency, and without which His strength
could not have demonstrated its perfection. Thus Castalio

CHAP. VI. 5. 441
says : probitas in re, non in collatione ; and Calvin writes : ea
demum est vera laus, non quam aliis detrahendo nobis concili-
amus, sed quam habemus sine comparatione. " The other" does
not in any way enter as an element into that experience which
concerns himself alone ; for his own numerous imperfections,
which pressing upon his notice and filling him with profound
regrets, prevent him from judging his neighbour or exulting
over him. Humility and thankfulness ever characterize this
glorying in reference to himself, one reason being —
Ver. 5. ' E/cao-To? ydp to IBiov epoprlov Baardaei — ¦" For
each one shall bear his own burden." The 7ap does not
indicate an ellipse — " such comparative rejoicing is worthless,
for;" but rather it refers to the last clause — "and not in
reference to the other." No one can glory in reference to his
neighbour; for he will find on that self-inspection recommended
that he has many frailties in himself — something which clings
to him, and ever rebukes conscious or self-exultant comparison.
This is more natural than the connection with the clause,
" Let every one prove his own work — for every one must bear '
his own burden,"— the connection of Beza, Matthies, Hofmann;
but the intervening clauses declare against it. $oprlov — a
diminutive in form only — is something which one carries, a
pack. Ecclus. xxi. 16, &>? iv bBco epoprlov; Xen. Mem. iii. 13,
6, et Kal epoprlov ecpepe. But the Bdprj of ver. 2 means loads
— heavy loads, which they are asked to carry in sympathy,
which some refused to carry ; while epoprlov is a burden which
each one has — something individual, and of which one cannot
rid himself. The Bdprj are always heavy ; but you may have
on the one hand cpoprla Bapea, Matt, xxiii. 4, and on the other
a epoprlov iXacppbv, Matt. xi. 30. The Vulgate and Claro
montane wrongly render both Greek words by onus ; but the
Syriac rightly renders the first by ]j_qq_j, onus, and the second
by j1«-mVn| snrcina. This "burden" is not "punishment," as
0
is supposed by Theodoret, Jerome, Luther, Erasmus, Calvin,
Grotius, a-Lapide, Estius, Bengel, and Ruckert. For the
epoprlov is borne now ; and because each one now bears it, and
feels its weight, he is not to form hard opinions or pronounce
unjust decisions about others. Nor is it simply responsibility
(Gwynne), but his own peculiar (iBiov) present sin and weak-

442 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
ness, which ought to lead him to be charitable. The idea of
either future punishment or responsibility is foreign to the
course of thought. And the future has its ethical significa
tion—shall bear = must bear, from the very nature of things.
Winer, § 40, 6 ; Bernhardy, pp. 377-8; Kiihner, 446, 3.
The verse expresses a general truth which is or shall be ever
realizing itself as a thing of moral necessity. Bisping and
Windischmann take the future as the previous efet— he will
find at the end of his self-examination that he is to bear his own
burden. This is unnecessary. In fine, there is no discrepancy
between this and the second verse. The two verses are like
two stars revolving round each other. The second verse en
joins sympathy and mutual burden-bearing; while this verse
describes that individual load which each one carries, and
which no one can bear for him.
Ver. 6. Koivcovelrco Be b Karnxovfievov rbv Xoyov tco Karrj-
Xovvn iv iraaiv dyaQoiv — " But let him who is taught in the
word communicate with him who teacheth in all good things."
The verb /cottj^eo), besides its literal signification, denotes to
communicate information orally — to sound it in one's ears,
Acts xxi. 21, 24 ; or to teach by means of oral instruction,
Acts xviii. 25, 1 Cor. xiv. 19 ; sometimes with Trept and a
genitive, referring to the contents, Luke i. 4 ; or with e/c,
Rom. ii. 18, referring to the source. Sometimes it has both a
genitive of thing and person, Acts xxi. 24. The word, how
ever, seems here to signify to teach or instruct generally.
Such instruction was in the early church usually oral, and
could at that time be nothing else; but the oralness of it
ceases to be recognised as a primary and distinctive feature.
Thus the Greek fathers explain the word simply by StSacr/co-
pievov or fioQnrevbp,evov ; Hesychius explaining iraiBevbfievov.
It came to denote familiar tuition ; and the KaTrjxovfievoi, as
opposed to the iriarol, were persons under preliminary instruc
tion in the elements of Christianity. The passive participle
KOTnx°bpevov is here followed by the accusative of reference or
second government, Winer, § 32, 5 ; or, as Schmalfeld calls it,
" of qualitative object," § 25. Jelf, § 579 ; Suicer, sub voce.
'O Xbyov is the gospel. Acts xiii. 26, xv. 7, xx. 32 ; Luke i. 2,
v. 1 ; Eph. i. 13.
The duty of him who is instructed in the word is expressed

CHAP. VI. 6. 443
by Koiveovelrco . . . rep Karr/xovvn — "let him share with him
that teacheth." The verb is sometimes used with the genitive,
" to partake of," Heb. ii. 14 ; and sometimes with the dative,
"to share in," Rom. xii. 13, xv. 27, 1 Tim. v. 22, 1 Pet. iv. 13 ;
Wisdom vi. 25, o?3 Koivcovrjaei aocpla. It is also found with the
dative of person, the thing being governed as here by eV, or by
et'?, as in Phil. iv. 15. Plato, De Repub. v. 453. In the New
Testament the prevailing if not uniform sense is intransitive,
though not in classical usage. Xen. Mem. ii. 6, 22 ; Polyb. ii.
42, 5 ; Plato, De Leg. viii. 844. It may stand, according to
Thomas Magister, either dvrl tov avp.fiere.xeo aoi, or dvrl rov
peraBiBcop.1 . . . ebv e^;&). The sense is then strictly, not — let
him communicate, but, let him be in communication with ; and
it may be either as giver or receiver — the last in Rom. xv. 27,
and the first in Rom. xii. 13. The transitive sense would seem
to require rcov dyaQcbv, but iv agrees with the intransitive —
the sphere of communication. Franke (in Wolf) joins the
phrase iv irdaiv dyaQoh with the immediately preceding words,
rep Karrjxovvn — with him that teacheth in all good things.
But in that case the accusative would be employed.
The meaning of the phrase itself has been disputed.
Marcion (in Jerome), Hennike, Matthies, Meyer, Schott,
Trana, Jatho, Sardinoux, and Keerl understand it of spiri
tual things ; Vomel supplying this contrast — in allem Guten,
nicht in Irrlehren. See Mynster's kleine theol. Schriften, p.
70. The words may bear such a meaning. The article
is wanting here; so that rd dyaQd, John v. 29, and to
dyaQbv in the following ver. 10, are not adducible in proof.
Were this the sole view, the communication would be tanta
mount to imitation, or the connection between teacher and
taught was to refer to all kinds of spiritual good — getting it, or
rather giving it, as the injunction is upon " the taught." But
the singular is more in Paul's style when he refers to ethical
good. Col. i. 10; Heb. xiii. 21, iv iravrl epyeo dyaQeo; Rom.
ii. 10, xii. 2, 9, xiii. 3, xvi. 19 ; Eph. vi. 8 ; 1 Thess. v. 15;
Philem. 6, etc. ; Sept. Isa. vii. 15. The reference to temporal
things is the almost unanimous opinion of ancient and modern
interpreters. 'AyaQd has this sense, Luke xii. 18, 19, xvi. 25,
and often in the Septuagint, 2 Sam. vii. 28, 1 Chron. xvii.
26, 2 Chron. xviii. 12, 17. Comp. Luke i. 53. At all events,

444 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
it is virtually the same doctrine which he teaches in 1 Cor. ix.
11. Compare 1 Thess. ii. 6, 9, 1 Tim. v. 17, 18. The occur
rence of irdaiv is somewhat difficult, and the expression is
vague. Wieseler therefore includes both ideas in the reci
procal sense— the taught being in communication with the
teacher in temporal things, as the teacher is in communication
with the taught in spiritual things. See also Bagge, Gwynne,
Schmoller. It is somewhat difficult to trace the connection ; but it
seems to be suggested by the last verse. The Be may con
tinue the thought under another aspect; thus, he had said,
" Bear one another's burdens " — now — Be, this is one form in
which the precept may be obeyed ; — or he had said, Every
man must bear his own load ; but — Be, this does not exempt
you from bearing the burden of your teachers. It is an obli
gation not to be slighted, or left to mere caprice. So-called
voluntaryism is not optionalism. The duty consists (Theophy
lact) in the giving to the pastor of " food, raiment, honour,"
etc. — rpoeprjv, ivBbfiarov, rifirjv; "for thou receivest more than
thou givest — spiritual things for carnal things." Keerl takes
the connection from ver. 1, understanding by " him who is
taught in the word" the fallen brother who has been restored,
while the intervening verses guard the "spiritual" restorers
against pride. But this connection is artificial and narrow.
Ver. 7. The connection again is rather obscure. Chry
sostom, Theophylact, G3cumenius, Luther, Hunnius, Grotius,
Bagge, Gwynne connect the verse with the immediately pre
ceding one. Thus also Prof. Lightfoot, who thus paraphrases :
" What, you hold back ! Nay, do not deceive yourselves."
But such a connection is too limited to warrant the broader
statement of the following verses. Some would refer the first
clause, " Be not deceived," to what follows. But probably the
warning has been suggested by the preceding context, and not
simply or solely by the previous verse, as there is no formal con
necting particle. The paragraph treats of duties which spring
out of love, the fruit of the Spirit, and are themselves forms
of spiritual beneficence or well-doing, — duties, however, which
one may be tempted to neglect, or regard only in a negative
aspect, so far as not to be acting in direct opposition to them.
One may let a fallen brother alone, but without insulting him

chap. vi. 7. 445
when he is down. One may refuse to bear another's burden,
but without adding to its weight. One may decline communi
cation in temporal things with a spiritual teacher, but without
inflicting on him a positive and harmful expenditure. Men
may in this way deceive themselves ; or in some other form
selfishness and the world may so hold them in bondage, that
they may be sowing to the flesh. In passing from the more
ideal to the more palpable forms of Christian beneficence, the
apostle throws in the awful warning of the verse before us —
M77 irXavdaQe, ©ebv ov fivKrvpl^erai — "Be not deceived,
God is not mocked." The same abrupt warning is found in
1 Cor. vi. 9 as a sudden and earnest dissuasive from sinful
practices which exclude from heaven ; in the same epistle, xv.
33, as a guard against Epicurean indulgence ; and in Jas. i.
16, where it is rendered, "Do not err." The warning implies
a liability to deception or error : in this case the deception
appears to be, that a man may be sowing to the flesh, and yet
be hoping to reap of the Spirit, or that for him might be
changed the unchangeable order which God has ordained —
" like seed, like harvest." The verb fivKrrjpl^co, from pvKrrjp,
is to turn up the nose at, to sneer at, to mock. Sept. Job
xxii. 19 ; Ps. lxxx. 7 ; Isa. xxxvii. 22 ; Jer. xx. 7, — there
representing the Heb. W ; Prov. i. 30, xii. 8 ; 1 Mace. vii.
34, 39. Quintilian defines fivKrrjpiapbv, simulatum quidem, sed
non latentem derisum, ix.#8. In the life of Claudius, part of a
letter of Augustus has aKcbirreiv Kal pvKrrjpl^eiv : Suetonius,
p. 636, Valpy 1826. So Horace has naso suspendis adunco,
Satir. i. 6, 5 ; naribus uti, Ep. i. 19, 45. God is not mocked,
either in reality or with impunity (Ellicott) ; there is no such
thing as mocking God. Wieseler takes the verb in the middle,
" God will not suffer Himself to be mocked "- — -non sinit sibi
irrideri. The expression is a strong one, taken from that organ
of the face by which we express careless contempt. Men may
be imposed on by a show of virtue on the part of one who all
the while scorns their weakness, but God cannot be so mocked.
*0 ydp idv airelprj dvQpcoirov, rovro Kal Qepiaei — "for what
soever a man may sow, that also shall he reap." The ydp is
confirmative; airelprj is subjunctive present, though the sub
junctive aorist is the more common after idv; and the con
sequent clause is usually a future — Qepiaei. Winer, 41,

446 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
2, b ; Klotz-Devarius, iii. 453, 4. Let him sow what he likes,
tovto with emphasis — that and that only, that and nothing
else, shall he also reap ; /cat with its ascensive power — the
sower is also the reaper. The future refers to the judgment,
when the results of present action shall be felt in their indis
soluble relations. The reaping is not only the effect of the
sowing, but is necessarily of the same nature with it. He that
sows cockles, cockles shall he also reap ; he that soweth wheat,
wheat also shall he reap. It is the law of Gbd in the natural
world — theharroj^j^Jmt the_growth of the sowing ; and it
illustrates the uniform sequences of the spiritual world. The
nature of conduct is not changed by its development and final
ripening for divine sentence ; nay, its nature is by the process
only opened out into full and self-displayed reality. The blade
and the ear may be hardly recognised and distinguished as to
species, but the full corn in the ear is the certain result and
unmistakeable proof of what was sown. And the 'sowing
leads certainly, and not as if by accident, to the reaping ; the
connection cannot be severed — it lies deep in man's personal
identity and responsibility. Cicero gives the quotation, ut
sementem feceris, ita metes, De Orat. ii. 65. 'O airelpcov epaiiXa
Qrjplaei koko, Gorgias, in Aristot. Rhet. iii. 3. -ZEschylus, Prom.
322, av Be ravra alaxpebv fiev eaireipav, kokcov Be iQepiaav.
Plato, Phadr. 260, D, Kapirbv eov eaireipe Qepl^eiv. Comp. Ps.
cxxvi. 5, 6, Hos. viii. 7, x. 12, Job iv. 8, Prov. xxii. 8, 2 Cor.
ix. 6. Ver. 8. The previous verse presented the mere figure of
sowing and of reaping, with certainty of reaping what may
happen to have been sown. But the seed may be of two
kinds, or the seed may be sown with two different purposes,
and each purpose naturally and necessarily leads to its own
result —
' OTt o aireipeov et? rr/v adpKa eavrov, e'/c rrjv aapKOV Qepiaei
odv— "For he who is sowing unto his -flesh, from the flesh
shall reap corruption." The various readings are of little
value : only by an evident correction, F, G read rfj crap/ct ; and
so the Vulgate and Claromontane, in came sua. Matthias
divides 6Vt into o Tt, and joins it to the previous clause : was
es auch sein moge,—a, useless suggestion. The statement is
confirmatory — on, and the phrase et? rrjv aapKa does not

CHAP. VI. 8. 447
present the flesh as the field in or on which the seed is sown —
— tanquam in agrum (Bengel, Borger, Brown) ; for iv and iirl
are employed for this purpose : the former in Matt. xiii. 24, 27,
Mark iv. 15, Ex. xxiii. 16, Hos. ii. 23 ; the latter as in Matt.
xiii. 20, 23, Mark iv. 16, 20, 31. Et'?, however, is found
Matt. xiii. 22, Mark iv. 18, and is regarded by Ellicott as
signifying " among." But et? in that place may bear its own
meaning of "on" — the seed was sown on the thorns, which
were invisible at the moment, and under the ground ; and thus
et? irerpav re ko.1 XlQovv airelpovrav, Plato, De Leg. viii. 838,
E. The verb is sometimes followed with the accusative of the
seed, Matt. xiii. 24, Herod, iv. 17, and sometimes"' with the
accusative of the field sown, Sept. Ex. xxiii. 10, Xen. Cyr.
viii. 3, 28. Eh is to be taken here in an ethical sense, " with
a view to ;" and o-opf is the unregenerate nature — the leading
sense of the word throughout the epistle — the nature which spe
cially belongs to him — eavrov, but not emphatic. The " flesh"
is thus neither the field nor the seed ; but that for the gratifi
cation of which the seed is sown, or that which forms the ruling
end to the man's desires and actions, which governs and moulds
the aspirations and workings of his present life. The seed sown
is much the same as the ep7a T77? aapKov. It is too narrow an
interpretation to refer it to undue care for the wants of the
present life (Calvin), or to a " sumptuous table and viands"
(Chrysostom and his followers), or to withholding support
from the ministers of God's word, and feeding and caring for
themselves only (Luther, Olshausen). The reference to cir
cumcision (o-opf), allowed by Pelagius, Schoettgen, Ruckert,
and Usteri, may be at once discarded ; and any allusion to such
asceticism as that which characterized the Encratites is also out
of the question. Jerome condemns Cassian or Tatian as finding
in the clause a prohibition of marriage. See also in Luther.
The harvest is cpQopd — "corruption." The noun means
something more than that "the flesh is a prey to corrup
tion, and with it all fleshly desires and practices come to
nothing" (Alford, after Chrysostom and De Wette). 1 Cor.
vi. 13, xv. 42, 50. It is here opposed to £0)771/ alebviov, and
must have its strongest and most awful signification, as in
1 Cor. iii. 17, 2 Pet. ii. 12. It may have been suggested by
the use of o-opf ; but in meaning it is tantamount to dircoXela,

448 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
Phil. iii. 20. Compare Matt. vii. 13, Rom. ix. 22. Hesychius
defines <p6opd by oXeQpov. Herod, vii. 18 ; Thucyd. ii. 47 ;
Plato, Leg. 677 ; Sept. Ps. ciii. 4, Jonah ii. 7. The meaning,
then, is different only in form from Rom. viii. 6, rb eppbvvp.a
rrjv aapKov Qdvarov. Rom. viii. 13, vii. 23.
But the converse is also true —
'O Be airelpcov eh rb irvevfia, e/c rov irvevfiarov Qepiaei £0)777/
alcbviov — " but he who is sowing to the Spirit, from the Spirit
shall reap life eternal." As in v. 16, etc., the Spirit is not the
higher or renewed part of man's own nature (Ruckert, Schott,
Olshausen, Borger, Baumgarten-Crusius, Brown, and others),
but the Spirit of God ; and there is no eavrov with it as with
adpKa. Sowing to the Spirit produces "eternal life" as its
harvest. Matt. xix. 16, 17, xxv. 46 ; Mark x. 17, 30 ; Luke
x. 25, xviii. 18 : John iii. 15, 16, v. 24, etc. etc. Alcbviov is an
epithet of quantity, not of quality. Compare its use with Sofa,
2 Cor. iv. 17, 2 Tim. ii. 10, 1 Pet. v. 10 ; with aeorrjpla, Heb.
v. 9 ; with irapaKXr/aiv, 2 Thess. ii. 16 ; with KXrjp.ovop.la, Heb.
ix. 15. The future verb refers to the harvest at the end of the
world, though indeed it is enjoyed even now. John iii. 36, v.
24, vi. 47. The clause is virtually the same in meaning with
rb Be eppbvrjpa rov irvevparov £0)17, Rom. viii. 6, 13. The
£0)7) alcbviov has reference specially to blessedness in the future
world, as the fruit of present grace and holiness, and as the
object of hope. Rom. ii. 7, v. 21, vi. 22 ; 1 Tim. i. 16 ; Tit. i.
2, iii. 7. The life -created by the Spirit, and sustained through >
believing oneness with Christ, can have neither pause nor end.
It is immortal from its living union with Him who " only hath
immortality." The continued and wilful indulgence of our unrenewed
nature becomes its own penalty, as it does not realize the end of
its being, and unfitting itself for blessedness, sinks and darkens
into ruin ; but the work of the Spirit of God, fostered within
us and consciously elevated into predominant and regulative
influence, ripens surely into blessedness. The process in both
cases is a certain one — Qepiaei — as certain as that between
sowing and reaping ; and the identity of the harvest with the
seed sown is emphatically marked — e/c rrjv crop/co? ... e/c rov
irvevfiarov. The apostle now encourages to the second kind of sowing —

CHAP. VI. 9. 449
Ver. 9. To Be KaXov iroiovvrev fir) iyKaKcbpiev — " But in
well-doing let us not be faint-hearted." The iKKaKcd/iev of the
common text, after C, D3, K, L, does not seem to be a Greek
word at all. See under Eph. iii. 13. Similar variation occurs
also in Luke xviii. 1, 2 Cor. iv. 1, 16, 2 Thess. iii. 13. Meyer,
however, prefers iKKOKcbfiev, regarding the other as an emen
dation — als Besserung, and this as an oral form introduced into
his epistles by Paul. The form iyKaKcbpiev is supported by A,
B, D1, N. The pronunciation and spelling of the two words
are so like, that one needs not wonder at the variations. Both
forms, however, occur in Hesychius ; but neither the one nor
the other is found in the Sept. The form eV/c. occurs in
Polybius, iv. 19, 10; Symmachus, Gen. xxvii. 46, Num. xxi. 5,
Isa. vii. 16; and in Theodotion, Prov. iii. 11, where the Sept.
has iKXvov. The meaning is not essentially different ; the verb \
compounded with e'/c meaning to faint so as to back out of, and
the verb with iv to lose courage in course of action. The Se '
introduces a new address in contrast with the sowing to the
flesh already described : " but for our part." Hartung, i. p. 166,
states the case, and adds, that in such places it appears to take
the place of ovv. The phrase rb koXov, here emphatic, signifies
that which is beneficent, or what is absolutely good, beautifully
good. See under next verse. 2 Thess. iii. 13. It is beneficence
in its highest aspect, such as was embodied in a gracious miracle
of healing — KaXebv iroieiv, Matt. xii. 12. It may here cover
the ground of the previous context, as the duties there set forth
are distinctive elements of the rb koXov — acts of generosity,
robed in that love which is itself perfection. Compare Luke
viii. 15 ; Xen. Cyr. v. 3, 2. There is a levis paronomasia
between koXov and -KaKcbfiev — in well-doing let us not be ill-
hearted. And the duty is enforced by the cheering prospect —
Kaipco ydp t'St'o) Qeplaopev, fir) e'/cXuo/xewt — " for in due time
we shall reap, if we faint not." The unwearied well-doing is
now understood as a sowing, and the figure of reaping is again
introduced. The phrase Kaipco IBlcp means "in due time," or at the
proper season — the appointed time of the harvest. Compare
the plural form, 1 Tim. ii. 6, vi. 15. It is a species of temporal
dative, specifying the time within which the action takes place,
Winer, § 31, 9 ; and usually it is expressed by ep. Kriiger,
2 p

450 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
§ 48. " The harvest is the end of the world." Matt. xiii. 30.
It is no objection to say, as is done by De Wette, that well
doing brings its own reward even now. 2 Cor. ix. 8, 9. For
the figure is here preserved in harmony, and the sowing lasts
all our lives. The time is with God, and His time for the
harvest must be the right time and the best time. We are not
to lose heart because the interval of labour may appear long,
and the crop may not seem to be of speedy growth ; for He
is Judge, the seasons are in His hand, and at the divinely
meted out period the invitation will be issued, " Thrust in thy
sickle and reap." The concluding words bear upon the same
thought —
Mrj iKXvbpevoi — " if now we," or " provided that we faint
not" — that is, in our well-doing. The sentence is thus con
ditional, or, as Kriiger calls it, hypothetische, im Falle — wenn,
§ 56, 11 : we shall reap only if we do not faint, — the tense of
the participle connecting it with our present state. The parti
ciple iKXvbfievoi is stronger than the verb ivKaKcbfiev. Bengel
says of them, iKKaK. est in velle, e'/cX?/. est in posse. The first
is weakness of heart ; and the second, as the result of the
first, describes relaxed effort, prostration of power, — spoken of
corporeal fainting in Matt. xv. 32, and of mental exhaustion,
Heb. xii. 3, 1 Mace. iii. 17 ; Joseph. Antiq. v. 2, 7. The view
of the connection here given is the general view, enforcing
the need of patience. Matt. xxiv. 13 ; Jas. v. 7 ; Rev. ii. 10.
Some, however, take p,rj iKXvbfievoi in a merely temporal
or predicative sense : we shall reap, and in reaping be un
wearied. Thus Theodoret : irbvov St%a Qeplaopev rd aireipb-
fieva. This is tantamount to saying, Nulla erit satietas vita
aterna, and is pointed at in Luther's translation, ohne aufhbren;
the Vulgate having non deficientes, and the Claromontane non
fatigati. See also Anselm, Homberg, and Usteri. Ruckert
and Schott are wrong, as Meyer shows, in objecting to this
interpretation the occurrence of p.77 with the participle, — the
prevailing usage in the New Testament (Winer, § 55, 5;
Kriiger, § 67, 7, etc.; Gayler, p. 274). But the exegesis,
though grammatically tenable, is defective and unnatural. The
last words are an emphatic warning, and describe the one con
dition on which the reward can be enjoyed ; and while there
is much about the working or sowing, there is nothing about

CHAP. VI. 10. 451
the reward which may induce that fainting or down-hearted-
ness against which the apostle guards. Similar repetitions
occur in the apostle's writings, Rom. v. 15, 16, 17, 2 Cor. xii. 7,
Gal. iii. 22, Eph. vi. 19, 20 ; John iii. 22. Hofmann begins
a new sentence with the words, but the connection is awkward.
Distinct encouragement is given us — the encouragement of the
husbandman in sowing his fields, the bow in the cloud assuring
him that seed-time and harvest shall not fail. The Christian
doctrine of reward is in perfect harmony with the doctrine of
grace. Ver. 10. "Apa ovv ebv Kaipbv exofiev — "So then as we have
opportunity." The particles opa ovv indicate an inferential
exhortation ; the first, opa, meaning " such being the case ; "
ovv, therefore, igitur, being an argumentative conclusion. Klotz-
Devarius, ii. 717. Compare Rom. v. 18, vii. 3, 25, viii. 12 ;
Eph. ii. 19 ; 1 Thess. v. 6 ; 2 Thess. ii. 15. The particle ebv
has had different meanings assigned to it.
1. Beza, Bengel, Matthies, Schott, Olshausen, and Keerl
regard it as meaning " so long as," or while, — dum, Vulgate, —
a sense not warranted by Pauline usage, but which is expressed
rather by eeov.
2. Koppe, Paulus, Usteri, and De Wette render it " be
cause," — a signification not found in the Pauline writings, not
even in 2 Tim. i. 3.
3. Knatchbull, Homberg, Wolf, Zacharise, and Hilgenfeld
give it the meaning of " as often as," or " when," i.e. as often
as we have opportunity. This meaning, which overlooks the
reference to the Kaipbv of the previous verse, is involved in
the simple and grammatical interpretation, next given.
4. Meyer, Wieseler, Hofmann translate it " as," " in pro
portion as," or, in proportion to the circumstances. The Kaipbv
here refers to the Kaipbv of the preceding verse : as there is one
Kaipbv for reaping, there should be also one for sowing ; and in
proportion as we have it, so ought we to improve it ;. the season
for reaping is coming, the season for sowing is fast passing
away. Kaipbv is not XP°V0<>> tempus, but here tempus opportunum ;
though it has not that sense always, for it may be importunum.
The Latin has no term for it; as Augustine complains, Ep.
197, 2. Ammonius says : 6 fiev Kaipbv BrjXoi iroibrr)ra XP°V0V>

452 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
Xpbvov Be iroabrnra. Trench, Syn. ii. p. 27. The phrase is a
common one. See Wetstein in loc, and see under Eph. v. 16.
'Epya^cbfieQa rb ayaQbv irpbv irdvrav — " let us do that which
is good toward all." A, B2, L, some MSS. read ipya^bfieQa, but
the text has preponderant authority. Lachmann, in his smaller
edition, adopted ipyatpp^eQa, and read the clause interrogatively
¦ — an abrupt and unnatural exegesis. The indicative would not
be a stronger hortative form, as Meyer remarks, and Winer in
his Grammar, though not in his Commentary. The usage is
foreign to the New Testament, at least in non-interrogative
clauses. See John xi. 47, where, however, there is a question.
But o and eo are liable to be interchanged by copyists, as in
Rom. v. 1, — the o induced here by the previous exopev, Qepl-
aofiev, and no version is in favour of the change. To dyaQov
is commonly taken to mean, either what is good in itself, Rom.
ii. 10, vii. 19, xiii. 3 — thus, too, dyaQoiroieiv, 1 Pet. ii. 15, 20,
iii. 6, 17, and dyaQoepyeiv, 1 Tim. vi. 18 ; or what is good in
result — an act of kindness or beneficence, Rom. xii. 21, 2 Cor.
ix. 8, Philem. 14: so dyaQoiroieiv, Luke vi. 33, 35; Sept. Num.
x. 32, Judg. xvii. 13, Zeph. i. 13. The latter meaning is
generally preferred. Meyer and Hilgenfeld, however, take it
in the first sense. But there is no occasion to limit the meaning
of the epithet ; it is the thing which is good in each case, as the
case may occur. The good thing may vary according to various
wants, for it is to be done 7rpo? irdvrav — "towards all." Winer,
§ 49, A. The entire paragraph has the idea of doing good
underlying it : the restoration of a fallen brother, ver. 1 ; the
bearing of one another's burdens, ver. 2 ; communication on
the part of the taught to the teacher, ver. 3 ; unwearied well
doing, ver. 10; and this verse seems to sum up all these
thoughts into one vivid injunction, which not only comprises
them all, but enjoins similar social duty in all its complex
variety. Whatever its immediate form, whether kindness, or
beneficence, or mercy, whether temporal or spiritual in cha
racter, it is still good in its nature, and is " the good thing,"
adapting itself to each case as it may turn up, in reference to
all, generally or more specially.
MdXiara Be irpov roiiv ot'/cetbu? rrjv irlarecov — " but specially
to them who are of the household of faith." The Se is omitted
in the Authorized Version. MdXiara Be (fidXiara superlative

CHAP. VI. 10. 453
of p.d.Xa) does not put the two classes in opposition, though the
sub-adversative meaning of Se is not lost. First a wider class
is spoken of, and then a narrower class within it is pointed out,
and by certain qualities distinguished from it. 1 Tim. v. 8 17.
The ot ot'/cetot are those belonging to the ot'/cta — relatives, do
mestics. Thus Ammonius, ol Kar eiriyafilav eirifiixQevrev reo
oiKcp ; and Hesychius, ot Kar iiriyapilav irpoarJKovrev ; and it
represents 1NB>, consanguineus, Lev. xviii. 6, 12, 13. It means
also one's own, or in a personal sense, what is not acquired, —
okeia l;vveaiv, mother-wit, Thucyd. i. 138 ; and in a national
sense, ot'/c. crtTo?, home-grown corn, Thucyd. ii. 60. In a more
general sense it signifies relatives, familiars, friends, associates
— the idea of the ot'/cta receding into the background, especially
when the word is followed by the genitive of an abstract noun.
See sub voce, Ast, Lexicon Platon. ; Ellendt, Lex. Sophocl. In
stances of the last signification are such as ot'/cetot cpiXoaoeplav,
Strabo, i. 13, p. 11, vol. i. ed. Cramer; yeeoypacplav ot/ceto?,
Strabo, i. 25, p. 20, ed. Cramer; ot'/cetot/? bXiyapxlav, Diod.
Sic. xiii. 91, vol. i. p. 779, ed. Dindorf ; ot'/cetot rvpavvlBov,
Diod. Sic. xix. 70, vol. ii. p. 1409 ; iroXiriKrjv dperrjv ot/ceto?,
Plutarch, P/w7op. p. 397; Sept. Isa. 1 viii. 7 (see Wetstein in loc).
Meyer, Ellicott, Alford, Borger, Baumgarten-Crusius, Trana,
and Hofmann take the word, thus explained, as simply meaning,
"those who belong to the faith." On the other hand, Beza,
Schott, Ruckert, Olshausen, Wieseler, Bisping, Schmoller, Bagge,
Lightfoot, keep the original idea, which is also given in the
English version — domestici fidei, Vulgate. Eph. ii. 19 ; 1 Tim.
iii. 15 ; Heb. iii. 6 ; 1 Pet. ii. 5, iv. 17. Meyer's objection,
that the clause, to get this meaning, must be tojj? rjpeov ot'/cetot/?,
is naught, as the idea of " our" is implied ; for, when a believer
characterizes fellow-believers as a household, he does not need
to say rjp,cbv, inasmuch as the ot/cta rrjv irlarecov is a common
heritage. Perhaps, after all, the truth in this passage lies
between these two extremes. The reference to the spiritual ot/cta
may not be in formal prominence, and yet the image may have
suggested the phrase to the apostle, as denotive of a close and
mutually recognised relationship. The duty inculcated in the
verse is not indeed to be graduated, but fellow-believers have a
primary claim. For one form of the duty in this nearer rela
tion, as enjoined on the Galatian churches, see 1 Cor. xvi.

454 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
1, 2— "the collection for the saints." There is no ground for
the supposition of Jerome, that " teachers" are meant by the
phrase : domesticos fidei magistros nominat.
The verse enjoins generally cpiXavQpcoirla, man-love, and
especially epiXoBeXepla, brother-love — the love of the bfibiriaroi,
the family feeling of Christianity. Julian (Ep. 49) admits that
Christians did obey this injunction : rpecpovaiv ol BvaaeBeh
TaXiXaioi irpbv roh eavrebv Kal roiiv rj/ierepovv. Tertullian,
Adver. Marc. iv. 16.
Ver. 11. Now follows what is virtually a postscript, which
glances at some points already advanced, characterizes in a new
light the Judaizing teachers, gives fervent utterance in con
trast to his own great and unchanging resolves, touches on the
absorbing spirituality of the gospel and his relation to the
Master and His cross, and ends with earnest benediction.
Thus it begins somewhat abruptly —
"ISeTe irtjXiKOiv vfiiv ypdppaaiv eypa-^ra rfj ifif) %eipt — " Ye
see," or "look ye with how large letters I have written to you with
mine own hand." There are two marked divisions of opinion
as to the meaning of irrjXUoiv ypdfifiaaiv, and two also as to
the reference in eypayjra. The idea of the English version, that
the first words assert the length or size of the epistle, is main
tained by many, as Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Beza, a-Lapide,
Bengel, Borger, Schott, Olshausen, Neander, Baumgarten-
Crusius, Hofmann, and Turner; and they, of course, hold
in general that the entire epistle was written by his own
hand. The Authorized Version, " how large a letter," fol
lows some of its predecessors, as Tyndale, Cranmer, and the
Genevan. Wycliffe has " with what manner of letters." To
sustain the Authorized Version, it may be said that ypdfipara,
something written, may be rendered epistle, as the Latin
litera. 1 Mace. v. 10 ; Acts xxviii. 21 ; Ignat. ad Rom. viii.
It may denote not only writings, letters or despatches, but a
single letter or epistle — Thucydides, i. 30, where ypapifiara is
identified with iiriaroXrj in the preceding paragraph, and vii.
8, where a similar identification occurs. So, too, in Hebrew,
D'HBDn, writings, 2 Kings xix. 14, rendered in our version " a
letter," is followed first by a plural suffix, agreeing with it in
form, and then by a singular suffix, agreeing with it in sense.
In the parallel passage, Isa. xxxvii. 14, both the suffixes are

CHAP. VI. 11. 455
.-singular, and the Septuagint renders in the singular, BiBXlov . . .
avrb. The rabbinical expositors needlessly explain the use of the
plural in different ways, Kimchi giving it a distributive mean
ing, and Luzzato supposing that it was customary to send
duplicates of the same epistle. See Keil on the passage in
Kings, and Alexander on that in Isaiah. But there are objec
tions to taking the noun in this sense here. For, 1. The apostle
never once employs ypdfipara with this meaning, but uses
iiriaroXrj no less than seventeen times. This place, therefore,
can scarcely be regarded as an exception ; at least there is
nothing to induce us to suppose that in his choice of the term
there is a solitary deviation from his usual style. 2. The accu
sative, were such the meaning, would naturally be expected. _
The cognate dative ypdfipaaiv ypdtyai, like et7re X070), is not
found in Paul's writings. 3. The meaning assigned to this
unusual idiom — eine hohere Innigkeit und Starke — is not to be
recognised, especially in a clause which has two other datives
of person and instrument. The uncommon construction with
a dative, and the selection of the term ypdppaaiv, lead us
therefore to conclude that the apostle means to say something
more than that he has written a letter. 4. With the ad
mission that ypdfifiara may not mean epistle, but a thing
written, an alphabetic letter, the same signification may be
ascribed to the clause : " with how many letters," is virtually,
how long or large a letter. Hesychius defines irrjXUov by otop,
biroiov. Laurent adopts this definition, qualibus Uteris, as in
the Vulgate : " mark you with what kind of letters I have
written;" simply calling attention to the handwriting of his
first letter to them (Neutest. Studien, p. 5, Gotha 1866). But
irr/XiKoiv is not irbaoiv, and means, not " how many," but " of
what size ; " for it applies not to number or character, or, as
Ellicott expresses it, "it denotes geometrical, not numerical
magnitude." Sept. Zech. ii. 2, toO IBeiv irrjXUov to irXarov
avrrjv iariv /cat irrjXlKov rb firJKOV, Heb. vii. 4, Qecopeire Be,
irrjXiKov ovrov— used in the same sense, though with an ethical
application. Compare Plato, Men. p. 82, D, where 77-00-ot often
occurs in the question, as irbaoi iroBev ? whereas irrfkUov refers
to the whole length of a line so measured : similarly do. p. 83, E,
85 A. 5. Nor can the epistle be really or absolutely called
a long one, unless in connection with the emphatic clause,

456 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
" with mine own hand." The Syriac omits the epithet alto
gether. The phrase irrfKUoiv ypdp,p,aaiv in the dative seems
then to mean, " with how large letters or characters," — ypdpt,-
paaiv being used as in Luke xxiii. 38,1 2 Cor. iii. 7. Why the
apostle should have employed so large characters, whether it
were from the necessity of age, or from infirmity, or from want
of habit in writing Greek, it is impossible to say.
Inferential meanings have been superimposed upon the
words. Thus Chrysostom and his followers suppose the allusion
to be to the misshapen aspect of the letters, and so Estius, Winer,
Riickert, Usteri, Hilgenfeld, and Alford. Chrysostom says :
to Se, irrfklKOiv, ipol So/cet ov rb fieyeQov, dXXd rrjv dp.opeplav
rcov ypafipdrcov i/icpalvcov Xeyeiv. But irrfXiKoiv does not mean
iroloiv, and size and awkwardness are different things, though
perhaps to those who wrote a smaller hand elegance might
appear to be incompatible with largeness. Nor can it be
averred, with Chrysostom and Jerome, that the apostle did not
know how to write Greek well ; his early education at Tarsus
forbids the supposition. At all events, the words do not of
themselves convey such an idea ; and though the great size of
the letters would differ from ordinary handwriting, it might
not present sprawling and unsightly characters. Why, then,
did he call their attention to the size of the characters which
he employed ? Theodore of Mopsuestia says : fieXXcov KaQdir-
reaQai rebv ivavrleov, dyav fiel^oaiv ixprjaaro ypdfifiaaiv ifi-
epalvcov on ovre avrov ipvQpia ovre dpveirai rd Xeybpeva — an
opinion virtually acquiesced in by Lightfoot. But it does not
follow that boldness of handwriting is any natural or undeni
able proof of distinct and unabashed statement. Pelagius puts
it thus : Intelligite quod non timeam qui literas manu mea nuper
scripsi. Jerome gives another view : Ne aliqua supposita epis
tola suspicio nasceretur. Such a guard against forgery not
only implies that his handwriting was already known to them,
but the same purpose might have been served by a brief salu
tation. — Meyer, who restricts the reference to ver. 12, or to
12-16 or 18, puts down the large letters to the apostle's desire
to impress his readers with the importance of the statements so
written. But the sentiments in the conclusion of the epistle
1 This refers to the reading of the Received Text. See Tischendorf's
note in loc.

chap. vi. 11. 457
are not more momentous than those which occur in the body
of it. Any amanuensis also, as Wieseler remarks, could easily
have used such large characters, if so instructed.
But what is the reference of eypatyal The verb is what
is called the epistolary aorist — "I have written," and it is used
in reference to the point of time when the epistle should be
received and read : t'SeTe — as if the letter were in their hands,
and before their eyes — " Look you with what large characters
I have written." The phrase may either characterize the post
script only, or it may comprehend the whole epistle. The verb
itself will scarcely decide the question. Generally it is used of
what precedes in a document, and it naturally occurs at its
virtual conclusion, as in Rom. xv. 15, 1 Pet. v. 12. It is
employed also in reference to the previous portion of a letter,
as in 1 Cor. ix. 15, Philem. 19, 21, 1 John ii. 14, 21, 26,
v. 13. The instances of its reference, with its proper sense, to
some former communication, are of course not in point. 1 Cor.
v. 9 ; 2 Cor. ii. 3, 4, 9 ; Winer, § 40, 5, b. 2. That eypafa
might refer to what follows, is not to be denied — the mind of
the writer not looking, indeed, to what he is to write, but specially
to the period of the reception of his letter by those for whom
he is writing ; as in the instance cited from the Martyrdom of
Polycarp, x. § 1, in which the church of Smyrna say, iypdtya-
p,ev vfiiv, which, occurring just after the opening salutation,
refers to the subsequent sections of the epistle. Patres Apostol.
p. 392, ed. Dressel. Compare Thucydides, i. 1 ; Poppo in loc.
Similarly, too, we have eirepi^ra, Acts xxiii. 30. Compare
errepsi/re, Xen. Anab. i. 9, 25, ii. 4, 16, on the first of which
places Kiihner remarks, Aoristus positus est respectu habito
temporis quo alter donum accipiebat. 2 Cor. ix. 3 ; Eph. vi.
22 ; Col. iv. 8. The phrase rfj ip,fj x€lPh occurring also in
other epistles, shows that the apostle usually employed an
amanuensis ; and especially after letters had been forged and
circulated in his name, he attached some autographic sentence
at the close, frequently a benediction or salutation— "O ian
arjfieiov iv irdo-n iiriaroXfj, 2 Thess. iii. 17. Compare Rom.
xvi. 21, 22, 25 ; 1 Cor.' xvi. 21 ; Col. iv. 18. The Am-
brosian Hilary notes in he. : Ubi enim holographa manus est
falsum dici non potest, ne forte ciroumventi excusarent de epistola,
quasi aut falsa esset, aut non esset apostoli,nolentes se reprehendi.

458 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
Augustine gives the meaning as cave ne quisquam sub nomine
Epistola ejus fallat incautos. While the body of the epistle
was written by a secretary, the apostle subjoined with his own
hand some concluding sentence ; and it has been argued that
such is the case in the epistle before us — an opinion held by
Jerome, Grotius, Meyer, Bisping, Jowett, Lightfoot, and Bagge.
Admitting the possibility of the exegesis, we are inclined to deny
its probability. For, 1. What may be called the natural reference
of eypatya is to the previous portion of the epistle. The present
ypdcpco appears to be used in such a case, and in reference to
what is immediately under hand, as in 1 Cor. iv. 14, xiv. 37,
2 Cor. xiii. 10, 2 Thess. iii. 17, 1 John ii. 12, 13; Winer,
40, 5, b. 2. 2. Nor is there any indication of any breach, or
pause, or change, as in Rom. xvi. 24, 25, and in 2 Thess. iii. 17.
Instead then of saying, with Lightfoot, that " at this point the
apostle took the pen from his amanuensis," we are inclined
rather to say, that at this point the apostle pauses, and reading
what he has written, the form of the handwriting struck him,
and he adds abruptly the words of the verse before us. 3. The
vfiiv comes in naturally, too, on the same supposition : mei pec
toris apud vos index (Erasmus). He had not dictated the epistle
to another, but he had written it himself ; no one came between
him and them, not even a secretary. 4. It would also be odd if a
sentence calling attention to the handwriting should be the first
specimen of it, and the asyndetic nature of the construction is
in favour of the same view. 5. The rfj ififj xelpl has in tais way
a special significance, from the fact that he had written all the
epistle with his own hand, and not merely a few concluding
clauses. Thus the entire letter seems to have been written by
the apostle himself; such a deviation from his wont being
adduced apparently as a proof of his earnest regard for them,
and of his profound anxiety about them in the present perilous
crisis. The " large characters " would convey to their minds,
who knew him so well with his habits and infirmities, something
perhaps which we may not be able to- recognise. He puts
himself to the trouble of framing those great characters from
personal interest in them, and the document was meant as a
circular for all the Galatian churches. See under daQeveia,
iv. -13. Utinam, adds Pareus, avrbypacpov apostoli nobis habere
et videre liceret. Compare what is said in Eusebius vi. 24 of the

chap. vi. 12. 459
bXoypacpoi iiriar]p,eicbaeiv of Origen, and the note in Heinichen,
vol. ii. 221 ; and also another note to v. 20, do. p. 98. It is
needless to inquire into the kind of letter, uncial or cursive,
which the apostle employed on this occasion, or whether the
material was papyrus (2 John 12) or vellum (2 Tim. iv. 13) —
the former being the more difficult to write upon, and that
perhaps generally used (3 John 13).
Ver. 12. The apostle now shows up the hollowness of the
Judaists, and utters his last warning against them. They were
not conscientious in insisting on circumcision as indispensable
to salvation. Their motive was to screen themselves from per
secution, and to gain a good report among the Jews. The
enmity of these Jews toward those of their brethren who made
a Christian profession was greatly modified by the thought, that
they had not only not ceased to observe the Mosaic ordinance
themselves, but were actually forcing it on Gentile converts.
This manifestation of zeal for the law was regarded as a com
pensation for their abandonment of the synagogue ; any Gen
tiles who might submit to circumcision being apparently counted
as so many Jewish proselytes — the successful proselytizers
propitiating in this way their angry and vindictive kinsmen.
But this their real motive they speciously veiled.
"Oaoi QeXovaiv evirpoacoirrjaai iv aapKi — " As many as desire
to make a fair show in the flesh." The connection proposed by
Alford is, " As my epistle, so my practice. My ypdfifiara are
not evirpbaeoira, and I have no sympathy with those who desire
to make a fair show in the flesh." But such a connection is
not very obvious, and it assumes a meaning of irnXlKotv which
the epithet does not warrant. The verb occurs only here,
but the form evirpoacoirlaQrjaav occurs in Symmachus as his
rendering of iojh, Ps. cxl. 6; Orig. Hex. vol. i. p. 684, ed.
Montfaucon, Paris 1713. But we have the adjective, Sophocles,
Ajax, 1009, SefatT av evirpbaeoirov ; cplXov . . . evirpb-
acoirov xal koXov, Aristoph. Plut. 976, in an ideal sense ;
and in Demosthenes, Xbyovv evirpoaebirovv ical p,vQovv, Pro
Corona, vol. i. p. 176, ed. Schaefer. See other examples in
Wetstein and Kypke in loc. There are also other compounds,
as Aristoph. Nubes, 363 ; and Cicero has the clause, nee enim
conquisitores epaivoirpoaeoireiv audent, Epist. ad Attic, vii. 21,
and he uses the verbal adjective, do. xiv. 22. See Rost und

460 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
Palm, dub voce. The verb in the verse means to assume a
specious appearance. It is not placere, as in the Vulgate, but
rather that by which the pleasing is carried out. Chrysostom
explains it by eiiBoKipeiv. The meaning is not in result very
different from that given by the scholiast — oaoi QeXovaiv dpia-
Keiv 'IovBaloiv.
As for eV rfj aapKi, 1. some refer it to fleshly things, spe
cially to circumcision, as Beza, Winer, Olshausen, Schott. But
this sense is too restricted and technical in itself, though it was
also so far in the apostle's mind, as is plain from what is stated
in the following clause. Michaelis takes it as the flesh of the
Galatians ; but this meaning would require vfieov, and the crapf
is the errorists' own sphere of pretentious display.
2. Others give the weak sense, apud homines — among or
before men. The Greek fathers and others hold this view. It
is indeed implied in the verb, but not expressed by this phrase.
3. Others again, as Meyer and Bagge, make it all but
equivalent to aapKiKol ovrev, a sense which is only inferential.
4. The iv denotes the sphere in which the specious appear
ance shows itself, and crapf is still the unrenewed nature crop
ping out under its more special aspect of sensuousness and
externalism. It was a sphere opposed to the Spirit in principle
and result, — the sphere of the flesh, on which they had fallen
back after having begun in the Spirit, and which still lusted
against the Spirit, which negatived the freeness of justification,
and which developing self into selfishness, and originating dark
and pernicious " works," severs its victim from the " fruits" of
love, joy and beneficence. So far from " crucifying the flesh,"
they cherished it, nay, wished to make a fair show in it, — to
appear so well in what was specially opposed to the grace and
genius of the gospel as to disarm the enmity of their Jewish
brethren. Of the party, larger or smaller in number, who made this
fair show in the flesh, the apostle says —
Ovroi dvayKatpvaiv vpav irepirkfiveaQai — " these are com
pelling you to be circumcised," — ovroi emphatic : it is those who,
or these and none other, — these are the very class who are
forcing circumcision upon you ; that is, their teaching, example,
and influence amount to a species of moral compulsion. Comp.
ii. 3, 14. The present denotes an action going on, not com-

CHAP. VI. 12. 461
pleted. Bernhardy, p. 375; Schmalfeld, § 54, 4. And all
this for this end —
Mbvov 'Iva rep aravpcp rov Xpiarov p,rj BicoKcovrai — " only
lest they should suffer persecution for the cross of Christ." The
indicative Bicokovtoi, adopted by Tischendorf, has in its favour
A, C, F, K, L, and many mss. But it appears to be a blunder
in writing o for eo — no uncommon occurrence, as Rom. v. 1
and in ver. 9 of this chapter. The unsolecistic reading is sup
ported by B, D, E, N, and many MSS. ; and the order ha firj of
the Received Text is found in F, K, L, and some of the fathers,
but the other order is found in A, B, C, D, X, in the Vulgate,
Gothic, Syriac, and Jerome, etc. See A. Buttmann, Gr.
§ 139, 39.
For fiovov, see ii. 10. They make a fair show in the flesh, only
their purpose in doing so is a very selfish and unworthy one ; it is
to escape persecution. The dative is that of ground, or of .proxi
mate cause. " From signifying the ainov or vcp' ov, the dative
naturally passed on to the expression of the alrla or St' o — ' on
account of which.' " Donaldson, § 451. Plato, Menex. p. 238, D,
where three similar datives occur in succession. Winer, § 31, 6 ;
Bernhardy, p. 102. Compare Rom. xi. 20, 30, 2 Cor. ii. 13. On
the other hand, Jerome, Luther, Tyndale, Grotius, Winer, De
Wette, Conybeare, and Ewald take the dative as that of instru
ment — lest they should be persecuted with the cross of Christ :
Ne participes fiant crucis suppliciorum Christi, h.e. qualia
Christus nuper subiit. Winer, comparing 2 Cor. i. 5 and Col.
i. 24. But the cross of Christ always with the apostle means
more than mere suffering ; it signifies the atoning death of the
Son of God, as in ver. 14 and in v. 11. The cross of Christ
offered salvation without works of law of any kind ; dispensed
with the observance of Mosaic rites and ordinances as a condi
tion of acceptance with God ; gave welcome to the heathen
without obliging them to become Jewish proselytes as a requi
site preliminary step ; and therefore the profession or preaching
of it stirred up the malignant hostility of the Jews, as it de
stroyed their national distinction and pre-eminence, and placing
the Gentile world on a level with them, desecrated in their
imagination all which they and their fathers had revered and
cherished for ages. To escape the enmity of the Jews so
fiercely fighting for their institutions, the Judaists insisted on

462 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
circumcising the Gentile converts, and thus attempted to pro
pitiate their opponents by showing that, in attaching themselves
to the gospel, they had not deserted the law, — nay, that they
enjoined its observance on all who proposed to become members
of the church, and were on this account enabled to carry Jewish
influence into spheres of society which the synagogue had not
in itself the means of reaching. But this syncretistic mixture
of law and gospel veiled the cross and its salvation, so free and
fitting to mankind without distinction of race or blood ; so that
their profession was deceptive, perilous in its consequences, and
prompted and shaped by an ignoble and cowardly selfishness ;
it was a " fair show," but only in the sphere of fleshly things,
and assumed on purpose to avoid persecution. They wanted
that earnest perception and belief of the one saving truth of
which the cross is the centre, and that courage in holding it in
its simplicity and purity against all hazards, which the cross
inspires. In proof of his statement, that their motive is selfish
and cowardly — the avoidance of persecution — the apostle adds —
Ver. 13. OvBe ydp ol irepirefivbpevoi avrol vbfiov epvXda-
aovaiv — " For not even do they who are getting themselves
circumcised keep the law." The reading irepirerp/qpevoi appears
to be an evident correction — the reading of B, L, and the
Claromontane Latin, and is adopted by Reiche, Meyer, Ewald,
and Usteri. The other reading of the present participle has in
its favour A, B, C, D1, F, X, several versions and fathers. The
present participle middle describes the party as in continuous
activity. To regard it as denoting those merely who had been ,
circumcised, changes the prevailing nominative from the false
teachers to their pupils. Is it then of the persons seduced
into circumcision that the apostle says that they do not keep
the law, though by the act of circumcision they took on them
an obligation to obey it? Neander and Windischmann so
understand it — that is, of persons born heathens induced by the
Judaists to submit to circumcision, and becoming the organs
and agitators of the Judaizing party. But may not born Jews,
so loudly insisting on circumcision, also receive the appellation ?
Or does he not refer rather to the whole faction, circumcised
itself and forcing circumcision on others, which, professing such
respect for the initiatory rite, is by no means sincere, for it
neglects the law, and does not carry out its obedience to the

CHAP. VI. 13. 463
requisite extent ? The ot irepirepvbfievoi includes both aspects
of these questions, but does not decide whether the clique was
Jewish or heathen in origin, and it depicts the whole party
as being busily engaged in carrying out their Judaizing ten
dencies, to whom circumcision was everything, to whom it was
a distinctive watchword ; they prided themselves on possession
of it, and persistently pressed it on others. This is the meaning
in effect contended for by Hilgenfeld, Holsten, Lightfoot, and
Gwynne, who take the phrase in a substantive sense — " the
circumcisers for themselves," or " the circumcision party." The
participle thus loses its temporal reference. Winer, § 45, 7.
Hilgenfeld quotes the Acts of Peter and Paul — ovroi ot 7rept-
repvbpevoi, § 63, ed. Tischendorf. While this is grammatically
warranted, it is not strictly necessary. The participle character
izes the Judaists by their factional distinction. Hofmann makes
it characterize Jews in general, the errorists being depicted in
their Jewish quality, like diroQvrjaKovrev characterizing men in
general, or rather the Levites, in Heb. vii. 8, and different from
Qvrjrol. But such a generalization is beyond the scope of the
apostle's argument.
The wretched inconsistency of the Judaistic party is made
apparent — ovBe yap, " not even they," keep the law. The
emphatic vbpov, though without the article, does not mean
law as a principle (Lightfoot, Peile), nor moral obedience
(Middleton, Greek Art. p. 306), nor the obligations arising out
of the law (Gwynne) ; but the law of Moses given to the
nation of the Jews- — the code to which Gentile converts
became debtors by their circumcision. The noun is often
anarthrous, as being so definite and distinctive in itself. Winer,
§ 19, 1. See under ii. 16, pp. 163-4. $vXdaaeiv rbv vbfiov
is to keep or obey the law ; under a different aspect the vop.o-
cpvXal; was one who guarded the law from infraction. Plato,
Leg. 755, A. They do not observe the whole law, but make
selections among its precepts, though the entire code is based
on the one divine authority. It is true, as Theodoret remarks,
that their distance from Jerusalem — irbppeo rebv ' IepoaoXvpicov —
made it impossible for them to keep the feasts, offer sacrifice,
and abstain from ceremonial impurities ; but the apostle speaks
not of geographical inability, but of moral inconsistency. Nor
is there such a latent thought in the phrase as that of Jerome,

464 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
that the law cannot be fully obeyed, propter infirmitatem
carnis. Nor is it the ceremonial law simply that the apostle
refers to, for one peculiar Jewish inconsistency was the attention
paid to ceremonial in preference to moral duties. Matt, xxiii.
3, 4. The apostle makes no sort of apology for them, he simply
exposes the hoUowness of their zeal for the law; and might he not
have had in his eye such inconsistencies as he so sternly repri
mands in Rom. ii. 17-24? Had they been actuated by honest
zeal, they would strive to obey the whole law. They were
actuated by another and a sinister motive —
'AXXd QeXovaiv vpav irepirepveaQai 'Iva iv rfj v/ierepez
aapKi Kavxwcovrai — " but they desire to have you circumcised
in order that they may glory in your flesh " — avrol and vfierepa
being in contrast. Wieseler, Ewald, and some others take
crapf as in ver. 12 — man's fleshly nature, of which suffering
themselves to be circumcised was an outflow. Thus Bagge
— " that they may glory in your carnality," that you have
yielded to their influence, and followed their example. But
the supposed parallel in ver. 12 is not to be insisted on; for the
pronoun vperepa emphatic gives to crapf a distinctive reference,
especially in so close a connection with irepirepveaQai. There
fore it is to be taken in its literal significance — either corpus
mutilatum (Borger, Winer, Meyer), or praputium ipsum abscis-
sum (Beza, Ruckert). So too Theophylact, iva iv tco koto-
Koirreiv rr/v vperepav aapKa Kovx^jacovrai ebv BiBdaKaXoi vfiebv.
This clause is not opposed to the last clause of the twelfth
verse. In the twelfth verse one motive is assigned to the false
teachers — they spread their. Judaistic notions that they might
not be persecuted ; here another motive is imputed to them —
that they might glory over the circumcision of their converts.
This last motive expounds the process by which the former
works itself out. Their power to get their followers circum
cised, or the circumcision of Gentile converts manoeuvred so
effectively by them, was paraded before their fanatical coun
trymen, who could not persecute a party that in bringing men
over to Christianity made them, and insisted on making them,
at the same time Jewish proselytes; inconsistent and capricious
relation to the law on the part of the agitators being overlooked
and forgiven, -in consideration of the primary honour they were
doing to MoseS under a profession of serving Christ. They

CHAP. VI. 14. 465
might say, We are doing more for the spread of Judaism than
its most rigid adherents, affirming of this and that one cir
cumcised as the condition of his joining the church, hie quoque
per me f actus est Judaus (Morus). The apostle gives the
clique no credit for sincerity, as if they were acting like men
under prejudice or partial enlightenment ; he imputes to them
cowardice, hypocrisy, and self-interestedness. Theirs was not
a mistaken zeal, like that which characterized himself in the
earlier part of his life : they were mean and mercenary in
their opposition to the apostle, and utterly craven in soul in
their relation to their Jewish brethren.
Ver. 14. 'Efiol Be firj yevoiro KavxdaQai el firj iv rep
aravpeo rov Kvpiov rjficov 'Inaov Xpiarov — " But as for me,
far be it to glory save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ."
'EfLol, emphatic in position, is the dative of ethical relation
(Winer, § 31, 4 ; Thucydides, ii. 7, and Arnold's note) : ifiol
Be — but as far as regards me, in contrast with them and their
Kavxrfaiv in the circumcision of their misguided converts.
The adpl; in which the Judaists wished to make a fair show
is the representative element of a system directly and wholly
opposed to that, of which aravpov is the central principle and
in which the apostle gloried. For fir) yevoiro, see ii. 17. The
formula is here followed by the infinitive, as in Sept. Gen.
xliv. 7, 17, Josh. xxii. 29, xxiv. 16, 1 Mace. ix. 10, xiii. 5, 9>
10. It occurs also in a positive form, XaBeiv poi yevoiro, Xen.
Cyr. vi. 3, 11 ; and eov eeprj finBevl yevoiro ireipav vp,ebv XaBeiv,
Polyb. xv. 10, 4. The phrase " God forbid " really expresses
the strong emotion or revulsion of feeling which interjects
these decided words.
The Saviour is named " our Lord Jesus Christ " — the full
name adding solemnity to the abjuration, and rjpcbv giving be
lievers like himself a community of interest in Him.
By aravpov some understand sufferings endured for Christ,
as in the phrase, taking up one's cross (Luther, Grotius,
Koppe, Rosenmiiller), — a view alike superficial and out of har
mony with the context. The " cross," as it is understood by
the majority of interpreters, means the atoning death of the
Son of God; in that " suffering, humiliation, and here more
specially self-abnegation which is essentially involved in the
idea of it " (Ellicott). It carries us back to aravpeb, with the
2 G

466 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
same meaning, in ver. 12. The Judaizers boasted of their in
fluence, of their converts' conformity to the Mosaic ritual, of
the unhappy compromise between law and gospel which they
had so far effected, but which secured them from persecution on
account of the cross. That cross was to them a aKavBaXov in
a variety of ways, especially as the symbol of a full and free
salvation through faith, and without any ritualistic observance.
But the cross in its expiatory sufferings was everything to the
apostle ; and in it, and only in it, would he glory.
A i ov ifiol Koafiov iaravpeorai, Kotyco Koafico — "by which
the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world." The
reading tg3 before Koaficp is doubtful — A, B, C1, D1, F, X
omit it, while it is found in C3, D3, K, L, and many of the
fathers. The o before Koapiov has no authority, though reo
might be omitted for the sake of uniformity, or overlooked on
account of the previous 70;. The antecedent to ov is matter of
dispute and difficulty. Is it "by whom," that is Christ, or
" by which," that is the cross ? The Vulgate has per quern, and
it is followed by Luther, Beza, De Wette, Meyer, Baumgarten-
Crusius, Bisping, Wieseler, Trana. The reference to aravpeb
is given by Theodoret, and is adopted by Calvin, Bengel, Winer,
Usteri, Bagge, Brown, Hofmann, Lightfoot, Jowett, Schmoller,
Matthias. The English version has "by whom," with "whereby"
in the margin — "whereby" occurring also in Tyndale, Cranmer,
and the Genevan. Ellicott's argument, that "as the emphasized
Kvpiov rjpeov 'Irjaov Xpiarov just precedes, the relative will
more naturally refer to these words," is certainly not conclu
sive, for the relative does not always refer to the nearest
antecedent ; and the statement of Alford, that " the greater
antecedent K. rj. I. X., coming after aravpeb, has thrown it into
the shade," may be met with a simple denial, for it may be
replied that aravpeb has the primary place in the verse, and keeps
that place as a prominent object in the apostle's mind till it is
reproduced by its verb, the instrument followed by a reference
to the act done upon it. Wieseler's argument for I. X. as
antecedent is weak. " It is not indeed the cross itself," he says,
but it is "the personal Christ through the cross that is the
source of all our salvation." Nobody denies it, and the apostle
uses the term in its connection with the personal Christ, for
without Him and His death it is nothing. Windischmann

CHAP. VI. 14. 467
thinks that if Xpiarov were the antecedent, iv & would most
naturally have followed it, according to the analogy of many
other places, or avv &, as Lighlfoot suggests after ii. 20, Col.
ii. 20. Nor is it the analogy of the New Testament to repre
sent Christ as the agent of our crucifixion, or as our actual
crucifier ; for St' ov followed by iaravpcorai most naturally
points out the effective cause, and cannot of itself mean, as
Ellicott after Meyer gives it, " by whose crucifixion." Besides,
the object of the apostle, as the context shows, is to exalt the
cross, which among these errorists was depreciated and shrunk
from. After all, the sense is not materially different whichever
view may be adopted. It was by the cross only in its connec
tion with Christ that the world was crucified to the apostle, or
it was only by his union with Christ in being crucified with
Him that he was crucified to the world.
Koafiov wants the article, like a proper name, and rather
anomalously, as it usually wants it after a preposition, or in
regimen with a previous noun. Winer, § 19. There is inter-
crucifixion — the world has died to him, and he has died to the
world. The "world" is not res et religio Judaica; it is the
sphere of things in which the crapf lives and moves — that in
which self and sense delight themselves : opposed to that sphere
of things in which the irvevfia finds its fitting nutriment and
exercise, and also to " the new creature " in the following
verse. Nor is " the world" the same as the "elements of the
world" in iv. 3 (Bagge), but it is wider in significance — rd
BicoriKa irpdypiara (Theodoret). The term represents wealth,
power, pleasure, indulgence, " lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes,
pride of life," — all that draws humanity after it, which so many
seem to crave as their only portion, and in which they seem to
find their supreme delight. The world in this sense is opposed
to God : " the friendship of this world is enmity with God,"
Jas. iv. 4 ; 1 John ii. 15. The apostle had long seen all this
hostility and hoUowness on the part of the world, and so he had
done with it. It was crucified to him ; it was a thing done to
death for him, and he was done to death so far as regarded it.
As Schott pithily puts it, alter pro mortuo habet alterum. Each
had been nailed to the cross ; each to other was dead. Christ's
cross effected this separation. It was the result of neither
morbid disappointment, nor of the bitter wail of "vanity of

468 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
vanities," nor of a sense of failure in worldly pursuits, nor of
the persecutions he had undergone — scourging, imprisonment,
hunger, thirst, fastings, and nakedness. By none of these
things did he die to the world. But it was by his union with
the Crucified One : death in Him and with Him was his death
to the world, and the death of that world to him. See under
ii. 19, 20, and v. 24.
Ver. 15. The reading varies : the common text begins, iv
yap Xpiarco 'Inaov ovre irepirofirj n laxvei. The better read
ing is probably ovre yap irepirofirj n eanv ovre aKpoBvarla —
" For neither doth circumcision avail anything nor uncircum
cision." 'laxvei may be borrowed from v. 6, and it is not read
in A, B, C, D1, F, X. The words iv ydp Xpiarco 'Inaov are
found in A, C, D, F, K, L, X. B reads ovre ydp with several
versions, and with Chrysostom, Jerome, Augustine. The mss.
authority for the longer reading is probably overborne by the
fact that it is taken from v. 6, and thus the shorter reading may
be preferable. Tap introduces a confirmatory explanation. For
the first clause, see under v. 6.
AXXd Kaivrj Krlaiv — " but a new creature." Krlaiv is
sometimes active — the act of creation, Rom. i. 20 ; or passive —
what is created, either collectively, Rom. viii. 19, or individually
as here and in 2 Cor. v. 17. The phrase is borrowed pro
bably from the win rrna of the Rabbins, and bases itself on
such language as Isa. xliii. 18, Ixv. 17 ; Schoettgen, i. 308.
Thus you have in Eph. ii. 15, " to make in himself of twain
one new man ;" iv. 24, " put on the new man;" and in Rom.
vi. 6, " our old man is crucified," etc. This spiritual renewal
springs out of living union to Christ, and it is everything. For
it re-enstamps the image of God on the soul, and restores it to
its pristine felicity and fellowship. It is not external — neither a
change of opinion, party, or outer life. Nor is it a change in
the essence or organization of the soul, but in its inner being —
in its springs of thought and feeling, in its powers and motives
— by the Spirit of God and the influence of the truth. " All
old things pass away; behold, all things are become new."
2 Cor. v. 17. This creation is " new," — new in its themes of
thought, in its susceptibilities of enjoyment, and in its spheres
of energy; it finds itself in a new world, into which it is ushered
by a new birth.

CHAP. VI. 16. 469
Ver. 16. Kai oaoi rep Kavbvi rovreo aroixovaiv or o-Totvt;-
o-ovaiv — "And as many as are walking, or shall walk, by this
rule." For the present we have A, C1, D, F, Clarom., Syriac,
Gothic, Cyril, Jerome, and Augustine. The future has in its
favour B, C2, K, L, X, the Vulgate (secuti fuerint), Chrysostom,
and Theodoret. As there was a temptation to change to the
future, Ellicott holds by the present with Tischendorf. Alford
says, on the other hand, "the correction has been to the present,"
and adds, " no reason can be given why the future should be
substituted." So also Lightfoot and Meyer. The future is
certainly the more difficult, and looks forward to the time when
the epistle should be received, and they should read and under
stand what is meant by reo kovovi rovreo. Besides, they were
scarcely walking by it just now, but he hoped better things of
them. The two era- in the verb might also originate a various
reading. The nominative oo-ot, standing absolute for the sake
of prominence, necessitates a broken construction. Winer, § 63,
1, d. The ocrot are in contrast to oo-ot in ver. 12, " as many as
desire to make a fair show." The kovcov is in harmony with
the verb, it is a line drawn ; and the dative is that of norm, as
in v. 16, "Walk by the Spirit." The figure of walk falls so
far into the background, and the idea remains of " course of
life." This rule is plainly that laid down in v. 15 : as many as
live under the guidance of this great leading principle — that
what is outer is nothing, and what is inner is everything ; that
to be a Jew or Gentile, circumcised or uncircumcised, matters
not, is neither privilege nor barrier, while a spiritual change
is inclusive of all blessing for eternity, — peace be on all those
who adopt this norma vivendi.
Elprjvrj iir avrovv Kal eXeov — " peace be on them and
mercy" — a benediction — et'77, not iariv or earai, being under
stood. The position and order make the whole clause emphatic.
The common words are %opt? /cat elprjvrj, as in i. 3 — all blessing.
See under Eph. i. 2. Here the result is put first, not as if he
did not intend to add any other blessing, but he emphasizes
peace as being the distinctive and prominent theocratic gift
suggested by the term Israel and in close connection with it.
Peace and compassion, or mercy, now, and "mercy of the Lord
in that day." 2 Tim. i. 18. The blessing comes— err/,'— on them
from above. The prayer is probably a reminiscence of Ps. cxxv.

470 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
5, " Peace shall be upon Israel," and of Ps. cxxviii. 6, " Yea,
thou shalt see thy children's children, and peace upon Israel."
Kat eVt rbv 'laparjX rov ©eov — "and on the Israel of God."
The meaning turns on the sense assigned to /cat. If it be only
copulative " and," then the Israel of God is an additional body
to the ocrot, and would mean Jewish believers. But if /cat be
explicative, signifying " to wit," then the Israel of God is the
same body with the ocrot, and is the whole believing community,
comprising alike Jews and Gentiles. The one view, that the
phrase means Jewish believers, is held by Ambrosiaster, Beza,
Grotius, Estius, Schoettgen, Bengel, Schott, Matthies, De
Wette, Brown, Ellicott, Trana, and apparently Jowett. The
other opinion is held by names as great : Chrysostom, Theo
doret, Luther, Calvin, Calovius, Borger, Winer, Olshausen,
Meyer, Sardinoux, Lightfoot, Alford. Justin Martyr twice
calls believers generally 'lapavXiriKov yevov; and affirming that
Christ is the true Israel or wrestler, he calls all who flee for
refuge through Him " the blessed Israel." Dial. c. Tryph. §§
11, 125, 135, Opera, ii. pp. 42, 418, 446, 446, ed. Otto.
Can Kal be really explicative ? Ellicott says that Meyer's
examples do not seem conclusive (1 Cor. iii. 5, viii. 12, xv. 38),
nor do they. Still it is to be found in this sense, which Winer
(§ 53, 3) calls epexegetical, introducing the same thing under
another aspect. But there is no case so peculiarly distinctive
in sense as this would be. And,
1. In the quotations commonly adduced to prove this posi
tion, that Israel means believers, Gentiles as well as Jews, as
Rom. ii. 28, 29, ix. 6-8, Gal. iv. 28, 31, it is Jews by blood
who are spoken of or referred to in connection with the appel
lation. 2. The simple copulative meaning is not to be departed
from, save on very strong grounds ; and there is no ground for
such a departure here, so that the Israel of God are a party
included in, and yet distinct from, the oo-ot.
3. The apostle is not in the habit of calling the church made
up of Jews and Gentiles — Israel. Israel is used eleven times in
Romans, but in all the instances it refers to Israel proper; and so
do it and 'IapanXlrnv in every other portion of the New Testa
ment. In the Apocalypse, the 144,000 sealed of Israel stand
in contrast to " the great multitude which no man can number,"

CHAP. VI. 17. 471
taken out of the Gentile or non-Israelitish races. Rev. vii. 9.
The "Israelite indeed" is also one by blood. John i. 47; comp.
1 Cor. x. 18. The oaoi may not be Gentile believers as such,
and opposed to Jewish believers, but the entire number who
walk according to this rule ; while Paul finds among them a
certain class to whom his heart turns with instinctive fondness
— "the Israel of God." Jatho's distinction is baseless — the
one party being those who, warned by this epistle, should re
nounce their error and walk according to this rule ; and the
other, those who had uniformly held the sacred and evangelical
doctrine. It may be said indeed, on the one hand, that the
apostle has been proving that the Jew, as a Jew, has no privilege
above the Gentiles, that both Jew and Gentile are on a level,
so that both believing Jews and Gentiles may therefore be
called Israel. It may be replied, however, that the apostle
never in any place so uses the name, never gives the grand old
theocratic name to any but the chosen people.
4. To the apostle there were two Israels — " they are not all
Israel which are of Israel," — and he says here, not Israel Kara
adpKa, but " the Israel of God," or the true believing Israel ;
hisw own brethren by a double tie — by blood, and especially by
grace. Was it unnatural for the apostle to do this, especially
after rebuking false Israel — the wretched Judaizers — who
certainly were not the Israel of God ?
Ver. 17. Tov Xoiirov, kottovv fioi finBelv irapexereo — " Hence
forth let no one cause troubles to me." The phrase tov Xoiirov
occurs only here, and is simply the genitive of time, and not
the same as Xoiirov or to Xoiirov, which also occurs. It
means at any time in the future — to Xoiirov signifying simply
"during the future." Hermann, ad Viger. p. 706. Let no
one cause me troubles or annoyance, doubting his apostolical
authority, neutralizing his preaching or misrepresenting its
import, and obliging him to write again in so large characters
with his own hand. His apostolical authority he had asserted
in full, striking, and unqualified terms in the first chapter; and
he has it at this point also especially in view, as he adds —
'E7W yap to aTiypara tov 'Inaov iv reo aebp,arl fiov
f3aard%eo — "for I bear in my body the marks of Jesus."
The Received Text inserts Kvpiov before 'Inaov on authority
which, though good, is not, owing to other variations, free

472 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.
from suspicion. 'Eyeo emphatic, " it is I who," not e^o), but
/3ao-Ta£o), " not I have, but I carry them" (Chrysostom). The
arly/iara are the brands printed upon slaves — and sometimes
on captives and soldiers — burnt into them, to indicate their
owners. Herod, vii. 233; Rev. vii. 3, xiii. 16, xiv. 1, 9, 11;
Vegetius, De Re Militari, ii. 5 ; Spencer, De Leg. Heb. xx. 1 ;
Deyling, Observat. Sacr. vol. iii. p. 423 ; Wetstein in loc.
Slaves attached to temples were tattooed, bore brands upon
them. Herod, ii. 113; Lucian, De Dea Syr. § 59. This
practice in the worship of Cybele might be common in Galatia,
though there is little probability that the apostle is referring to
it. The genitive 'Inaov is that of possession, not that of author
(Gomar, Ruckert). He bore on his body the brands of Christ
his Master. Indelible marks on his person showed that he be
longed to Jesus as His servant. The meaning is not, such marks
as Jesus Himself bore (Morus, Borger). Webster and Wilkin
son admit the possibility of an allusion to John xx. 25. But
such an idea is foreign to the simple statement. The marks of
the crucifixion are said to have been borne by St. Francis; and
his biographer Bonaventura addresses him in words similar to
those of this verse. The wounds are said to have been reproduced
in other persons. Windischmann renders the words correctly,
and says that the stigmatization of St. Francis has no connection
with the real meaning of this clause, though he proceeds to
defend the possibility and value of such a phenomenon. Bisping
rejects also the idea that the apostle's stigmata were in any way
connected with the " five wounds," especially as tradition is
silent about it. The reader may see a long Catholic note on
St. Francis in the commentary of a-Lapide, and as long a Pro
testant note in that of Crocius. Nor is the meaning, marks
borne on account of Christ (Grotius, Flatt, Rosenmiiller). The
marks are iv rep acbfian. His body bore such marks of suffer
ing that no one could mistake his owner. 2 Cor. xi. 23. Any
allusion to circumcision as one kind of arlyfia is not to be
thought of. The warning, then, is not, " Let no man hencefor
ward trouble me, for I have enough to bear already" — the view
of Bengel and Winer ; but, let no man impugn or doubt my
authority, — the arlypara of Jesus which I carry are the seal
of my apostleship, the visible vouchers of my connection with
Jesus. The Judaists insisted on circumcision that they might

CHAP. VI. 18. 473
avoid persecution, but he had suffered many things: the stoning
must have disfigured him, the scourge must have left its weals
on his back — cicatrices plagarum (Ambros.), — and the fetter its
scars on his limbs. The idea of Chrysostom, that he prided
himself in those marks as a " trophy and regal ensign," is not
suggested by the solemn mandate of the previous clause. Nor
can the notion of Chandler be at all accepted, that the words
conveyed a threatening of spiritual punishment to his enemies,
as though he had said, "Be it at their peril to give me any
further trouble or disturbance on this account."
Then comes the parting benediction —
Ver. 18. 'H %apt? rov Kvpiov rjficov 'Inaov Xpiarov fierd
tow irvevparov vpiebv, dBeXcpol. 'Afirjv — " The grace of our
Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit, brethren. Amen."
Xdpiv is invoked to be, not fieQ' v/iebv or fierd irdvrcov vpeov,
but fierd rov irvevparov. Philem. 25 ; 2 Tim. iv. 22. These
two passages show that no special stress is to be laid on the
phrase here. Ilvevfia is not opposed here in any way to crapf,
as in some previous clauses of the epistle (Chrysostom, Beza,
Riickert, Usteri, Schott). There are no salutations appended,
perhaps because the epistle is an encyclical one, meant for
believers throughout the province. The irvevpia is the higher
nature, the region of divine operation in renewal and sanctifi
cation — distinct from the -tyvxrj by which it is united to the
aebpa. See Heard's Tripartite Nature of Man, Clark, Edin.
1868 ; Delitzsch, Psychologie. And the last word dBeXcpol is
unusually placed — placed last on purpose. After all his sor
row, amazement, censure, and despondency, he parts with them
in kindness ; after all the pain they had cost him, yet were they
dear to him ; and ere he lifts his hand from the parchment, it
writes, as a "parting love-token — dBeXcpol.

TRANSLATION OF THE EPISTLE.

The following translation professes only to give a tolerably
correct version of the epistle, without aiming at elegance or
classic purity of style : —
Address and Salutation.
Paul, an apostle, not from men, nor by man, but by Jesus Christ,
and God the Father who raised Him from the dead, and all the
brethren who are with me, to the churches of Galatia. 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
world — an evil one : according to the will of God and our Father ; to
whom be the glory for ever and ever. Amen.
Challenge.
I marvel that you are so soon turning away (are removing
yourselves) from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, unto a
different gospel, which is not another ; save that there are some who
are troubling you, and are desiring to subvert the gospel of Christ.
But if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you any other
gospel different from that which we preached to you, let him be
accursed. As we have said before, and now again I say, If any man
is preaching to you a gospel different from that which ye received,
let him be accursed. For do I now conciliate men or God ? or am I
seeking to please men ? If still I were pleasing men, Christ's servant
I should not be. Vindication of his Apostleship.
Now I declare unto you, brethren, as to the gospel preached by
me, that it is not afterjnan. For neither did I receive it from man,
nor was I taught it, but through revelation of Jesus Christ. For ye
heard of my manner of life in Judaism, how that beyond measure I was
persecuting the church of God, and was destroying it, and was making
progress in Judaism beyond many my equals in my own nation, being
more exceedingly a zealot for the traditions of my fathers. But when

TRANSLATION OF THE EPISTLE. 475
God was pleased, who set me apart from my mother's womb, and
called me by His grace, to reveal His Son in me, in order that I
should preach Him among the Gentiles, immediately I conferred not
with flesh and blood ; neither did I go away to Jerusalem to them
who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia, and again
returned to Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jeru
salem to make the acquaintance of Cephas, and I abode with him
fifteen days. And another of the apostles I did not see, except
James the Lord's brother. But as to the things which I am writing
to you, behold, before God that I lie not. Afterwards I came into
the regions of Syria and Cilicia ; and I was unknown by face to the
churches of Judsea which are in Christ ; only they were hearing,
that he who once persecuted us is now preaching the faith which, he
once was destroying. And they glorified God in me.
Equality of Rank with the other Apostles.
Then, after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem with
Barnabas, taking along with me also Titus ; but I went up by reve
lation. And I communicated to them the gospel which I preach
among the Gentiles, but privately to them of reputation, lest I might
be running, or have run, in vain. Howbeit not even Titus, who
was with me, though he was a Greek, was forced to be circumcised.
Now it was because of the false brethren stealthily introduced to
spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, in order that
they might bring us into utter bondage ; to whom not even for an
hour did we yield in subjection, that the truth of the gospel might
continue with you. But from those high in reputation (from them
who were esteemed something), whatsoever they were, nothing to me
it matters ; God accepteth no man's person ; to me, in fact, those in
repute communicated nothing. But, on the contrary, seeing that I
have been entrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision, even as
Peter was with that of the circumcision (for He who wrought for
Peter toward the apostleship of the circumcision, the same wrought
for me also towards the Gentiles), and coming to the knowledge of
the grace which was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who
are reputed pillars, gave to me and Barnabas right hands of fellow
ship, that we should go (or preach) to the Gentiles, but they to the
circumcision : only they asked us that we should remember the
poor, which very thing I also was forward to do.
Conflict with Peter, the Apostle of the Circumcision.
But when Cephas came to Antioch, I withstood him to the face,
because he had been condemned : for before that certain from James
came, he was eating with the Gentiles ; but when they came, he
withdrew and separated himself, fearing them of the circumcision.

476 TRANSLATION OF THE EPISTLE.
And the other Jews also dissembled with him, so that even Barnabas
was carried along with them by their dissimulation. But when I
saw that they were not walking uprightly according to the truth of
the gospel, I said to Cephas before all, If thou, beiDg a Jew, livest
after the manner of Gentiles and not after the manner of Jews, how
art thou compelling the Gentiles to live after the manner of the
Jews ? We by nature Jews, and not of the Gentiles sinners, but
knowing as we do that a man is not justified, by the works of the
law, except by faith in Jesus Christ, we also believed into Jesus
Christ, in order that we might be justified by the faith of Christ,
and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law
no flesh shall be justified. But if, while seeking to be justified in
Christ, we ourselves were foupd sinners, is Christ therefore a minister
of sin ? God forbid. For if the things which I destroyed, these
again I build up, I constitute myself a transgressor. For I through
the law died to the law, that I might live to God. I have been
crucified with Christ : it is, however, no longer I that live, but it is
Christ that liveth in me (or, I live however no longer myself, Christ
however liveth in me) ; but the life which I am now living in the
flesh, I live in the faith of the Son of God who loved .me, and gave
Himself for me. I do not frustrate the grace of God ; for if right
eousness comes through the law, then Christ died without cause.
Warning.
0 foolish Galatians ! who bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus
Christ was evidently set forth in you — crucified ? This only I would
learn of you, Did ye from the works of the law receive the Spirit, or
by the hearing of faith ? Are ye so very foolish ? Having begun
in the Spirit, are ye now being completed in the flesh? Did ye
suffer so many things in vain, if it be really in vain ? He, then,
that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles in you,
doeth He it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith ?
Justification by Faith argued and exemplified in Abraham.
Even as Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for
righteousness. Know ye, therefore, that they who are of faith, these
are the sons of Abraham. But the Scripture foreseeing that of faith
God justifies the nations, proclaimed beforehand the glad tidings unto
Abraham, "that there shall be blessed in thee all the nations." So then
they which are of faith are blessed together with the faithful Abraham.
For as many as are of the works of the law are under curse ; for it is
written, " Cursed is every one who continueth not in all things which
have been written in the book of the law to do them." But that in
the law no one is justified before God is evident, " because the just
shall live by faith." Now. the law is not of faith, but " he who hath

TRANSLATION OF THE EPISTLE. 477
done these things shall live in them." Christ redeemed us from the
curse of the law, having become a curse for us ; for it is written,
" Cursed is every one that hangeth upon a tree :" in order that to the
Gentiles the blessing of Abraham might come in Christ Jesus, in order
that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. Brethren,
I speak after the manner of men : though it be but a man's covenant,
yet, when it has been confirmed, no one annulleth or addeth to it.
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. This, however, I say, A covenant which
has been before confirmed by God [for Christ], the law, which was
four hundred and thirty years after, does not invalidate, so as to do
away the promise. For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more
of promise; but to Abraham God has given it through promise.
What then is the law? On account of the transgressions it was
superadded, until the Seed, to whom the promise has been made,
shall have come, being ordained by means of angels in the hand of a
mediator. Now a mediator is not of one, but God is One. Is then
the law against the promises of God ? God forbid ; for if there had
been given a law which was able to give life, verily by the law should
have been righteousness. But the Scripture shut up all under sin,
in order that the promise by faith in Christ Jesus might be given to
them who believe. Now before the faith came, we were kept in ward,
shut up under the law for the faith to be afterwards revealed ; so
that the law has become our tutor (psedagogue) for Christ, that we
might be justified by faith. But the faith being come, we are no
longer under a psedagogue. For ye all are sons of God through the
faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you (ye whosoever) as were
baptized into Christ, ye put on Christ. There is among such neither
Jew nor Greek, there is among such neither bond nor free, there is
not among such a male and a female, for all ye are one (person) in
Christ Jesus. But if ye are Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed,
heirs according to promise.
Further Illustration from Domestic Law.
Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing
from a servant (bond-servant), though he be lord of all, but is under
guardians and stewards until the term appointed of the father.
Even so we also, when we were children, were under the rudiments
of the world, kept in bondage. But when the fulness of the time
was come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under
the law, in order that He might redeem those under the law, in
order that we might receive the adoption of sons : because (or to
show) that ye are sons, God sent forth the Spirit of His Son into
our hearts, crying, Abba, . Father. Wherefore thou art no longer
a servant, but a son ; but if a son, also an heir through God.

478 TRANSLATION OF THE EPISTLE.
Appeal to the Gentile Portion of the Church.
Howbeit, at that time indeed, not knowing God, ye were in
bondage to them which by nature are not gods. But now having
known God, or rather being known by God, how is it that ye are re
turning again to the weak and beggarly elements, to which ye are
desiring again afresh to be in bondage ? Ye are observing days, and
months, and seasons, and years. I am afraid of you, lest perhaps I
have in vain bestowed labour on you. Brethren, I beseech you,
become ye as I am ; for I also am become as you are. In nothing
did ye wrong me. Change of Feeling toward him.
But ye know that, on account of weakness of my flesh, I preached
the gospel unto you the first time. And your temptation in my flesh
ye despised not nor loathed, but ye received me as an angel of God,
as Christ Jesus. Of what nature, then, was your boasted blessedness ?
for I bear you record, that if it had been possible, ye would have
plucked out your eyes and have given them to me. So then, have I
become your enemy because I tell you the truth ? They are paying
court to you, not honestly ; nay, they desire to exclude you, in
order that ye may zealously pay court to them. But it is good to be
courted fairly at all times, and not only when I am present along with
you. My little children, with whom I travail in birth again until
Christ be formed in you, I could wish indeed to be present with you
now, and to change my voice, for I am perplexed in you.
Appeal to the Jewish Portion of the Church.
Tell me, ye who 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 of the bond
maid was born after the flesh, but he of the free woman by the
promise. Which things are allegorized, for these women are two
covenants; one indeed from Mount Sinai, bearing children into
bondage, and this is Hagar (for Sinai is a mountain in Arabia);
and indeed she ranketh with the present Jerusalem, for she is in
bondage with her children. But the Jerusalem above is free, and
she is our mother. For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that
bearest not ; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not ; because
many are the children of the desolate more than of her who has an
husband. But ye, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise. But
as then he who was born after the flesh persecuted him who was
born after the Spirit, so it is also now. Nevertheless what saith the
Scripture ? Cast out the bond-maid and her son, for the son of the
bond-maid shall in nowise inherit with the son of the free woman.
Wherefore, brethren, we are children not of a bond-maid, but of
the free woman.

TRANSLATION OF THE EPISTLE. 479
Warning against Legalism and Judaistic Teachers.
With liberty did Christ make us free : stand therefore (or, make
a stand), and be not held fast again in a yoke of bondage. Behold,
I Paul say to you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you
nothing. Yea, I testify again to every man getting himself circum
cised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. Ye were done away
from Christ, whoever of you are being justified in the law ; from
grace ye fell away. For we by the Spirit are waiting for the hope of
righteousness from faith. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision
availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but faith working through
love. Ye were running well ; who did hinder you, that ye should
not obey the truth ? The persuasion is not from Him who calleth
you. A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. I for my part
have confidence in you in the Lord, that ye will think nothing
different ; but he that troubleth you shall bear his judgment, who
ever he may be. But I, brethren, if I still preach circumcision, why
am I still persecuted ? then the offence of the cross is done away
with. I would that they would even cut themselves off who are
unsettling you. Charge against Abuse of Liberty.
For ye for your part were called unto liberty, brethren ; only turn
not your liberty into an occasion for the flesh, but by love be serving
one another. For the whole law has been fulfilled in one word :
Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. But if one another ye
bite and devour, see that by one another ye be not consumed. Now
I say, Walk according to the Spirit, and (so) ye shall not fulfil 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 those things whatsoever ye may wish. But if ye
be led by the Spirit, ye are not under the law. Now manifest are
the works of the flesh ; of which class are fornication, uncleanness,
lasciviousness, idolatry, sorcery, hatreds, strife, outbursts of anger,
caballings, divisions, factions, envyings, murders, drunkenness, carou
sals, and such like ; concerning which I tell you beforehand, as also
I did foretell you, that they who are doing such things shall not in
herit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy,
peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faith, meekness, temper
ance ; against such there is no law. Now they who are Christ's
crucified the flesh along with the passions and lusts. If we five by
the Spirit, by the Spirit also let us walk. Let us not become vain
glorious, provoking one another, envying one another.
Christian Charity and Beneficence.
Brethren, if a man should be even surprised in any trespass, do ye

480 TRANSLATION OF THE EPISTLE.
the spiritual ones restore such an one in the spirit of meekness ; con
sidering thyself, lest thou also shouldest be tempted. One another's
burdens do ye bear, and so fulfil the law of Christ. For if any one
think himself to be something, while he is nothing, he deceiveth his
own mind. But let each one prove his own work, and then he shall
have ground of boasting only in relation to himself, and not in rela
tion to the other ; for each one shall bear his own load. But let
him who 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 may sow, that also shall he reap. For he who is sowing unto
his own flesh, shall from the flesh reap corruption ; but he who is
sowing unto the Spirit, shall from the Spirit reap life eternal. But in
well-doing let us not be faint-hearted, for in due time we shall reap,
if now we faint not. So then, as we have opportunity, let us do that
which is good toward all, but specially toward them who are of the
household of faith. Visible Proof of Attachment.
See in what large letters I have written to you with mine own
hand. Judaistic Inconsistency.
As many as desire to make a fair show in the flesh, these are
compelling you to be circumcised ; only lest they should suffer per
secution for the cross of Christ. For not even do they who are getting
themselves circumcised keep the law, but they desire to have you
circumcised in order that they may glory in your flesh. But as for
me, far be it from me to glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus
Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the
world. For neither doth circumcision avail anything, nor uncir
cumcision, but a new creature. Parting Benediction.
And as many as are walking (or shall walk) by this rule, peace
be on them, and on the Israel of God. Henceforth let no one cause
troubles to me, for I bear in my body the marks of Jesus. The
grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit, brethren. Amen.

MURRAY AND GIBB, EDINBURGH,
PRINTERS TO HER MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE.

PUBLICATIONS OF
T. A N D T. CLARK,
38 GEORGE STREET, EDINBURGH.
LONDON: HAMILTON, ADAMS, & CO.

Adam (J., D.D.) — An Exposition of the Epistle of James. 8vo, 9s.
Alexander (Dr. J. A.) — Commentary on the Prophecies of Isaiah.
New and Revised Edition. Two vols. 8vo, 17s.
Ante-Nicene Christian Library — A Collection of all the Works
of the Fathers of the Christian Church prior to the Council of
Niusa. Twenty-four vols. 8vo, Subscription price, £6, 6s.
Auberlen (C. A.) — The Divine Revelation. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Augustine's Works — Edited by Marcus Dods, D.D. Fifteen vols.
8vo, Subscription price, £3, 19s.
Bannerman (Professor) — The Church of Christ : A Treatise on the
Nature, Powers, etc. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.
Baumgarten (Professor) — Apostolic History ; Being an Account of
the Development of the Early Church. Three vols. 8vo, 27s.
Beck (Dr.)— Outlines of Biblical Psychology. Crown 8vo, 4s.
 Pastoral Theology. Shortly.
Bengel — Gnomon of the New Testament. With Original Notes,
Explanatory and Illustrative. Five vols. 8vo, Subscription price, 31s. 6d.
Cheaper Edition, iliefive volumes bound in three, 24s.
Besser's Christ the Life of the World. Price 6s.
Bible-Class Handbooks. Crown 8vo.
Binnie (Prof.)— The Church, Is. 6d.
, Brown (Principal)— The Epistle to the Romans, 2s.
Candlish (Prof.) — The Christian Sacraments, Is. 6d.
Davidson (Prof.)— The Epistle to the Hebrews, 2s. 6d. .
Dods (Marcus, D.D.)— The Post-Exilian Prophets, 2s.
 The Book of Genesis, 2s.
Douglas (Principal)— The Book of Joshua, Is. 6d.
 The Book of Judges, Is. 3d.
Henderson (Archibald,' M.A.)— A Geography of Palestine,, with Maps.
The maps are by Captain Conder,R.E., of the Palestine Exploration
Fund. In l^e Press'
Lindsay (Prof.)— The Gospel of St. Mark, 2s. 6d.
 The Reformation, 2s.
.  The Acts of the Apostles, Part I., Ch. I.-XIL, Is. 6d.
MacGregor (Prof.)— The Epistle to the Galatians, Is. 6d.
Macpherson (John, M.A.)— Presbyterianism, Is. 6d.
 The "Westminster Confession of Faith, 2s.
Murphy (Prof.)— The Books of Chronicles, Is. 6d.
SCRYMGEOUR (Wm.)— Lessons on the Life of Christ, 2s. 6d.
Stalker (James, M.A.)— The Life of Christ, Is. 6d.
 The Life of St. Paul, Is. 6d.
Smith (George, LL.D.)— A Short History of Missions, 2s. 6d
Walker (Norman L., M.A.)— Scottish Church History, Is. 6d.
Whyte (Alexander, D.D.)— The Shorter Catechism, 2s. 6d.

T. and T. Clark's Publications.

Bible-Class Primers. Paper covers, 6d. each ; free by post, 7d. In
cloth, 8d. each ; free by post, 9d.
Croskery (Prof.) — Joshua and the Conquest.
Given (Prof.) — The Kings of Judah.
Gloag, (Paton J., D.D.)— Life of Paul.
Iverach (James, M.A.) — Life of Moses.
S almond .(Prof.) — Life of Peter.
Smith (H. W., D.D.)— Outlines of Early Church History.
Thomson (Peter, M.A.) — Life of David.
Walker (W., M.A.) — -The Kings of Israel.
JT Winterbotham (Raynek, M.A.) — Life and Reign of Solomon.
Witherow (Prof.) — The History of the Reformation.
Bleek's Introduction to the New Testament. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.
Bowman (T., M.A.) — Easy and Complete Hebrew Course. 8vo.
Part I., 7s. 6d. ; Part II., 10s. 6d.
Briggs (Prof.) — Biblical Study: Its Principles, Methods, and
History. Preface by Rev. Prof. Bruce, D.D. , Glasgow. Post 8vo, 7s. 6d.
Brown (David, D.D.) — Christ's Second Coming: Will it be Pre-
Millennial? Seventh Edition,, crown 8vo, 7s. 6d. -
Bruce (A. B., D.D.) — The Training of the Twelve ; or, Exposition
of Passages in the Gospels exhibiting the Twelve Disciples of Jesus under
Discipline for the Apostleship. Third Edition, 8vo, 10s. 6d.
 The Humiliation of Christ, in its Physical, Ethical, and
Official Aspects. Second Edition, 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Buchanan (Professor) — The Doctrine of Justification. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
 On Comfort in Affliction. Crown 8vo, 2s. 6d.
¦  On Improvement of Affliction. Crown 8vo, 2s. 6d.
Bungener (Felix) — Rome and the Council in the Nineteenth
Century. Crown 8vo, 5s.
Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Eeligion. Translated by
Heney Beveridge. Two vols. 8vo, 14s.
Calvini Institutio Christianse Religionis. Curavit A. Tholuck.
Two vols. 8vo, Subscription price, 14s.
Candlish (Prof. J. S., D.D.) — The Kingdom of God, Biblically and
Historically Considered. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Caspari (C. E.) — A Chronological and Geographical Introduc
tion to the Life of Christ. 8vo, 9s.
Caspers (A) — The Footsteps of Christ. Crown 8vo, 7s. 6d.
Cave (Prof.) — The Scriptural Doctrine of Sacrifice. 8vo, 12s.
Christlieb (Dr.) — Modern Doubt and Christian Belief. Apologetic
Lectures addressed to Earnest Seekers after Truth. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Cotterill — Peregrinus Proteus : Investigation into1 De Morte
Peregrini, the Two Epistles of Clement to the Corinthians, etc. 8vo, 12s.
 Modern Criticism : Clement's Epistles to Virgins, etc. 8 vo, 5s.
Cremer (Professor) — Biblico-Theological Lexicon of New Testa
ment Greek. Third Edition, demy 4to, 25s.
Crippen (Rev. T. G.) — A Popular Introduction to the History
of Christian Doctrine. 8vo, 9s.
Cunningham (Principal) — Historical Theology. A Review of the
Principal Doctrinal Discussions in the Christian Church since the Apostolic
Age. Second Edition, Two vols. 8vo, 21s.
 ¦ — Discussions on Church Principles. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Curtiss (Dr. S. I.)— The Levitical Priests. A Contribution to the
Criticism of the Pentateuch. Crown 8vo, 5s.

T. and T. Clark's Publications.

OF THE

Dabney (E. L., D.D.)— The Sensualistic Philosophy
Nineteenth Century Considered. Crown 8vo 6s.
 Lectures on Systematic and Polemic Theology. 8vo 16s
Davidson (Professor)— An Introductory Hebrew Grammar. With
tv tx. Pr°Sr/ei1sly!. Exercises in Reading and Writing. Sixth Edition, 8vo, 7s. 6d.
Delitzsch (Prof.)— A System of Biblical Psychology. 8vo, 12s.
 Commentary on Job. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.
 Commentary on .Psalms. Three vols. 8vo, 31s. 6d.
 , On the Proverbs of Solomon. Two vols. 8vo, 2 Is.
 On the Song of Solomon and Ecclesiastes. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
 Old Testament History of Redemption. Cr. 8vo, 4s. 6d.
 Commentary on Isaiah. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.
 On the Epistle to the Hebrews. Two vols. 8vo, 2 Is.
Doedes (Dr. J.) — Manual of Hermeneutics for the New Testa
ment. Crown 8vo, 3s.
Dcfllinger (Dr.)— Hippolytus and Callistus ; or, The Roman Church,
in the First Half of the Third Century. 8vo, 9s.
Dorner (Professor) — History of the Development of the Doctrine
of the Person of Christ. Five vols. 8vo, £2, 12s. 6d.
 System of Christian Doctrine. Pour vols. 8vo, £2, 2s.
Eadie (Professor) — Commentaries on St. Paul's Epistles to the
Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians. New and Revised Edi
tions, Edited by Rev. William Young, M. A. Four vols. 8vo, 10s. 6d. each.
Ebrard (Dr. J. H. A.)— The Gospel History: A Compendium of
Critical Investigations in support of the Four Gospels. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
 Commentary on the Epistles of St. John. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Elliott— On the Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures. 8vo, 6s.
Ernesti — Biblical Interpretation of the New Testament. Two
vols. 8s.
Ewald (Heinrich) — Syntax of the Hebrew Language of the Old
Testament. 8vo, 8s. 6d.
 Revelation: Its Nature and Record. Translated by
Prof. T. Goadby. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Fairbairn (Principal)— Typology of Scripture, viewed in connection
with the series of Divine Dispensations. Sixth Edition, Two vols. 8vo, 21s. ,
 The Revelation of Law in Scripture, 8vo, 10s. 6d.
 r— Ezekiel and the Book of his Prophecy. 4th Ed., 8 vo, 10s. 6d.
 Prophecy Viewed in its Distinctive Nature, its Special
Functions, and Proper Interpretations. Second Edition, 8vo, 10s. 6d.
 . — New Testament Hermeneutical Manual. 8vo, 10s. fid.
 The Pastoral Epistles. The Greek Text and Translation.
With Introduction, Expository Notes, and Dissertations. 8vo, 7s. 6d.
Pastoral Theology : A Treatise on the Office and Duties of

the Christian Pastor. With a Memoir of the Author. Crown 8vo, 6s.
Forbes (Prof.) — Symmetrical Structure of Scripture. 8vo, 8s. 6d.
 • Analytical Commentary on the Romans. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Gabhardt (H.) — The Doctrine of the Apocalypse, and its Relation
to the Doctrine of the Gospel and Epistles of John. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Gerlach— Commentary on the Pentateuch. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Gieseler (Dr. J. C. L.)— A Compendium of Ecclesiastical History.
Four vols. 8vo, £2, 2s.
Gifford (Canon) — Voices of the Prophets. Crown 8vo, 5s.

T. and T. Clark's Publications.

Given (Rev. Prof. J. J.) — The Truths of Scripture in connection
with Revelation, Inspiration, and the Canon. 8vo, 9s.
Glasgow (Prof.) — Apocalypse Translated and Expounded. 8vo, 14s.
Gloag (Paton J., D.D.) — A Critical and Exegetical Commentary
on the Acts of the Apostles. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.
 The Messianic Prophecies. Crown 8vo, price 7s. 6d.
 Introduction to the Pauline Epistles. 8vo, 12s.
 Exegetical Studies. Crown 8vo, 5s.
Godet (Prof.) — Commentary on St. Luke's Gospel. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.
 Commentary on St. John's Gospel. Three vols. 8vo, 31s. 6d.
 Commentary on St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans. Two
vols. 8vo, 21s.
Lectures in Defence of the Christian Faith. Cr. 8vo, 6s.

Goebel (Siegfried) — The Parables of Jesus. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Gotthold's Emblems ; or, (Invisible Things Understood by Things
that- are Made. Crown 8vo, 5s.
Guyot (Arnold, LL.D.) — Creation; or, The BiblicalCosmogony in the
Light of Modern Science. With Illustrations. Crown Svo, 5s. 6d.
Hagenbach (Dr. K. R.) — History of Doctrines. Edited, with large
additions from various sources. Three vols. 8vo, 31s. 6d.
 History of the Reformation in Germany and Switzer
land chiefly. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.
Hall (Rev. Newman, LL.B.) — The Lord's Prayer : A Practical
Meditation. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Harless (Dr. C. A.) — System of Christian Ethics. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Harris(Rev. S., D.D.) — The Philosophical Basis of Theism. 8vo,l 2s.
Haupt (Erich) — The First Epistle of St. John. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Havernick (H. A. Ch.) — Introduction to Old Testament. 10s. 6d.
Heard (Rev. J. B., M.A.) — The Tripartite Nature of Man — Spirit,
Soul, and Body — applied to Illustrate and Explain the Doctrine of Original
Sin, the New Birth, the Disembodied State, and the Spiritual Body. With
an Appendix on the Fatherhopd of God. Fifth Edition, crown 8vo, 6s.
 The Old and New Theology. In the Press.
Hefele (Bishop) — A History of the Councils of the Church.
,Yol. I., to a.d. 325 ; Vol. II., A.D. 326 to 429. Yol. III., a.d. 431 to the
close of the Council of Chalcedon, 451. 8vo, 12s. each.
Hengstenberg (Professor) — Commentary on Psalms. 3 vols. 8vo, 33s.
 i— Commentary on the Book of Ecclesiastes. Treatises on
the Song of Solomon, Job, and on Isaiah, etc. 8vo, 9s.
 The Prophecies of Ezekiel Elucidated. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
 Dissertations on the Genuineness of Daniel, and the
Integrity of Zechariah. 8vo, 12s.
 History of the Kingdom of God under the Old Testa
ment. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.
 Christology of the Old Testament. Four vols. 8vo, £2, 2s.
On the Gospel of St. John. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.

Hermes Trismegistus— Theological and Philosophical Works.
Translated from the original Greek by J. D. Chambers, M.A. 8vo, 6s.
Herzog — Encyclopedia or Dictionary of Biblical, Historical,
Doctrinal, and Practical Theology. Based on the Seal-Encyklopadie
of Herzog, Plitt, and Hauck. Edited by Professor Schaff, D.D. In Three
vols., price 24s. each.
Hutchison (John, D.D.) — Commentary on Thessalonians. Svo, 9s.

T. and T. Clark's Publications.

Janet (Paul) — Final Causes. By Paul Janet, Member of the In
stitute. Translated from the French. Second Edition, demy 8vo, 12s.
 : — The Theory of Morals. Translated from the latest French
Edition. Demy 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Jouffroy — Philosophical Essays. Fcap. 8vo, 5s.
Junii (Francisci) — Opuscula Theologica Selecta. 4to, vellum, 16s.
Kant — The Metaphysic of Ethics. Crown 8vo, 6s.
Keil (Prof.) — Commentary on the Pentateuch. 3 vols. 8vo, 31s. 6d.
 Commentary on the Books of Joshua, Judges, and Ruth.
8vo, 10s. 6d.
 Commentary on the Books of Samuel. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
 Commentary on the Books of Kings. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
 Commentary on the Books of Chronicles. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
 Commentary on Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
 Commentary on Jeremiah. Two vols. 8vo, 21s. '
 Commentary on Ezekiel. Two vols. 8vo, 2 Is.
 Commentary on Daniel. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
 On the Books of the Minor Prophets. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.
Manual of Historico - Critical Introduction to, the

Canonical Scriptures of the Old Testament. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.
Keymer (Rev. N., M.A.) — Notes on Genesis. Crown 8vo, Is. 6d.
Killen (Prof.) — The Old Catholic Church ; or, The History, Doc
trine, Worship, and Polity of the Christians, traced to a.d. 755. 8vo, 9s.
Konig (Dr. F. E.) — The' Chief Principles of Ancient Israel's
Religion (against the Kuenen School). In the Press.
Krummacher (Dr. F. W.) — The Suffering Saviour ; or, Meditations
on the Last Days of the Sufferings of Christ. Eighth Edit. , crown 8vo, ' 7s. 6d.
 David, the King of Israel : A Portrait drawn from Bible
History and. the Book of Psalms. Second Edition, crown 8vo, 7s. 6d.
Autobiography. Crown 8vo, 6s.

Kurtz (Prof.) — Handbook of Church History. Two vols. 8vo, 15s.
 : — History of the Old Covenant. Three vols. 8vo, 31s. 6d.
Ladd (Prof. G. T.)— The Doctrine of Sacred Scripture : A
Critical, Historical, and Dogmatic Inquiry into the Origin and Nature of the
Old and New Testaments. Two vols. 8vo, 1600 pp., 28s.
Laidlaw (Prof.) — The Bible Doctrine of Man. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Lange (J. P., D.D.) — The Life of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Edited,
with additional Notes, by Marcus Dods, D.D. Second Edition, in Four
vols. 8vo, Subscription price 28s.
 Commentaries on the Old and New Testaments. Edited
by Philip Schaff, D.D. Old Testament, 14 vols. ; New Testament, 10
.vols. ; Apocrypha, 1 vol. Subscription price, nett, 15s. each.
 On the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark. Three

vols. 8vo, 31s. 6d.
— On the Gospel of St. Luke. Two vols. 8vo, 18s.
— On the Gospel of St. John. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.
On the Acts of the Apostles. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.

Lehmann (Pastor) — Scenes from the Life of Jesus. In the Press.
Lewis (Tayler, LL.D.)— The Six Days of Creation. Cr. 8vo, 7s. 6d.
Lisco (F. G.)— Parables of Jesus Explained. Fcap. 8vo, 5s.
Lotze (Professor) — Microcosmos. In preparation.
Luthardt, Kahnis, and Bruckner — The Church. Crown 8vo, 5s.

T. and T. Clark's Publications.

Luthardt (Prof.) — St. John the Author of the Fourth Gospel. 9s.
 St. John's Gospel Described and Explained according
to its Peculiar Character. Three vols. 8vo, 31s. 6d.
Apologetic Lectures on the Fundamental (Sixth

Edition), Saving {Fourth Edition), Moral Truths of Christianity (Third
Edition). Three vols, crown 8vo, 6s. each.
M'Gosh (Dr. Jas.) — Philosophic Series. Part I. (Didactic). No. I.
Criteria of Diverse Kinds of Truth. (The other Numbers will follow
shortly. Price 2s. each.)
Macdonald (Rev. D.) — Introduction to the Pentateuch. Two vols.
8vo, 21s.
 The Creation and Fall. 8vo, 12s.
M'Lauchlan (T., D.D., LL.D.)— The Early Scottish Church. To
the Middle of the Twelfth Century. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Hair (A., D.D.) — Studies in the Christian Evidences. Cr. 8vo, 6s.
Martensen (Bishop) — Christian Dogmatics : A Compendium of the
Doctrines of Christianity. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
 Christian Ethics. (General Ethics.) 8vo, 10s. 6d.
 Christian Ethics. (Individual Ethics.) 8vo, 10s. 6d.
 Christian Ethics. (Social Ethics.) 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Matheson (Geo., D.D.) — Growth of the Spirit of Christianity, from
the First Century to the Dawn of the Lutheran Era. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.
 Adds to the Study of German Theology. 3rd Edition, 4s. 6d.
Meyer (Dr.) — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on St.
Matthew's Gospel. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.
 On Mark and Luke. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.
 On St. John's Gospel. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.
 On Acts of the Apostles. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.
 On the Epistle to the Romans. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.
 On Corinthians. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.
 On Galatians. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
 On Ephesians and Philemon. One vol. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
 On Philippians and Colossians. One vol. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
 On Thessalonians. (Dr. Lunemann.) One vol. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
 The Pastoral Epistles. (Dr. Euther.) 8vo, 10s. 6d.
 The Epistle to the Hebrews. (Dr. Lunemann.) 8vo, 10s. 6d.
 St. James' and St. John's Epistles. (Euther.) 8vo, 10s. 6d.
 Peter and Jude. (Dr. Euther.) One vol. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Michie (Charles, M.A.) — Bible Words and Phrases, Explained
and Illustrated. 18mo, Is.
Momad (Dr. D. G.) — The World of Prayer; or, Prayer in relation
to Personal Religion. Crown 8vo, 4s. 6d.
Morgan (J., D.D.) — Scripture Testimony to the Holy Spirit. 9s.
 Exposition of the First Epistle of John. 8vo, 9s.
Miiller (Dr. Julius) — The Christian Doctrine of Sin. An entirely
New Translation from the Fifth German Edition. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.
Murphy (Professor) — Commentary on the Psalms. 8vo, 12s.
 A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Exodus. 9s.
Naville (Ernest) — The Problem of Evil. Crown 8vo, 4s, 6d.
 The Christ. Translated by Rev. T. J. Despres. Cr. 8vo, 4s. 6d.
Naville (Ernest) — Modern Physics: Studies Historical and Philo
sophical. Translated by Rev. Henry Downton, M.A. Crown 8vo, 5s.

T. and T. Clark's Publications.

Nicoll (W. R., M.A.)— The Incarnate Saviour : A Life of Jesus
Christ. Crown 8vo, 6s.
Neander (Dr.) — General History of the Christian Religion and
Church. Nine vols. 8vo, £3, 7s. 6d.
Oehler (Prof.) — Theology of the Old Testament. 2 vols. 8vo, 21s.
Oosterzee (Dr. Van) — The Year of Salvation. Words of Life for
Every Day. A Book of Household Devotion. Two vols. 8vo, 7s. 6d. each.
 MOSES : A Biblical Study. Crown 8vo, 6s.
Olshausen (Dr. H.) — Biblical Commentary on the Gospels and
Acts. Four vols. 8vo, £2, 2s.. Clieaper Edition, four vols, crown 8vo, 24s.
 Romans. One vol. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
 Corinthians. One vol. 8vo, 9s.
 Philippians, Titus, and First Timothy. One vol. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Owen (Dr. John) — Works. Best and only Complete Edition. Edited
by Rev. Dr. Goold. Twenty -four vols. 8vo, Subscription price, £4, 4s.
The ' Hebrews ' may be had separately, in Seven vols., £2, 2s. nett.
Philippi (F. A. ) — Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. From
the Third Improved Edition, by Rev. Professor Banks. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.
Piper (Dr. Ferdinand) — Lives of the Leaders of the Church
Universal. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.
Popular Commentary on the New Testament. Edited by Philip
Schaff, D.D. With Illustrations and Maps. Vol. I. — The Synoptical
Gospels. Vol. II. — St. John's Gospel, and the Acts of the Apostles.
Vol. III.— Romans to Philemon. Vol. IV. — Hebrews to Revelation.
In Four vols, imperial 8vo, 18s. each.
Pressense" (Edward de) — The Redeemer : Discourses. Crown 8vo, lis.
Rabiger (Prof.) — Encyclopedia of Theology. Vol. L, 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Rainy (Principal) — Delivery and Development of Christian
Doctrine. (The Fifth Series of the Cunningham Lectures.) 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Reusch (Professor) — Bible and Nature. In preparation.
Reuss (Professor) — History of the Sacred Scriptures of the New
Testament. 640 pp. 8vo, 15s.
Riehm (Dr. E.) — Messianic Prophecy : Its Origin, Historical Charac
ter, and Relation to New Testament Fulfilment. Crown 8vo, 5s.
Ritter (Carl) — The Comparative Geography of Palestine and the
,Sinaitic Peninsula. Four vols. 8vo, 32s.
Robinson (Rev. S., D.D.) — Discourses on Redemption. 8vo, 7s. 6d.
Robinson (Edward, D.D.) — Greek and English Lexicon of the
New Testament. 8vo, 9s.
Rothe (Professor) — Sermons for the Christian Year. Cr. 8vo, 6s.
Saisset — Manual of Modern Pantheism. Two vols. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Sartorius (Dr. E.) — Doctrine of Divine Love. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Schaff (Professor) — History of the Christian Church. (New
Edition, thoroughly Revised and Enlarged. )
 . Apostolic Christianity, a.d. 1-100. In Two Divisions.
Ex. 8vo, 21s.
 Ante-Nicene Christianity, a.d. 100-325. In Two Divisions.

Ex. 8vo, 21s.
Post-Nicene Christianity, a.d. 325-600. In Two Divisions.

Ex. 8vo, 21s.
Schmid's Biblical Theology of the New Testament. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Scott (Jas., M.A., D.D.)— Principles of New Testament Quotation
Established and Applied to Biblical Criticism. Cr. 8vo, 2nd Edit., 4s.

T. and T. Clark's Publications.

Shedd (W., D.D.) — History of Christian Doctrine. Two vols.
8vo, 21s.
 Sermons to the Natural Man. 8vo, 7s. 6d.
 Sermons to the Spiritual Man. 8vo, 7s. 6d. '
Smeaton (Professor) — The Doctrine of the Atonement as Taught
by Christ Himsblf- Second Edition, 8vo, 10s. 6d.
 On the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit. (Ninth Series of
Cunningham Lectures. ) 8vo, 9s.
Smith (Professor Thos., D.D.) — Medieval Missions. Cr. 8vo, 4s. 6d.
Steinmeyer (Dr. F. L.) — The Miracles of Our Lord : Examined in
their relation to Modern Criticism. 8vo, 7s. 6d.
 The History of the Passion and Resurrection of our
Lord, considered in the Light of Modern Criticism. 8vo, 10s. 6<L
Stevenson (Mrs.) — The Symbolic Parables : The Predictions of the
Apocalypse viewed in relation to the General Truths of Scripture. Crown 8vo, 5s.
Steward (Rev. G.) — Mediatorial Sovereignty : TheMystery of Christ
and the Revelation of the Old and New Testaments. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.
 The Argument of the Epistle to the Hebrews. A
Posthumous Work. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Stier (Dr. Rudolph) — On the Words of the Lord Jesus. . Eight
vols. 8vo, £4, 4s. Separate volumes may be had, price 10s. 6d.
In order to bring this valuable Work more within the reach of all Classes, both
Clergy and Laity, Messrs. Clark continue to supply the Eight-volume Edition
bound in Four at the Original Subscription price of £2, 2s.
 The Words of the Risen Saviour, and Commentary on
the Epistle of St. James. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
The Words qf the Apostles Expounded. 8vo, 10s. 6d.

Tholuck (Professor) — Commentary on Gospel of St. John. 8vo, 9s.
 The Epistle to the Romans. Two vols. fcap. 8vo, 8s.
 Light from the Cross. Third Edition, crown 8vo, 5s.
 Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Tophel (Pastor G.) — The Work of the Holy Spirit. Cr. 8vo, 2s. 6d.
Uhlhorn(G.)— ChristianCharityinthe Ancient Church. Cr. 8vo, 6s.
Ullmann (Dr. Carl) — Reformers before the Reformation, princi
pally in Germany and the Netherlands. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.
 The Sinlessness of Jesus : An Evidence for Christianity.
Fourth Edition, crown 8vo, 6s.
Urwick (W., M.A.)— The Servant of Jehovah : A Commentary
upon Isaiah Iii. 1 3— liii. 12 ; with Dissertations upon Isaiah xl.-lxvi. 8vo 6s.
Vinet (Professor) — Studies on Blaise Pascal. Crown 8vo, 5s.
 ; — Pastoral Theology. Second Edition, post 8vo, 3s. 6d.
Watts (Professor) — The Newer Criticism and the Analogy of
the Faith. Third Edition, crown 8vo, 5s.
Weiss(Prof) — Biblical Theology of New Testament. 2vols. 8vo, 21s.
 Life of Christ. Three vols. 8vo, 31s. 6d.
White (Rev. M.) — Symbolical Numbers of Scripture. Cr. 8vo, 4s.
Williams (W. H, M.A.) — A Select Vocabulary of Latin Etymology!
For the use of Schools. Fcap. 8vo, Is. 6d.
Winer (Dr. G. B.)— A Treatise on the Grammar of New Testa
ment Greek, regarded as the Basis of New Testament Exegesis. Third
Edition, edited by W. F. Moulton, D.D. Ninth English Edition, 8vo, 15s.
 : — A Comparative View of the Doctrines and Confession's
of the Various Communities of Christendom. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Wuttke (Professor) — Christian Ethics. Two vols. 8vo, 12s. 6d.