Skip to main content

Full text of "Critical Exegetical Handbook New Testament 11 volumes"

See other formats 


Google 


This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project 
to make the world’s books discoverable online. 


It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject 
to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books 
are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that’s often difficult to discover. 


Marks, notations and other marginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book’s long journey from the 
publisher to a library and finally to you. 


Usage guidelines 


Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the 
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing this resource, we have taken steps to 
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying. 


We also ask that you: 


+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for 
personal, non-commercial purposes. 


+ Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google’s system: If you are conducting research on machine 
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the 
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help. 


+ Maintain attribution The Google “watermark” you see on each file is essential for informing people about this project and helping them find 
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it. 


+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just 
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other 
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can’t offer guidance on whether any specific use of 
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book’s appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner 
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe. 


About Google Book Search 


Google’s mission is to organize the world’s information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers 
discover the world’s books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web 


atthtto: //books.gqoogle.com/ 











F8 


SS 
2685 
M62 








T. and T. Clark's Publications. 











In Twenty-four Handsome 8v0 Volumes, Subscription Price £6, 6s. od., 
Ante-Nicene Christian Library. 


A COLLECTION OF ALL THE WORKS OF THE FATHERS OF THE 
OHRISTIAN CHURCH PRIOR TO THE COUNCIL OF NICZA. 


EDITED BY THE 


REV. ALEXANDER ROBERTS, D.D., AND JAMES DONALDSON, LL.D. 








k {| ESSRS. CLARK are now happy to announce the completion of this Series. 
It has been received with marked approval by all sections of the 


- Christian Church in this country and in the United States, as supplying what 


has long been felt to be a want, and also on account of the impartiality, learn- 
ing, and care with which Editors and Translators have executed a very difficult 


task. 


The Publishers do not bind themselves to continue to supply the Series at the 


Subscription price. 


The Works are arranged as follow :— 


FIRST YEAR. 


APOSTOLIO FATHERS, comprising 
Olement’s Epistles to the Corinthians; 
Polycarp to the Ephesians; Martyr- 
dom of Polycarp; Epistle of Barnabas ; 
Epistles of [Ignatius (longer and shorter, 
and also the Syriac version); Martyr- 
dom of Ignatius; Epistle to Diognetus ; 
Pastor of Hermas; Papias; Spurious 
Epistles of Ignatius. In One Volume. 

JUSTIN MARTYR; ATHENAGORAS. 
In One Volume. 

TATIAN; THEOPHILUS; THE CLE- 
mentine Recognitions. In One Volume. 


‘CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA, Volume 


First, comprising Exhortation to Hea- 
then; The Instructor; and a portion 
of the Miscellanies. 


SECOND YEAR. 


HIPPOLYTUS, Volume First; Refutatiqn 
of all Heresies and Fragments from 
his Commentaries. 

IREN US, Volume First. 

TERTULLIAN AGAINST MARCION. 

CYPRIAN, Volume First; the Epistles, 
and some of the Treatises. 


THIRD YEAR. 


IRENZUS (completion); HIPPOLYTUS 
oommeeonys Fragments of Third 
Century. In One Volume. 

ORIGEN: De Principiis; Letters; and 
portion of Treatise against Celsus. 


CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA, Volume 
Second; Completion of Miscellanies. 

TERTULLIAN, Volume First: To the 
Martyrs; Apology; To the Nations, 
eto. 


FOURTH YEAR. 


CYPRIAN, Volume Second (completion); 
‘ Novatian; Minucius Felix; Fragments. 

METHODIUS; ALEXANDER OF LY- 
copolis ; Peter of Alexandria; Anato- 
lius; Clement on Virginity; and 
Fragments. 

TERTULLIAN, Volume Second. 

APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS; ACTS AND 
Revelations, comprising all the very 
curious Apocryphal Writings of the 
first Three Centuries. 


FIFTH YEAR. 
TERTULLIAN, Volume Third (comple- 


tion). 

CLEMENTINE HOMILIES; APOSTO- 
lical Constitutions. In One Volume. 

ARNOBIUS. 

DIONYSIUS; GREGORY THAUMA- 
turgus; Syrian Fragments. In One 
Volume. 


SIXTH YEAR. 


LACTANTIUS; Two Volumes. 
ORIGEN, Volume Second (completion). 
12s. to Non-Subscribers, 
EARLY LITURGIES AND REMAIN- 
ing Fragments. 9s. to Non-Subscri- 
rs. 


Single Years cannot be had separately, unless to complete sets; but any Volume 
may be had separately, price 10s. 6d.,—with the exception of On1GEN, Vol. II., 12s.; 


and the EARLY LirorGiss, 9s. 









7. and T. Clark's Publications. 


Che GHorks of St. Augustine. 


EDITED BY THE REV. MARCUS DODS, M.A. 








SUBSCRIPTION: 


Four Volumes for a Guinea, payable in advance (248. when not paid 
' in advance). 





First YEAR— 
THE ‘CITY OF GOD.’ Two Volumes. 


WRITINGS IN CONNECTION WITH THE DONATIST 
CONTROVERSY. One Volume. 


THE ANTI-PELAGIAN WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTINE. 
Vol. I. 


Seconp YEAR— 
‘LETTERS.’ Vol. I. 


TREATISES AGAINST FAUSTUS THE MANICH-ZAN. 
One Volume. 
To be Published in May. : 


THE HARMONY OF THE EVANGELISTS, AND THE 
SERMON ON THE MOUNT. One Volume.. 
ON THE TRINITY. One Volume. 


Messrs. CLARK believe this will prove not the least valuable of their various 
Series, and no pains will be spared to make it so. The Editor has secured 
a most competent staff of Translators, and every care is being taken to 
secure not only accuracy, but elegance. 


The Works of Sr. AvaustiNE to be included in the Series are (in addi- 
tion to the above)— 


All the, TREATISES in the PELAGIAN, and the four leading TREATISES 

in the Donatist CONTROVERSY. 

The TREATISES against Fausrus the Manichean; on CHRISTIAN 
DocTRINE; the Trinity; the HARMONY OF THE EVANGELISTS; the 
SERMON ON THE MOUNT. 

Also, the LECTURES on the GosPEL oF ST. JOHN, the CONFESSIONS, a 
SELECTION from the LetTers, the ReTRAcTATIONS, the SOLILOQUIES, 
and SELECTIONS from the PRacTICAL TREATISES. 


All these works are of first-rate importance, and only a small proportion 
of them have yet appeared in an English dress, The SERMONS and the 
COMMENTARIES ON THE Psatms having been already given by the Oxford 


Translators, it is not intended, at least in the first instance, to publish 
them. 


The Series will include a Lire or Sr. Avuaustine, by Rosert Ralny, 
D.D., Professor of Church History, New College, Edinburgh. 


The Series will probably extend to Sixteen or Eighteen Volumes. The 


Publishers will be glad to receive the Names of Subscribers as early as 
possible. 


It is understood that Subscribers are bound to take at least the books of 


the first two years. Each Volume will be sold separately at (on an 
average) 10s. 6d. each Volume. — 


a natn a a tes ee a 


NOTICE TO SUBSCRIBERS. 


—_—_»——_——. 


ESSRS. CLARK have ‘much pleasure in publishing the 
first issue of Dr. MEYER’s COMMENTARY, VIZ. :— 


GALATIANS, One Volume. 
ROMANS, Volume I. 


Both of these are translated from editions quite recently pub- 
lished, of which early sheets were, dy special arrangement, supplied 
by the German Publishers. 


The extreme care which has been given to the editing of these 
volumes will appear, the Publishers trust, in their great accuracy, 
and this will be a feature of the whole series. It is evident that 
the value of the Commentary very much depends on minute 
accuracy. 


It is impossible that the same regularity can be maintained in 
the publication of Meyer as in the other series of Messrs. CLARK. 
The care demanded prevents speed either in editing or printing, 
but no pains will be spared to proceed as rapidly as possible, 
and ## is hoped other two volumes may be ready about Spring 
next year. 


- The Publishers are anxious to secure the Author’s latest correc- 
tions, and this also may involve delay. The volumes will not 
average more than from 350 to 400 pages each, on account of ' 
the great expense involved in the undertaking from first to last. 


The Subscription is One Guinea for Four Volumes, payable in 
advance (24s. when not so paid). 


EDINBURGH, 38 GEORGE STREET, 
July 1873. 








CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL 


COMMENTARY 


THE NEW TESTAMENT. 


BY 


HEINRICH AUGUST WILHELM MEYER, Tz.D. 


OBERCONSISTORIALRATH, HANOVER. 


From the German. 


THE TRANSLATION REVISED AND EDITED, WITH THE SANCTION OF THE 
AUTHOR, BY 


WILLIAM P. DICKSON, D.D. 


PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW. 


PART VII. 
THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


EDINBURGH: 
T. AND T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET. 


MDCCCLXXIII. 





PRINTED BY MURRAY AND GIBB, 


FOR 


T. & T. CLARK, EDINBURGH. 


‘ 


LONDON, . . . . HAMILTON, ADAMS, AND CO. 
DUBLIN, ~ . . . JOHN ROBERTSON AND CO, 


NEW YORK, . . - SCRIBNER, WELFORD, AND ARMSTRONG. 





SO 2 


CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL 
HANDBOOK ~ 


THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 


BY 


HEINRICH AUGUST WILHELM MEYER, TxD. 


OBERCONSISTORIALRATH, HANOVER. 


TRANSLATED FROM THE FIFTH EDITION OF THE GERMAN BY 


G. H. VENABLES. 


EDINBURGH: a 
T AND T CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET. 


MDCCCLXXIIL 


J-2-Y%0 


Bod. Ml, 


PREFATORY NOTE BY THE EDITOR. 





FAME account of the circumstances in which this 
“fi translation has been undertaken, of the plan 
. 4] adopted in preparing it, and of the abbreviations 
used throughout, will be found prefixed to the Commentary 
on the Epistle to the Romans, which also contains a Preface 
specially written by Dr. Meyer for the English edition of his 
work, 

It is unnecessary here to repeat the explanations there given 
except in so far as they concern the course which I have fol- 
lowed in presenting to the English reader Dr. Meyer’s work 
without subtraction or addition. In reproducing so great a 
Iasterpiece of exegesis, I have not thought it proper to omit 
any part of its discussions or of its references—however little 
some of these may appear likely to be of interest or use to 
English scholars—because an author such as Dr. Meyer is 
entitled to expect that his work shall not be tampered with, 
and I have not felt myself at liberty to assume that the judg- 
ment of others as to the expediency of any omission would 


- coincide with my own. Nor have I deemed it necessary to 


append any notes of dissent from, or of warning against, the 
views of Dr. Meyer, even where these are decidedly at vari- 
ance with opinions which I hold. Strong representations were 
made to me that it was desirable to annex to certain passages 
notes designed to counteract their effect; but it is obvious 
that, if I had adopted this course in some instances, I should 


v1 PREFATORY NOTE BY THE EDITOR. 


have been held to accept or approve the author’s views in other 
cases, where I had not inserted any such caveat. The book is 
intended for, and can in fact only be used with advantage by, 
the professional scholar. Its general exegetical excellence far 
outweighs its occasional doctrinal defects; and in issuing it 
without note or comment, I take for granted that the reader 
will use it, as he ought, with discrimination. The English 
commentaries of Bishop Ellicott, Dr. Lightfoot, and Dr. Eadie 
serve admirably from different points of view—philological, 
historical, doctrinal—to supplement and, when necessary, to 
correct it; as does also the American edition of the Commen- 
tary in Lange’s Bibelwerk, translated and largely augmented 
under the superintendence of Dr. Schaff 

The translation of the present volume has been executed 
with care by Mr. Venables, and remains in substance his 
work ; but, as I have revised it throughout and carried it 
through the press, it is only due to him that I should share 
the responsibility of the form in which it appears. In trans- 
lating a work of this nature, the value of which mainly consists 


in the precision and subtlety of its exegesis, it is essential that — 


there should be a close and careful reproduction of the form 
of the original; but, in looking over the sheets, I find not a 
few instances in which the desire to secure this fidelity has 
led to an undue retention of German idiom. This, I trust, 
may be less apparent in the volumes that follow. 

In such a work it is difficult, even with great care, to avoid 
the occurrence of misprints, several of which have been ob- 
. served by Mr. Venables and myself in glancing over the 
sheets. Minor errors, such as the occasional misplacing of 
accents, it has not been thought necessary formally to correct. 
We have taken the opportunity of correcting in the translation 
various misprints found in the original. The commentator 
referred to in the text as “ Ambrose” (from his work on the 
Pauline Epistles being frequently printed with the works of 
that Father) ought to have been designated, as in the critical 





EXEGETICAL LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. Vil 


notes, “ Ambrosiaster,” and is usually identified with Hilary 
the Deacon. 
I subjoin a note of the exegetical hiterature of the Epistle, 


which may be found useful. © 


W. P. D. 
GLascow CoLLEGE, May 1873. 


EXEGETICAL LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. 


[For commentaries embracing the whole New Testament, see Pre- 
face to the Commentary on the Gospel of St. Matthew; for those 
which deal with the Pauline, or Apostolic, Epistles generally, see 
Preface to the Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. The fol- 
lowing list includes only those which concern the Epistle to the 
Galatians in particular, or in which that Epistle holds the first place 
on the title page. Works mainly of a popular or practical character 
have not in general been included, since, however valuable they may 
be on their own account, they have but little affinity with the strictly 
exegetical character of the present work. Monographs on chapters 
or sections are generally noticed by Meyer in loc. The reader will 
find a very valuable notice of the Patristic commentaries given by 
Dr. Lightfoot, p. 223 ff ] 


AKERSLOOT (Theodorus), Reformed minister in Holland: de Sendbrief 
van Paullus an de Galaten, 4to, Leyd. 1695; translated into 
German by Brussken. 40, Bremen, 1699. 

AURIVILLIUS (Olaus): Animadversiones exegeticae et dogmatico-prac- 
ticae in Epistolam 8. Pauli ad Galatas. 40, Halae, 1702. 


Baaae (Henry T. J.): St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians, the text re- 
vised and illustrated by a commentary. 80, Lond. 1857. 

Battus (Bartholomiaus), Professor of Theology at Greifswald: Com- 
mentarii in Epistolam ad Galatas. 40, Gryphisw. 1613. 
BaumGarTen (Sigmund Jakob), Professor of Theology at Halle: 
Auslegung der Briefe Pauli an die Galater, Ephes., Philipp., 
Coloss., Philem., und Thessal. (Mit Beytrigen von J. 8. 


Semler). 40, Halle, 1767. 
BeETULEIUs (Matthius): Epistola Pauli ad Galatas, paraphrasi et con- 
troversiarum explicatione illustrata. 80, Halae Sax. 1617. 


Bor@er (Elias Annes), Professor of Greek and History at Leyden: 
Interpretatio Epistolae Pauli ad Galatas. 80, Leyd. 1807. 
Boston (Thomas), minister of Ettrick: A Paraphrase upon the Epistle 
of Paul to the Galatians [Works, vol. vi.]. 120, Lond. 1853. 


Vill EXEGETICAL LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. 


BreiTHavPT (Joachim Justus), Professor of Theology at Halle: Obser- | 
vationum ex Commentario Lutheri in Epistolam ad Galatas 
exercitationes 10; in his ‘“‘ Miscellanea.” 

Brentz (Johann), Provost at Braet: Explicatio Epistolae ad 
Galatas. 1558. 

Brown (John), D.D., Professor of Hxegetioal Theology to the United 
Presbyterian Church, Edinburgh: An Exposition of the 
Epistle of Paul to the Galatians. 80, Edin. 1853. 

BUGENHAGEN (Johann), Professor of Theology at Wittenberg: Adno- 
tationes in Epistolas ad Gal., Eph., Philipp., Coloss., Thess., 
Timoth., Tit., Philem., et Hebraeos. 80, Basil. [1525] 1527. 


Carey (Sir Stafford), M.A.: The Epistle of the Apostle Paul to the 
Galatians, with a paraphrase and introduction. 
120, Lond. 1867. 
Carpzov (Johann Benedict), Professor of Theology and Greek at 
Helmstidt: Brief an die Galater iibersetzt. 
80, Helmstidt, 1794. 
CHANDLER (Samuel), minister in London : A Paraphrase and notes on 
the Epistles of St. Paul to the Galatians and Ephesians, .. . 
together with a critical and practical commentary on the two 
Epistles of St. Paul to the Thessalonians. . 40, Lond. 1777. 
Cuemnitz (Christian), Professor of Theology at Jena: Collegium 
theologicum super Epistolam ad Galatas. 40, Jenae, 1656. 
CuytrarEus [or Kocunare | (David), Professor of Theology at Rostock : 
Enarratio in Epistolam ad Galatas. 80, Francof. 1569. 
Ciaupius Taurinensis, Bishop of Turin, called also Altissiodorensis 
or Autissiodorensis: Commentarius in Epistolam ad Galatas 
[in Magn. Bibl. Vet. Patr. ix. ]. 
Coccesus [or Kocx] (Johann), Professor of Theology at Leyden: 
Commentarius in Epistolam ad Galatas. 40, Lugd. Bat. 1665. 
CreLL (Johann), Socinian teacher at Cracow: Commentarius in 
Epistolam Pauli ad Galatas ex praelectionibus J. Crellii con- 
scriptus a Jon. Schlichting. 80, Racov. 1628. 


EaviE (John), D.D., Professor of Biblical Literature and Exegesis 
to United Presbyterian Church, Glasgow: A Commentary on 
the Greek text of the Epistle of Paul to the Galatians. 

80, Edin. 1869. 

Exicorr (Charles John), D.D., Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol: St. 
Paul’s Epistle to’ the Galatians ; ; with a critical and gram- 
matical commentary, and a revised translation. 

8vo, Lond.:1854. 4th edition corrected, 1867. 

EsmarcH (Heinrich Peter Christian): Brief an die Galater tibersetzt. 

80, Flensb. 1784. 


EXEGETICAL LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. 1x 


FERGUSON (James), minister of Kilwinning, Ayrshire: A brief Ex- 
position of the Epistles of Paul to the Galatians and Ephesians. 

80, Lond. 1659. 

Fatt (Johann Friedrich von), Professor of Theology at Tibingen : 
| Vorlesungen tiber den Brief an die Galater und Epheser, 
herausgegeben von Ch. F. Kling. 80, Tiibing. 1828. 
Fritzscue (Karl Friedrich August), Professor of Theology at Rostock : 
Commentarius de nonnullis Epistolae ad Galatas locis. 3 

partes. 40, Rostoch. 1833—4[and in Fritzschiorum Opuscula ]. 


GrrnaEvus (Johann Jakob), Professor of Theology at Heidelberg : 
Analysis Epistolae ad Galatas. 40, Basil. 1583. 
Gwrnsne (G. J.): Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians. 
80, Dubl. 1863. 


Hatpaneé (James Alexander), Edinburgh: An Exposition of the 
Epistle to the Galatians, 120, Lond. 1848. 
HEnster (Christian Gotthilf), Professor of Theology at Kiel: Der 
Brief an die Galater tibersetzt mit Anmerkungen. 
80, Leip. 1805. 
Hermann (Johann Gottfried Jakob), Professor of Poetry at Leipzig: 
De Pauli Epistolae ad Galatas tribus primis capitibus. 
80, Lips. 1832. 
HILGENFELD (Adolf, Professor of Theology at Jena: Der Galaterbrief 
iibersetzt, in seinen geschichtlichen Beziehungen untérsucht 
und erklart, bees 80, Leip. 1852. 
Hormann (Johann Christian Konrad von), Professor of Theology at 
Erlangen: Die Heilige Schrift neuen Testaments zusammen- 
hingend untersucht. II. 1. Der Brief Pauli an die Galater. 
80, Nérdlingen, 1863; 2te verinderte Auflage, 1872. 
Housten (Carl), Teacher in Gymnasium at Rostock: Inhalt und 
Gedankengang des Briefes an die Galater, 4to, Rostock 1859 ; 
also, Zum Evangelium des Paulus und Petrus. 
80, Rostock, 1868. 


JatHO (Georg Friedrich), Director of Gymnasium at Hildesheim: 
Pauli Brief an die Galater nach seinem inneren Gedanken- 
gange erliutert. 80, Hildesheim 1856. 


Kravse (Friedrich August Wilhelm), Private Tutor at Vienna: Der 
Brief an die maa tibersetzt und mit Anmerkungen begleitet. 

‘80, Frankf. 1788. 

KROMAYER (Hieronymus), Professor of Theology at Leipzig : Commen- 
tarius in Epistolam ad Galatas 4o, Lips. 1670. 

Kunap (Andreas), Professor of Theology at Wittenberg: Disputa- 
tiones in Epistolam ad Galatas. 4o, Witteb. 1658. 


x EXEGETICAL LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. 


Ligutroot (Joseph Barber), D.D., Professor of Divinity at Cambridge: 
St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians. A revised text, with in- 
troduction, notes, and dissertations. 

80, Lond. 1865. 3d edition, 1869. 

Locke (John), the philosopher: A Paraphrase and notes on the 
Epistles to Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Romans, and 

Ephesians. 40, Lond. 17383. 

Lusuinaton (Thomas), M.A., Rector of Burnham-Westgate, Norfolk: 
A Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians [said to be 
chiefly translated from Crell ]. ¢ fol., Lond. 1650. 

Lutger (Martin): In Epistolam Pauli ad Galatas Commentarius 
(brevior), 4to, Lips. 1519; ab auctore recognitus, 1523. In 
Epist. P. ad Gal. Commentarius (major) ex praelectionibus 
D. M. Lutheri collectus . . . a Luthero recognitus et casti- 
gatus, 8vo, Viteb. 1535; jam denuo diligenter recognitus, 
8vo, Viteb. 1538. Often reprinted; translated into English 
in 1575, and often re-issued. 

LysER [or Leyser] (Polycarp), Professor of Theology at Wittenberg : 
Analysis Epistolae ad Galatas. 40, Witteb. 1586. 


Marruaias (G. W.), Co-rector of Gymnasium at Cassel: Der Galater- 
brief griechisch und deutsch, nebst einer Erklirung seiner 
schwierigen Stellen. 80, Cassel, 1865. 

Mattuiges (Konrad Stephan), Professor of Theology at Greifswald: 
Erklérung des Briefes Pauli an die Galater. 

80, Greifswald, 1833. 

Mayer (Ferdinand Gregorius), Professor of Greek at Vienna: Der 
Brief Pauli an die Galater und der 2 Brief an die Thessalo- 
nicher iibersetzt mit Anmerkungen. 80, Wien, 1788. 

MicHaELis (Johann David), Professor of Philosophy at Gottingen : 
Paraphrase und Anmerkungen iiber die Briefe Pauli an die 
Galater, Ephes., Phil., Col., Thessal., Tim., Tit., Philem. 4o, 
Bremen und Gotting. 1750; 2te vermehrte Auflage, 1769. 

MoLDENHAWER (Johann Heinrich Daniel), pastor at Hamburg: Brief 

an die Galater iibersetzt. 80, Hamb. 1773. 

Morus (Samuel Friedrich Nathanael), Professor of Theology at Leipzig: 
Acroases in Epistolas Paulinas ad Galatas et Ephesios. 

80, Leip. 1795. 

Muscuuvs [or MEvssiin | (Wolfgang), Professor of Theology at Berne: 
In Epistolas Apostoli Pauli ad Galatas et Ephesios commen- 
tarii. . fol., Basil. 1561) 1569. 


Pareus [or WakENGLER]| (David), Professor of Theology at Heidel- 
berg: In divinam 8. Pauli ad Galatas Epistolam commen- 
tarius. 40, Heidelb. 1613, 


: EXEGETICAL LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. xi 


Pautus (Heinrich Eberhard Georg), Professor of Theology at Heidel- 
_ berg: Des Apostel Paulus Lehrbriefe an die Galater und 
_ Romerchristen, wortgetreu tibersetzt mit erlauternden Zwisch- 
ensiitzen, einem Uberblick des Lehrinhalts und Bemerkungen 
iiber schwere Stellen. 80, Heidelb. 1831. 
PERKINS (William), minister at Cambridge: A commentarie or exposi- 
tion upon the five first chapters of the Epistle to the Galatians 
. . . Continued with a supplement upon the sixt chapter by 
Rodolfe Cudworth, B.D. [ Works, vol. ii.]. 20, Lond. 1609. 
Prime (John), Fellow of New College, Oxford: Exposition and ob- 
servations upon St. Paul to the Galatians. 80, Oxf. 1587. 


REITHMAYR (Franz Xaver), R.C. Professor of Theology at Munich : 

Commentar zum Briefe an die Galater. 80, Miinchen, 1865. 

RiccaLtoun (Robert), minister at Hobkirk: Notes and Observations 
on the Epistle to the Galatians [ Works, iii. ]. 

80, Edin. 1771. 

RoLLock (Robert), Principal of University of Edinburgh: Analysis 

logica in Epistolam ad Galatas. 80, Lond. 1602. 

Rucxert (Leopold Immanpel), Professor of Theology at Jena: Com- 

mentar iiber den Brief Pauli an die Galater. 80, Leip. 1833. 


SaRDINOUX (Pierre-Auguste): Commentaire sur l’épitre aux Ghlates, 

précédé d’une introduction critique. 80, Valence, 1837. 

Sowarr (Philip), D.D., Professor of Theology at New York: An Intro- 

duction and comment on chapters i. 1i. of: the Epistle to the 
Galatians [in the Mercersburg Review, Jan. 1861 ]. 

ScumLuina (Johann Georg): Versuch einer Uebersetzung des Briefes 

an die Galater, mit erklirenden Bemerkungen, nach Koppe. 

80, Leip. 1792. 

ScHLICHTING (Jonas), Socinian minister at Cracow. See Crell 


(Johann). 
Scuuip (Sebastian), Professor of Theology at Strassburg: Commen- 
tarius in Epistolam ad Galatas. 40, Kiloni, 1690. 


SCHMOLLER (Otto) of Urach, Wiirtemberg: Der Brief Pauli an die 
Galater theologisch-homiletisch bearbeitet [in Lange’s Bibel- 
werk |, 8vo, Bielefeld 1862; 2te Auflage 1865. [Translated 
by C. C. Starbuck, A.M.; edited, with additions, by M. B. 
Riddle, D.D. 80, New York and Edin. 1870. ] 

Scuott (Heinrich August), Professor of Theology at Jena: Epistolae 
Pauli ad Thessalonicenses et Galatas. Textum Graecum re- 
cognovit et commentario perpetuo illustravit H. A. Schott. 

80, Leips. 1834. 

Scutirze (Theodor Johann Abraham): Scholia in Epistolam ad Galatas. 

4o, Gerae, 1784. 


xl EXEGETICAL LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE. 


SEMLER (Johann Salomon), Professor of Theology at Halle: Paraphrasis 
Epistolae Pauli ad Galatas. 80, Halae, 1779. 
SermPanpo (Girolamo), Cardinal: Commentarius in Epistolam Pauli 
ad Galatas; ad nonnullas quaestiones ex textu Epistolae . 
catholicae responsiones. 80, Antv. 1565. 
STOLBERG (Balthasar), Professor of Greek at Wittenberg: Lectiones 
publicae in Epistolam ad Galatas. 40, Wittemb. 1667. 
STRUENSEE (Adam), pastor at Altona: Erklérung des Briefes an die 
Galater. 4o, Flensburg, 1764. 


Trana (August Leopold): Pauli ad Galatas Epistola. Exposuit, etc. 

80, Gothob. 1857. 

Turner (Samuel Hulbeart), D.D., Professor of Biblical Interpretation 

at New York: The Epistle to the Galatians in Greek and 
English, with an analysis and exegetical commentary. 

80, New York, 1856. 


_ Usrerrt (Leonhard), Professor of Theology at Berne: Commentar 
iiber den Brief Pauli an die Galater, nebst einer Beilage . . 
und einigen Excursen. - §o, Ziirich, 1833. 


Vicrorinus (C. Marius), teacher of rhetoric at Rome about a.p. 360: 
In Epistolam Pauli ad Galatas commentariorum libri duo 
[in Mai’s Scrip. Vet. Nov. Coll. iii. 2]. | 


WEBER (Michael), Professor of Theology at Halle: Der Brief an die 


Galater uebersetzt, mit Anmerkungen. - 80, Leip. 1778. 
WeEIsE (Friedrich), Professor of Theology at Helmstiidt: Commen- 
tarius in Epistolam ad Galatas. 40, Helmst. 17035. 


WESSELIUS (Johannes), Professor of Theology at Leyden: Commen- 
tarius analytico-exegeticus tam litteralis quam realis in Epis- 
tolam Pauli ad Galatas. 40, Lugd. Bat. 1750. 
WIESELER (Karl), Professor of Theology at Gottingen: Commentar 
tiber den Brief Pauli an die Galater, mit besonderer Riicksicht 
auf die Lehre und Geschichte des Apostels. 80, Gotting. 1859. 
WINDIsCHMANN (Friedrich), R.C. Professor of Theology at Munich : 
Erklarung des Briefes an die Galater. 80, Mainz, 1843. 
WIneER (Georg Benedict), Professor of Theology at Leipzig: Pauli ad 
Galatas Epistola. Latine vertit et perpetua annotatione illus- 

travit Dr. G. B. Winer. 
80, Lips. 1821. Editio quarta aucta et emendata, 1859. 


ZacHARIAE (Gotthilf Traugott), Professor of Theology at Kiel: Para- 
phrastische Erkliérung der Briefe Pauli an die Galater, Ephes., 
Phil., Col., und Thess. 80, Gotting. [1771] 1787. 


- PREFACE. 


—-@—- 


FAINCE the days of Luther, who, as is well known, 
‘fi bestowed more especial and repeated labour on 
y) the exposition of this than of any other book of 
the. New Testament, the Epistle to the Galatians has always 
been held in high esteem as the Gospel’s banner of freedom. 
To it, and to the kindred Epistle to the Romans, we owe. most > 
directly the springing up and development of the ideas and 
energies of the Reformation, which have overcome the work- © 
righteousness of Romanism with all the superstition and unbe- 
lief accompanying it, and which will in the future, by virtue 
of their divine life once set free, overcome all fresh resistance 
till they achieve complete victory. This may be affirmed even 
of our present position towards Rome. For, if Paul by this 
Epistle introduces us into the very arena of his victory; if 
he makes us’ witnesses of his not yielding, even for an hour, 
to the false brethren; if he bids us hear how he confronts 
even his gravely erring fellow-apostle with. the unbending 
standard of divinely - revealed truth; if he breaks all the 
spell of hypocrisy and error by which the foolish Galatians 
were bound, and in the clear power of the Holy Spirit bril- 
liantly vindicates what no angel from heaven could with 
- impunity have assailed ; how should that doctrine, which at this 
moment the sorely beset old man in the chair of the fallible 
Peter proposes to invest with the halo of divine sanction, 
—how should the érepov evayyéAcov from Rome, which it is 
now sought to push to the extremity of the most flagrant 
contradictio in adjecto—possibly issue in any other final result 





XIV PREFACE, 


than an accelerated process of self-dissolution? It is, in fact, 
the profoundly sad destiny which a blinded and obdurate 
hierarchy must, doubtless amidst unspeakable moral harm, 
fulfil, that it should be always digging further and further 
at its own grave, till it at length—and now the goal seems 
approaching, when these dead are to bury their dead—with 
the last stroke of the spade shall sink into that grave, to rise. 
no more. 

‘The Epistle to the Galatians carries us back to that first 
Council of the Church, which at its parting could present to 
the world the simple and true self-witness ; é0f¢ ro dylp rrvev- 
pare xai npiv. How deep a shadow of contrast this throws not 
- merely on the Vatican Fathers, but also—we cannot conceal it 
—on our own Synods, when their proceedings are pervaded by a 
zeal which, carried away by carnal aims, forfeits the simplicity, 
clearness, and wisdom of the Holy Spirit! Under such circum- 
stances the Spirit is silent, and no longer bears His witness to 
the conscience ; and instead of the blessing of synodal church- 
life—so much hoped for, and so much subjected to question,— 
we meet with decrees, which are mere compromises of human 
minds very much opposed to each other,—agreements, over 
which such a giving the might hand of holy fellowship as we 
read of in this letter'(ii7 9) would be a thing impossible. 

In. issuing for the fifth time (the fourth edition having - 
appeared in 1862) my exposition of this Epistle, so tran- 
scendently important alike in its doctrinal and historical bear- 
ings, I need hardly say that I have diligently endeavoured 
to do my duty regarding it. I have sought to improve it 
throughout, and to render it more complete, in accordance 
with its design; and, while doing so, I have striven after a 
clearness and definiteness of expression, which should have 
nothing in common with the miserable twilight-haze and in- 
tentional concealment of meaning that characterize the selection 
of theological language in the present day. If I have been 
pretty often under the necessity of opposing the more recent 


PREFACE, XV 


expositors of the Epistle or of its individual sections, I need 
hardly give an assurance that I, on my part, am open to, and 
grateful for, any contradiction, provided only some true light 
is elicited thereby. Even if that opposition should come from 
the energies of youth, which cannot yet have attained their 
full exegetical maturity, I gladly adopt the language of the 
tragedian (Aeschyl. Agam. 583 f.): 


Nixepesyvos Adryorriy ovx aveivepeces 
"Asi yap HBG rors yipevos sb padsir. 


Dr. MEYER. 
HANNOVER, 18th June 1870. 


THE 


EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


—— 
INTRODUCTION. 
SEC. I—-THE GALATIANS. 


HE region of Galatia, or Gallograecia (see generally 
Strabo, xii. 5), bounded by Paphlagonia, Pontus, 
Cappadocia, and Bithynia, and having as its chief 
cities Ancyra, Pessinus, and Tavium, derived its 

name from the Gauls ([addrat, which is only a later form of 

the original Kedroé or Kédraz, Pausan. i 3,5). For the Gallic 

tribes of the Tpoxyot and TodoroBoyos (Strabo, lc. p. 566), 

—in conjunction with the Germanic’ tribe of the Tectosages, 

which, according to Strabo, was akin to them in language 

(Caes. B. Gall. vi. 24; Memnon in Phot. cod. 224, p. 374),— 

after invading and devastating Macedonia and Greece (Justin. 

xxiv. 4) about 280.B.c., and establishing in Thrace the kingdom 

of Tyle (Polyb. iv. 45 f.), migrated thence under the leadership 

of Leonorius and Lotharius to Asia, where they received a 

territory from the Bithynian king Nicomedes for their services 

in war. This territory they soon enlarged by predatory expe- 





1 This serves to explain Jerome’s statement, based on personal experience 
(Prol. in libr. secund. comment. in ep. ad Gal.), that the popular language, 
which in his time was still spoken by the Galatians along with Greek, was 
almost the same (eandem paene) with that of the T'reviri. Now the Treviri were 
Germans (Strabo, iv. p. 194), and ‘‘ circa affectationem Germanjcae originis ultro 
ambitiosi’’ (Tacit. Germ. 28). Comp. Jablonski, de lingua Lycaon. p. 23. See, 
generally, Diefenbach, Celtica, Stuttg. 1839 f. ; Rettberg, Kirchengesch. Deutschl. 
i, p. 19 ff. The two last, without adequate grounds, call in question the Ger- 
manic nationality of the Galatians. See, on the other side, Wieseler, p. 524 ff, 
and in Herzog’s Encykl. XIX. p. 524. The conversion of the Galatians is the 
beginning of German Church-history. 


A 





2 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


ditions (Liv. xxxvill. 16; Flor. ii. 11; Justin. xxv. 2; Strabo, 
iv. p. 187, xii. p. 566); although by Attalus, king of 
Pergamus, who conquered them, it was restricted to the 
fertile region of the Halys (Strabo, xii. p. 567; Liv. xxxviii. 
16). This powerful, dreaded (Polyb. v. 53; 2 Mace. viii. 20), 
and freedom-loving (Flor. i. 11) people, were brought into 
subjection to the Romans by the consul Cn. Manlius Vulso, 
189 3B. (Liv. xxxvill. 12 ff); but they still for a long time 
retained both their Celtic cantonal constitution and their own 
tetrarchs (Strabo, xii pp. 541, 567), who subsequently bore 
the title of king (Cic. p. rege Deiotaro; Vellei. ii. 84; Appian, 
v. p. 1135; Plut. Ant. 61). The last of these kings, 
Amyntas (put to death 26 3B.c.), owed it to the favour of 
Antonius and Augustus that Pisidia and parts of Lycaonia’ 
and of Pamphylia were added to his territory (Dio Cass. xlix. 
32, lil. 26; Strabo, xii. p. 569). In the year 26 Galatia, 
as enlarged under Amyntas, became a Roman province (Dio 
Cass. lili, 26 ; Strabo, xii. p. 569). See generally, in addition 
to the Commentaries and Introductions, Wernsdorf, de repudl. 
Galatar., Norimb. 1743; Hoffmann, Introd. theol. crit. in lect. 
ep. P. ad Gal, et Col.; Lips. 1750; Schulze, de Galatis, Francof. 
1756; Mynster, Finl. in d. Brief an d. Gal., in his kl. theol. 
Schr, Kopenh. 1825, p. 49 ff; Hermes, rerwm Galaticar. 
specimen, Vratisl. 1822; Baumstark, in Pauly’s Realencykl. III. 
p. 604 ff.; Riietschi, in Herzog’s Encykl. IV. p. 637 f£.; 
Contzen, Wanderungen der Celten, Leip. 1861. 

On account of the additional territories thus annexed to 
Galatia proper under Amyntas, it has been maintained that 
the readers of this epistle are not to be looked upon as the 
Galatians proper, but as the new Galatians, that is, Zycaonians 
(especially the Christians of Derbe and Lystra) and Pisidians 
(Joh. Joach. Schmidt (in Michaelis); Mynster, lc. p. 58 ff ; 
Niemeyer, de temp. quo ep. ad Gal. etc. Gott. 1827; Paulus, in 
the Heidelb. Jahrb. 1827, p. 636 ff, and Lehkrbriefe an d. Gal. 
u. Rom. p. 25 ff; Ulrich, in the Stud. wu. Krit. 1836, iL; 
Bottger, Beitr. 1 and 3; Thiersch, Kirche wm apost. Zeitalt. p. 
124). But this view is decisively opposed both by the 


1 Not the whole of Lycaonia, particularly not the south-eastern portion and 
Iconium. See Riickert, Magaz. I. p. 98 ff. 








INTRODUCTION. 3 


language of Acts (xiv. 6, comp. with xvi. 6, xviii 23), in 
which the universally current popular mode of designation, not 
based on the new provincial arrangements, is employed; and 
also by the circumstance that Paul could not have expressed 
himself (Gal. i. 2) in a more singular and indefinite way than 
by rais exxAnoiats rijs Tadarlas, if he had not meant Galatia 
proper, the old Galatia. Nor are any passages found in Greek 
authors, in which districts of Lycaonia or Pisidia are designated, 
in accordance with that extension of the limits of the province, 
by the name of Galatia. See Riickert, Magaz. I p. 105f.; 
Anger, de ratione temp. p. 132 ff.; Wieseler, Chronol. d. apost. 
| Leitalt. p. 281 f£, and on Gal. p. 530 ff. 

The founder of the Galatian churches was Paul himself 
(Gal. i. 6-8, iv. 13 ff) on his second missionary journey, 
Acts xvi. 6 (not so early as xiv. 6). Bodily weakness (iv. 
13) had compelled him to make a halt in Galatia, and during 
his stay he planted Christianity there. Looking at the in- 
voluntary character of this occasion and the unknown nature 
of the locality to which his first work in the country was thus, 
as it were, accidentally directed, it might appear doubtful 
whether in this case he followed his usual rule, as attested in 
Acts, of commencing his work of conversion with the Jews; 
but we must assume that he did so,’ for the simple reason that 
he would be sure to seek the shelter and nursing, which in sick- - 
ness he needed, in the house of one of his own nation: comp. on 
iv. 14. Nor was there any want of Jewish residents, possibly 
in considerable numbers, in Galatia (as we may with reason 
infer from Joseph. Antt. xu. 3. 4, xvi. 6. 2, as well as from 
the diffusion of the Jews over Asia generally; not, however, 
from 1 Pet.i 1); although from the epistle itself it is evident 
(see sec. 2) that the larger part, indeed the great majority, 
of its readers (not the whole, as Hilgenfeld thinks; comp. 
Hofmann) consisted’ of Gentile Christians. The ‘arguments 
from the Old Testament (together with a partially rabbinical 
mode of interpretation), which Paul nevertheless employs, 
were partly based on the necessary course of the apostolic 

1 As also Neander, de Wette, Wieseler, and most others assume, in opposi- 


tion, however, to Schneckenburger (Zweck d. Apostelgesch. p. 104), Baur, 
and Hilgenfeld., ’ 


4, THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS, 


preaching which had to announce Christ. as the fulfilment of 
Old Testament promises, as well as on the acquaintance with 
the Old Testament which was to be presupposed in all 
Christian churches (comp. on iv. 21); partly suggested to the 
apostle by the special subject itself which was in question (see 
sec. 2); partly justified, and indeed rendered necessary, by the 
fact that the apostle—who must, at any rate, have taken 
notice of the antagonistic teachers and the means of warding 
off their attack—had to do with churches which had already 
for a time been worked upon by Judaists and had thus been 
sufficiently introduced to a knowledge of the Old Testament. 
The supposition of Storr, Mynster (lc. p. 76), and Credner, 
that great part of the Galatian Christians had been previously 
proselytes of the gate, appears thus to be unnecessary, and is 
destitute of proof from the epistle itself, and indeed opposed 
to its expressions; see on iv. 9. 


SEC. IL——OCCASION, OBJECT, AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE, 


Judaizing Christian teachers with Pharisaic leanings (comp. 
Acts xvi. 1)—emissaries from Palestine (not unbelieving Jews ; 
Michaelis, Hznl.)\—had made their appearance among the 
Galatian churches after Paul, and with their attacks upon his 
apostolic dignity (2. 1, 11, i. 14), and their assertion of the 
necessity of circumcision for Christians (v. 2, 11, 12, vi 
12 f.), which involved as a necessary consequence the obligation 
of the whole law (v. 3), had found but too ready a hearing, so 
that the Judaizing tendency was on the point of getting the 
upper hand (i. 6, iii 1, 3, iv. 9 ff, 21, v. 2 ff, 7). Now the 
question is, whether these anti-Pauline teachers—who, how- 
ever, are not, on account of v. 12, vi. 13, to be considered 
either wholly or in part as proselytes (Neander, Schott, de 
Wette; see, on the other hand, Hilgenfeld, p. 46 f.)—made 
their appearance before (Credner, Riickert, Schott, Hilgenfeld, 
Reuss, Wieseler, and others), or not till after (Neander, de 
Wette, Hofmann, and others), the second visit of the apostle 
(Acts xvii. 23; see sec..3).. From i 6, ii 1, it is evident 
that Paul now for the first time has to do with the church as 
actually perverted; he is surprised and warmly indignant at 


INTRODUCTION. 5 


what had taken place. Nevertheless it is evident, from 
i 9, v. 3, iv. 16, that he had already spoken personally in 
Galatia against Judaizing perversion, and that with great 
earnestness. We must therefore assume that, when Paul 
was among the Galatians for the second time, the danger was 
only threatening, but there already existed an inclination to 
yield to it, and his language against it was consequently of a 
warning and precautionary nature. It was only after the 

apostle’s departure that the false teachers se to work with 
their perversions; and although they did not get so far as. cir- 
cumcision (see on iv. 10), still they met with so much success,’ 
and caused so much disturbance of peace (v. 15), that the 
accounts came upon him with all the surprise which he indi- 
cates in i. 6, iii. 1. Comp. also Ewald, p. 54; Lechler, apost. 
Zetalt, p. 383. 

In accordance with this state of things which gave occasion 
to the letter, it was the olject of Paul to defend in it his 
apostolic authority, and to bring his readers to a triumphant 
conviction of the freedom of the Christian from circumcision 
and the Mosaic law through the justification arising from 
God’s grace in Christ. But we are not entitled to assume that 
“in the’ liveliness of his zeal he represented the matter as 
too dangerous” (de Wette); the more especially as it involved 
the most vital question of Pauline Christianity, and along 
with it also the whole personal function and position of the 
apostle, who was divinely conscious of the truth of his gospel, 
and therefore must not be judged, in relation to his opponents, 
according to the usual standard of “ party against party.”? 

As regards contents, (1) the apologetico-dogmatic portion of 
the epistle divides itself into two branches: (a) the defence of the 
apostolic standing and dignity of Paul, ch. 1. and i1., in connec- 
tion with which the foundation of Christian freedom is also set 
forth in ii, 15-21; (6) the proof that the Christian, through 
God’s grace in Christ, is independent of circumcision and 
Mosaism, ch. iii. and iv. Next, (2) in the hortatory portion, 
the readers are encouraged to hold fast to their Christian 

1 To the extent, at any rate, of an observance of the Jewish feast-days and 


seasons (iv. 10). 
2 Baur, Paulus, I. p. 282, ed. 2. 


6 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS, 


freedom, but also not to misuse it, ch. v. Then follow other 
general exhortations, ch. vi. 1-10; and finally an energetic 
autograph warning against the seducers (vi. 11-16), and the 
conclusion. The idea that the epistle is the reply to a letter 
of information and inquiry from the church (Hofmann), is 
neither based on any direct evidence in the epistle itself (how 
wholly different is the case with 1 Cor.!), nor indirectly sug- 
gested by particular passages (not even by iv. 12); and such 
an assumption is by no means necessary for understanding the 
course and arguments of the epistle. 


SEC. I.—TIME AND PLACE OF COMPOSITION——GENUINENESS. 


The date of composition may be gathered from iv. 13, com- 
pared with Acts xvi. 6, xviii. 23. From ednyyedtoapny vpiv 
To mpotepov, iv. 13, it is most distinctly evident that, when — 
Paul wrote, he had already twice visited Galatia and had 
preached the gospel there. The constant use of evayyerileoGae 
to denote oral preaching precludes’ us from taking (with 
Grotius, and Keil, Anal. IV. 2, p. '70) +d aporepov as said with 
relation to his present written instruction. Those, therefore, 
are certainly in error, who assume that the epistle was com- 
posed after the first visit of the apostle, whether this first visit 
be placed correctly at. Acts xvi. 6 (Michaelis) or erroneously 
at Acts xiv. 6 (Keil). As regards the latter, Keil has indeed 
asserted that in ch. i and ii. Paul continues his history only 
down to his second journey to Jerusalem, Acts x1. 30; that he 
does not mention the apostolic conference and decree, Acts xv. 
(comp. also Ulrich, /.c.); and that in this epistle his judgment 
of Mosaism is more severe than after that conference. But 
the journey, ii. 1, is identical with that of Acts xv. (see the 
commentary); his omission to mention the apostolic confer- 
ence and decree’ is necessarily connected with the self-sub- 
sistent position—wholly independent of the authority of all 
the other apostles, and indeed recognised by the “ pillars” 


1 Against the opinion that the unhistorical character of the narrative of the 
apostolic council and decree may be inferred from our epistle (Baur, Schwegler, 
Zeller, Hilgenfeld), see on Acts xv. 15f. The Tiibingen school believe that 
in this epistle they have found ‘‘ the Archimedean point of their task” (Hilgen- 
feld, in the Zeitschrift f. histor. Theol. 1855, p. 484). 





INTRODUCTION. rf 


themselves (ii. 9 f)—-which Paul claimed for himself on prin- 
ciple in opposition to Judaizing efforts. Therefore neither in 
the First Epistle to the Corinthians (viii. 1 ff., x. 23 ff.), nor 
in that to the Romans (ch. xiv.), nor anywhere else, does. he 
take any notice of the Jerusalem decree." Assured of his own 
apostolic independence as a minister of Christ directly called 
and furnished with the revelation of the gospel for the Gentile 
world in particular, he has never, in any point of doctrine, 
cited in his favour the authority of other apostles or decrees of 
the church; and he was least likely to do so when, as in the 
present case, the matter at stake was a question not merely 
affecting some point of church-order, but concerning the deepest 
principles of the plan of salvation.? Moreover, the first three 
injunctions of that decree in particular (Acts xv. 29) agree so 
little with the principle of full Christian liberty, consistently 
upheld in the letters of the apostle, that we must suppose the 
decree to have speedily—with his further official experience 
acquired after the council—lost altogether for him its provi- 
sional obligation. It is, further, a mistake to apply 7 zepi- 
xwpos, Acts xiv. 6, to Galatia, as, besides Keil, also Koppe, 
Borger, Niemeyer, Mynster, Paulus, Bottger, and others, have 
done; for this zepixywpos can only be the country round 
Lystra and Derbe, and it is quite inadmissible to transfer the 
name to the Lycaonian region (see sec. 1). Lastly, in order to 
prove a very early composition of the letter, soon after the 
conversion of the readers, appeal has been made to odrw tayéws, 
i, 6, but without due exegetical grounds (see the commen- 
tary); and indeed the mention of Barnabas in 1. 13 ought 
not to have been adduced (Koppe), for a personal acquaint- 
ance of the readers with him (which they must certainly have 
made before Acts xv. 39) is not at all expressed in it. If, in 
accordance with all these considerations, the epistle was not 
written after the first visit to Galatia,—a date also inconsistent 


1 This uniform silence as to the decree in all the epistles shows that that 
silence in our epistle must not be explained either by the presumed acquaint- 
ance of the Galatians with it (Schaff, p. 182), or by the idea that the apostle was 
unwilling to supply his opponents with any weapon against him (Ebrard). 

2 ‘‘ His word as Christ’s apostle for the Gentiles must be decree enough for 
them” (Thiersch, Kirche im apost. Zeitalt. p. 180. See also Wieseler, in 
Herzog’s Encykl. XIX. p. 528). 


8 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


with the fact that its contents presuppose a church-life already 
developed, and an influence of the false teachers which had 
already been some time at work—and if the first visit of the 
apostle is to be placed, not at Acts xiv. 6, but at Acts xvi. 6,' 
followed by the second visit confirming the churches, Acts 
xvii. 23, then most modern expositors, following the earlier, 
are right in their conclusion that the epistle was not composed 
until after Acts xviii. 23. So Bertholdt, Eichhorn, Hug, de 
Wette, Winer, Hemsen, Neander, Usteri, Schott, Riickert, 
Anger, Credner, Guericke, Olshausen, Wieseler, Reuss, Hilgen- 
feld, Ewald, Bleek, Hofmann, and others. We must reject the 
views, which place the date of composition between Acts xvi. 6 
and Acts xviii. 23, as maintained by Grotius (on i 2), 
Baumgarten, Semler (on Baumg. p. 895, not in the Paraphr.), 
Michaelis, Koppe, Storr, Borger, Schmidt, Mynster, or which 
carry the epistle back to a date even before the apostolic con- 
ference, as held by Beza, Calvin, Keil, Niemeyer, Paulus, 
Bottger,? Ulrich. 

As we cannot gather from the relative expression odtw 
taxéws (i. 6) how soon after Acts xviii. 23 the epistle was 
composed, the year of its composition cannot be stated more 
precisely than (see Introd. to Acts) as about 56 or 57.4 Ephesus 


1 It has been objected, indeed, that on this journey Paul only confirmed 
the churches, which presupposes an earlier conversion (Acts xv. 36 ff., xvi. 5). 
But Acts xvi. 6 begins a new stage in the historical narrative, and Phrygia and 
Galatia are separated from those places to which the confirming ministry re- 
ferred. Nor is it to be said that in Acts xvi. 6 Paul was withheld by the Spirit 
from preaching in Galatia. For the hindrance by the Spirit affected not Galatia, 
but the regions along the coast of Asia Minor. See on Acts xvi. 6. 

# According to Paulus, the apostle wrote to the New-Galatians (see sec. 1), 
whom he converted at Acts xiv. 6 and visited for the second time (Gal. iv. 13) 
at Acts xiv. 21. 

5 According to Bottger (Beitr. 3, § 1-11), the epistle is addressed to the New- 
Galatians (Lycaonians and Pisidians), and was written in the year 51, after the 
first missionary journey of the apostle. Bottger has repeated Keil’s arguments, 
and has added fresh ones, which are untenable. See their copious refutation by 
Riickert, Magaz. I. p. 112 ff. 

* From the remarkable difference in the positions which have been assigned 
to our letter in the history of the apostle,—Marcion (in Tertull. c. Marc. 5, and 
in Epiph. Her. xlii. 9), and subsequently Michaelis, Baumgarten, Koppe, 
Schmidt, Keil, Mynster, Niemeyer, Paulus, Ulrich, making it the very jirst, and 
Schrader and Kohler the very Jast, of the Pauline epistles,—it was natural that 
the year of composition should be fixed at the most various dates, even apart 


INTRODUCTION. 9 


appears to be the place from which it was written; for Paul 
proceeded thither after his second labours in Galatia (Acts 
xix. 1). So Theophylact, Oecumenius, Erasmus, and most 
modern expositors. Riickert, however, following Hug, main- — 
tains that Paul wrote his epistle very soon after his departure 
from Galatia, probably even on the journey to Ephesus; but, 
on the other hand, the passage iv. 18 indicates that after the 
apostle’s departure the Judaists had perverted the churches 
which he had warned and confirmed, and some measure of 
time must have been required for this, although the perver- 
sion appears still so recent that there is no adequate reason for 
postponing the composition of the epistle to the sojourn of the 
apostle at Corinth, Acts xx. 3 (Bleek conjecturally). 

The usual subscription, which is given by the old codd. 
B**, K, L, says éypadn azo ‘Pons; and Jerome, Theodoret, 
Euthalius, and the Syrian church, as afterwards Baronius, Flacius, 
Salmasius, Estius, Calovius, and others, held this opinion, which 
arose simply from a misunderstanding of iv. 20, vi. 11, and 
especially vi. 17, and was quite unwarrantably supported by 
ii. 10 (comp. with Rom. xv. 28). Nevertheless, recently 
Schrader (i. p. 216 ff) and Kohler (Ab/fasswngzeit der epistol. 
Schriften, p. 125 ff.), the latter of whom exceeds the former 
in caprice, again date the epistle from Rome. ‘For the re- 
futation of which their arguments are not worthy, see Schott, 
Erérterung, pp. 63 ff, 41 ff, 116 ff; Usteri, p. 222 ff. 

The genuineness is established by external testimony (Iren. 
Haer. iii. 6. 5, iii. 7. 2, iii, 16. 3, v. 21. 1; Tatian, in Jerome ; 
Clem. Alex. Strom. iil. p. 468, ed. Sylb.; Tertull. de praescr. 6, 
et al.; Canon Murat., Valentinus in Irenaeus, Marcion)—although 
the apostolic Fathers contain no trace in any measure certain, 
and Justin’s writings only a probable trace, of the letter ’—as 


from the differences of reckoning as to the Pauline chronology. In consequence 
of this divergence of opinion as to its historical position, the statements as to the 
place of composition have necessarily been very various (Troas, Corinth, Antioch, 
Ephesus, Rome). 

1 Even in Polycarp, Phil. 5, comp. Gal. vi. 7, there may be a quite accidental 
similarity of expression. Lardner appealed to Clem. ad Cor. i. 49; Ignat. ad 
Philad. 1, ad Magnes. 8; Just. Mart. ad Graec. p. 40, ed. Colon, and dis- 
covered in these passages allusions to Gal. i. 4, i. 1, v. 4, iv. 12. There appears 
to be an actual allusion to this last passage in Justin, where it runs: yiviods as 





10 {HE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


well as by the completely and vividly Pauline cast of the 
writer's spirit and language. It is thus so firmly established, 
that, except by Bruno Bauer’s wanton “ Kritik” (1850), it has 
never been, and never can ‘be, doubted. The numerous inéer- 
polations which, according to Weisse (Beitrdge zur Krit. d. 
Paulin. Briefe, edited by Sulze, 1867, p. 19 ff.), the apostolic 
text has undergone, depend entirely on a subjective criticism 
of the style, conducted with an utter disregard of external 
critical testimony. 

lye’ 871 xaye Hany ws vss. The probability of this is increased by the fact that 


Justin soon afterwards: uses the words, x bpas, tpsss, Sir05, ipsias, fupor xai ra 
spore vodres, Which look like an echo of Gal. v. 20 f. 





CHAP, L 11 


ITavnov érictorn pos Taddras.. 


A BK, and many min., also Copt., give simply pig Taad- 
-rag, which—doubtless the earliest superscription—is adopted 
by Lachm. and Tisch. 


CHAPTER IL 


Ver. 3. juav] is wanting only in min., Damasc. Aug. (once) ; 
whilst A, min., Copt. Arm. Vulg. ms. Chrys. Ambrosiast. Pel. 
Ambr. (once), Fulg. place it after zarpés. But as in the other 
epistolary salutations there is no av after xupiov, it was some- 
times omitted, sometimes moved to the position, which it holds 
in the other epistles, after rarpég (Rom. 1. 7; 1 Cor. i. 3; 2 Cor. 
i. 2, e¢ al.). — Ver. 4. epi] Elz. has ivép, in opposition to A D 
EFGK LY, and many min. also Or. Theophyl. Oec. This 
external evidence is decisive, although Paul has written tip r+. 
amupr. only in 1 Cor. xv. 3. — Ver. 6. Xpiorod] is wanting in 
F G, Boern. Tert. (twice), Cypr. (twice), Lucif. Victorin. But 
with the erroneous (although very ancient) connection of Xpiorod 
with xaAécavros, Xpiorov, since the xaAew is God’s, could not but 
give offence; and hence in 7, 43, 52, et al., Theodoret, Or., it is 
changed for @sov. — Ver. 10. «/ ¢e:] Elz. Scholz, Tisch. have «i 
yap er. But ydp is wanting in A B D* F Gx, min., Copt. 
Arm. Vulg. It. Cyr. Damasc. and Latin Fathers, and has been 
inserted for the sake of connection. — Ver. 11. Instead of :, 
B D* FG x**, 17, 213, It. Vulg. and Fathers have yép. The 
latter has mechanically crept in from the use of the same word 
before and after (vv. 10, 12). s&*** has restored 4%. — Ver. 12. 
Instead of oirs, A D* F G8, min., and Greek Fathers have ovdéz. 
So Lachm. A mechanical error of copying after the previous ovdz. 
— Ver. 15. 6 @eé¢] after etdox. is wanting in B F G, 20, and many 
vss. and Fathers. Bracketed by Lachm. and Schott; deleted 
by Tisch. ; rejected justly also by Ewald and Wieseler. An ex- 
planatory addition. — Ver. 17. dv7jAév] B D E F G, 46, 74, Syr. 
Syr. p. (in the margin), Bas., have éx%Aov. So Lachm. and Schott. 
Certainly <»74ov has the appearance of interpolation, suggested 
as well by the direction of the journey (comp. dvaGBaivew sig 


12 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


‘Iepooor.) as by ver. 18. — Ver. 18. Mérpov] A B 8, min., Syr. Erp. 
Copt. Sahid. Aeth. Syr. p. (in the margin) have Kygév. Approved 
of by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Scholz, Schott, Tisch. Justly ; 
the Hebrew name, both here and also in ii. 9, 11, 14, was 
supplanted by the Greek as a gloss; hence in ii. 7, 8, where 
Paul himself wrote the Greek name, the variation Kngéa does 
not occur. We must not assume that the reading Kya arose 
through several Fathers, like Clem. Al. in Eus. i 12, being 
unwilling to refer the unfavourable account in ii. 11 ff. to the 
Apostle Peter (Winer), because otherwise the Hebrew name 
would only have been used from ii. 11 onwards. 





Contents.—After the apostolic address and salutation (vv. 
1-5), Paul immediately expresses his astonishment that his 
readers had so soon fallen away to a false gospel; against the 
preachers of which he utters his anathema, for he seeks to 
please God, and not men (vv. 6-10). Next, he assures them 
that his gospel is not of men, for he had not received it from 
any man, but Christ had revealed it to him (vv. 11,12). In 
order to confirm this historically, he appeals to his pre-Chris- 
tian activity in persecution and to his Jewish zeal at that time 
(vv. 13, 14), and gives an exact account of his journeys and 
abodes from his conversion down to his formal acknowledgment 
on the part of the original apostles; from which it must be evi- 
dent that he could be no disciple of the apostles (vv. 15-24). 

Ver. 1. "Arrdcronros otk an’ dvOpwrav ovde 8’ avOparou, 
adda «.7..] Thus does Paul, with deliberate incisiveness and 
careful definition, bring into prominence at the very head of 
his epistle his (in the strictest sense) apostolic dignity, because 
doubt had been thrown on it by his opponents in Galatia. 
For by ov« az’ av@pwirwv he denies that his apostleship 
proceeded from men (causa remotior), and by ovdé 6v’ dvOp. that 
it came by means of a man (causa medians). It was neither of 
human origin, nor was a man the mediwm of conveying it. 
Comp. Bernhardy, pp. 222, 236; Winer, p. 390 [E. T. 521}. 
On azo, comp. also Rom. xiii. 1. To disregard the diversity of 
meaning in the two prepositions (Semler, Morus, Koppe, and 
others), although even Usteri is inclined to this view (“ Paul 
meant to say that in no respect did his office depend on human 
authority”), is all the more arbitrary, seeing that, while the two 








CHAP. L. 1. 13 


negatives very definitely separate the two relations, these two 
relations cannot be expressed by the mere change of number 
(Koppe, “non hominum, ne cujusquam quidem hominis;” comp. 
Bengel, Semler, Morus, Rosenmiiller). This in itself would be 
but a feeble amplification of the thought, and in order to be 
intelligible, would need to be more distinctly indicated (perhaps 
by the addition of zroAA@y and évos), for otherwise the readers 
would not have their attention drawn off from the difference 
of the prepositions. Paul has on the second occasion written 
not avOpwrwyv again, but avOperov, because the contrast to 
80’ dvOpatrov is Sa "Inood Xpiotod. It was not a man, but 
the exalted Christ, through whom the divine call to the 
apostleship came to Paul at Damascus; avtés o Seororns 
ovpavobev éxdrecey ovx avOpar@ ypnodpevos trovpy@, Theo- 
doret. And this contrast is quite just: for Christ, the incarnate 
Son of God, was indeed as such, in the state of His self-re- 
nunciation and humiliation, dvOpw7ros (Rom. v.15; 1 Cor. xv. 
21), and in His human manifestation not specifically different. 
from other men (Phil. ii. 7; Gal. iv. 4; Rom. viii. 3); but 
in His state of exaltation, since He is as respects His whole 
divine-human nature in heaven (Eph. i 20 ff; Phil. ii. 9, iii. 
20, 21), He is, although subordinate to the Father (1 Cor. ii. 
23, xi 3, xv. 28, e al.), partaker of the divine majesty which 
He had before the incarnation, and possesses in His whole 
person at the right hand of God divine honour and divine 
dominion. Comp. generally, Usteri, Lehrbegr. p. 327; Weiss, 
Bibl. Theol. p., 306. — xai Qcod wrarpos| Following out the 
contrast, we should expect xal amo Qcod warp. But availing 
himself of the variety of form in which his idea could be set 
forth, Paul comprehends the properly twofold relation under 
one preposition, since, in point of fact, with respect to the 
modification in the import of the 6d no reader could doubt 
that here the causa principalis is conceived also as medians. 
As to this usage of 8a in popular language, see on 1 Cor. i. 9. 
Christ is the mediate agent of* Paul’s apostleship, inasmuch as 
Christ was the instrument through which God called him; but 
God also, who nevertheless was the causa principalis, may be 
conceived of under the relation of dsa@ (comp. iv. 7; Lach- 
mann), inasmuch as Christ made him His apostle ov« dvev 


14 TIE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS, 


@cod sratpos, but, on the contrary, through the working of God, 
that is, through the interposition of the divine will, which 
exerted its determining influence in the act of calling (comp. 
. 1 Cor.i.1; 2 Cor. 1; Eph i 1; Coli 1; 1Timil; 2 
Tim. i 1). Comp. Plat. Symp. p. 186 E, dea tod Geod rourod 
xuBepvarar; and Rom. xi. 36, dv avrod ta mavra; Winer, p. 
354 f. [E. T. 474]. — The words Qcod warpos (which together 
have the nature of a proper name: comp. Phil 1.11; Eph. vi 
23; 1 Pet. i. 2), according to the context, present God as the 
Father of Jesus Christ, not as Father generally (de Wette; 
comp. Hilgenfeld), nor as owr Father (Paulus, Usteri, Wieseler). 
The Father is named after the Son by way of climax (comp. 
Eph. v. 5): in describing the superhuman origin of his apostle- 
ship Paul proceeds from the Higher to the Highest, without 
whom (see what follows) Christ could not have called him. 
Of course the calling by Christ is the element deciswe of the 
true arooroAn (Wieseler) ; but it would remain so, even if Paul, 
advancing to the more definite agent, had named Christ after 
God. The supposition of a dogmatic precaution (Theodoret, 
iva pn Tis UroAdBy wrovpyov elvas Tod Trarpds Tov vidv, EevpaYv 
mpookeiuevov TO Sed, ernyaye kal Ocod marpos; comp. Chry- 
sostom, Calovius, and others) would be as irrelevant and inap- 
propriate, as Riickert’s opinion is arbitrary, that Paul at first 
intended merely to write da I. X., and then added as an after- 
thought, but inexactly (therefore without dzro), xal Ocod rratpos. 
— Tod éyelpavtos avtoy éx vexpov] For Paul was called to be 
an apostle by the Christ who had been raised up bodily from 
the dead by the Father (1 Cor. xv. 8, ix. 1; Acts ix. 22, 26); 
so that these words involve a historical confirmation of that 
_kat Ocod matpos in its special relation as thoroughly assuring 
the full apostolic commission of Paul:' they are not a mere 
- designation of God as originator of the work of redemption (de 
Wette), which does not correspond to the definite connection 
with dmdctodos. According to Wieseler, the addition is in- 
tended to awaken faith both in Jesus as the Son and in God 
as our reconciled Father. But apart from the fact that the 
Father is here the Father of Christ, the idea of reconciliation 
does not suggest itself at this stage ; and the whole self-descrip- 
1 Comp. Beyschlag in Stud. u. Krit. 1864, p. 225. 





CHAP, I. 2. 1b 


tion, which is appended to IIadXos, is introduced solely by 
his consciousness of fwll apostolic authority: it describes by 
contrast and historically what in other epistles is expressed 
by the simple «Anros amroctonos. The opinion that Paul is 
pointing at the reproach made against him of not having seen 
Christ (Calvin, Morus, Semler, Koppe, Borger; comp. Ellicott), 
and that he here claims the pre-eminence of having been the 
only one called by the exalted Jesus (Augustine, Erasmus, 
Beza, Menochius, Estius, and others), is inappropriate, for the 
simple reason that the resurrection of Christ is mentioned in 
the form of a predicate of God (not of Christ). This reason 
also holds good against Matthies (comp. Winer), who thinks 
that the divine elevation of Christ is the point intended to be 
conveyed. Chrysostom and Oecumenius found even a: refer- 
ence directed against the validity of the Mosaical law, and Luther 
(comp. Calovius) against the trust in one’s own righteousness. 
Ver. 2. Kai ot ody éwot mavres adcrdoi] adeddoi denotes 
nothing more than fellow-Christians ; but the words ovv éuol 
place the persons here intended in special connection with the 
person of the apostle (comp. i. 3; Phil. iv. 21): the fellow- 
Christians who are in my company. This is rightly under- 
stood as referring to his travelling companions, who were re- 
spectively his official assistants, at the time (comp. Pareus, 
Hammond, Semler, Michaelis, Morus, Koppe, Rosenmiiller, 
Winer, Paulus, Riickert, Usteri, Wieseler, Reithmayr), just as 
Paul, in many other epistles, has conjoined the name of 
official associates with his own (1 Cor. i. 1; 2 Cor i 1; 
Phil. ii 1; Col 1.1; 1 Thess. i.1; 2 Thess.i 1). Instead 
of mentioning their names,’ which were perhaps known to the 
Galatians at least in part—possibly from his last visit to 
them (Acts xviii. 23) or in some other way—he uses the 
emphatic advres (which, however, by no means implies any 
very large number, as Erasmus and others, including Olshausen, 
- have supposed), indicating that these brethren collectively 
desired to address the very same instructions, warnings, ex-_ 
hortations, etc., to the Galatians, whereby the impressive 


1 Which indeed he might have done, even if the epistle had been, as an 
exception, written by his own hand (but see on vi. 11); so that Hofmann s view 
is erroneous. | ) 


16 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO TIIE GALATIANS, 


effect of the epistle, especially as regards the apostle’s op- 
ponents, could not but be strengthened, and therefore was 
certainly intended to be so strengthened (comp. Chrysostom, 
Theodoret, Jerome, Erasmus, Galvin, and others). At the same 
time, there is no need to assume that his opponents had spread 
abroad the suggestion that some one in the personal circle of 
the apostle did not agree with him in his teaching (Wieseler) ; 
actual indications of this must have been found in the 
epistle. Others have thought of all the Christians in the 
place where he was then sojourning (Erasmus, Estius, Grotius, 
Calovius, and others; also Schott). This is quite opposed to 
the analogy of all the other epistles of the N. T., not one of 
which is composed in the name of a church along with that of 
the writer. It would, in that case, have been more suitable 
that Paul should have either omitted otv éuol (comp. 1 Cor. 
xvi. 20), or expressed himself in such a way as to intimate, 
not that the church was ovy aivr@, but that he was ovv avrois. 
To refer it (with Beza) to the offce-bearers of the church, is | 
quite arbitrary; for the readers could not recognise this in 
ovv éuot without further explanation. — tats éxxAnoiass THs 
Tadar.| consequently a circular epistle to the several indepen- 
dent churches. The relations of the churches were different 
in Achaia: see on 1 Cor. i. 2; 2 Cor.i,1. The fact that 
Paul adds no epithet of honour (as «Anois ayious, or the like) 
is considered by Chrysostom, Theophylact, Oecumenius, and 
by Winer, Credner, Olshausen (comp. Riickert), Hilgenfeld, 
Wieseler, a sign of indignation. Comp. Grotius, “ quia coeperant 
ab evangelio declinare.” And justly so; because it is in 
keeping with the displeasure and chagrin which induce him 
afterwards to refrain from all such favourable testimony as he 
elsewhere usually bears to the Christian behaviour of his 
readers, and, on the contrary, to begin at once with blame 
(ver. 6). In no other epistle, not even in the two earliest, 1 
and 2 Thess., has he put the address so barely, and so unac- 
companied by any complimentary recognition, as in this; it . 
is not sufficient, therefore, to appeal to the earlier and later 
“usage of the apostle” (Hofmann). 

Ver. 3. Qcod marpos] refers here, according to the context, 
to the Christians, who through Christ have received the vio8ec/a. 





CHAP, I. 4 17 


See iv. 26 ff; Rom. viii. 15.—See, further, on Rom. 
og | 

- Ver. 4. This addition prepares the readers thus early for the 
recognition of their error; for their adhesion to Judaism was 
indeed entirely opposed to the aim of the atoning death of 
Jesus. Comp. ii. 20, 11 13 ff “See how he directs every 
word against self-righteousness,” Luther’s gloss. — rod Sovros 
éavrov] that is, who did not withhold (épe/caro, Rom. viii. 32), 
but surrendered Himself, namely, to be put to death.’ This 
special application of the words was obvious of itself to the 
Christian consciousness, and is placed beyond doubt by the 
addition zrept 7. duapr. nu. . Comp. Matt. xx. 28; Eph. v. 25; 
Tit. i. 14; 1 Tim. i. 6; 1 Mace. vi. 44; and Wetstein in 
loc. —- mrept Tav dpapt. H.| in respect of our sins (Rom. viii. 
3), on account of them, namely, in order to atone for them. See 
Rom. iit 23 ff; Gal iii, 12 ff. In essential sense mepé is 
not. different from éép (1 Pet. iii. 18; Matt. xxvi. 28; Heb. 
x. 26, xiii, 11; Xen. Mem. i. 1. 17; Eur. Ale. 176, comp. 
701; Hom. Ji. xii. 243, comp. i. 444; see Buttmann, nd. 
ad Mid. p. 188; Schaefer, App. Dem. I. p. 190; Bremi, ad 
Dem. Ol. p. 188, Goth.), and the idea of satisfaction is im- 
plied, not in the signification of the preposition, but in the 
whole nature of the case. Hom. JI. i. 444: BoiBw... 
éxaTtouBny péEat trép Aavawy (for the benefit of the Danat), 
dbp’ tNacopecba dvaxta. As to Twepé and irép in respect to 
the death of Jesus, the latter of which (never zrepé) is always 
used: by Paul when the reference to persons is expressed, see 
further on 1 Cor. i 13, xv. 3. — Stras eEéAntat Hyas K.7.r.] 
End, which that self-surrender was to attain. The évectas 
aidv is usually understood as equivalent to 0 aiwy odtos, o 
viv aidv. Certainly in. practical meaning éveorws may denote 
present (hence in the grammarians, 0 éveotws ypovos, tempus 
praesens), but always only with the definite reference suggested 
by the literal signification, setting in, that is, in the course of 
entrance, that which has already begun. So not merely in 
passages such as Dem. 255. 9, 1466. 21; Herodian, ii 2. 3; 
Polyb. i. 75. 2; 3 Esd. v. 47, ix. 6; 3 Macc. i 16, but also 
*" 1 Comp. Clem. Cor. I. 49, +3 alua aired Rwxsy dalp ied». For instances from: 
Greek authors of iwxs» izvrdy, see Dissen, ad Dem. de Cor. p. 348. 

e B 


18 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


in Xen. Hell. ii. 1. 5; Plat. Legg. ix. p. 878; Dinarch. i. 93; 
Polyb. i. 83. 2,160. 9, vii. 5. 4; 2 Mace. iii. 17, vi. 9; comp. 
Schweighauser, Lex. Polyb. p. 219; Dissen, ad Dem. de Cor. p. 
350. So also universally in the N. T., Rom. viii. 38; 1 Cor. 
ili, 22, vil. 26; 2 Thess. ii. 2 (comp. 2 Tim. iit. 1; Heb. ix. 
9). Now, as this definite reference of its meaning would be 
quite unsuitable to designate the aiay otros, because the latter 
is not an aeon just begun, but one running its course from 
the beginning and lasting until the zapovoia; and as else- 
where Paul always describes this present aiwy as the aiov 
ovros (Rom. xii. 2; 1 Cor. i. 20; and frequently: comp. o 
viv aiwv, 1 Tim. vi. 17; 2 Tim. iv. 10; Tit. ii, 12), we 
must explain it as the period of time which 1s already wn the act 
of setting in, the evil time which has already begun, that is, 
the time immediately preceding the mapovcia, so that the 
aiwy évectos is the last part of the aiwy ovros. This aiav 
eveotos is not only very full of sorrow through the dolores 
Messiae (see on 1 Cor. vii. 26), to which, however, the ethical 
wovnpos in our passage does not refer; but it is also in the 
highest degree immoral, inasmuch as many fall away from the 
faith, and the antichristian principle developes great power 
and audacity (2 Thess. u. 3 ff.; 1 Tim. iv. 1 ff; 2 Tim. ii. 1 
ff.; 2 Pet. iti, 3; Jude 18; 1 Johnii 18; Matt. xxiv. 10-12). 
Comp. Usteri, Jc. p. 348 ff; Liicke and Huther on 1 John 
ii, 18. On that account this period of time is pre-eminently 
0 aiwv movnpos. With his idea of the nearness of the 
mapovoia, Paul conceived this period as having then already 
begun (comp. 2 Thess. ii 7), although its full development 
was still in reserve (2 Thess. i. 8). Accordingly, the same 
period is here designated o aiwy éveotas which in other places 
is called xatpos Exyartos (1 Pet. i. 5), Exyarar jpépar (Acts ii. 
17; 2 Tim. iii 1), doydrn dpa (1 John ii 18), and in 
Rabbinic 7P or iD or ODT NNN (Isa. ii, 2; Jer. xxiii 20; 
Mic. iv. 1). See Schoettgen, Hor. ad 2 Tim. iii. 1. Christ, 
says Paul, desired by means of His atoning death to deliver 
us out of this wicked period, that is, to place us out of fellow- 
ship with v, inasmuch as through His death the guilt of 
believers was blotted out, and through faith, by virtue of the 
Holy Spirit, the new moral life—the life in the Spirit—was 











CHAP. I. 5. 19 
brought about in them (Rom. vi. 8). Christians have become 
objects of God’s love and holy, and as such are now taken out 
of that aidy wovnpos, so that, although living in this air, 
they yet have nothing in common with its wovnpia.’ Comp. 
Barnabas, Hp. 10, where the righteous man, walking in this 
world, rov &ytov aidva éxdéyerar. The é&éAnrat, moreover, 
-has the emphasis and is accordingly prefixed. For how antago- 
nistic to this separation, designed by Christ, was the fellowship 
with the aiwy zrovnpos into which the readers had relapsed 
through their devotion to the false teachers !—Observe, more- 
over, that the aie rrovnpos forms one idea, and therefore it was 
not necessary to repeat the article before zrovnpod (as Matthias 
contends); see Kriiger, § 57. 2. 3. — xara 76 Oédnyua x.7.2.] 
strengthens the weight of the dws é£éAntae x.7.X., to which it 
belongs. Comp. Eph.1.4f.; ColLi.13f The salvation was 
willed by God, to whom Christ was obedient (Phil. ii. 8); the 
reference of cata 7. Oecd. x.7.r. to the whole sentence from tod 
Sovros onwards (Bengel, Wieseler, probably also Hofmann) is 
less simple, and unnecessary. The connection with vrovnpod 
(Matthias) would only be possible, if the latter were predica- 
tive, and would yield an idea entirely paradoxical. — +r. Ocod 
k. Tarp. Hj.| of God, who (through Christ) is our Father. Comp. 
Phil. iv. 20; 1 Thess. i 3, 77, 11, 13. As to the «ad, comp. 
on 1 Cor. xv. 24; Eph. 1 3: from the latter passage it must 
not be concluded that yor belongs also to cod (Hofmann). 
The more definite designation «. matp. yey conveys the 
motive of the 0érAnpa, love. 

Ver. 5. To the mention of this counsel of deliverance the 
piety of the apostle annexes a doxology. Comp. 1 Tim.i.17; 
Rom. xi. 36, ix. 5, xvi. 27; Eph. iii. 21. — 7 d0£a] that is, 
the honour due to Him for this @é\nua. We have to supply 
ein, and not éori (Vulgate, Hofmann, Matthias), which is 
anserted (Rom. 1. 25; 1 Pet. iv. 11) where there is no 
doxology. So in the frequent doxologies in the apostolic 


1 It is therefore self-evident how unjust is the objection taken by Hilgenfeld 
to our interpretation, that it limits the Redeemer’s death to this short period of 
transition. This the apostle in no way does, but he portrays redemption con- 
cretely, displaying the whole importance and greatness of its salvation by the 
force of strongest contrast. This remark also applies to Wieseler’s objection. 





20 - THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


Fathers, e.g. Clement, Cor. I. 20, 38, 43, 45, 50, 58. Comp. 
the customary evAoynTos, sc. ein, at Rom. ix. 5; Eph. i. 3. 
See, further, on Eph. ii. 21. 

Ver. 6. Without prefixing, as in other epistles, even in those 
to the Corinthians,’a conciliatory preamble setting forth what 
was commendable in his readers, Paul at once plunges in 
mediam rem. He probably wrote without delay, immediately 
on receiving the accounts which arrived as to the falling away 
of his readers, while his mind was still in that state of agitated 
feeling which prevented him from using his customary preface 
of thanksgiving and conciliation,—a painful irritation (aupod- 
peat, 2 Cor. xi. 29), which was the more just, that in the case of 
the Galatians, the very foundation and substance of his gospel 
threatened to fall to pieces. — Oavyudfw] often used by Greek 
orators in the sense of surprise at something blameworthy, 
Dem. 349. 3; Sturz, Lex. Xen. II. p. 511; Abresch, Diluc. 
Thuc. p. 309. In the N. T., comp. Mark vi. 6 ;. John vii 21; 
1 John iii. 13. — odtw Tayéws] so very quickly, so recently, 
may denote either the rapid development of the apostasy (comp. 
2 Thess. ii. 2; 1 Tim. v. 22; Wisd. xiv. 28), as Chrysostom 
(ov5¢ ypovov Séovrar of aratavres twas «.7.d.), Theophylact, 
Koppe, Schott, de Wette, Windischmann, Ellicott, Hofmann; 
Reithmayr understand it; or its early ocewrrence (1 Cor. iv. 
19; Phil. 1. 19, e¢ al.), whether reckoned from the last visit 
of the apostle (Bengel, Flatt, Hilgenfeld, Wieseler) or from the 
conversion of the readers (Usteri, Olshausen), The latter is 
preferable, because it corresponds with dad tod Kxadécavtos 
k.7.X., Whereby the time of the calling is indicated as the ¢er- 
minus a quo. Comp. Hi 1-3. This view is not inconsistent — 
with the fact that the epistle was written a considerable time 
after the conversion of the readers ; for, at all events, they had 
been Christians for but a few years, which the oire tayéws as 
a relative idea still suits well enough. By their perariGecOar 
they showed themselves to be mpooxarpou (Matt. xiii. 21), and 
this swrprises the apostle. As to oirw, comp. on ii. 3. — perta- 
TiGecbe] petariOnus, to transpose, in,the middle, to alter one’s 
opinion, to become of another mind, and generally to fall 
away (with eis, App. Hisp. 17; Ecclus. vi. 8; with zpos, 
Polyb. xxvi. 2,6). See Wetstein in loc.; Kypke, II. p. 273; 


CHAP. I. 6. 21 


Ast. ad Plat. de Leg. p. 497; from the LXX., Schleusner, s.v. ; 
and from Philo, Loesner, p. 325. It might also be understood 
in'a passive sense (Theodorus of Mopsuestia, perati6., not 
' perdyeobe, is used: as em ayrvywy; Beza, “ verbum passivum 
usurpavit, ut culpam in pseudo-apostolos derivet”). But the 
use of the middle in this sense is the common one; so that the 
passive sense, and the nicety which, according to Beza, is in- 
volved in it, must have been more definitely indicated to the 
’ reader in order to be recognised. The present tense denotes that 
the readers were still in the very act of the falling away, which 
began so soon after their conversion. According to Jerome, 
the word itself is intended to convey an allusion to the name 
Galatia: “ Galatia enim translationem in nostra lingua sonat” 
(mp3 ; hence Mei, mids, carrying away). Although approved by 
Bertholdt, this idea is nevertheless an empty figment, because 
the thing suggested the expression, and these Hebrew words . 
denote the petatifecOas in the sense of exile (see Gesenius, 
Thes. I. ‘:p. 285). But from an historical point of view, the 
appeals of Grotius and Wetstein to the fickleness of the Gallic 
character (Caes. B. Gall. ii. 19, iv. 5, 1. 1, ii. 10) are not 
without interest as regards the Galatians. — dio rot xadécav- 
Tos pas év yapits X.] On amo, away from, comp. 2 Macc. vii. 
24; and see generally, Kiihner, § 622 c. The rod carécavtos 
is not to be taken with Xpiorod, as Syr., Jerome, Erasmus (in 
the version, not in the paraphrase and annotations), Luther, 
Calvin, Grotius, Bengel, and others, also Morus and Flatt, 
understand it; against which may be urged, not (with Matthies 
and Schott) the want of the article before Xprorod (see on Rom. 
ix. 5; comp. also 1 Pet. 1 15), but the fact that the calling 
into the kingdom of the Messiah is presented by Paul (and 
the apostles generally) so constantly as the work of God, that 
we must not deviate from this analogy in explaining the words 
(see on Rom. i. 6; and Weiss, Bidl. Theol. p. 387). Thence, 
also, Tod xadréo. is not to be taken as neuter, and referred to 
the gospel (Ewald); but o xaréoas is God, and Xpiorot belongs 
to év yapire, from Him who has called you through the grace of 
Christ. "Ev yapure Xpiorod is instrumental ; for the grace of 
Christ (Acts xv. 11; Rom. v.15; 2 Cor. viii. 9; Tit. iii. 6: 
comp. also Rom. xvi. 20; 2 Cor. xi. 9, xi. 13; Philem. 25), 


22 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


that is, the favour of Christ unmerited by sinful men, according 
to which He gave up His life to atone for them (comp. ver. 4), 
is that by which, that is, by the preaching of which, the divine 
calling reaches the subjects of it; comp. Acts xiv. 3, xx. 24. 
So «cadeip with év, 1 Cor. vii. 15; Eph. iv. 4; 1 Thess. iv. 7; 
to which passages the interpretation “on the ground of grace” 
(Wieseler) is not suitable. Others take év’ for eis (Vulgate, 
Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose, Beza and others, also Borger 
and Riickert); so that by brevity of language ev, indicating 
the result of the direction, includes within it this also; see 
Winer, p. 388 [E. T. 514]. This is unnecessarily forced, 
for such a constructio praegnans in Greek and in the N. T. is 
undisputed only in the case of verbs of motion (as épyeoGat, 
elovévat, éwrrimrew, x.t.r.). Comp. also Hartung, aber d. Kas. 
p- 68f. In point of sense, moreover, this view is liable to the 
objection that the xAjous always refers to the Messianic kingdom 
(1 Thess. ‘uu. 12; 1 Tim. vi. 12; 2 Thess. i, 14; 1 Pet. v. 
10; Rev. xix. 9, e al.; also 1 Cor. 1. 9, and passages such as 
Col. iii, 15; 1 Thess. iv. 7), and the grace of Christ is that 
which procures the Messianic owrnpia (Rom. v. 15, e¢ al.), and 
not the cwrnpla itself. On the absence of the article before 
xadpite, see Winer, p. 118 f. [E. T. 147 f.]|—-Observe, moreover. 
how the whole mode of setting forth the apostasy makes the 
readers sensible of its antagonism to God and salvation! Comp. 
Chrysostom and Theodoret. — eis Erepov evaryy.] to a gospel of 
a different quality, from that, namely, which was preached to 
you when God called you. Comp. 2 Cor. xi. 4. The contrast 
is based on the previous designation of their calling as having 
taken place ev ydpere Xpiorov (not somehow by the law),—a 
statement clearly enough indicating the specific nature of the 
Pauline gospel, from which the nature of the Judaistic teach- 
ing, although the Galatians had likewise received the latter 
as the gospel for which it had been passed off, was withal so 
different (€repov). , Comp. ver. 8. 

Ver. 7. The expression just used, eis repov evaryryédtov, was 
a paradoxical one, for in the true sense there is only one 
gospel: it seems to presuppose the existence of several evay- 
“yéAua, but only serves to bring into clearer light the mislead- 
ing efforts of the Judaists, and in this sense the apostle now 





CHAP, IL. 7. 23 


explains it. — 6 ovK Eotw adro, et py K.T.r.] which Erepov 
evaryyéAtov, to which ye have fallen away, 7s not another, not a 
second gospel, alongside of that by means of which ye were 
called (dAAo, not érepoy again), except there are certain persons 
who perplex you, etc. That is, this Erepov evayyédov is not 
another by the side of the former, only there are certain persons 
who perplex you ; so that in this respect only can we speak of 
Erepov evayyéAcov as if it were an dAdo. So in substance 
Wieseler. and Hofmann; comp. Matthias. It must be ob- 
served that the emphasis is laid first on ovx and then on 
ddAo; so that, although Paul has previously said eis érepov 
evayyédwov, he yet guards the oneness of the gospel, and 
represents that to which he applied the words érepov evaryy. 
as only the corruption and perversion of the one (of the evaryy. 
Tov Kadécavtos buas év ydpitt Xpiorov). Thus ed py retains 
its general meaning nisi, without any need to assume (with 
Matthies) an abbreviation for ef pw GAXo éotl Sia TovTO, ore 
Twés eloty of Tapdocovtes x.t.A.. The two emphatic words 
érepov and dAAo preserve, however, their difference in sense: 
d\Ao meaning absolutely another, that is, a second likewise 
existing (besides the one gospel); and érepov one of another 
kind, different (Erepov xat dvopouy, Plat. Conv. p. 186 B). 
Dem. 911. 7; Soph. Phil. 501, O. C. 1446; Xen. Anab. 
vi. 4. 8 (and Kriiger in loc.); Wisd. vii. 5; Judith vu 20. 
In the N. T., comp. especially 1 Cor. xii 8-10, xv. 40; 
2 Cor. xi. 4; Acts iv. 12; also 1 Cor. xiv. 21; Rom. vii. 23; 
Mark xvi. 12; Luke ix. 29. Comp. also the expression érepov 
mapa vt, Stallbaum, ad Plat. Phaed. p. 71 A., Rep. p. 337 E. 
The interpretation most generally received (Peschito, Chrysos- 
tom, Oecumenius, Theodoret; Erasmus, Luther, Castalio, Beza, 
Wolf, Bengel, and many others; also Morus, Koppe, Borger, 
Flatt, Usteri, de Wette, Hilgenfeld) connects 8 ovx éorw adro 


1 Fritzsche, ad Mare. vi. 5, takes si «4 ironically, and e:és in the well-known 
sense, people of importance (see on Acts v. 36, and Hermann, ad Viger. p. 731): 
“‘nisi forte magni est factenda eorum auctoritas, qui,” etc. But the article 
which follows renders this interpretation not at all necessary (see below). 
Besides, in this sense Paul uses only the neuter (see ii. 6, vi. 3; 1 Cor. iii. 7). 
Lastly, he is fond of designating false teachers, adversaries, etc., a3 rsvis, that is, 
quidam, quos nominare nolo (Hermann, ad Viger. l.c.). See 1 Cor. iv. 18; 2 
Cor. iii. 1; Gal. ii. 12; 1 Cor. xv. 12; 1 Tim. 1 3. 





24 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


merely with evayyédov,' and for the most part understands ei 
uy adversatively, “Neque tamen est ulla alia doctrina de Jesu 
Christo vera; sunt vero homines,” etc., Koppe. Against this 
interpretation may be urged, first, the fact that trepov pre- 
viously had the chief emphasis laid on it, and is therefore 
quite unwarrantably excluded from the reference of the re- 
lative which follows; secondly, that Paul must have logically 
used some such expression as yu) Gyros aGAAod; and lastly, that 
et wy never means anything else than nisi, not even in. passages 
such as 11 16; Matt. xii 4 (see on this passage); Luke iv. 
26; 1 Cor. vii. 17; and Rev. ix. 4, xxi. 27. Comp. Hom. 
Od. xii. 325 f., o¥dé tus AAAs yiyver’ Erreit’ avéuwy, ei py Evpos 
te Noros te, and the passages in Poppo, ad Thue. III. 1, p. 216. 
Others, a3 Calvin, Grotius (not Calovius), Homberg, Winer, 
Riickert, Olshausen, refer 6 to the whole contents of dre odrw 
TAXEWS .. . EVarryédoy, “ quod quidem (sc. vos deficere a Christo) 
non est aliud, nisi, etc., the case is not otherwise than” (Winer). 
But by this interpretation the whole point of the relation, 
so Pauline in its character, which 6 ov« éorw dado bears to 
érepov, is lost; and why should the more special explanation 
of the deficere a Christo be annexed in so emphatic a form, and 
not by a simple yap or the like? Lastly, Schott (so also Cor- 
nelius a Lapide) looks upon 6 ov« éorw ddXo as a parenthesis, 
and makes e¢ yn) Ties «.7.X. depend on Oavudtw x.7.r.; so that 
that, which is expressed in the words @avydlw «.7.r., by eb 7 
twes «7. “ limitibus circumscribatur proferenda defectionis 
causa, qua perpendenda wllud Oavpatew vel minuatur vel tolla- 
tur.’ This is incorrect, for logically Paul must have written 
Cavpatov dv... et un Twes Hoav; and with what arbitrary 
artifice 6 ovx €or addo is thus set aside and, as it were, 
abandoned, and yet the reference of the 6 to the emphatic 
érepov is assumed! — ot tapdocorvres tpds| The participle 
with the article designates the rwvés as those whose character- 
istic was the tagaocew of the Galatians, as persons who dealt 
in this, who were occupied with it. Comp. the very usual eiciv 
ot Aéyovres ; also Luke xviii. 9 ; Col. ii. 8. See generally Winer, 
p. 104 [E. T: 136]; Kriiger, § 50. 4. 3; Fritzsche, Quaest. 


' So already the Marcionites, who proved from our passage that there was no 
other gospel than theirs! See Chrysostom in loc. 


CHAP. 1.8. | 25 


Luk. p. 18; Dissen, ad Dem. de Cor. p. 238. On rapaccew, 
in the sense of perplexing the faith and principles, comp. 
here and v. 10, especially Acts xv. 24; Ecclus. xxviii. 9. — 
kat Oérovres preractpéyrat] “re ipsa non poterant, volebant 
tamen obnixe,” Bengel ; “volunt . . . sed non valent,” Jerome. 
On the other hand, the tapdccew of the Galatians actually 
took place. —- The article before tap. refers to Oédovres as 
well. See Seidler, ad Kur. El. 429; Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 
52; Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 1. 19. — peracrpépaz, to 
pervert, that is, to alter so that it acquires an entirely opposite 
nature. Comp. LXX. 1 Sam. x. 9; Ecclus. xi 31; Hom. J1. 
xv. 203; Dem. 1032. 1. — 76 evayy. ro X.] see generally 
on Mark i. 1. The genitive is here not awetoris, but, as 
expressing the specific characteristic of the one only gospel 
in contradistinction to those who were perplexing the Galatians, 
oljectt (concerning Christ). This is evident from ver. 6, where 
év xapitt Xpicrov indicates the contents of the gospel. 

Ver. 8. “AAAa, not but, as an antithesis to ovx éorw adAXO 
(Hofmann), which has already been fully disposed of by ef uy 
x.t.r, It is rather the however confronting most emphatically 
the twés elow of trapdocovtes x.7.X. “There are some, etc. ; 
whoso, however, it may be who so behaves, let him be accursed !” 
This curse pronounced by the apostle on his opponents is 
indirect, but, because it is brought about by a conclusion a 
majort ad minus, all the more emphatic. — Kat édv] to be 
taken together, even in the case that. See Herm. ad Viger. 
p. 832; Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 140 f. — »ets] applies 
primarily and chiefly to the apostle himself, but the ctv éuol 
mavres adeAgol (ver. 2) are also included. To embrace in the 
reference the associates of the apostle in founding the Galatian 
churches (Hofmann) is premature, for these are only presented 
to the reader in the evnyyeAtoapeOa which follows. — dryyendos 
é£ ovpavov| to be taken together: an angel ovpavoOev xataBds 
(Hom. J/. xi. 184). Comp. dryyeros ev odpave, Matt. xxii. 30. 
If Paul rejects both his own and angelic authority—conse- 
quently even the supposed superhuman intervention (comp. 
1 Cor. xin. 1)—with reference to the case assumed, as accursed, 


1 Comp. Ignatius, ad Smyrn. 6, where it is said even of the angels, iay ur 
Riorsvowssy sis To aie Xpsorov, xaxsivoss xpioss icriv. 


26 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


every one without exception (comp. dors dv 4, v. 10) is in the 
same case subject to the same curse. The certainty, that no 
other gospel but that preached by the apostle to his readers | 
was the true one, cannot be more decisively confirmed. — rap’ 
& ev’nyyedto. tpuiv] This 6, which is not to be explained by 
evayyéhwov (Schott, Flatt, Hofmann), is simply that, which, 
namely, as the context shows, as contents of the gospel; 
“ beyond that which we,” etc. (Bernhardy, p. 259.) This may 
mean either practerquam (Vulgate, Chrysostom, Oecumenius, 
Theophylact, Erasmus, Beza, Calovius, Rambach, and others) 
or contra (so Theodoret and the older Catholics, Grotius, and 
many others; also Winer, Riickert, Usteri, Matthies, Schott, 
Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Wieseler, Hofmann). For 
the two meanings, see Matthiae, p. 1381; Winer, p. 377 
[E. T. 503). In earlier times a dogmatic interest was involved 
in this point: the Lutherans, in order to combat tradition, 
laying the stress on praeterquam; and the Catholics, to protect 
the same, on contra. See Calovius and Estius. The contra, 
or more exactly, the sense of specific difference, is most suitable 
to the context (see ver. 6, trepov evayyér.). Comp. Rom. xvi. 
17. — ednyyedicdueba ipiv] that is, “I and my companions 
at the time of your conversion” (comp. zrapeXafere, ver. 9). 
The emphasis, however, lies on aap’. — dvdGepa éotw] Let 
hanr be, subject to the divine wrath and everlasting perdition (ON), 
the same as xatdpa and émixatdpares, iii. 13; see on Rom. 
ix. 3. The opposite, vi. 16. To apply it (Rosenmiiller, 
Baumgarten-Crusius, comp. also Grotius and Semler) to the 
idea of excommunication subsequently expressed in the church 
(Suicer, Thes. I. p. 270) by the word dvdGeua, is contrary to 
the usage of the N. T. (Rom. ix. 3; 1 Cor. xii. 3, xvi. 22), 
and is besides in this passage erroneous, because even a 
false-teaching angel is supposed in the protasis. Comp., on 
the contrary, v. 10, Baotdce: 76 xpipa; 2 Thess. i. 9. See 
generally the thoroughly excellent discussion of Wieseler, p. 
39 ff. Mark, moreover, in the use of the preceptive rather 
than the mere optative form, the expression of the apostolic 
é£ovaia, Let him be ! 

Ver. 9. Again the same curse (“ deliberate loquitur,” 
Bengel); but now the addition of an allusion to an earlier 


CHAP, I. 9, 27 


utterance of it increases still more its solemn earnestness. — 
ws qmpoepnxapev] is referred by Chrysostom, Theophylact, 
Theodoret, Oecumenius, Luther, Erasmus, Estius, Grotius, 
Bengel, and most of the earlier expositors, also Flatt, Winer, 
Matthies, Neander, to ver. 8. .But in this case Paul would 
have written merely os cipnxayev, mddw Aéyo, or simply 
maAw é€p@, a8 in Phil. iv. 4. The compound verb mpoetpy- 
 kapev (v. 21; 2 Cor. vii. 3, xiii, 2; 1 Thess. iv. 6) and xai 
aptt point necessarily to an earlier time, in contrast to the 
present. Hence the Peschito, Jerome (comp. Augustine, who 
leaves a choice between the two views), Semler, Koppe, 
Borger, Riickert, Usteri, Schott, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, 
de Wette, Hilgenfeld, Ewald, Wieseler, Hofmann, Reithmayr, 
and others, rightly take it as indicating the presence of the 
apostle among the Galatians at the time when he uttered this 
curse; comp. v. 3. We must, however, look upon this _pre- 
sence as the second and not the first visit (Hofmann) ; for the 
expression in the form of curse betrays an advanced stage of 
the danger, and not a merely prophylactic measure. — Kat 
apte Tadw Aeyw] apodosis, “so say'I also now (at the present 
moment) again;” so that wadw thus glances back to the 
time to which the po applied. Riickert regards as... 
Aeyw together as the protasis (comp. Ewald), in which case 
the proper apodosis, so i is in fact, before ev tis would be 
wanting. Or rather, if ws .. . Aéyw were the protasis, e? Tus 
twas... avdSeya éorw would be the real apodosis. But why 
introduce at all such a forced departure from the separation, 
which presents itself so naturally, and is so full of emphasis, of 
@> ... A€yw into protasis and apodosis? The reference of 
mpoeipyjx. to an earlier time is certain enough; and dpru, now, 
in the sense of-the point of time then present, is very usual 
in Greek authors (Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 18 ff.) and in the 
N. T. — ed tis tas «.7.r.] Paul does not here, as in ver. 8, 
again use édy with the subjunctive, but on account of the 
actual occurrence puts the positive e/,—thus giving to his 
utterance a climactic character, as in Acts v. 38f. (see on the. 
passage); Luke xiii. 9; Winer, p. 277 [E. T. 369]; Butt- 
mann, newt. Gr. p. 190; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Phaed. p. 93 B. 
Comp. 2 Cor, xii. 20, 21, unras — patos — wy. — As to 





28 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


evayyenttec Oat with the accusative; which does not occur else- 
where in Paul’s writings, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 268. — 
qaperaBere] often used of that which one gets through instru- 
tion. See Kypke, IL p. 222. It may, however, denote either 
to take (actively), as in 1 Cor. xv. 1; 1 John i. 11; Phil. iv. 
9; or to receive (passively), as in ver. 12; 1 Thess. it 13; 
1 Cor. xv. 3, e¢ al. The latter is preferable here, as a parallel 
to eimyyeAtcaucOa vip in ver. 8. 

Ver. 10. Paul feels that the curse which he had just re- 
peated twice might strike his readers as being repulsive and 
stern; and in reference thereto he now gives an explanatory 
justification (ydp) of the harsh language. He would not. 
have uttered that dvafeua éorw, if he had been concerned 
at present to influence men in his favour, and not God, etc. 
— apt] has the chief emphasis, corresponds to the dpre in 
ver. 9, and is therefore to be understood, not, as it usually is 
(and by Wieseler also), in the wider sense of the period of 
the apostles Christian life generally, but (so Bengel, de Wette, 
Ellicott) in reference to the present moment, as in ver. 9, just 
as dpty always in the N. T., corresponding to the Greek 
usage of the word, expresses the narrower idea modo, nune 
ipsum, but does not represent the wider sense of vip (i. 20; 
2 Cor. v. 16; Matt, xxvi. 53, et al.), which is not even the 
case in the passages in Lobeck, p. 20. Hence, often as viv in 
Paul’s writings covers the whole period from his conversion, 
apt. is never used in this sense, not even in 1 Cor. xiii. 12. 
The latter rather singles out from the more general compass 
_ of the viv the present moment specially, as in the classical 
combination viv dpte (Plat. Polit. p. 291 B, Men. p. 85 C). 
Now, Paul would say, gust now, when he is induced to write 
this letter by the Judaizing reaction against the very essence 
of the true and sole gospel which he upheld,—wnow, at this 
critical point of time—it could not possibly be his business 
to conciliate men, but God only. Comp. Hofmann. — dv6po- 
mous] is quite general, and is not to be restricted either to 


1 The studied design which Bengel discovers in the alternation between duis 
(ver. 8) and duas (ver. 9), ‘‘evangelio aliquem instruere convenit insultationi 
falsorum doctorum,” is groundless. For they might say just as boastingly, 
‘* evangelium pracdicavimus vobis/” The change in the words is accidental. 








CHAP. I. 10, 29 


‘his opponents (Hofmann) or otherwise. The category, which 
is pointed at, is negatived, and thus the generic avOpa7r. needed 
no article (Stallbaum, ad Plat. Rep. p. 619. 13; Sauppe, ad 
Xen. Mem. i. 4, 14). — aweiOw| persuadeo, whether by words 
or otherwise. The word never has any other signification ; 
but the more precise definition of its meaning results from 
the. context. Here, where that which was repulsive in the 
preceding curse. is to receive explanation, and the parallel is 
tnt apéoxew, and where also the words 7 Tov cov must fit 
in with the idea of zeé@w, it denotes, as often in classical 
authors (Niagelsbach zur Ilias. i. 100), to win over, to conciliate 
and render friendly to oneself (Acts xu. 20, and Kypke 
thereon). Comp. especially on zreiOew Oeov, Pind. Ol. ii. 144; 
Plat. Pol. iii. p. 390 E, ii p. 364 C; Eur. Med. 964; also 
the passages from Josephus in Krebs. Lastly, the present 
tense expresses, J am occupied with wt, I make at my business. 
See Bernhardy, p. 370. Our explanation of ze/@w substan- 
tially agrees with that of Chrysostom, Theophylact, Flacius, 
Hammond, Grotius, Elsner, Cornelius a Lapide, Estius, Wolf, 
Zachariae, Morus, Koppe, and others ; also Borger, Flatt, Winer, 
Riickert, Usteri, Matthies, Schott, Olshausen, Baumgarten- 
Crusius, de Wette, Ewald (who, however, restricts the reference 
of 4 tov @cov, which there is nothing to limit, to the day of jude- 
ment), Wieseler, Hofmann, Reithmayr, and others. The inter- 
pretations which differ from this, such as “humana suadeo or 
doceo, an divina” (Erasmus, Luther, Beza, Vatablus, Gomarus, 
Cramer, Michaelis); or “suadeone secundum homines an secundum 
Deum,” thus expressing the intention and not the contents 
(Calvin) ; or “ suadeone vobis, ut hominibus credatis an ut Deo” 
(Piscator, Pareus, Calixtus; so also in substance, Holsten, 
z. Evang. d. Paul. u. Petr. p. 332 ff, and Hilgenfeld), are con- 
trary to the meaning of the word: for mwe(@ew tia always 
means persuadere alicui, and is not to be identified with 
mwelOew te (Acts xix. 8, xxviil. 23), placing the personal accu- 
sative under the point of view of the thing. — 7 &)r@ avOparrois 
apéoxewy] or do I strive to be an object of human goodwill? - 
—not tautological, but more general than the preceding. The 
stress which lies on av@pwrrois makes any saving clause on the 
part of expositors (as, for example, Schott, “ de ejusmodi cogitari 


30 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


studio hominibus placendi, guod Deo displiceat”) appear un- 
suitable. Even by his winning accommodation (1 Cor. ix. 
19 ff, x. 15) Paul sought not at all to please men, but rather 
God. Comp. 1 Thess. ii, 4. — et Ere dvOpwrrots Hpecxoy K.7.X.] 
contains the negative answer to the last question. The 
emphasis is placed first on avO@pérous, and next on Xpiotod: 
“If I still pleased men, if I were not already beyond the pos- 
session of human favour, but were still well-pleasing to men, 
I should not be Christ’s servant.” According to de Wette, ére 
is intended to affirm nothing more than that, if the one existed, 
the other could no longer exist. But in this case ére must 
logically have been placed after ov«. The truth of the pro- 
position, et ére «.7.X., in which dvOpwr. is not any more than 
before to be limited to Paul’s opponents (according to Holsten, 
even including the apostles at Jerusalem), rests upon the 
principle that no one can serve two masters (Matt. vi. 24), 
and corresponds to the ovai of the Lord Himself (Luke vi. 26), 
and to His own precedent (John vi. 41). But how decidedly, 
even at that period of the development of his apostolic con- 
- sciousness, Paul had the full and clear conviction that he 
was an object, not: of human goodwill, but of human hatred 
and calumny, is specially evident from the Epistles to the 
Corinthians composed soon afterwards ; comp., however, even 
1 Thess. 1. 4 ff In this he recognised a mark of the - 
servant of God and Christ (2 Cor. vi 4 ff, xi 23 ff; 
1 Cor. iv. 9). The avOpaos apécxev is the result 
of fnretvy avOpwrros apéoxev, and consequently means to 
please men, not to seek to please or to live to please them, as 
most expositors, even Riickert, Usteri, Schott, Baumgarten- 
Crusius, quite arbitrarily assume, although apart from the con- 
text the words might have this meaning; see on 1 Cor. x. 
33; and comp. avO@pwirdpecxos, Eph. vi. 6. — Xpiotod dobro 
ovx dv jpynv] is understood by most expositors, following 
Chrysostom, including Koppe, Rosenmiiller, Flatt, Paulus, 

1 To live to please, to render oneself pleasing, is also Wieseler’s interpretation 
(comp. also Rom. xv. 1), who consistently understands the previous épiexsy in 
the same way. Comp. Winer and Hofmann. But there would thus be no 
motive for the change from Gara dpicxss to apsoxov only, which according to our 


view involves a very significant progress. Paul seeks not to please, and pleases 
not. 





CHAP. I. 11, 12. 31 


Schott, Riickert, “so should I now be no apostle, but I should 
have remained a Jew, Pharisee, and persecutor of Christians ;” 
taking, therefore, Xpuorod SodAos in an historical sense. But 
how feeble this idea would be, and how lacking the usual 
depth of the apostle’s thought! No; Xpucrod dSodXos is to be 
taken in its ethical character (Erasmus, Grotius, Bengel, Semler, 
Zachariae, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Ewald, Wieseler, 
and others): “ Were I still well-pleasing to men, this would 
exclude the character of a servant of Christ, and I should not 
be such an one; whom men misunderstand, hate, persecute, 
revile.” As to the relation, however, of our passage to 1 Cor. 
x. 32, see Calovius, who justly remarks that in the latter 
passage the wdvta maow apéoxw is meant secundum Deum et 
ad hominum aedificationem, and not seounauam auram et volun- 
tatem nudam hominwm. 

Vv. 11, 12.2 Theme of the apologetic portion of the epistle. 
See Introd. sec. 2. — 6é] carrying on the discourse. The way 
_ having been prepared for this theme in vv. 8-10, it is now 
formally announced for further discussion. And after the 
impassioned outburst in vv. 6-10, the language becomes 
composed and calm. Now therefore, for the first time, we 
find the address adeAdot. — yvopifw Sé spiv] but (now to 
enter more particularly on the subject of my letter) I make 
known to you. This announcement has a certain solemnity 
(comp. 1 Cor. xv. 1; 2 Cor. viii. 1; 1 Cor. xii. 3), which is 
only enhanced by the fact. that the matter must have been 
already known to the reader. There is no need to modify the 
sense of yvwpifw, which neither here nor in 1 Cor. xv. 1 
means monere vos volo or the like (Morus, Rosenmiiller, and 
others). — 70 evarryéduov . . . Se] attraction, Winer, p. 581 f. 
[E. T. 781 £] — 16 evayyericbev bm euot] which has been 
announced by me, among you and among others (comp. 8 
anpvoow, ii. 2); not to be limited to the conversion of the 

1 See Hofmann’s interpretation of i. 11-ii. 14 in his heil. Schr. N. 7. 1. 
p. 60 en ed. 2. On the other hand, see Hilgenfeld, Kanon u. Kritik d. N. 7. 

190 
. 3 If yép were the correct peeding (Hofmann), it would correspond to the 
immediately preceding contrast between dyvdpeaos and Xpeerov, confirming ver. 10, 


but would not introduce a justification of ver. 9, as Hofmann, arbitrarily going 
back beyond ver. 10, assumes. ‘ 


32 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


readers only. — xara avOpwrov] cannot indicate the mode of 
announcement, which would require us to conceive evayyedtobev 
as repeated (Hofmann). Necessarily belonging to ov« éote, it 
is the negative modal expression of the gospel itself which was 
preached by Paul; specifying, however, not its origin (Augus- 
tine, Cornelius a Lapide, Estius, Calovius, Wolf, and others), 
which «ara in itself never expresses (Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 3), 
but its qualitative relation, although this 7s conditioned by its 
origin (ver. 12). The gospel announced by me is not according 
to men, that is, not of such quality as vt would be if it were the 
work of men; it is not of the same nature as human wisdom, 
human efficiency, and the like. Comp. Xen. Mem. iv. 4. 24, 
TO TOUS VOLOUS avTOUS Tois mapaPaivover TAS TYswpias Eye 
Bertiovos 4} Kat’ avOpwrov vouolérou Soxet pot elvar. Eur. 
Med. 673, copwrep’ 4 Kar’ dvdpa cupBareiv ern. Soph. Ay. 
747, pa Kat’ avOpwrov dpovet. Comp. Aj. 764; Oecd. Col. 
604; Plat. Pol. 2. 359 D. The opposite, tarép dvOpwirov 
etvat, Lucian, Vit. auct. 2. Looking to the context, the view 
of Grotius is too narrow, “ nihil humani affectus admixtum 
habet.” Bengel hits the mark, “ non est humanit census 
evangelium meum.” 

Ver. 12. Proof of the statement, 7d edayyédwov . . . ovK 
éort Kata avOpwirov. — ovdé yap éyo| for neither I, any more 
than the other apostles. On ovde yap, for neither, which cor- 
responds with the positive «ai yap, comp. Bornemann, ad Xen. 
Symp. p. 200; Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 211. The earlier 
expositors (also Morus, Koppe, and others) neglect both the 
signification of o¥S¢ and the emphasis on éyé, which is also 
overlooked by de Wette, “for also I have not,” etc.; and 
Ewald, “I obtained it not at all.” Comp., on the contrary, 
Matt. xxi. 27; Luke xx. 8; John viii. 11. Riickert, Matthies, 
and Schott understand ov&é only as if it were ov, assuming it . 
to be used on account of the previous negation ; and see in éyw 
a contrast to those, quibus ipse tradiderit evangeliwm, in which 
case there must have been avros instead of éyw. ‘This remark 
also applies to Hofmann’s view, “that he himself has not re- 
ceived what he preached through human instruction.” Besides, 
the supposed reference of éyw would be quite unsuitable, for 
the apostle had not at all in view a comparison with his dis- ° 





CHAP. I. 12, ; 33 


ciples; a comparison with the other apostles was the point 
agitating his mind. Lastly, Winer finds too much in ovdé, 
“nam ne ego quidem.” This is objectionable, not because, as 
Schott and Olshausen, following Riickert, assume, ov8’ éyw yap 
or Kat yap ovd éyw must in that case have been written, for 
in fact yap would have its perfectly regular position (vi. 13 ; 
Rom. viii. 7; John v. 22, vii. 5, viii. 42, e al.); but because 
me ego quidem would imply the concession of a certain higher 
position for the other apostles (comp. 1 Cor. xv. 8, 9), which 
would not be in harmony with the apostle’s present train of 
thought, where his argument turned rather on his equality with 
them (comp. 1 Cor. ix. 1). — mapa avOparov] from a man, 
who had given it to me. Not to be confounded with a7’ 
avOpa@7rov (see on 1 Cor. xi. 23, and Hermann, ad Soph. EI. 
65). Here also, as in ver. 1, we have the contrast between 
dvO@pwiros and "Ino. Xpiatos. — abro] viz. Td evayyédvoy 7d 
evayyenicbey tar’ euod. — ovre é6vdayOnv] As obre refers only 
to the ov« contained in the preceding ovdé, and dé and te do 
not correspond, o¥re is here by no means inappropriate (as 
Riickert alleges). See Hand, De part. ré diss. II. p. 13; 
Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 101 f; Buttmann, neutest. Gr. p. 
315. Comp. on Acts xxiii 8. Sor newther have I received it 
from a man, nor learned it. TlapéXaBov denotes the receiving 
through communication in general (comp. ver. 9), edudayOnv 
the receiving specially through «instruction duly used. — 
— ara Sl arroxarwp. I. X.] The contrast to mapa avOparov ; 
*"Incod X.is therefore the genitive, not of the object (Theo- 
doret, Matthies, Schott), but of the subject (comp. 2 Cor. xii. 
1; Rev. i 1), by Jesus Christ giving to me revelation. Paul 
alludes to the revelations’ received soon after the event at 

1 Of which, however, the book of Acts gives us no account ; for in Acts xxii. 
17, Christ appeared to him not to reveal to him the gospel, but for the purpose 
of giving a special instruction. Hence they are not to be referred to the event 
at Damascus itself, a8, following Jerome and Theodoret, many earlier.and more 
recent expositors (Riickert, Usteri, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, Hofmann, 
Wieseler) assume. The calling of the apostle, by which he was converted at 
Damascus, is expressly distinguished in ver. 16 from the divine dwoxaadyas civ 
vidv ty ivoi, so that this inward d&roxdauyis followed the calling ; the calling was 
the fact which laid the foundation for the déwexdauyis (comp. Moller on de 


Wette)—the historical preliminary to it. In identifying the awvexdauJus of our 
passage with the phenomenon at Damascus, it would be necessary to assume that 


C 


34 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS, 


Damascus, and consequent therefore upon his calling, which 
enabled him to comply with it and to come forward as a 
preacher of the gospel Comp. vv. 15, 16; Eph. iii 3. 
The revelation referred to in 2 Cor. xii. 1 ff. (Thomas, Cor- 
nelius a Lapide, Balduin, and others) cannot be meant; 
because this occurred at a subsequent period, when Paul 
had for a long time been preaching the gospél Nor must we 
(with Koppe, Flatt, and Schott) refer it to the revelations 
which were imparted to him generally, including those of the 
later period, for here mention is made only of a revelation by 
which he received and learned the gospel. —- How the azroxa- 
Aves took place (according to Calovius, through the Holy 
Spirit ; comp. Acts ix. 17), must be left undecided. It may 
have taken place with or without vision, in different stages, 
partly even before his baptism in the three days mentioned 
Acts ix. 6, 9, partly at and immediately after it, but not 
through instruction on the part of Ananias. The év duo? in 
ver. 16 is consistent with either supposition. 

Ver. 13. Now begins the historical proof that he was in- 
debted for his gospel to the dzroxaAvyis he had mentioned, 
and not to human communication and instruction. In the 
first place, in vv. 13, 14, he calls to their remembrance his 
well-known conduct whilst a Jew; for, as a persecutor of 
the Christians and a Pharisaic zealot, he could not but be the 
less fitted for human instruction in the gospel, which must, on 
the contrary, have come to him in that superhuman mode. — 
nxovoate] emphatically prefixed, indicates that what is con- 
tained in vv. 13, 14, is something already well known to 
his readers, which therefore required only to be recalled, not 


Paul, to whom at Damascus the resurrection of Jesus was revealed, had come to 
add to this fundamental fact of his preaching the remaining contents of the doc- 
trine of salvation, partly by means of argument, partly by further revelation, 
and partly by information derived from others (see especially Wieseler). This 
idea is, however, inconsistent with the assurance of our passage, which relates 
without restriction to the whole gospel preached by the apostle, consequently to 
the whole of its essential contents. The same objection may be specially urged 
against the view, with which Hofmann contents himself, that the wonderful 
phenomenon at Damascus certified to Paul’s mind the truth of the Christian 
faith, which had not been unknown to him before. Such a conception of the 
matter falls far short of the idea of the éwoxdéavyis of the gospel through Christ, 
especially as the apostle refers specifically to his gospel. 


~_— we _— -_-—— — - ——— we - _— - - ~ ~ oo Sule See 


CHAP, L123 35 


to be proved. — tiv dui dvactpodny tore év To Iovdaicud] 
my previous course of life in Judaism, how I formerly behaved 
myself asa Jew. ‘Iovéaiocpos is not Judaistic zeal and acti- 
vity (Matthies, “when I was still owt and out a Jew;” comp. 
Schott), but just simply Judaism, as his national religious 
condition: see 2 Macc, i. 21, viii. 1, xiv. 38; 4 Mace. iv. 26. 
It forms the historical contrast to the present Xpicriavicpos 
of the apostle. Comp. Ignat. ad Magnes. 8, 10, Philad. 6. — 
dvaotpopy in the sense of course of life, behaviour, is found, 
in addition to the N. T. (Eph. iv. 22; 1 Tim. iv. 12, & al.) 
and the Apocrypha (Tob. iv. 14; 2 Mace. v. 8), only in later 
Greek, such as Polyb. iv. 82.1. See Wetstein. — amore év 
T® Iovd.] a definition of time attached to tiv éuny dvacrpodny, 
in which the repetition of t7v was not necessary. Comp. Plat. 
Legg. iii. p. 685 D, y THs Tpolas Gdwous 7d Sevrepor. Soph. 
0. R. 1043, rob Tupdvvov Tisde yns wddae troté. Phil. i 26. 

Comp. also on 1 Cor. viii. 7 and on 2 Cor. xi. 23. — dru xa? 

dmrepBohay «.T..] &@ more precise definition of the object of 
nxovaoate, that I, namely, beyond measure persecuted, etc. On 
xaP?’ brrepBornv, the sense of which bears a superlative relation 
to oddpa, comp. Rom. vii. 13; 1 Cor. xii. 31; 2 Cor. i. 8, 
iv. 17; Bernhardy, p. 241. — tod Ocod] added in the pain- 
ful consciousness of the wickedness and guilt of such doings. 
Comp. 1 Cor. xv. 9; 1 Tim. i 13. — éropOovr] is not to be 
understood de conatu (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, 
Menochius, and others) ; Paul was then actually engaged in the 
work of ,destruction (Acts xxii. 4, comp. ix. 1, xxvi. 10, 11), 
and therefore it is not to be understood (with Beza, Piscator, 
Estius, Winer, Usteri, and Schott) merely as vastavi, depopu- 
latus sum (Hom. Od. xiv. 264, dypovs mopQcop, et al.). Paul 
wished to be not a mere devastator, not a mere disturber 
(see Luther’s translation), but a destroyer’ of the church; and 
as such he was active (Hom. JJ. iv. 308, qodas Kal reiye’ 
ézropOour, e¢ al.). Moreover, in the classic authors also zrop@eiy 
and zrépGew are applied not only to things, but also to men 
(comp. Acts ix. 21) in the sense of bringing to ruin and the 
like. See Heindorf, ad Plat. Prot. p. 340 A; Lobeck, ad Soph. 

Aj. 1187; Jacobs, Del. epigr.i. 80. 

1 [Nicht bloss Verstorer, sondern Zerstorer.] - 


36 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS, 


Ver. 14. Still dependent on dre. — xal] the rpoxorreww év 
Tp ‘Iovéaicu@ had then been combined in Paul with his hostile 
action against Christianity, had kept pace with it. — ’Iovdaic- 
pos, not Jewish theology (Grotius, Riickert), but just as in ver. 
13. Judaism was the sphere in which he advanced further 
and improved more than those of his age by growth in Jewish 
culture, in Jewish zeal for the law, in Jewish energy of works, 
etc. On wpoxorrew as intransitive (Luke ii. 52; 2 Tim. ii 
16, i. 9, 13), very frequent in Polyb., Lucian, etc., comp. 
Jacobs, ad Anthol. X. p. $5; on é& +. ’Iovd., comp. Lucian, 
Herm. 63, év rots pa@npact, Paras. 13, & tais réyvars. — 
cuvnrdixuorns| one of the same age, occurring only here in the 
N. T., a word belonging to the later Greek (Diod. Sic. i 53 ? 
Alciphr. 1.12). See Wetstein. The ancient authors use 7\u- 
xuorns (Plat. Apol. p. 33 C, and frequently). — év r@ yévec 
pov] a more precise definition of owvndsx.; yéver is therefore, 
in conformity -with the context (comp. é& T@ ’Iovéd.), to be 
understood in a national sense,’ and not of the sect of the 
Pharisees (Paulus). Comp. Phil. iii 5; 2 Cor. xi 26; Rom. 
ix. 3; Acts vii. 19. — mepiocorépws Enrwris irdpywv K.T.r.] 
a more detailed statement, specifying in what way the mpoé- 
xomrTov . . . yévee you found active expression ; “so that I” 
etc. —— mepiccorépws] than those moAAol. They, too, were 
zealous for the traditions of their fathers (whether like Paul 
they were Pharisees, or not); but Paul was so in a more 
superabundant measure for his. — tav matpixav pov trapaso- 
cewy] endeavouring with zealous interest to obey, uphold, and 
assert them. On the genitive of the object, comp. 2 Mace. iv. 
2; Acts xxi. 20, xxii 3; 1 Cor. xiv. 12; Tit. it 14; Plat. 
Prot. p. 343 A. The qarpixal pov trapadcces, that is, the’ 
religious definitions handed down to me from my fathers (in re- 
spect to doctrine, ritual, asceticism, interpretation of Scripture, 
conduct of life, and the like), are the Pharisaic traditions 
(comp. Matt. v. 21, xv. 2; Mark vii. 3); for Paul was Papi- 
caios (Phil. iii 5; Acts xxvi 5), vids Dapioaiwy (Acts xxiii. 
6). So also Erasmus (Annot.), Beza, Calovius, de Wette, 
Hofmann, and others. If Paul had intended to refer to the 


1 For with Hellenist associates, of whom likewise in Jerusalem there could be 
no lack, he does not desire to compare himself, 


CHAP. L 15. 37 


Mosaic law, either alone (Erasmus, Paraphr., Luther, Calvin, 
and others) or together with the Pharisaic traditions (Estius, 
Grotius, Calixtus, Morus, Koppe, Flatt, Winer, Usteri, Riickert, 
Schott, Olshausen, Hilgenfeld, Wieseler, “the law according to 
the strict rule of Pharisaism,” comp. Moller), he would have 
named the law either by itself or along with the traditions 
(Acts xxi. 20, xxii. 3; 2 Mace. iv. 2); but by ov he limits 
the matpixds trapadocets to the special elements resulting from 
his descent, which did not apply to those who were in different 
circumstances as to descent; whereas the law applied to all 
Jews. Comp., as parallel, Acts xxvi 5. That Paul had 
been zealous for the /aw in general, followed as a matter of 
course from mpoéxorr. év 7. ’Iovdaiou@; but here he is stating 
the specific way in which his own peculiar mpoxortew ev ’Iov- 
daiope had displayed itself—his Pharisaic zealotry. It would 
have been surprising if in this connection he had omitted to 
mention the latter. — warpixds, not found elsewhere in the 
N. T., means paternal. Comp. LXX. Gen. 1 8; Lev. xxii. 
13; Ecclus. xlii 10; 3 Esd. i 5,29; 4 Macc. xviii. 7; Plat. 
Lach. p. 180 E, Soph. p. 242 A; Isocr. Hvag. p. 218, 35; 
Diod. Sic. i 88; Polyb. i 78.1; Athen. xv. p. 667 F. In 
this case the context alone decides whether the idea a patribus 

acceptus (marpotrapdsotos, 1 Pet. i. 18) is conveyed by it, as 
— in this passage by ov, or not (as, for instance, Polyb. xxi. 5, 77). 
The former is very frequently the case. As to the much dis- 
cussed varying distinction between mdrpuos, tarpixos, and 
matp@os, comp. on Acts xxii. 3. 

Ver. 15. But when it pleased, etc. Comp. Luke xu. 32; 1 
Cor. . 21; Rom. xv. 26; Col i 19; 1 Thess. 1. 8, i 1. 
It denotes, of course, the free placuit of the divine decree, 
but is here conceived as an act in time, which is immediately 
followed by the execution of it, not as from eternity (Beza). 
— 0 ddgopicas pe é« Koirias pntpos pov] who separated me, 
that 1s, in His counsel set me apart from other men for a 
special destination, from my mother’s womb; that is, not in 
the womb (Wieseler) ; nor, from the time when I was in the 
womb (Hofmann, comp. Moller); nor, ere I was born (Riickert) ; 
but, as soon as I had issued from the womb, from my birth. 
Comp. Ps. xxii. 11; Isa. xliv. 2, xlix. 1,5; Matt. xix. 12; 


38 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


Acts iii, 2, xiv. 8 (in Luke i 15, where ére is added, the 
thought is different). é« yeverjs, John ix. 1, has the same 
meaning. Comp. the Greek é« yaorpés, and the like. We 
must not assume a reference to Jer. i. 5 (Grotius, Semler, 
Reithmayr, and others), for in that passage there is an essen- 
tially different definition of time (apo Tov pe mAdoat ce év 
xoinla «.7.r.). We may add, that this designation of God 
completely corresponds with Paul's representation of his 
apostolic independence of men. What tt was, to which God 
had separated him from his birth and had called him (at 
Damascus), is of course evident in itself and from i. 1; but 
it also results from the sequel (ver. 16). It was the apostle- 
ship, which he recognised as a special proof of free and un- 
deserved divine grace (Rom. i. 4, xii. 3, xv. 15; 1 Cor. xv. 10); 
hence here also he adds 8a ris ydpitos avrov.' Riickert is 
wrong in asserting that xadéoas cannot refer here to the call 
at Damascus, but can only denote the calling to salvation and 
the apostleship in the Divine mind. In favour of this view he 
adduces the aorist, which represents the KAjous as previous to 
the evdoxnoev aroxadwyat, and also the connection of xadréoas 
with adoploas by means of xa/, Both arguments are based 
upon the erroneous idea that the revelation of the gospel was 
coincident with the calling of the apostle. But Paul was first 
called at Damascus by the miraculous appearance of Christ, 
which laid hold of him without any detailed instruction (Phil. 
iii, 12), and thereafter, through the apocalyptic operation of 
God, the Son of God was revealed in him: the «Ajots at Damas- 
cus preceded this dzroxdAvys ;* the former called him to the 
service, the latter furnished him with the contents, of the 
gospel. Comp. on ver. 12. Moreover, the xAjous is never 
an act in the Divine mind, but always an historical fact (Rom. 
viii. 30). This also militates against Hofmann, who makes éx 


1 For :& +. vap. aberot belongs to xeAtvas as a modal definition of it, and not 
to dwexadrvye:, as Hofmann, disregarding the symmetrically similar construction 
of the two participial statements, groundlessly asserts. Paul knew himself to 
be xanris awoorores die bsAxparos Osov (1 Cor. i. 1; 2 Cor. i. 1), and he knew that 
this ¢ianze was that of the divine grace, 1 Cor. xv. 10, iii. 10; Gal. ii. 9; 
Rom. i. 5, xii. 3. 

2 Hence also iv ixof by no means diminishes the importance of the external 
phenomenon at Damascus (as Baur and others contend). 











CHAP, I, 16. | 89 


xotXlas pntpos pou belong to Kadécas as well—a connection 
excluded by the very position of the words. And what a 
strange definition of the idea conveyed by «adeciv, and how 
completely foreign to the N. T., is the view of Hofmann, who 
makes it designate “an act executed in the course of the for- 
mation of this man”! Moreover, our passage undoubtedly 
implies that by the calling and revelation here spoken of the 
consciousness of apostleship—and apostleship in reference to 
the heathen—was divinely produced in Paul, and became clear 
and certain. This, however, does not exclude, but is, on the 
contrary, a divine preparation for, the fuller development of 
this consciousness in its more definite aspects by means of ex- 
perience and the further guidance of Christ and His Spirit. 
Ver. 16. "Azroxarvat] belongs to evdoxncev; but év éuoi 
is in my mind, in my consciousness, in which the Son of 
God was to become manifest as the sum and substance of 
knowledge (Phil. iii. 8); comp. 2 Cor. iv. 6, éy tais xapdias 
npav. See Chrysostom, THs dmoxadinpews xatadaprovons 
autov Thy yuynv. Comp. Oecum. (els tov gow advOpwrrov Tis 
yvooews évitnoddns), Theophylact, Beza, and most expositors. 
Calvin, Koppe, Flatt, and others, wrongly hold that it stands 
for the mere dative. Comp. Bengel. But éy is never nota 
dativi, and all the passages adduced to that effect (such as 1 
Cor. ix. 15, xiv. 11; 1 Tim iv. 15; Acts iv. 12, e¢ al.) are 
to be so explained that éy shall retain its signification (Winer, 
p. 204 [E. T. 272]); as must also be the case in the passages 
used to support the sense of the datiwus commodi (see Bernhardy, 
p. 212). Jerome, Pelagius, Erasmus, Piscator, Vorstius, Grotius, 
Estius, Morus, Baumgarten-Crusius, and others, interpret it 
through me, “ut per me, velut organum, notum redderet filium 
suum” (Erasmus, Paraphr.). But the revelation given to the 
apostle himself 4s a necessary element in the connection (ver. 
12): Paul was immediately after his birth seé apart by God, 
subsequently called at Damascus, and thereafter provided in- 
wardly with the revelation of the Son of God, in order that he 
might be able outwardly to preach, etc. Others, again,' take it 


1 Comp. Hilgenfeld in loc. and in his Zeitechr. 1864, p. 164: Paul regarded 
his Christian and apostolic life and working as a revelation of Christ in his person. 
~ Similar is the view taken by Paul in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschr. 1863, p. 208.: 





40 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


as “on me,” in my case, which is explained to mean either 
that the conversion appeared as a proof of Christ’s power, etc. 
(Peter Lombard, Seb. Schmidt), or that the revelation had been 
imparted to the apostle as matter of fact, by means of his own 
experience, or, in other words, through his own case (Riickert). 
Comp. 1 John iv. 9, épavepwOn 4 aydrn tod Beod ev Hyiv. 
But the former explanation is unsuitable to the context, and 
the latter again depends on the erroneous identification of the 
calling of the apostle at Damascus with the revelation of the 
gospel which he received. — rdv viov a’toi] This is the great 
foundation and whole sum of the gospel. Comp. ver. 6 f,, ii. 
20. In his pre-Christian blindness Paul had known Christ 
xara oapxa, 2 Cor. v. 16. — edaryyerlfwpar] Present tense;* for 
the fulfilment of this destination which had even then been 
assigned to him by God (Acts ix. 15, xxii, 15, xxvi. 17 f.) 
was, at the time when the epistle was written, still in course 
of execution (Klotz, ad Devar. p.618). Thus, in opposition to 
his adversaries, the continuous divine right and obligation of 
this apostolic action is asserted. — év rots Oveow] among the 
heathen peoples. See Acts ix. 15, xxii. 21, xxvi. 17,18; Eph. 
iii 8; Rom. xi 13. The fact that Paul always began his 
work of conversion with the Jews resident among the Gentiles, 
was not inconsistent with his destination as the apostle of the 
Gentiles ; this, indeed, was the way of calling adopted by the 
Gentile apostle in accordance with that destination (see Rom. 
i. 16). Comp. Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 37. — ev0éws] 

does not belong exclusively either to the negative (Hilgenfeld, 
Hofmann) or to the affirmative part of the apodosis (Winer) ; 

but as the two parts themselves are inseparably associated, 
it belongs to the whole sentence od mpocaveBéunv . . . GAda 
amnrOov eis ’ApaB., “Immediately I took not counsel with 
flesh and blood, nor did I make a journey to Jerusalem, 
but,” etc. He expresses that which he had done immediately 
after he had received the revelation, by way of antithesis, 
negatively and positively; for it was his object most as- 


1 Which, according to Hofmann, is intended to designate the purpose from 
the standpoint of the present time in which it is being realized. This retrospec- 
tive interpretation is purely i imaginary, by no means suits even Plat. Legg. Pe 
653 D, and in our passage is opposed to the context (see ver. 17). 





CHAP. L 16. — «Al 


siduously to dispel the notion that he had received human 
instruction, Jerome, in order to defend the apostle against 
Porphyry’s unjust reproach of presumption and fickleness, con- 
nects evéws with evayyerifwpar; as recently Credner, Hin. I. 
1, p. 303, has also done. No objection can be.taken to the 
emphasis of the adverb at the end of the sentence (Kiihner, IT. 
p. 625; Bornemann, ad Xen. Anab. ii. 6. 9; Stallbaum, ad 
Phaedr. p. 256 E); but the whole strength of the proof lies 
not in what Paul was immediately ¢o do, but in what he 
had immediately done. “Notatur subita habilitas apostoli,” 
Bengel. We must, moreover, allow edéws to retain its usual 
strict signification, and not, with Hofmann,’ substitute the sense 
of “immediately then,” “just at once” (“ not at a subsequent time | 
only”), as if Paul had written 75y é« tore or the like. Ob- 
serve, too, on comparing the book of Acts, that the purposely 
added evOéws still does not exclude a brief ministry in Damas- 
cus previous to the journey to Arabia (Acts ix. 20), the more 
especially as his main object was to show, that he had gone from 
Damascus to no other place than Arabia, and had not until three 
years later gone to Jerusalem. To make special mention of his 
brief working in Damascus, before his departure to Arabia, 
was foreign to the logical scope of his statement. — ov mpocave- 
Oéunv)] I addressed no communication to flesh and blood, namely, 
in order to learn the opinion of others as to this revelation 
which I had received, and to obtain from them instruction, 
guidance, and advice. pos conveys the notion of direction, 
not, as Beza and Bengel assert (comp. also Usteri and Jatho), 
the idea praeterea.2? See Diod. Sic. xvii. 116, rots pdvrecs 
mpocavabéwevos tept tov onueiov; Lucian, Jup. Trag. 1, euot 
mpocavdbov, AdBe pe ocvpBovdrov srovev, in contrast to the 
preceding catapovas cavt@ Aaneis; Nicetas, Angel. Comnen. . 
1 ‘Who invents the hypothesis, that the apostle had been reproached witb 
having only subsequently taken up the ground that he did not apply to men in 
order to get advice from them. Hofmann strangely appeals to sdévs, John xiii. 
$2, and even to Xen. Cyr. i. 6. 20, where the idea, ‘‘ not at a subsequent time 
only,” is indeed conveyed by ix wa:diov, but not at all by sdévs in itself. Even 
in passages such as those in Dorvill. ad Charit. pp. 298, 826, sidvs, like sidiws 
constantly, means immediately, on the spot. 
3 So, too, Mircker in the Stud. u. Krit. 1866, p. 534, *‘ no further communi- 


cation.” It is not, however, apparent to what other avar’ésodas this is conceived 
to refer. 


42 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS, 


ii. 5. Comp. C. F. A. Fritzsche in Fritzschior. Opuse. p. 204. 
Just so mpocavadépev, 2 Macc. xi. 36; Tob. xii. 15; Polyb. 
xxxi. 19. 4, xvii. 9. 10. — capxi xal aiuari] that is, to weak 
men, in contrast to the experience of God's working. See 
on Matt. xvi. 17. Eph. vi. 12 is also analogous. Comp. the 
‘rabbinical 07 3 (Lightfoot on Matt. Jc). As the apostle 
was concerned simply to show that he was not avO@pwrrodiéaxrtos, 
it is wholly unsuitable in this connection to refer capxi «. aip. 
to himself (Koppe, Ewald), and unsuitable, as regards half the 
reference, to apply it to others and the apostle himself (Winer, 
Matthies, Schott, comp. Olshausen). He is speaking simply 
of the consultation of others (Beza, Grotius, Calovius, Zachariae, 
Morus, Rosenmiiller, Borger, Flatt, Baumgarten-Crusius, de 
Wette, Hilgenfeld, Wieseler, Hofmann, and others), and that 
quite generally: “having received this divine revelation, I did 
not take weak men as my counsellors.” In the continuation 
of the discourse towards its climax the apostles are specially 
brought into prominence as members of this category, and 
therefore capxi x. aiu. is not (with Chrysostom, Jerome, Theo- 
phylact, Oecumenius, and others) at once to be referred to the 
apostles themselves, although they also are included in it. 

Ver. 17. Neither went I away (from Damascus) to Jerusalem, 
unto those who were apostles before me; but I went away into 
Arabia. So according to Lachmann’s reading; see the critical 
notes. Tovs mpo éuod aroor. is written by Paul in the con- 
sciousness of his full equality of apostolic rank (beginning from 
Damascus), in which nothing but greater seniority pertained 
to the older apostles. On the twice-employed emphatic 
amnrGov, comp. Rom. vill. 15; Heb. xii 18 ff.; Fritzsche, ad 
Rom. II. p. 137. — eis ’ApaBiav] It is possible that some 
special personal reason, unknown to us, induced him to choose 
this particular country. The region was heathen, containing, 
however, many Jews of the Diaspora (Acts 1. 11). This 
journey, which is to be looked upon not as having for its 
object a quiet preparation (Schrader, Kohler, Riickert, Schott), 
but (comp. Rom. Jntrod. § 1) as a first, certainly fervent 
experiment of extraneous ministry,’ and which was of short 


1 Our passage bears testimony in favour of this view by siding . . . awnader 
following immediately on iva sdayy. airéy by rois Sbrseu. Hence Holsten’s view 





CHAP, I. 17. 43 


duration,’ is not mentioned in Acts. Perhaps not known 
to Luke at all, it is most probably to be placed in the 
period of the txavai 7mépar, Acts ix. 23,—an inexact state- 
ment of the interval between the conversion and the journey 
to Jerusalem, which betrays, on the part of Luke, only a 
vague and inadequate knowledge of the chronology of this 
period. See on Acts ix. 19 ff Paul mentions the journey 
here, because he had to show—following the continuous 
thread of the history—that, in the first period after his con- 
version, he had not been anywhere where he could have 


(die Bedeutung des Wortes cep% im N. T. p. 25; ueber Inh. u. Gedankeng. d. 
Gal. Br. p. 17f.; also zum Evang. d. Paul. u. Petr. p. 269f.), that Paul, 
‘* purposely tearing himself away for three years from the atmosphere of the 
national spirit at Jerusalem,” had gone to Arabia, ‘‘in order to reconcile the 
new revelation with the old by meditating on the religious records of his people,” 
is quite opposed to the context. Certainly the system of the apostle’s gospel, as 
it is exhibited in the Epistles to the Galatians and Romans, must have taken its 
shape gradually, and by means of a long process of thought amidst the widening of 
experience ; but even in the absence of such a developed system he might make 
a commencement of his ministry, and might preach the Son of God as the latter 
had been directly revealed in him by divine agency. Thiersch arbitrarily con- 
siders (Kirche in apostol. Zeitalt. p. 116) that he desired to find protection with 
Aretas. It is the view also of Acts, that Paul immediately after his conver- 
sion followed the divine guidance, and did not postpone his beginning to 
preach till the expiration of three years. According to Acts, he preached im- 
mediately, even in Damascus, ix. 20; comp. xxvi. 19f. See, besides, on 
Rom. Introd. § 1. 

1L. Cappellus, Benson, Witsius, Eichhorn, Hemsen, and others, also Anger, 
Rat. temp. p. 122, and Laurent, hold the opinion that Paul spent almost the 
whole three years (ver. 18) in Arabia, because the Jews at Damascus would not 
have tolerated his remaining there so long. But in our ignorance of the precise 
state of things in Damascus, this argument is of too uncertain a character, 
especially as Acts ix. 22, comp. with ver. 23, és di iwAnp. tips ixavai, points 
to a relatively longer working in Damascus. And if Paul had laboured almost 
three years, or, according to Ewald, about two years, in Arabia, and that at the 
very beginning of his apostleship, we could hardly imagine that Luke should not 
have known of this ministry in Arabia, or, if he knew of it, that he should not 
have mentioned it, for Paul never stayed so long anywhere else, except perhaps 
at Ephesus. It may indeed be alleged that Luke purposely kept silence as to 
the journey to Arabia, because it would have proved the independent action of 
the apostle to the Gentiles (Hilgenfeld, Zeller) ; but this view sets out from the 
premiss that the book of Acts is a partisan treatise, wanting in historical honesty ; 
and it moreover assumes—what without that premiss is not to be assumed—that 
the author was acquainted with our epistle. If he was acquainted with it, the 
intentional distortion of portions of his history, which it is alleged he allowed 
himself to make, would be the more shameless, and indeed foolish. 


44 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


received instruction from the apostles. — wddAw thréotpeya] 
many, used on the hypothesis that the locality of the calling 
and revelation mentioned was well known to his readers, refers 
to the notion of coming conveyed in tmeorp. Comp. Acts 
xviii, 21; Hom. Od. viii. 301, adres trroorpéras, et al. ; Eur. 
Alc. 1022; Bornemann, ad Cyrop. iii. 3.60; Kithner, ad Yen. 
Mem. 1. 2. 4.’ 

Ver. 18. “Ezres:ta] After that, namely, after my second so- 
journ in Damascus—whence he escaped, as is related Acts ix. 
24f.; 2 Cor. xi 32f, The more precise statement of time 
then follows in the words peta érn tpla (comp. ii 1), in 
which the terminus a quo is taken to be ether his conversion 
(as by most expositors, including Winer, Fritzsche, Riickert,. 
Usteri, Matthies, Schott, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, de 
Wette, Hilgenfeld, Ewald, Wieseler, Hofmann, Reithmayr, 
Caspari) or his return from Arabia (Marsh, Koppe, Borger). 
The former is to be preferred, as is suggested by the context in 
ovdse am7jrOov eis ‘Iepocodvupa . . . peta Ern tpla avndloy eis 
‘Iepocod. Comp. also on ii, 1. — dvArOov els ‘Iepoo.] This 
is (contrary to Jerome’s view) the jirst journey to Jerusalem, 
not omitted in the Acts (Laurent), but mentioned in ix. 26. 
The quite untenable arguments of Kohler (Adb/asswngszett, p. 
1 f.) against this identity are refuted by Anger, Rat. temp. p. 
124f. It must, however, be conceded that the account in 
Acts must receive a partial correction from our passage (see on 
Acts ix. 26f.); a necessity, however, which is exaggerated by 
Baur, Hilgenfeld, and Zeller, and is attributed to intentional 
alteration of the history on the part of the author of Acts, 
it being supposed that the latter was unwilling to do the very 
thing which Paul in our passage wishes, namely, to bring out 
his independence of the original apostles. But this conscious- 
ness of independence is not to be exaggerated, as if Paul had 
felt himself “alien in the very centre of his being” from Peter 
(Holsten). —- toropjicas Kndav] in order to make the personal 
acquaintance of Cephas; not, therefore, in order to obtain in- 
struction. But the position of Peter as xopudaios (Theodoret) 
in the apostolic circle, especially urged by the Catholics (see 
Windischmann and Reithmayr), appears at all events from this 
passage to have been then known to Paul and acknowledged 


CHAP. 1. 18. 45 


by him. ‘Ioropety, coram cognoscere, which does not occur else- 
where in the N. T., is found in this sense applied to a person 
also in Joseph. Bell. vi. 1. 8, ov« donuos av avnp, bv éyo Kar’ 
exeivoy toTépnca Tov modcuov, Antt. i. 11. 4, vill. 2. 5; fre- 
quently also in the Clementines. It is, often used by Greek 
authors (comp also the passages from Josephus in Krebs, Obss. 
p. 318) in reference to things, as r7v mod, THY yapay, THY 
vooov x.t.4. See Wetstein and Kypke. Bengel, moreover, well 
says: “grave verbum ut de re magna; non dixit ideiy (as in 
John xii. 21) sed toropfjoa.” Comp. Chrysostom. — «al 
éméuewva mpos avtov] Comp. 1 Cor. xvi. 7. mpos, with, con- 
veys the direction of the intercowrse implied in ééy. Comp. 
Matt. xxvi. 55; John i. 1; and the passages in Fritzsche, ad 
Mare. p. 202. Comp. Ellendt, Lew. Soph. II. p. 653. — typépas. 
Sexarrévte] For the historical cause why he did not remain 
longer, see Acts ix. 29, xxii 17ff The intention, however, 
which induced Paul to specify the time, is manifest from the 
whole connection,—that the reader might judge for himself 
whether so short a sojourn, the object of which was to become 
personally acquainted for the first time with Peter, could have 
been also intended for the further object of receiving evangelic 
instruction, especially when Paul had himself been preaching 
the gospel already so long (for three years). This intention is 
denied by Riickert, because the period of fifteen days was not 
so short but that during it Paul might have been instructed 
by Peter. But Paul is giving an Historical account; and in 
doing this the mention of a time so short could not but be 
welcome to him for his purpose, without his wishing to give 
it forth as a stringent proof. This, notwithstanding what Paul 
emphatically adds in ver. 19, it certainly was not, as is evident 
even from the high representative repute of Peter. But 
the briefer his stay.at that time, devoted to making the per- 
sonal acquaintance of Peter, had been, the more it told against 
the notion of his having received instruction, although Paul 


1 Hofmann is of opinion that Pay) desired his readers to understand that he 
could not have journeyed to Jerusalem in order to ask the opinion and advice of 
the ‘‘ apostolic body” there. As if Peter and James could not have been ‘‘ apos- 
tolic body” enough! Taking refuge in this way behind the distinction between 
apostles and the apostolic body was foreign to Paul. 


46 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS., 


naturally could not, and would not, represent this time as 
shorter than it had really been. Riickert’s arbitrary conjec- 
ture is therefore quite superfluous, that Paul mentions the 
fifteen days on account of the false allegation of his opponents 
that he had been first brought to Christianity by the apostles, 
or had, at any rate, spent a long time with them and as their 
disciple, but that he sought ungratefully and arrogantly either 
to conceal or deny these facts. According to Holsten, Peter 
and James were the representatives of the érepov evaryy., who 
in consequence could not have exerted any influence on Paul’s 
Gentile gospel. But this they were not at all. See on ii 1 ff, 
and on Acts xv. . 

Ver. 19. But another of the apostles saw I not, save James 
the brother of the Lord. Thus this James is distinguished 
indeed from the circle of the twelve (1 Cor. xv. 5) to which 
Peter belonged, but yet is included in the number of the 
apostles, namely in the wider sense (comp. 1 Cor. xv. 7, ix. 5); 
which explains the merely supplementary mention of this 
apostle. After e¢ wy we must supply not e/dov merely (as 
Grotius, Fritzsche ad Matth. p. 482, Winer, Bleek in Stud. wu. 
Krit. 1836, p. 1059, Wieseler), but, as the context requires, 
elSov Tov amroaToXov. — érepoy is not qualitative here, as in 
ver. 6, but stands in contrast to the one who is named, Peter. 
In addition to the latter he saw not one more of the apostles, 
except only that he saw the apostle in the wider sense of the 
term—James the brother of the Lord (who indeed belonged to 
the church at Jerusalem as its president)—a fact which con- 
scientiously he will not leave unmentioned. — On the point 
that James the brother of the Lord was not James the son of 
Alphaeus,—as, following Clemens Alex., Jerome, Augustine, 
Pelagius, Chrysostom, and Theodoret, most modern scholars, 
and among the expositors of the epistle Matthies, Usteri, 
Schott, Baumgarten-Crusius, Jatho, Hofmann, Reithmayr, 
maintain,—but a real brother of Jesus (Matt. xii. 35; Mark 
vi. 3), the son of Mary, called James the Just (Heges. in Hus, 
ii, 23), who, having been a Nazarite from his birth, and having 
become a believer after. the resurrection of Jesus (1 Cor. 
xv. 7; Acts i. 14), attained to very high apostolic reputa- 
tion among the Jewish Christians (ii. 9), and was the most 





CHAP. I. 29, 47 


influential presbyter of the church at Jerusalem,’ see on Acts xii. 
17; 1 Cor. ix. 5; Huther on Ep. of James, Introd.§ 1; Laurent, 
neutest. Stud. p. 175 ff. By the more precise designation, 
Toy adeAdov tod xuplov, he is distinguished not only from 
the elder James, the brother of John (Hofmann and others), 
but also from James the son of Alphaeus, who was one of the 
twelve. Comp. Victorinus, “cum autem fratrem dixit, apos- 
tolum negavit.” The whole figment of the identity of this 
James with the son of Alphaeus is a result of the unscriptural 
(Matt. i 25; Luke ii. 7) although ecclesiastically orthodox 
_ (Form. Cone. p. 767) belief (extending beyond the birth of 

Christ) in the perpetual virginity of Mary. Comp. on Matt. 
xii. 46; 1 Cor. ix. 5. We may add that the statement, that 
Paul at this time saw only Peter and James at Jerusalem, is 
not at variance with the inexact expression tods azrocToXous, 
Acts ix. 27, but is an authentic historical definition of it, of 
@ more precise character. 

Ver. 20. Not a parenthesis, but, at the conclusion of what 
Paul has just related of that first sojourn of his at Jerusalem 
after his conversion (namely, that he had travelled thither to 
make the acquaintance of Cephas, had remained with him 
fifteen days, and had seen none of the other apostles besides, 
only James the brother of the Lord), an affirmation by oath that 
in this he had spoken the pure truth. The importance of the 
facts he had just related for his object—to prove his apostolic 
independence—induced him to make this sacred assurance. 
For if Paul had ever been a disciple of the apostles, he must 
have become so then, when he was with the apostles at Jeru- 


' Wieseler also justly recognises here the actual brother of Jesus, but holds 
the James, who is named in ii. 9, 12 (and Acts xii. 17, xv. 18, 21; 1 Cor. xv. 7) 
as the head of the Jewish Christiana, not to be identical with this brother of the 
Lord, but to be the apostle James the son of Alphaeus; affirming that it was 
the latter also who was called 6 dixais. See, however, on ii. 9. The Gospel of 
the Hebrews, in Jerome, Vir. él. 2, puts James the Just among the apostles who 
partook of the last Supper with Jesus, but nevertheless represents him as a 
brother of the Lord, for it makes him to be addressed by the Risen One as 
‘* frater mi.”’ Wieseler, indeed, understands frater mi in a spiritual sense, as 
in John xx. 17, Matt. xxviii. 10. But, just because the designation of a 
James as 4dsAQos rod xvpioy is so solemn, this interpretation appears arbitrary ; 
nor do we find that anywhere in the Gospels Jesus addressed the disciples as 
brethren. SS 





48 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


salem for the first time after his conversion; but not only had 
he been there with another object’ im view, and for so few 
days, but he had also met with James only, besides Peter. The 
reference to all that had been said from ver. 12 (Calvin, 
Koppe, Winer, Matthies), or at least to vv. 15-19 (Hofmann), 
is precluded by the fact that érecra in ver. 18 begins a fresh 
section of the report (comp. ver. 21, i 1), beyond which 
there is no reason to go back. — The sentence is so constructed 
that & dé ypddw ipiv stands emphatically by itself as an 
anacoluthon; and before dr, that, we have again to supply 
ypadw, But what I write to you — behold in the sight of God I 
write, that I lie not ; that is, in respect to what I write to you, 
I write, I assure you before the face of God (fin "DBS, so that 
I have God present as witness), that I lie not. Comp. Butt- 
mann, newt. Gr. p. 338. Schott takes dre as since, “coram 
Deo scribo, siquidem non mentior,” whereby & &é yp. ty. does 
not appear as an anacoluthon. But this siqguidem non mentior 
would be very flat; whereas the anacoluthon of the prefixed 
relative sentence is precisely in keeping with the fervency of 
the language (comp. Matt. x. 14; Luke xxi. 6, and the note 
thereon). The completely parallel protestation also, 0 Qeds 
. ovdey . . . Ste ov rvpevdowar (2 Cor. xi. 31; comp. Rom. 
i. 9; 2 Cor. i 33), is quite unfavourable to the explanation of 
drt as siquidem. To supply with Bengel, Paulus, and Riickert 
(comp. Jerome), an éori after Qcod (Gru, that), does not make 
the construction easier (Riickert); on the contrary, it is 
arbitrary, and yields an unprecedented mode of expression. 
Ver. 21. After this stay of fifteen days in Jerusalem 
(€mrevra, comp. ver. 18), I came into the regions of Syria and 
Cilicia; and consequently was again far enough away from 
the seat of the apostles! —- rs Xupias] As it is said in Acts 
ix. 30 that Paul was accompanied from Jerusalem to Caesarea, 
it is assumed by most modern expositors: “ Syriae eam partem 
dicit, cui Phoenices nomen fuit,’ Winer. So also Koppe, 
Riickert, Usteri, Matthies, Schott. Comp. Matt. iv. 24; Acts 
xxi 3. This view runs entirely counter to the design of 
the apostle. For here his. main concern was to bring out 
his comparatively wide scparation from’ Judaea, as it had 
occurred in his actual history; the whole context (comp. ver. 


CHAP. I. 29, 49 


22) shows that it was so, and therefore the reader could only 
understand ris Supias as meaning Syria proper (with Antioch 
as its capital). It could not in the least occur to him to 
think of Phoenicia (which even Wieseler, though not under- 
standing it alone to be referred to, includes), the more espe- 
cially as alongside of rijs Supias Cilicia, which borders on 
Syria proper, is immediately named (comp. Acts xv. 23, 41; 
Plin. v. 22, xviii. 30). An appeal is also wrongly made to 
Matt. iv. 24 (where, in-the language of hyperbole, a very 
large district—namely, the whole province of Syria, of which 
Judaea and Samaria formed portions—is meant to be desig- 
nated) and Acts xxi. 3 (where likewise the Roman province 
is intended, and that only loosely and indefinitely with refer- 
ence to the coast district’). The relation of our passage to 
Acts ix. 30 is this: On leaving Jerusalem, Paul desired to 
visit Syria and Cilicia; he was accordingly conducted by 
the Christians as far as the first stage, Caesarea (the Roman 
capital of Judaea, not Caesarea Philippi), and thence he. went 
on by land to Syria and Cilicia. Comp. on Acts ix. 30.— 
For what object he visited Syria and Cilicia, he does not state ; 
but for this very reason, and in accordance with ver. 5, it 
cannot be doubted that he preached the gospel there. - Tarsus 
was certainly the central point of this ministry; it was at 
Tarsus that Barnabas sought and found him (Acts xi. 25). 
Ver. 22. But I was so completely a stranger to the land of 
Judaea, that at the time of my sojourn in Syria and Cilicia I 
was personally unknown to the churches, etc. These state- 
ments (vv. 22-24) likewise go to prove that Paul had not 
been a disciple of the apostles, which is indeed the object 
aimed at in the whole of the context. As a pupil of the 
apostles, he would have remained in communication with Jeru- 
salem; and thence issuing, he would first of all have exercised 
his ministry in the churches of Judaca, and would have become 


1 For any one sailing from Patara and passing in front of Cyprus to the 
right has the Syrian coast before him towards the east, and is sailing towards it. 
Thus indefinitely, as was suggested by the popular view and report, Luke 
relates, Acts xxi. 3, iwatogsy sis Zupiav, without meaning by the xa! xacriydnusy 
sis TUpev that follows to make this 2vpiay equivalent to Phoenicia. For instance, 
a man might say, ‘‘ We sailed towards Denmark and landed at Gliickstadt,” 
without intending it to be inferred that Denmark is equivalent to Holstein. 


D 


50 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


well known to them. According to Hofmann, the end at which 
Paul aims in ver. 22 f. is conveyed by nad édokafoy x«.7.r. in 
ver. 24, so that vv. 22, 23 are only related to this as the 
protasis to the apodosis. This idea is at variance with the 
independent and important nature of the two affirmations in 
vv. 22, 23; if Paul had intended to give them so subordinate 
@ position as that which Hofmann supposes, he would have 
done it by a participial construction (dyvoobvres 5¢ . . . povoy 
5é¢ dxovovres, tt x.7.r., CSoFafov «.7.r.), perhaps also with the 
addition of xafmep, or in some other marked way. In the 
form in which the apostle has written it, his report’ intro- 
duced by évrevra in ver. 21 is composed of propositions quite 
as independent as those following ére:ra in ver. 18, and vv. 
22, 23 .cannot be intended merely to introduce ver. 24. 
Hofmann is therefore the more incorrect in asserting that Paul, 
from ver. 21 onwards, is not continuing the proof of his apos- 
tolic independence in contradistinction to the other apostles, 
but is exhibiting the harmony of his preaching with the faith 
of the mother-church at Jerusalem and its apostles. Others, 
inconsistently with the context, suppose that Paul desired to 
refute the allegation that he had been a learner from the 
churches of Judaea (Oecumenius, Gomarus, Olshausen), or that 
he himself had ¢aught judaistically in Judaea (Chrysostom, 
Theophylact, Grotius; comp. Usteri), or that he had visited 
Syria and Cilicia as the deputy of the churches of Judaea 
(Michaelis). — 7@ mpocdirp] as regards the (my) countenance, 
that is, personally. Comp. 1 Thess. ii. 17. — rais éxxrAnolas 
Tis "Iovd.|) This is meant to refer to the churches out of 
Jerusalem, consequently in the ’Iovéala yh, John iii. 22. For 
that he was known to the church in the capital is not only 
a matter of inference from his pre-Christian activity, but is 
certain from that fifteen days’ visit (ver. 18), and is attested 
by Acts ix. 26-30. Neither in Acts ix. 26-30 nor in Acts 
xxvi 19 f. (see on these passages) is there any such inconsist- 
ency with the passage before us, as has been urged against the 
historical character of the Acts, especially by Hilgenfeld, Baur, 
and Zeller. . } 

Vv. 23, 24. Aé] places povov axovovtes joav in correlation 
to munv ayvoovpevos T@ Tpocwr@; it is not, however, to be 





CHAP. I. 23, 24, 51 


understood as a mere repetition of the former 5¢ (Hofmann), 
for it introduces another’ subject (Baeumlein, Partik. p. 9'7). 
The masculine refers to the persons of whom those éxxAnoias 
consisted. See Pflugk, ad Hur. Hee. 39; Winer, p. 586 [E. T. 
787]. The participle with joav, however, does not stand for 
the simple imperfect (Luther renders quite incorrectly, “ they 
had heard”), but prominence is given to the predicate as the 

main point. See Pflugk, ad Hur. Hee. 1179. The clause 
expresses the sole relation in which they were to Paul; they 
were simply in a position to hear. “ Rumor apud illos erat,” 
Erasmus. Comp. Vulgate: “tantum autem auditum habebant.” 
— Sri o Svedxev jpas tore «.7.r.] Ste is explained most simply, 
not by a supposed transition from the indirect to the direct 
form (so most expositors, including Riickert and Wieseler), 
but as the recitatwwum (Matthies, Schott, Hilgenfeld, Ewald, 
Hofmann), the use of which by Paul is certain not merely in 


quotations of Scripture, but also in other cases (Rom. iii. 8; - 


2 Thess. ii. 10). Moreover, the statement thus gains in vivid- 
ness. In o Staxwv pas, jas applies to the Christians 
generally ; the joyful information came to them from Chris- 
tian lips (partly from inhabitants of Jerusalem, partly perhaps 
directly from Syrians and Cilicians). The present participle 
does not stand for the aorist (Grotius), but quite substantivally : 
our (former) persecutor. See Winer, p. 331 [E. T. 444]; Bremi, 
ad Dem. adv. Aphob. 17. — tiv wictw] never means Christian 
doctrine (Beza, Grotius, Morus, Koppe, Riickert, and others), 
not even in Acts vi. 7, where faith in Christ is conceived as 
the authority commanding stfbmission (comp. on Rom. i. 5); 
it denotes the facth—regarded, however, objectively. Comp. on 


iil, 2,23. He preaches the faith (in the Son of God, ver. 16), 


which formerly he destroyed. On the latter point Estius 
justly remarks, “ quia Christi fidelibus fidem extorquere per- 
sequendo nitebatur.” Comp. ver. 13. — & éuoi] does not 


mean propter me (as was generally assumed before Winer), — 
in support of which an appeal was erroneously made to Eph. - 


iv. 1 e¢ al.: for év, used with persons, is never on account of 


1 Hofmann appeals to Eur. [ph. 7. 1367. But in this, as in the other pas- 


sages quoted by Hartung, J. p. 169, the well-known repetition of the same word 
with 3i occurs. 





52 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


(Winer, p. 363 [E. T. 484]); but it means, “they praised God 
on me,” so that their praise of God was based on me as the 
vehicle and instrument of the divine grace and efficacy (1 Cor. 
xv. 10). God made Himself known to them by my case, and 
so they praised Him; drov yap 70 xar’ eué, dnol, ris xdpetos 
qv tow Oeov, Oecumenius, Comp. John xvii 10; Ecclus. 
xlvi. 6. See generally Bernhardy, p. 210; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. 
I. p. 598. It was not, however, without a purpose, but with 
a just feeling of satisfaction, that Paul added nal édotatov ev 
éuol tov @eov; for this impression, which Paul then made on 
the churches in Judaea, stood in startling contrast to the hate- 
ful proceedings against him of the Judaizers in Galatia— 
Mark further (in opposition to Holstein and others), how ver. 
23 rests on the legitimate assumption that Paul preached in 
substance no other gospel than that which those churches 
had received from Jerusalem, although they were not yet 
instructed in the special peculiarities of his preaching; as, 
in fact, the antagonism between the Pauline teaching and 
Judaism did not become a matter of public interest until later 
(Acts xv. 1). 














CHAP. II. . a3 


CHAPTER ITI. 


Ver. 5. ofs ovd¢] is wanting in D* Clar.* Germ. codd. Lat. in 
- Jerome and Sedul., Ir. Tert. Victorin. Ambrosiast. Pelag. (?) 
Primas. Claudius autissidor. Condemned by Seml., Griesb., 
Koppe, Dav. Schulz. But the omission is much too weakly 
attested, and arose simply from 4 in ver. 4 being understood 
antithetically, and from the belief, induced by the remembrance 
of the apostle’s principle of accommodation, that it was necessary 
to find here an analogue to the circumcision of Timothy (Acts 
Xvi. 3); 0d8@ stood in the way of this, and with it, on account 
of the construction, oJ; was also omitted. This of; was wanting 
at most only in manuscripts of the It. (see Reiche, p. 12), and 
ought not to have been rejected by Grot., Morus, and Michael. 
— Ver. 8. xa? guoi] With Lachm. and Tisch., read, according to 
preponderating testimony, xdo/, — Ver. 9. "IdéxwBog xal Knpas] 
DEFG, It., and several Fathers, have QWérpos xai ’IdéxwBos. A 
transposition according to rank. — wé, which is wanting in 
Elz. and Tisch. (bracketed by Lachm.), is to be deleted, accord- 
ing to BF GH K L»s*, min. vss. and Fathers. Inserted on 
account of the é¢ which follows. — Ver. 11. Here, and also in 
ver. 14, Knpa¢ and Knog is the correct reading according to pre- 
ponderating evidence. Comp.on1.18. The very ancient fiction 
(see the exegetical note) that it is not the Apostle Peter who 
is here spoken of, testifies also to the originality of the Hebrew 
name, — Ver. 12. 7Aév] BD* F GX, 45, 73, codd. It., read 
nade. So Lachm.’ Comp. Orig.: éAdévrog "IaxaGov. An ancient 
clerical error after ver. 11. — Ver. 14. The position of the 
words xai obx (Lachm. and Tisch. ody) "Iovdaixas Cais is to be 
adopted, with Lachm., following decisive testimony. No doubt > 
xa? obdx "Ioudaixa¢ is wanting in Clar. Germ. Ambrosiast. Sedul. 
Agapet.; but this evidence is much too weak to induce us (with 
Seml. and Schott) to pronounce the words a gloss, especially as 
their omission might very easily be occasioned by the similar 
terminations of the two adverbs. — wa>]| Elz. Tisch. read si, 
in opposition to decisive testimony. — The evidence is also 


1 Who (Praef. p. xii.) conjectures as to this reading that +. should be read 
instead of rivds. | 
e 


54 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


e 


decisive against the omission of 4, ver. 16 (Elz.), which was 
caused by ¢/dérs¢ being understood as the definition of what pre- 
cedes, with which view 3: was not compatible. The omission 
was facilitated by the fact of a lesson beginning with sidére5. — 
Ver. 18. Instead of cuviornus read, with Griesb., Scholz, Lachm., 
Tisch., cunorévw. — Ver. 20. rot viot rod @rod] Lachm. reads rot @:03 
xa! Xpicrov, according to B D* FG, It. But most probably this 
reading arose from the writer passing on immediately from the 
first rod to the second, and thus writing rod Oecd only; and, as 
the sequel did not harmonize-with this, xa/ Xpiorot was after- 
. wards added. If,as Schott thinks, rod @eod x. Xpsorod was written 
because God and Christ are mentioned in vv. 19, 20, the original 
rou viod rov @sov would have been turned into rod Os0d x. viod 
avrov. If, however, rov @sot x. Xpsorod had been the original 
text, there would have been no reason whatever for altering 
this into rod viod +. Osod. 





CoNTENTS.—Paul continues the historical proof of his full 
apostolic independence. On his second visit to Jerusalem, 
fourteen years after, he had laid his gospel before those in 
repute, and had been, not instructed by them, but formally 
acknowledged as an apostle ordained by God to the Gentiles 
(vv. 1-10). And when Peter had come to Antioch, so far 
was he, Paul, from giving up his apostolic independence, that, 
on the contrary, he withstood Peter openly on account of a 
hypocritical line of conduct, by which Christian freedom was 
imperilled (vv. 11-21). 

Ver. 1. On vv. 1-10, see C. F. A. Fritzsche in Friteschior. 
Opusc. p. 158 ff.; Elwert, Progr. Annott. in Gal. ii. 1-10, etc., 
1852; Reiche, Comm. Crit. p. 1 ff On ver. 1, see Stolting: 
Beitrdge 2. Exeg. d. Paul. Briefe, 1869, p. 155 ff. — érecra] 
thereafter, namely, after my sojourn in Syria and Cilicia; cor- 
relative to the ére:ra ini. 21, and alsoini. 18. “Evzrevra joins 
the statement to what is narrated immediately before. There- 
fore not: after the journey to Jerusalem, i. 18 (Wieseler). — dea 
Sexateccdpwy étav] interjectis quatuordecim annis, after an 
interval of fourteen years: comp. Polyb. xxii. 26. 22, 80 érav 
tpiav ; Acts xxiv. 17. The length of this period quite accords 
with the systematic object of the apostle, inasmuch as he had © 
already, up to the time of this journey, laboured for so many 
years entirely on his own footing and independently of the 





~ 


CHAP. II. 1. 55 


original apostles, that this very fact could not but put an end 
to any suspicion of his being a disciple of these apostles. As 
to the use of did, which is based on the idea that the time 
intervening from the starting-point to the event in question 
is traversed [passed through] when the event arrives (comp. 
Hermann, ad Viger. p. 856), see generally Bernhardy, p. 235 ; 
Kriiger, & 68. 22. 3; Winer, p. 336 [E. T. 475]; Fritzsche, 
ad Marc. p. 50, and in Friteschior. Opuse. p. 162 f.; Herod. iv. 
1, drrodnujoavras oxT® K. eixoot étea Kal Sida ypdvov ToaovToU 
(after so long an interval) xatuovtas «.7.A.; Deut. ix. 11, da 
TeToapaKovTa Huepav . . . edwKe KUptos ewol Tas Svo TAd«Kas ; 
Joseph. Antt. iv. 8. 12. Comp. the well-known 8d xpovov, 
Kiihner, ad Yen. Mem. ii. 8.1; 80 aidvos, Blomfield, Gloss. ad 
Aesch. Pers. 1003; 81a paxpod, Thuc. vi. 15. 3; 8 érous, 
Lucian, Paras. 15; 8’ 4uépwv, Mark ii. 1, and the like; also 
4 Mace. xii. 20. Following Oeder (in Wolf) and Rambach, 
Theile (in Winer’s Neue krit. Jour. VIII. p. 175), Paulus and 
Schott have understood dia as within, “during the 14 years I 
have now been a Christian ;” or, as Stdlting, acceding to this 
explanation, gives to it the more definite sense, “ during a space 
of tume which has lasted 14 years from my conversion, and 1s now, 
at the time I am writing this epistle, finished.” But against 
this view may be urged the grammatical objection that dca is 
never used by Greek authors of duration of time, except when 
the action extends throughout the whole time (Valckenaer, ad 
Herod. vi. 12; Ast, ad Plat. de Leg. p. 399), either continu- 
ously, as Mark xiv. 53, or at recurring intervals, as Acts 1. 3 
(see Fritzschior. Opuse. l.c.). Even the passages which are 
appealed to, Acts v. 19, xvi. 9, xvii. 10, xxiii. 31, admit the 
rendering of 61a tijs vuxtos as throughout the night, without 
deviation from the common Iinguistic usage." Moreover, how 
unintelligibly Paul would have expressed himself, if, without 
giving the slightest intimation of it (possibly by 飀 od év 
Xptor@ eit, or in some other way), he had meant the present 
duration of his standing as a Christian! Lastly, how entirely 


1 See on these passages the Commentary on Acts. There is no cause for 
accusing (with Fritzsche) Luke of an improper deviation from the Greek usus 
loquendi. Comp. on da suxrés, Thue. ii. 4.1; Xen. Anabd. iv. 6. 22. On the 
Homeric dd°vdxra, during the night, see Nigelsbach on the Iliad, p. 222, ed. 3. 


56 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


idle and objectless in itself would be such a specification of 
time! For that Paul could only speak of the journeys which 
he made as a Christian to Jerusalem, was self-evident; but 
whether at the time when he wrote the epistle his life as a 
Christian had lasted 14 years, or longer or shorter, was a 
point of no importance for the main object of the passage, 
and the whole statement as to the time would be without any 
motive in harmony with the context. — From what point 
has Paul reckoned the 14 years? The answer, From the 
ascension of Christ (Chronic. Euseb., Peter Lombard, Lud. 
Cappellus, Paulus), must at once be excluded as quite op- 
posed to the context. Usually, however, the conversion of the 
apostle is taken as the terminus a quo (so Olshausen, Anger, 
Matthies, Schott, Fritzsche, Baumgarten - Crusius, Wieseler, 
Hilgenfeld, Ebrard, Ewald, apost. Zeit. p. 55, Stolting), an 
appeal being made to the analogy of 1.18. Thus the three 
years of 1. 18 would be again included in the fourteen years. 
But wddw and the 8&4, indicating the interval which in the 
meantime had elapsed, point rather to the first journey to 
Jerusalem as the terminus a quo. The mddw points back to 
the first journey, and so dua Sexateco. éray presents itself 
most naturally as the period intervening between the first 
journey and this wadw. If Paul had again written pera, 
as in 1 18, we might have inferred from the intentional 
identity of expression the identity also of the starting- 
point; but since he has here chosen the word &d not 
elsewhere employed by him in this sense (after an interval 
of fourteen years), the relation of this d:a4 to maw leads 
us to take the first journey to Jerusalem as the starting- 
point of the reckoning. This is the reckoning adopted by 
Jerome, Chrysostom on ver. 11, Luther,’ Ussher, Clericus, 
Lightfoot, Bengel, Stroth (Gin the Repert. fir bibl. u. morgenl. 
Int. IV. p. 41), Morus, Keil, Koppe, Borger, Hug, Mynster, 
Credner, Hemsen, Winer, Schrader, Riickert, Usteri, Zeller, 

1In the Commentary of 1519 (Opp. Jena'1612, I. p. 386 B), ‘‘ Post annos 
14, quibus si annos tres, quos supra memoravit, adjunxeris, jam 17 aut 18 annos 
eum praedicasse invenies, antequam conferre voluerit.” Even with this reckon- 
ing, his conversion still remains ‘‘the great event by which Paul measures for 


himself all Christian time” (Ewald) ; for the whole reckoning begins at i. 18 
from this event as its starting-point. 





CHAP. Il. 1. 57 


é 


Reiche, Bleek, and others, as also by Hofmann, who, however, 
labours under an erroneous view as to the whole aim of the 


section beginning with i. 21 (see on i. 22). — dexatecodpwr] 
emphatically placed before érav (differently in i. 18), in order 
to denote the long interval. Comp. Herod. lc. — amadw 


avéBnv eis ‘Iepoc.] Paul can mean by this no other than his 
second’ journey to Jerusalem, and he says that between his 
first and his renewed (aaAwy) visit to it a period of 14 years 
had elapsed, during which he had not been there. If Paul 
had meant a third journey, and had kept silence as to the 
second, he would have furnished his opponents, to whom he 
desired to prove that he was not a disciple of the apostles, 
with weapons against himself; and the suspicion of intention- 
ally incomplete enumeration would have rested on him justly, 
so far as his adversaries were concerned. Indeed, even if on 
occasion of a second visit to Jerusalem, here passed over, he 
had not come at all into close contact with the apostles (and 
how highly improbable this would be in itself!), he would 
have been the less likely to have omitted it, as, in this very 
character of a journey which had had nothing to do with 
any sort of instruction by the apostles (comp: i. 18), it would 
have been of the greatest importance for his object, in opposi- 
tion to the suspicions of his opponents.? To have kept silence 
as to this journey would have cut the sinews of his whole 
historically apologetic demonstration, which he had entered 


1 Very correctly put in the Chron. Huseb., 6 stas wdasy, dnarovors ixipa ioris 
avaBacis arn, 

3 Wieseler’s objection that Paul, according to our view of his historical argu- 
ment, would also have left unmentioned the journey spoken of in Acts xviii. 22, 
. whereby the reasoning above would fall to the ground as nimium probans, is in- 
correct. For if he had shown that up to the apostolic council (see the sequel) 


he could not have received the instruction of the apostles, his task of proof was | 


completély solved ; because on occasion of his presence at that council he received 
formal acknowledgment and sanction as the apostle to the Gentiles. If up to 
that time he had not been a disciple of the apostles, now, when he had received 
in an official way the fullest acknowledgment as an independent apostle, there 
could no longer be any discussion as to his having at some subsequent date pro- 
cured apostolic instruction in Jerusalem. It would therefore have been purely 
unmeaning, and even absurd, to have continued the history of his journeys to 


Jerusalem beyond the date of the apostolic council. But up to that date he: 


could not omit any journey, without rendering his historical deduction nugatory 
as a proof. 


58 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS, 


upon in i. 13 and still cqntinues from i. 21 (though Hofmann 
thinks otherwise). Comp. also Bleek, Beitr. p. 55. This 
purely exegetical ground is quite decisive in favour of the 
view that Paul here speaks of his second journey to Jeru- 
salem;’ and considered by itself, therefore, our passage presents 
no difficulty at all. The difficulty only arises when we com- 
pare it with Acts. According to.the latter, the second journey 
(Acts xi 30, xii. 25) is that which Paul made with Barnabas 
in the year 44 in order to convey pecuniary assistance to 
Judaea ; hence many hold our journey as identical with that 
related in Acts xi 30, xii. 25. So Tertullian c. Marc. i. 20, 
Chron. Euseb. Calvin? Keil (Opuse. p. 160, and in Pott’s 
Sylloge, III. p. 68), Gabler (neuwtest. theol. Journ. II. 2, p. 210 
ff.), Rosenmiiller, Siiskind (in Bengel’s Archiv. I. 1, p. 157 ff), 
Bertholdt, Kuinoel (ad Act. p. xxv.), Heinrichs (ad Act. p. 59), 
Tychsen (on Koppe, p. 149); Niemeyer (de temp. quo ep. ad 
Gal. conser. sit, Gott. 182'7), Paulus, Guericke (Beitr. p. 80 ff), 
Kichler (de anno, quo Paul. ad sacra Chr. convers. est, Lips. 
1828, p. 27 ff.), Flatt, Fritzsche, Bottger, Stdlting. So also 
Caspari (geograph. chronol. Einl. in d. Leb. Jesu, 1869). But 
the chronology; through the 14 years, is decisively opposed to 
this view. For as the year 44 aD. or 797 v.c. is the estab- 
lished date of the journey in question (see Introd. to Acts), these 
14 years with the addition of the three years (i 18) would 
carry us back to the year 27 a.D.! Among the defenders 


2 Bloch, Chronotax. p. 67f., and Schott find two journeys mentioned in 
ver. 1: the former obtains them from raéav» (after 14 years I made the second 
journey to Jerusalem, undertaken with Barnabas); and the latter brings them out 
thus: ‘‘intra 14 annos iterata vice adscendi Hierosolymas, cum Barnaba quidem 
(Act. xi. 30), posthac (Act. xv.) assumto etiam Tito.” Both views are iniro- 
duced into the passage inconsistently with the text. For according to Bloch’s 
explanation, Paul must have spoken previously of a journey made with Barnabas ; 
and in Schott’s interpretation not only is 3:¢ wrongly understood (see above), 
- but it would ‘be necessary at least that instead of cupwapaa. xa} Tirey the text 
should run, sira 3i cvpwapar. x. T. Nevertheless Lange, apostol. Zeitalt. I. p. 
99f., has again resorted to the evasion that xéa.» is to be referred to «sra Bapy. 
and presupposes an earlier journey already made with Barnabas (Acts xi.). 

_ % Among the older expositors, J. T. Major is also named as in favour of this 
view, whose Annotata ad Acta Ap. Jen. 1647, 8vo, are quoted by Gabler and 
Winer. But in the second edition of Major’s Annotata, which appeared after his 
death, Jena 1670, 4to, Major (p. 410 ff.) pronounces decidedly for the view which 
holds the journey mentioned in Gal. ii. 1 to be identical with that in Acts xv. 





CHAP. II. 1. 59 


of this view, Bottger has indeed turned Sexateocapwy into 
teacapwv ; but how little he is justified in this, see below. 
Fritzsche, on the other hand, has endeavoured to bring out 
the 14 years, by supposing the reckoning of Luke iii. 1 to 
begin from the year of the joint regency of Tiberius, that is, 
the year 765 v.c., as, following Ussher, has been done by 
Clericus, Lardner, and others (see on Luke i. 1), and now 
also by Wieseler in Herzog’s Hncykl. XXI. p. 547 ff, and 
especially in his Beitr. z. WiaFdigung d. Evang. 1869, p. 177 
ff. It is assumed, consequently, that Christ commenced His 
ministry in 779, and was crucified in 781; that Paul became 
a Christian at the beginning of 783, and that 14 years later, 
in 797, the journey in question to Jerusalem took place. 
But against the assumption that the 14 years are to be 
reckoned from Paul’s conversion, see above. Besides, the year 
of the conversion cannot, for other chronological reasons, be 
put back beyond the year 35 aD., that is, 788 v.c. (see on 
Acts, Introd.). Lastly, the hypothesis, that Luke in iii. 1 did 
not reckon from the actual commencement of the reign of 
Tiberius, is nothing but a forced expedient based on extraneous 
chronological combinations, and finding no support at all in 
the plain words of Luke himself (see further, in opposition to 
it, Anger, rat. temp. p. 14f, and 2. Chronol. d. Lehramtes Chr. 
I). The opinion, therefore, that the journey Gal. ii. 1 is 
identical with that mentioned in Acts xi., must be rejected ; 
and we must, on the other hand, assume that in point of fact 
those expositors have arrived at the correct conclusion who 
consider it as the same which, according to Acts xv., was 
undertaken by Paul and Barnabas to the apostolic conference. 
So Irenaeus, adv. haer. ui. 13, Theodoret, Jerome, Baronius, 
Cornelius a Lapide, Pearson, and most of the older expositors, 
Semler, Koppe, Stroth, Vogel (in Gabler’s Journ. fir auserl. 
theol. Int. I. 2, p. 249 ff.), Haselaar, Borger, Schmidt (Kini. I. 
p. 192 and in the Analect. III. 1), Eichhorn, Hug, Winer, 
Hemsen, Feilmoser, Hermann (de P. ep. ad Gal. tribus prim. 
- capp., Lips. 1832), Usteri, Matthies, Schott, Olshausen, Anger, 
Schneckenburger, Neander, Baumgarten-Crusius, Baur, Hilgen- 
feld, Zeller, Lekebusch, Elwert, Lechler ‘(apost. wu. nachapost. 
Zeitalt. p. 394ff.), Thiersch, Reuss, Reiche, Ewald, Ritschl, 


60 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


Bleek, Ellicott, Hofmann, Laurent, Holsten, Trip, Oertel, and 
others! This result is, however, to be based in the first in- 
stance not on a comparison of the historical references con- 
tained in Gal. ii. and Acts xv., but on dia dexatecodpwy érav ; 
and the historical references of Acts xv. afterwards serve 
merely as a partial, although very material, confirmation. For 
the point of view, from which the journey is brought forward 
in our passage, is one so special and subjective, that it cannot 
present itself in the connected objectively historical narrative 
of Acts, whether we take it in connection with Acts xi. or Acts 
xv. By the search for points of agreement and of difference, 
with the view of thereby arriving at a decision, far too much 
room is left for argument pro and contra, and consequently for 
the play of subjective influences, to reach any certain result, 
I. Thus in support of the identity of the journey Gal. 1. 1 
with that of Acts xi. xii., it is argued (see Fritzsche, /.c. p. 227) 
—(1.) That the journey follows on the sojourn in Cilicia and 
Syria . 21, i. 1; comp. Acts ix. 30, m1. 25 ff). But why 
should not Paul, in the évresra, ii. 1, have also mentally 
included his first missionary journey (to Cyprus, Pamphylia, 
Pisidia, and Lycaonia, Acts xiii. xiv.) as preceding, seeing that. 
he made this journey from Antioch and after its completion 
again abode in Antioch for a considerable time, and seeing 
that his object made it important not so much to write a 
special history of his labours, as to show at what time he 
had first come into closer official connection with the apostles, 
in order to make it plain that he had not learnt from them ? 
(2.) That it is probable that Paul soon after the beginning of 
his labours as the apostle to the Gentiles (Gal.i 23; Acts 
xi. 25 f,; comp. Acts xv. 23, ix. 30) expounded his system 
of teaching at Jerusalem, and laid it before the apostles for 
their opinion. But this is an argumentum nimium probans, 
since it is evident from i. 16 that Paul commenced the exer- 
cise of his vocation as an apostle to the Gentiles immediately 
after his conversion; so that, even if the 14 years are reckoned 


1 Riickert does not come to a decision, but (in his Commentary and in the 
exeget. Mag. I. 1, p: 118 ff.) denies the identity of our journey with that related 
in Acts xi. xii., and leaves it a matter of doubt whether the journey mentioned 
in Acts xv. or that in xviii. 22 is the one intended. 











CHAP. II. 1. 61 


from the conversion, there still remains this long period of 14 
years during which Paul allowed this alleged requirement to 
be unsatisfied. According to our interpretation of ii. 1, this 
period is increased from 14 to 17 years; but, if Paul had 
taught 14 years without the approbation of the apostles, he 
may just as well have done so for 17 years. (3.) That the 
sanction given to Paul and Barnabas as apostles to the Gentiles 
(ii. 9) must have been consequent on the journey mentioned 
in Acts xi. xii, because otherwise the Holy Spirit would not 
have set them apart (Acts xiii. 2 f.) as apostles to the Gentiles. 
But might not the ordination of the two to be teachers of the 
Gentiles (Acts xii. 2) have taken place previously, and the 
formal acknowledgment of this destination on the part of the 
apostles in Jerusalem have followed at a subsequent period ? 
This latter view, indeed, is supported even by the analogy of 
‘avtol Sé eis tHv meptrouny (Gal. ii, 9), inasmuch as James, 
Peter, and John had been already for a long time before this 
apostles to the Jews, but now arranged that as their destina- 
tion formally in con¢ert with Paul and Barnabas, (4.) That 
the stipulation respecting the poor (ii 10) was occasioned by 
the very fact of Paul and Barnabas having brought pecuniary 
assistance (Acts xi 30). But the care for the poor Jay from 
the very beginning of the church so much at its heart, and was 
so much an object of apostolic interest (Acts 1. 44f, iv. 34 
ff, vi. 1 ff.), that there was certainly no need of any special 
occasion for expressly making the remembrance of the poor 
one of the conditions in the concert, ii 9f (5.) That the 
apostles, according to ii. 3, had insisted on the circumcision of 
Titus,—a non-emanceipation from Mosaism, which might agree 
with the time of Acts xi. xii, when the conversion of the 
Gentiles was still in its infancy, but not with the later time 
of Acts xv. But see the note on ver. 3. Even if we allow 
the (erroneous) idea that the apostles had required this cir- 
cumcision, we should have to consider that James at a much 
later point (Acts xxi. 17 ff.) required Paul to observe a com- 
pletely Jewish custom, from which it is evident how much, 
even at a very late date, the Jewish apostles accommodated 
themselves to the Jewish Christians, and Paul also assented 
to it. (6.) That in Acts xv. there is no trace of the presence 


62 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


of John at Jerusalem. But although John is not mentioned 
by name, he may very well Have been included in the general 
ot amootoNo (Acts xv.). (7.) Lastly, Fritzsche remarks, 
“Paulum novem circiter annos in Cilicia commoratum esse 
(v. Act. ix. 30, xi. 25; Gal i. 18, cf. Gal. ii. 1; Act. xi. 30), 
quis tandem, quum multorum ab apostolis actorum memoria 
aboleverit . . . praefracte negare sustineat?” etc. Paul may 
certainly have been a long time in Syria and Cilicia, but 
how long, must remain entirely undetermined after what we 
have remarked on (1). Besides these arguments’ it has been 
urged (see especially Siiskind and Keil), that the conduct of 
Peter at Antioch (ii 11 ff) is too contradictory to the apos- 
tolic decree of Acts xv. to permit our identifying the journey 
in question with that made to the conference; that in the 
whole of the epistle Paul makes no mention at all of the autho- 
rity of the conference; and lastly, that after the conference 
Paul judged more mildly as to the nullity of circumcision 
thah he does in our epistle. But nothing can be built on 
these arguments; since (a) even if our journey were that 
mentioned in Acts xi. xii, still the reproach of inconstancy 
(grounded on his natural temperament) would rest upon Peter, 
because he had in fact at an earlier period been already 
divinely instructed and convinced of the admissibility of the 
Gentiles to Christianity (Acts x. 8 ff, xi 2 ff); (6) im the 
principle of his apostolic independence Paul had quite sufii- 
cient motive (comp. Introd. § 3) for not mentioning the apos- 
tolic decree, especially when dealing with the Galatians ;? and 
lastly (c) the severe judgment of the apostle as to the nullity 
of circumcision in our letter was, in his characteristic manner, 
adapted altogether to the polemical interest of the moment: 
for that he should pass judgment on the same subject, accord- 
ing to circumstances, sometimes more severely and sometimes 


1 As a revelation afforded to Paul himself must certainly be intended, the 
assertion often brought forward, that xa¢’ awoxdauyy in ii. 2 applies to the 
narrative about the prophet Agabus (Acts xi. 28 ff.), is so evidently incorrect, 
that it does not merit notice. Also the special ground brought forward by 
Bottger, in order to confirm the identity of the journey Gal. ii. 1 with that 
described in Acts xi. xii., carries with it its own refutation. See, on the con- 
trary, Riickert, in the Magaz. f. Hueg. u. Theol. des N. T. I. 1, p. 118 ff. 

= Comp. Ritschl, altkathol. K. p. 149. 





CHAP, II. 1. 63 


more mildly, accords completely with the vigorous freedom 
and elasticity of his mind; hence the passages cited for the 
freer view (Acts xvi. 3; 1 Cor. ix. 20ff,; Acts xxi. 20 ff) 
cannot furnish any absolute standard. —- II. To prove the 
identity of our journey with that of Acts xv., appeals have 
been made to the following arguments: (1) That Titus, whom 
Paul mentions in ii. 1, is included in twas dAXous €& avrar, 
Acts xv. 2; (2) That in ver. 2, dveBéunv airtois Td evaryy. 0 
xnp. év tois Ov. is parallel to Acts xv. 4, 12; (3) That the 
Judaizers mentioned in Acts xv. 5 are identical with the 
qmapecdxrous ypevdadérgors, Gal. ii. 4; (4) That the result of 
the apostolic discussions recorded in Acts xv. quite corresponds 
with aN ovdé Tiros .. . qvayxacOn trepitpnOjvat, Gal. ii. 3 ; 
(5) That in an historical point of view, Gal. i. 11‘agrees 
exactly with Acts xv. 30; (6) That in Acts xi. Barnabas 
still has precedence of Paul, which, however, is no longer the 
case throughout in Acts xv. (only in vv. 12, 25); (7) That 
in our epistle Paul could not have omitted to mention the 
important journey of Acts xv. But on the part of those who 
look upon our journey as that related in Acts xi. xi, or even 
in Acts xviii 22 (Wieseler), such grounds for doubt are urged 
against all of these points (see especially, Fritzsche lc. p. 
224 ff.; Wieseler, p. 557 ff), that they cannot be used at — 
least for an independent and full demonstration of the identity 
of our journey with that of Acts xv., but merely furnish an 
important partial confirmation of the proof otherwise adduced ; 
to say nothing of the fact that the accounts in Gal. 1. and 
Acts xv. present also points of difference, from which at- 
tempts have been made with equal injustice to deny the 
whole historical parallel, and to abandon unduly the his- 
torical truth of the 15th chapter of the Acts (Baur, Schwegler, 
Zeller, Hilgenfeld, Holsten). — The result of all the discus- 
sion is as follows :—<As Paul, in accordance with his own clear 
words in Gal. 1. 1 as well as with his whole plan and aim in 
the passage, can mean no other journey whatever except the 
second which he made as an apostle to Jerusalem; and as, 
moreover, the dca Sexateccdpwv éray forbids our thinking 
of that journey which is related in Acts xi. xii. as the second; the 
journey represented by him in Gal. ii. 1 as his second journey 


64 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS, 


must be held to be the same as that represented by Luke in Acts 
xv. as the third—an identity which 18 also confirmed by the 
historical parallels to be found in Gal. ii. and Acts xv." In 
this way, doubtless, the account of the Epistle to the Galatians 
conflicts with that of Acts ;? but, in the circumstances, it is not 
difficult to decide on which side the historical truth lies. 
The account of Luke, as given in Acts xi. xii, that Paul came 
to Jerusalem with Barnabas to convey the moneys collected, 
must be described as in part unhistorical. Perhaps (for it is 
not possible definitely to prove how this partial inaccuracy 
originated) Paul went only a part of the way with Barnabas 


1 Accordingly, the opinions that our passage relates to a journey still later 
than that reported in Acts xv. fall to the ground of themselves, for the journey 
Acts xv. can neither be historically disputed nor can it have been omitted by 
Paul. Following Jac. Cappellus, Whiston, and others, Kohler (Abfassungaz. p. 
8) has found our journey in Acts xviii. 22,—a view more recently defended by 
Wieseler, Chronologie d. ap. Zeitalt. p. 201 ff., and Komment. p. 553 ff., also in 
Herzog’s Hncykl. XIX. art. “Galaterbrief; but Schrader transfers it to the 
interval between vv. 20 and 21 of Acts xix.—to the time of the composition of 
the Second Epistle to the Corinthians. Agsinst Kohler and Schrader, see espe- 
cially Schott, Hrérterung, p. 22 ff. ; Wurm, in the T'iibing. Zeitechr. 1833, I. p. 
50 ff. ; Anger, rat. temp. p. 153 ff. According to Epiph. Haer. xxviii. 4, even 
the journey of Acts xxi. 15-17 is the one intended! Against Wieseler, who is 
supported by Lutterbeck, see Baur in the theol. Jahrb. 1849, p. 460 ff. ; Zeller, 
Apost. p. 218f. ; Hilgenfeld, in his Zeitschr. f. wies. Theol. 1860, p. 144ff. ; 
Moller on De Wette (ed. 3), p. 35 ff. Comp. also Diisterdieck in Reuter’s Repert. 
Sept. 1849, p. 222; Schaff, Gesch. d. chr. K. I. p. 181 ff.; Holtzmann, in 
Schenkel’s kirchi. Zeitschr. 1860, 8, p. 55 ff. ; Ebrard, and others. It is un- 
necessary for us here to go further into Wieseler’s arguments from an exegetical 
point of view ; for the supposition of some later journey than Acts xv. must at 
all events from Gal. ii. 1 appear an exegetical impossibility, so long as we allow 
this much at least of truth to the Acts of the Apostles—that Paul was at the 
apostolic council. The journey to this council cannot have been passed over by 
Paul in his narrative given in our passage; and consequently the journey Acts 
Xviii. 22—which, too, he cannot have taken in company with Barnabas (Acts 
xv. 36 ff.)—cannot have been the one intended by him. This is completely suffi- 
cient to invalidate even the latest discussions of Wieseler. Reiche aptly observes 
' (Comm. crit. p. 3): ‘‘ Paulus aut non affuisse in apostolorum conventu Act. xv., 
aut male causae suae consuluisse, silentio id praeteriens, censendus esset.” 

2 Hofmann (with whom Laurent agrees) still contents himself with the 
superficial current evasion, that Paul had no need to mention the journey re- 
lated in Acts xi, because it did not afford his opponents any matter for sus- 
picion. As if his opponents were to be reckoned so innocent and guileless in 
their judgment, and as if Paul would not have been shrewd enough to see the use 
that would be made of his passing over in silence one of the journeys made by 
him to the seat of the apostles! 








* 


CHAP. IL. 1. 65 


(Acts xi. 30), and then, probably even before reaching Judaea 
(see below), induced by circumstances unknown to us, allowed 
Barnabas to travel alone to Jerusalem; and thereafter the 
latter again met Paul on his way back, so that both returned 
to Antioch together (Acts xii. 25), but Barnabas only visited 
Jerusalem in person. Schleiermacher (Hinl. in’s N. T. p. 
369 f.) assumes an error on the part of Luke as author; that, 
misled by different sources, he divided the one journey, Acts 
xv., Into two different journeys, Acts xi. and xv. But the 
total dissimilarity of the historical connection, in which these 
journeys are placed by the narrative of Acts, makes us at once 
reject this supposition ; as, indeed, it cannot possibly be enter- 
tained without unjustifiably giving up Luke’s competency for 
authorship, and by consequence his credibility, in those portions 
of his book in which he was not an eye-witness of the facts. 
Credner also (Hinl. I. 1, p. 315) has pronounced himself 
inclined to the hypothesis of an error on. the part of Luke. 
He, ‘however, makes the apostle travel with Barnabas (Acts 
Xl. xu.) as far as Judaea, only not as far as the capital; assum- 
ing that Paul remained among the churches of the country dis- 
tricts, and made the acquaintance with them presupposed in 
1, -22-24, Rom. xv. 19. But, on the one hand, looking at 
his apostolic interest, it is not in itself probable that, having 
arrived in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem, he would fail, 
after so long an absence, to be drawn towards the mother-seat 
of the church, especially when he had come as deputy from 
Antioch ; on the other hand, we should expect that, in order 
to preclude his opponents from any opportunity of misrepre- 
senting him, he would have briefly mentioned this presence 
in Judaea (comp. i 22), and mentioned it in fact with the 
express remark that at that time he had not entered Jeru- 
salem itself. And, as regards the acquaintance with the 
churches in the country districts presupposed in i, 22-24, he 
may have made it sufficiently during his journey to the con- 
ference. The fact itself, that Paul during the journey recorded 
in Acts x1. was not at Jerusalem (which is admitted by Neander, 
ed. 4, p. 188, following Bleek, Beitr. p. 55, and has been 
turned to further account by Baur and his school against the 
historical character of the narrative of the Acts; see on Acts 
E 


~—=—— 


66 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


xi. 30), remains independent of the possible mades of explaining 
the so far unhistorical account there given. — pera BapvaBa] 
The following oupzrapanr. x. Tiroy shows that Paul recognised 
himself as on this occasion the chief person, which agrees 
with Acts xv. 2, but not with Acts xi 25, 30, xi. 25. — 
oupnaparaBov «al Titov] having taken along with us (as travel- 
ling companion) also Titus. This «ai finds its reference in pera 
Bapvafa, to which the avy in ovprrapax. also refers; not among 
others also (Wieseler),—a meaning which is not suggested by 
the text. Whether, however, at Acts xv. 2, Titus is meant to 
be included in xai twas ddAous €€ avray, must remain an open 
question. If he is meant to be included, then our passage 
serves to put the statement on the more exact historical foot- 
ing, that Titus was not sent with the others by the church at 
Antioch, but was taken by Paul on his own behoof. The idea 
that he was sent on the part of the opposite party (Fritzsche), 
cannot, on a correct view of Acts l.c., be entertained at all 


Note.—Teoodpov, which Ludwig Cappellus, Grotius, Semler, 


Keil, Bertholdt, Heinrichs, Kuinoel, and others, also Guericke, 


Rinck, Kiichler, Bohl, Matthaei (Religionsl. d. Ap. I. p. 624), 
Schott (in his Tsagoge, p. 196, not in his later writings), Wurm, 
Ulrich, and Bottger, wish to read instead of dexarscodpuy, is a 
mere conjectural emendation on chronological grounds, con- 
firmed by no authority whatever, not even by the Chronic. 
Euseb., from the words of which it is, on the contrary, dis- 
tinctly evident that the chronographer read dexarecccépwv,* but 
on account of the chronology, because he took the journey for 
that recorded in Acts xi. xiL, suggested recocpwv.* See Anger, 
Rat. temp. 128 ff.; Fritzsche, l.c. p. 160 ff.; Wieseler, Chronol. p. 
206 f. Nevertheless Reiche, in the Comm. Crit., has again judged 
it necessary to read ressdpuv, specially because the few matters 
related of Paul in Acts x.-xv. cannot be held compatible with 
his having been seventeen years an apostle, and also because 
so early a conversion, as must be assumed from the reading 
dexarecodpwv, does not agree with Acts i—ix., several of the narra- 
tives of which, it is alleged, lead us to infer a longer, perhaps a 
ten years’, interval between the ascension of Christ and the 


LTS slasiv abedy 31 63° bray Soxsi feos vous ypsveus ray aweeTiAw Tels awe THE 
avarnpsws apidusiv averdv. . . . Kal si ph roviro dapsy, sipsbicsras 6 xpéves aD’ ob 
iBawriodn nal &viPasper, os wiptigvovos ai Updates, trm 3’. 

2 It is therefore a pure error. when rieedpwy is sometimes styled a varia lectio. 


CHAP, IL. 2. 67 


conversion of the apostle; as indeed the existence of churches 
already established in Judaea at the time of this conversion (Gal. 
i. 22) points to the same conclusion, and 2 Cor. xii. 2 ff., where the 
dmoxcéau-jic refers to the conversion, agrees with reccépav, but not 
with ésxarscodpwy in our passage. But when we consider the 
great incompleteness and partial inaccuracy of the first half of 
Acts, the possibility of explaining the establishment of the 
Judaean churches even in a shorter period embracing some four 
years, and the groundlessness of the view that 2 Cor. xii. 2 (see 
on the passage) applies to the conversion of the apostle, these _ 
arguments are too weak to make us substitute a conjecture for 
an unanimously attested reading. 


Ver. 2. 4é] continuing the narrative, with emphatic repeti- 
tion of the same word, as in Rom. iii. 22; 1 Cor. i, 6; Phil 
iz. 8, e al. Klotz, ad Devar. p. 361;-Baeumlein, Partch. 
p. 97. — xata droxadupiv] in conformity with a revelation 
received, What an essential element for determining the bear- 
ing of the whole narrative! Hence avé8. 6é x. dz. is not paren- 
thetical (Matthias). But what kind of amoxadu is it was— 
whether it was imparted to the apostle by means of an ecstasy 
(Acts xxii. 17; 2 Cor. xii 1ff.), or of a nocturnal appearance 
(Acts xvi 9, xviii 19, xxiii 11, xxvii. 23), or generally by a 
prophetic vision (so Ewald), or by a communication from the 
Spirit (Acts xvi. 6, 7, xx. 22, 23), or in some other mode— 
remains uncertain. According to Acts xv. 2, he was deputed 
by the church of Antioch to Jerusalem; but.with this statement 
our Kata dioxaAv ww does not conflict (as Baur and Zeller 
maintain): it simply specifies a circumstance having reference 
to Paul himself individually, that had occurred either before 
or after that resolution of the church, and was probably quite 
unknown to Luke. Luke narrates the outward cause, Paul the 
inward motive of the concurrent divine suggestion, which led to 
this his journey; the two accounts together give us its historical 
connection completely. Comp. Acts x., in which also a reve- 
lation and the messengers of Cornelius combine in determining 
Peter to go to Caesarea. The state of the case would have to be 
conceived as similar, even if our journey were considered iden- 
tical with that related Acts xi. xii, in which case «ata drroxa- 
Avyiv would apply not— possibly —to the prophesying of 
Agabus, but likewise to a divine revelation imparted to Paul 


68 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS, 


himself. Hermann (de P. ep. ad Gal. trib. prim. capp. Lips. 1832, 
also in his Opuse. V. p. 118 ff.), as before him Schrader, and 
after him Dav. Schulz (de aliquot N. T. locor. lectione et interpr. 
1833), have explained it: “ explicationis causa, i.e. ut patefieret 
inter ipsos, quae vera esset Jesu doctrina.” No doubt xara 
might express this relation: comp. Wesseling, ad Herod. ii. 
151; Matthiae, p. 1359; Winer, p. 376 [E. T. 502]. But, 
on the one hand, the account of Acts as to the occasion of our 
journey does not at all require any explaining away of the 
revelation (see above); and, on the other hand, it would by 
no means be necessary, as Hermann considers that on our 
interpretation it would, that xara teva amroxadkvw should 
have been written, since Paul’s object is not to indicate some 
sort of revelation which was not to be more precisely defined 
by him, but to express the qualifying circumstance that he 
had gone up not of his own impulse, but at the divine com- 
mand, not dq’ éavrod, but xara daroxaduipw, conformadly to 
revelation. Moreover, it is the only meaning consonant with 
the aim of the apostle, who from the beginning of the epistle 
has constantly in view his apostolic dignity, that here also, as 
in i, 12, 6, dwroxanr. should express a divine revelation (comp. 
Eph. ui. 3), as in fact the word is constantly used in the N. 
T. in this higher sense: comp. i. 12. — dveOéunv] I laid before 
them, for cognisance and examination. Comp. Acts xxv. 14; 
2 Mace. 11. 9,and Grimm thereon. Among Greek authors, in 
Plutarch, Polyb., Diog. L., etc. — adrois] that is, the Christians 
at Jerusalem, according to the well-known use of the pronoun 
for the inhabitants of a previously named city or province ; 
Bernhardy, p. 288; Winer, p. 587 [E. T. 788]. The restric- 
tion of the reference to the apostles (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, 
Calvin, Koppe, Schott, Olshausen, and others), who are of 
course not excluded, is, after eis ‘IepoooAvua, even still more 
arbitrary’ than the view which confines it to the presby- 
tertum of the church (Winer, Matthies), Reuss also (in the 


1If airois applied to the apostles, there was no need for regarding (with 
Chrysostom and others) xar’ dia» 3 cots Soxedes as a more precise definition of 
&vbinny aireis; for if so, Paul would have expressed himself in a way very 
illogical and liable to misunderstanding, because xae’ idia» 3i would be without 
meaning, if it was not intended to denote some act different from the general 
évsbtny avreis, Paul must have written simply dvslinny aiveis x.7.2., &rebigens 


CHAP, II. 2. 69 


Revue théol. 1859, p. 62 f£) wrongly denies the consultation of 
the church. — ro evaryy. 6 enptoow év Trois &v.] The main doc- 
trine of which is that of justification by faith. Chrysostom aptly 
remarks, 76 ywpls aepitouns. The present tense denotes the 
identity which was still continuing at the time the epistle was 
written (comp. i 16); év trois é@veou does not, however, mean 
among the nations (Usteri), but that it was his gospel to the 
Gentiles which Paul laid before the mother-church of Jewish 
Christianity. Comp. Rom. xi. 13. — xar’ idiav S€é Tots Soxotcr] 
sc. aveBépnv TO evaryy. 5 Knptoow év Trois Ov. But apart, that 
is, in one or more separate conferences, to those of repute. 
On xar’ idiav, comp. Matt. xvii. 19; Mark iv. 34, ix. 28; 
Valckenaer, ad Hur. Phoen. p. 439. It is, like the éd/¢ more 
usual in the classical authors (Thue. i. 132. 2, i. 44. 2; Xen. 
Mem. iii. 7. 4, Anab. v. 7. 13, vi. 2. 13; Ast, Lex. Plat. II. 
p. 88), the contrast to xowh or Sypocia (comp. Mace. iv. 5). 
Tots Soxotdcr singles out the aestumatos from the body of Chris- 
tians at Jerusalem. This, however, is not meant to apply to 
the esteemed members of the church generally (comp. dvdpas 
sryoupevous ev tais ddeAdois, Acts xv. 22), but (see on ver. 9) 
to James the brother of Christ, Peter, and John. The other 
apostles who were still alive appear already to have ceased 
from personal connection with the church at Jerusalem. Vv. 
6, 7, 9 show, that it is not the anti-Pauline partisan adherents 
of those three who are referred to (Grotius); and, indeed, it 
would have been entirely opposed to his apostolic character 
to lay his gospel specially before the doxotor in this sense. 
Moreover, the designation of the three apostles as 6: doxotvres 
is not “an ironical side-glance ” (Schwegler, I. p. 120), nor has 


23 wois Sox. This remark applies also against the view of Baur and Zeller, who, 
although they allow that the language warrants our view, take the sense to be, 
‘*T set it forth to them, but only to those of. highest repute in particular.” On 
the contrary, if adres applied to the apostles, the meaning, as the passage runs, 
would have to be taken as Schott (comp. Olshausen) gives it: ‘‘doctrinam.. . 
apostolis omnibus exposui, privatim vero (uberius ac diligentius) iis, qui magni 
aestumantur, apostolis auctoritate insignibus, Petro, Johanni, Jacobo.” But 
how improbable it is in itself, that Paul should have held such a separate con- 
ference with a select few of the apostles, and should not have vouchsafed an 
equally circumstantial and accurate exposition of his teaching to the whole of 
the apostles as such! Apart, however, from this, the three doxcvvrss appear to 
have been the only apostles present in Jerusalem at that time. 


70 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS, 


it proceeded from the irritation of a bitter feeling against those 
who had habitually applied this expression to these apostles 
(Cameron, Riickert, Schott, comp. Olshausen); but it is used 
in a purely historical sense: for an ironical designation at this 
point, when Paul is about to relate his recognition on the part 
of the earlier apostles, would be utterly devoid of tact, and 
would not be at all consonant either to the point of view of . 
a colleague, which he constantly maintains in respect to the 
other apostles, or to the humility with which he regards this 
collegiate relation (1 Cor. xv. 8ff.). He has, however, pur- 
posely chosen this expression (“the authorities”), because the 
very matter at stake was his recognition. Homberg, Paulus, 
and Matthies wrongly assert that tois Soxodor means putanti- 
bus, and that the sequel belongs to it, “que putabant, num forte 
an vanum currerem.” Vv. 5, 6,9 testify against this interpre- 
tation; and the introduction of fofeiofa: into the notion of 
Soxety is arbitrary, and cannot be’supported by such passages as 
Hom. Ji, x. 97, 101 (see, on the contrary, Hartung, Parttkell. 
II. p. 138 f). Besides, it would have been inconsistent with 
apostolic dignity to give such a private account to those who 
were suspicious. In classical authors also ot Soxodvres, with- 
out anything added to define’ it, means those of repute, who 
are much esteemed, nobiles. See Eur. Hee. 295, and thereon ~ 
Schaefer and Pflugk; Porphyr. de abstin. ii. 40, e¢ al. ; Kypke, 
II. p. 274; Dissen, ad Pind. Ol. xiii. 56. Comp. also Clem. 
Cor. 1.57. Just so the Hebrew 1¥M, See Gesenius, Thes. I. 
p. 531; Buxtorf, Lex. Talm. p. 839f. Comp. Soxipos, Plat. 
Pol. x. p. 618 A; ‘Herod. i. 65; Blomfield, Gloss. in <Aesch. 
Pers. p. 109.—But why did Paul submit his gospel not merely 
to the Christians in Jerusalem generally, but also specially to 
the three apostles? By both means he desired to remove 
every suspicion which might anywhere exist in the minds of 
others (comp. Chrysostom), that he was labouring or had 
Jaboured in vain; but how easy it is to understand that, for 
this purpose, he had to address to the apostles a more thorough 
and comprehensive statement, and to bring forward proofs, 
experiences, explanations, deeper dialectic deductions, etc.,’ 


1 This was a case in which the principle beyond doubt applied, ccegiay dP 
AaAoupesy iv ross TsAssors, 1 Cor, ii. 6. 


CHAP, II. 2, 71 


which would have been unsuitable for the ‘general body of 
Christians, among whom nothing but the simple and popular 
exposition was appropriate! Therefore Paul dealt with his 
colleagues xar’ iS/av. But we must not draw a distinction 
as to matter between the public and the private discussion, 
as Estius and others have done: “ publice ita contulit, ut 
ostenderet gentes non debere circumcidi et servare legem 
Mosis . . . privato autem et secreto colloquio cum apostolis 
habito placuit ipsos quoque Judaeos ab observantia Mosaicae 
legis . . . esse liberandos,” etc. In this way Paul would 
have set forth only the half of his gospel to the mass of 
the Christians there; and yet this half-measure, otherwise so 
opposed to his character, would not have satisfied the Jewish- 
Christian exclusiveness. Thiersch also (Kirche im apost. Zettalt. 
p. 128) wrongly holds (comp. Lange, apost. Zeitalt. p. 100) 
that the subject of the private discussion was Paul’s apostolic 
dignity ; it was nothing else than 76 evayyéNoy x.7.X., and 
only in so far his apostolic legitimacy. The olject of the 
private discussion was, in Winer’s opinion: “ ut ne, si his (the 
Soxodot) videretur P. castigandus, publica expostulatione ipsius 
auctoritas infringeretur.” But this also is not in accordance 
with the decided character of Paul; and if he had dreaded a 
public expostulation, he would not have ventured first to set 
forth his gospel publicly, because the apostles, in the event of 
disapproval, would not have been able to withhold public con- 
tradiction. The view that the private discussion with the 
Soxotor preceded the general discussion with the church (so 
Neander, p. 277;, Lekebusch, <Avpostelgesch. p. 295), runs 
counter to the account of our passage, which represents the 
course of events as the converse. — pujmws eis Kevov Tpéyo 7 
&papyov| Taken by itself, wmws may signify either lest possibly, 
ne forte, and thus express directly the design of the aveOéuny 
(so, following the Vulgate and the Greek Fathers, Erasmus, 
Luther, and most expositors, including Winer, Fritzsche, Riick- 
ert, Schott), or whether ... not possibly, num forte (Usteri, 
Hilgenfeld, Hofmann, Wieseler), thus indirectly interrogative. 
The former interpretation is decidedly to be rejected, because 
the indicative aorist épayor does not suit it; for, according to 
the Greek use of the particles of design with the indicative aorist 


72 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


or imperfect (see on iv. 17), the aveOéunv would not actually 
have taken place; and besides this, we should have to assume 
—without any ground for doing so in the context—that rpéyo 
and édpapov are said ex aliorum judicio,’ and that tpéyw is sub- 
junctive, although by its connection with épayoy it evidently 
proclaims itself indicative. Hence paras must be rendered 
num forte, and the reference of the num is supplied by the 
idea, “ for consideration, for examination,” included in aveOéunv 
(Hartung, Partikell. II. pp. 137,140). The passage is there- 
fore to be explained: “JZ laid before them my gospel to the 
Gentiles, with a view to their instituting an investigation of the 
question whether I am not possibly running or have run in vain.” 


The apostle himself, on his own part, was in no uncertainty 


about this question, for he had obtained his gospel from 
revelation, and had already such rich experience to support 
him, that he certainly did not fear the downfall of his previous 
ministry (Holsten”) ; hence urs is by no means to be under- 
stood, with Usteri and Hilgenfeld, also Buttmann, neut. Gr. 
p. 303, and Holsten, as implying any uncertainty or appre- 
hension of his own (in order to see, in order to be certain, whether). 
But he wanted to obtain the judgment and declaration of the 
church and the apostles (so, correctly, Wieseler); comp. Hofmann, 
Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 44 £, who, however, hei. Schr. N. T. I. p. 86, 
supplies only dveOéunv (without To evayy. x.7.r.) after 7. Soxotce, 
thus making pajrws «.7.r. the matter itself laid before them ; but 
this would be at variance with the essential idea of laying 
before them the gospel, of which Paul is speaking, for he does 
not repeat aveAéuny, and that alone. According to Hofmann, 
the state of the case would amount to this, that Paul desired 
to have the answer to the question pws x.7.d. from the doxodat 
only, and not also from the church,—a view which would 
neither harmonize with the position of the latter (comp. Acts 
xv. 22f.), nor would leave apparent in the text any object 
for his submitting his gospel to the church at all. Observe, 

1 Those who do not agree with this, fall into forced interpretations, as 
Fritzsche, Opuse. p. 175: ‘‘ne forte frustra etiam tum, quum epistolam ad 
Galatas scriberet, apostolus laboraret, aut . . . ante iter jam laboravisset.” 

2 Against Holsten’s exaggeration Hilgenfeld (in his Zeitschr. 1860, p. 117 £.) 


has justly declared himself. The counter remarks of Holsten, z. Lv. d. Petr. 
u. Paul. p. 277, are immaterial. 





in 


CHAP, IL. 2. ve 


moreover, that the apostle does not. say elrws (whether possibly) ; 
but, with the delicate tact of one who modestly and confidently 
submits himself to the judgment of the church and the apostles, 
while hostile doubts as to the salutary character of his labours 
are by no means unknown to him, he writes urs, whether 

. not possibly (iv. 11; 1 Thess. iii. 5), that is, in the posi- 
tive sense, whether perhaps. In no case has the apostle in 
pntrws «.7.r. expressed the intention of procuring for himself 
a conviction of the correctness of his teaching.” — eis xevov] 
in cassum. See Jacobs ad Anthol. VII. p. 328. Comp. the 
passages from Josephus in Kypke ; from the LXX., Isa. lxv. 23 
et al.; from the N. T., 2 Cor. vi. 1, Phil. ii, 16, 1 Thess. 
iii, 5. Comp. also the use of ets xowov, cis xatpov, eis Kadov, 
and the like, in Bernhardy, p. 221. Paul conceives his run- 
ning as vain, that is, not attaining the saving result aimed 
at? if his gospel is not the right and true one. — tpéyo] a 
figurative expression, derived from the running in the stadium, 
for earnestly striving activity—in this case, official activity, as 
in Phil. ii, 16, 2 Tim iv. 7; in other passages, Christian 
activity in general, as 1 Cor. ix. 24f, Gal. v. 7, Heb. xii. 1. 
Comp. Rom. ix. 16. The present indicative transfers us into 
the present time of the dveOéunv, from which @épapoy then 
looks back into the past. A clear and vivid representation. 
As to the indicative generally with the indirect interrogative 
pn, whether not, see Bernhardy, p. 397; Hermann, ad Viger. 
p. 810; also Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 104.. 


1 In wsaws x.7.2., let us conceive to ourselves the moment when the apostle 
has laid his gospel before those assembled, and then says as it were, ‘‘Here you 
have my gospel to the Gentiles ; by it you may now judge whether I am perhaps 
labouring in vain, or—if from the present I look back upon the past—have so 
laboured!” The supposition of irony (Mircker in the Stud. u. Krit. 1866, p. 537) 
is not warrantable amidst the gravity of the whole surrounding circumstances. 

2 ‘Winer (p. 470) justly lays stress upon this in opposition to Fritzsche, but 
is of opinion (with de Wette) that Paul desired to obviate the frustration involved 
in piwes x.¢.4., by inducing the assent of the apostles to his gospel, ‘ because 
without this assent and recognition the Christians who had been converted 
by him would have remained out of communion with the others’’ (de Wette). 
But this latter idea is unnecessarily introduced; and even in the event of 
non-recognition, Paul, looking to his direct calling and the revelation he had 
received, could not have regarded it as involving the result of his labour being 
in vain. 

8 Comp. the classical cvéynra wovsiv, Plat. Rep. p. 486 0. 


74 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


Note——Acts xv. 4,12 must not be adduced as proof either for 
or against (Fritzsche, Wieseler, and others).the identity of our 
journey with that of Acts xv. The two facts—that related in 
Acts xv. 4, 12, and that expressed by dvedéunv x.9.A. in Gal. 11. 2 
—are two different actions, both of which took place at that 
visit of the apostle to Jerusalem, although what is stated in 
our passage was foreign to the historical connection in Acts 
xv., and therefore is not recorded there. The book of Acts 
relates only the transactions conducive to his object, in which 
Paul took part as deputy from the. church at Antioch. What 
he did besides in the personal interest of his apostolic validity 
and ministry,—namely, his laying his gospel as well before the 
church (not to be identified with the assembly of the council) 
as before the doxotvres also separately,—forms the subject of 
his narrative in Gal. ii., which is related to that in the Acts, 
not as excluding it and thereby impugning its historical 
character, but as supplementing it (contrary to the view of 
Baur, Schwegler, Zeller, Hilgenfeld). Comp. on Acts xv. 
19 f. As to the non-mention:of the apostolic decree, see 
Introd. § 3. 


Ver. 3. Observe, that Paul does not pass on to the result of 
his discussions with the dSoxodcu until ver. 6, and consequently 
it is ver. 6 ff. which corresponds to the car’ idiay 6é Soxoior 
in ver. 2; so that vv. 3—5 have reference to the result of 
the laying his gospel to the Gentiles before the Christians in 
Jerusalem generally, and correspond with the first part of ver. 
2 (aveOéunv adrois 76 evaryy. 8 xnp. év 7. 26v.). — But so little 
had that exposition of my gospel to the church at Jerusalem 
a result counteracting it and implying the eds xevov tpéyw 7 
&papov, that, on the contrary, not even Titus, etc. Thus adr’ 
ovdé (comp. Luke xxiii. 15; Acts xix. 2) introduces a fact 
which—in contrast to the idea of “ running in vain,’ which 
had just been brought forward as the point for inquiry in 
that exposition of his gospel—serves as the surest palpable 
proof how triumphantly the Gentile gospel of the apostle 
(which rejected the necessity of circumcision for the Hellenes) 
maintained its ground then before the church of, Jerusalem, . 
and how very far people were from ascribing to the apostle a 
running, or having run, in vain. For otherwise it would have 
been absurd, if the church had not pleaded for, and carried 


CHAP. IT. 3, 75 


out, the cireumcision at least of Titus.’ “ But not even this 
was done, to say nothing of its being a duty of the church 
to reject my gospel which was altogether opposed to the cir- 
cumcision of Gentiles, and to decide that I eis xevoy tpéyw 
» @papov!” This line of argument involves a syllogism, of 
which dA’ ovdé . . . mepetunOqvar is the minor. —"EAnv 
av] Although a Hellene, a Gentile? We have no further de- 
tails as to his descent. — jvayxdo6n] From vv. 4, 5 it follows 
that, on the part of certain Christians at Jerusalem (not of the 
apostles also, who are not referred to until ver. 6, where the 
kar’ iiav dé tots Sox. is resumed), the circumcision of Titus 
had been urged, but had not been complied with on the 
part of Paul, Barnabas, and Titus, and this resistance was 
respected by the church ;* hence the ov« qvayxdoOn wepitpn- 
Onvas, there was not imposed on him the necessity of submitting 
to be circumcised. Most expositors, however, adopt the common 
opinion that ovdé . . . jvayxdoOn aepir. implies that the 
circumcision of Titus had not been demanded, which is adduced 
by Paul as a proof of his agreement with the apostles. See 
Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Oecumenius, and many 
others, including Winer, Usteri, Matthies, Schott, de Wette, 
Hofmann. This view is decisively set aside by the sequel (see 
on ver. 4), apart from the fact that here the relation to the 
apostles is not yet under discussion. Moreover, if the circum- 
cision of Titus had not been demanded, there would have been 
no occasion for the expression jvayxacOn. Certain individuals 
in the church, no doubt instigated by the false brethren (ver. 
4), had really come forward with the demand that Titus 
must submit to be circumcised. Comp. the subsequent case 


1 The latter, as associated with the apostle in teaching, must, in his uncir- 
. cumcised Gentile condition, have been specially offensive to those who had 
Judaistic views. 

* This ‘‘ although a Hellene” refers to 6 civ ixei. Paul is conscious of the 
boldness, nay, of the defiance (comp. Jerome on ver. 1, ‘‘ asus sit”), which was 
involved in bringing the Hellene with him to the council at Jerusalem, the seat 
of Judaism. In the sense of my official colleague (Reiche, Wieseler), the simple 
é cvy ivoi is not in harmony with the context. 

3 For the tvayxdobn wtpryndives, if it had occurred, could only have occurred 
through the church—and indeed possibly even the apostolic college (as the 
Tiibingen criticism asserts)—joining in the demand made on Titus, and adopting 
it as their own. 


76 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


of Timothy, who under different circumstances was circum- 
cised by Paul himself (Acts xvi 3). To look upon the false 
brethren themselves as those who demanded the circumcision 
of Titus (Bleek, Wieseler, and others) does not suit ver. 4, 
in which they appear only as the more remote cause of the 
demand ; they kept in the. background. 


Note-——An inconsistency with Acts xv.,in which the argu- 
ment and decision are against the necessity of circumcision, 
would only emerge in ver. 3, if the matter in question here 
had been the principal transactions of the council itself, and if 
those who required the circumcision ef Titus had been the. 
apostles (or had at least included the apostles), as Fritzsche, 
Baur, Hilgenfeld, Holsten, and others assume. But as neither 
of these is the case, and as, indeed, it does not even follow from 
our passage that the apostles had so much as merely advised 
the circumcision of Titus (Wieseler’s earlier opinion, which he 
has now rightly abandoned), this passage cannot furnish argu- 
ments either against the identity of the journey Gal. i. with 
that of Acts xv. (Fritzsche, p. 224), or against the historical 
character of Acts xv (Baur and his followers). 


Ver. 4f. The motive, why the demand of circumcision made 
as to Titus was not complied with by Paul, Barnabas, and 
Titus (comp. et€apev, ver. 5). It was refused on account of the 
Jalse brethren, to whom concession would otherwise have been 
made in a way conducive to their designs against Christian 
freedom. — 6:a 6€ rods mapeicaxrous apevdadeAdous] sc. ov« 
qvayKkacOn arepitunOnvas.? These words, however, are not, pro- 
perly speaking, to be supplied ; in dca Se 7. a. yp. they receive 
their more precise definition, made specially prominent by 6é, 
autem: on account, however, of the false brethren. Though Paul 
might have subjoined this immediately without 6é, he inserts 
the dé not superfluously (Jerome, Theodoret, Theophylact), but 
on account of the important bearing of the matter on his argu- 


1 Holsten wrongly reverses the relation, when he holds that behind the false 
brethren Paul saw the Christians of Jerusalem and the doxovrets. 

2 To supply merely tvayxdodn repr. without obx (Koppe), so that trayxaedn 
is to be understood in the altered sense, ‘‘ But on account of the false brethren, 
tt was insisted on in his case,” is entirely inadmissible, both on account of this 
very diversity of sense, and also because in ver. 8 the negation is essential and 
indeed the chief point. 


CHAP, Il, 4 77 


ment. The case is similar when a more precise definition is 
made prominent by 6é, the same word being repeated, as in 
ver. 2. So, in substance, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Augustine, 
Camerarius, Erasmus, Castalio, Piscator, Bos, Calovius, Estius, 
Bengel, and others; more recently, Schott, Fritzsche, Baum- 
garten-Crusius, de Wette, Ellicott, Reithmayr; also Matthies, 
who, however, so explains the passage that we should rather 
expect it to run, d:a d€ Tav Tapecaxtor evdadérApwov. On 
dé Bengel justly remarks, “declarat et intendit,” as in fact 5é 
is often used by classical authors for giving prominence to an 
explanatory addition in which the previous verb is of course 
again understood (Klotz, ad Devar. p. 359). As to the matter 
itself, observe how Paul under other circumstances, where there 
was no dogmatic requirement of opponents brought into play, 
could bring himself to allow circumcision; see Acts xvi. 3.. 
Consequently after ver. 3 a comma only is to be placed, not 
a full stop, or even a colon (Lachmann, Tischendorf). Others, 
as Zachariae, Storr, Borger, Flatt, Hermann, Matthias, supply 
avéBnv, which, however, after ver. 3, could not possibly occur 
to the mind of a reader.’ Rinck, Lucubr. crit. p. 170 f. (so 
previously Grotius, and recently Wieseler), assumes an ana- 
coluthon,—that ov« el~ayev was intended to follow on dia Se 
Tous TapeoaxT. Yrevdasérd., but that Paul had been led off by 
the long parenthesis and had then added ofs. Buttmann, 
neut. Gr. p. 329 f,, leaves the choice to be made between this 
view and ours. But if Paul had intended to write, on account 
of the false brethren we have not yielded, he would not in doing 
so have represented the false brethren as those to whom he 
had not yielded; by using ofs he would thus have altered® the 
sense of what he had begun to say, and would simply have 
occasioned perplexity by the mixture of on account of and to 


1 Olshausen takes a similar but still more harsh and arbitrary view, that the 
idea in Paul’s mind was, ‘‘I went indeed up to Jerusalem, in order to lay my 
gospel before the apostles (?) for examination; on account of these, however, it 
was really not at all necessary . . . but, on account of the false brethren, I 
found myself induced to take steps.” In the ardour of his language, Paul had 
allowed himself to be diverted from the construction he had begun; and de- 
scribed instead the nature of the false teachers. 

? Wieseler seeks to avoid this by taking 3:2 33 rods wapsse. Yavdad. as equiva- 
lent to cas 33 YsvdadirAgay xsAsvivems coveo: with their demand Paul had not ex- 


78 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


whom. But there is no need to resort at all to an anacoluthon 
when, as here, what immediately precedes presents itself to 
complete the sense. This remark holds good also against 
Winer, p. 529 [E. T. 711], who (comp. Hilgenfeld) assumes that 
Paul mixed up the two thoughts: “ We did not have Titus cir- 
cumcised on account of the false brethren ;” and, “I might 
nowise yield to the false brethren.” Hofmann (comp. his 
Schriftbew. IT. 2, p. 46) also produces an unnecessary ana- 
coluthic derangement of the sentence, by supposing that a 
new sentence begins with Si && qapemdxr. yevd. but that 
the relative definition oitwes «.7.X. does not allow it to be 
completed ; that, in fact, this completion does not take place at 
all, but with ver. 6 a new period is begun, attached to what 
immediately precedes. Following the example of Tertullian, 
c. Mare. v. 8, Ambrose, Pelagius, and Primasius (opposed by 
Jerome), Riickert, who is followed by Elwert, supplements 
the passage as follows: “ But on account of the false brethren 
I withal allowed Titus to be circumcised” (consequently zrepiet- 
pO). According to his view, this is the course of thought in 
the passage: “ Even Titus was at that time not forced to be 
circumcised ; there was not, and could not be, any question of 
compulsion ; but because I saw that there were false brethren, 
whose sole endeavour was to discover a vulnerable point in 
us, I considered it advisable to give them no occasion (?), and 
had Titus circumcised. Nevertheless, to yreld out of obedience to 
them, and to acknowledge a necessity in respect to all Gentiles, 
never occurred to me for a moment,” etc. Against this view 
it may be decisively urged, first, that in ver. 3 the emphasis 
is laid on Tiros and not on jvayxdoOn, and in ver. 5 on mpos ” 
@pav and not on 77 urorayy; secondly, that the idea of “ ac- 
knowledging a necessity in respect to all Gentile Christians ” 


hibited compliance. But 3s¢ means nothing else than on account of, that is, 
according to the context, with reference to them (comp. Acts xvi. 3), namely, 
because they lurked in the background in the matter, and it was inexpedient to 
take account of their designs or to give them any free scope. Also in Heb. ii. 
10, vi. 7, John vi. 57, dé with the accus. is simply on account of, and has to 
reccive its more precise meaning from the context. In the passages quoted by 
Wieseler (Xen. Cyr. v. 2. 35, and Plut. Cam. 35), 3s, according to the well- 
known Greek usage, is ‘‘ for the sake of,” that is, through merit or through fault 
of any one. 








CHAP, IL 4 79 


is not even hinted at by any word of Paul; and thirdly, the 
general consideration that a point so important and so debate- 
able as the (alleged) permission of the circumcision of Titus 
would have been, would have needed, especially before the 
Galatians (comp. v. 2), a very different elucidation and vindi- 
cation from one so enigmatically involved, in which the chief 
ideas could only be read between the lines. But such a 
compliance itself shown towards false brethren —not for the 
sake, possibly, of some weak brethren, who are imported 
into the case by Elwert, nor on account of the Jews, as in 
the circumcision of Timothy (Acts xvi. 3),—would have 
been quite unprincipled and wrong. Very near to the in- 
terpretation of Riickert comes that of Reiche, who places 
the (supposed) circumcision of Titus not at the time then 
being and at Jerusalem, but at an earlier period, at which it 
took place either in Antioch or elsewhere: “At vero... 
ut rem aliam hic interponam, vv. 3—6 (nam ver. 6 oratio ad 
apostolos redit), Titi nimirum circumcisionem, quam quis 
forte modo dictis ver. 2 opponat, quasi apostolorum alio- 
rumve auctoritate vel jussu fecerim, aut ipse circumcisionem 
legisque observationem necessariam duxerim 6f. parum mihi 
constans, sufficiat monuisse :—zxec Titus alle comes meus et ad- 
jutor, Graecus natus, minime est coactus cirewmeids a me vel a 
quocunque ; propter falsos autem fratres, qui tum nos specula- 
bantur, quomodo immunitate a lege Mos. a Christo nobis parta 
uteremur, eo consilio, uf denuo nos sub legis servitium redigerent 
. . . propter hos dico Titus ritum hune externum .. . susceyt 
colens, ut istis calumniandi nocendique ansa et materies prae- 
ripiatur,”’ etc. But against this view may be urged partly the 
arguments already used against Riickert, and in addition the 
arbitrary procedure involved in shifting vv. 3-6 to an earlier 
time ; although Tiros o ovv eyuol, evidently referring back to 
ouptraparaBev xai Titov in ver. 1, precludes our taking this 
event out of the course of the narrative begun in ver. 1. 
Moreover, wrepretunOn as supplied by Reiche cannot be invested 
with the sense “liber et volens circumcisionem suscepit,’—a 
sense which, for the very sake of the contrast, since the 
emphasis lies on leber et volens, would need to be expressed 
‘(by €OeXovrHy mepteT~HOn or the like). Lastly, an un-Pauline 


80 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS, 


compliance’ would be the result of the sense which would 
follow from the omission of ofs ovdé in ver. 5 (see the critical 
notes): “ But on account of the false brethren ... I gave way 
momentarily and caused Titus to be circumcised,” to which 
also the sentence of purpose which follows, wa 7 ddAnbea 
_«.7.X., would be utterly unsuitable; for, according to the point 
of view of our epistle, the “truth of the gospel” could only 
continue with the Galatians if such a compliance did not 
take place. — mapevcdxrous] subintroductos (Vulgate), brought 
in by the side, that is, privily and wlegitimately,—namely, into 
the association of Christian brotherhood, of which they are not 
at all true members. See the note after ver. 5. The word 
does not occur elsewhere in ancient authors (Prol. Sir. in 
Biel, III. p. 43, and Schleusner, IV. p. 228, aporcyos zrapei- 
gaxtos aénvov); but it must have been employed on several 
occasions, aS wapeicaxrov is quoted by Hesychius, Photius, 
Suidas, and wapecodxrovs by Zonaras, being explained by 
GANOTptov and dAdXotpiovs. The word has also been preserved 
as a name (by-name) in Strabo, xvii. 1, p. 794, Iapeicaxros 
émixAnbels IItoXeuatios. The verb mapesodyw is very current 
in later authors (Plut. Mor. p. 328D; Polyb. ii. 7. 8, vi. 56. 
12; Diod. xii. 41; 2 Pet. ii. 1). Comp. vrapecéducav, Jude 
4, — »bevdaderAgous] as in 2 Cor. xi. 26, persons who were 
Christians indeed, but were not so according to the true nature 
of Christianity—from the apostle’s standpoint, anti-Pauline, 
Judaizing reactionaries against Christian freedom. The article 
points out that these people were historically known to the 
readers, Acts xv. 1, 5. — oirwes «.7.d.] quippe qui, contains 
the explanation as to the dangerous character of these persons, 
by which the du dé +. w. y. is justified. — wapeo7rbor] 
Comp. Lucian, Asin. 15, ef AvKos trapecéXOor; Polyb. ii. 
55. 3. The idea of being smuggled in (which is denied by 
Hofmann) is here accordant with the context, and indicated 


1 Reiche seeks to evade this by thus explaining ver. 5: ‘‘quibus, quanquam 
prudentiae fuerit, propter eos Titum circumcidere, attamen ceterum, in rebus ad 
fidem libertatemque Christianam fere facientibus, ne paulisper quidem cessimus 
tis obtemperantes.” We should thus have in ver. 5 a saving clause, the most 
essential point of which (‘‘ceterum, in rebus,” etc.) would have to be mentally 
supplied. 





CHAP. IL 4, 81 


purposely by the twice-repeated srapes. Comp. generally 
on Rom. v. 20, and see Chrysostom on our passage. — xata- 
cxoTrjaat| in order to spy out, hostilely to reconnottre, to watch. 
Comp. Josh. i. 2,3; 2 Sam. x. 3; 1 Chron. xix. 3; Eur. Hel. 
1623; Polyb. x. 2; also xatacxorros, a spy. — hv Exopuev ev 
Xpist@ "Inc.| a more precise definition of the preceding 
nov. Comp. Eph. ii. 4 e al. This freedom is, as may be 
gathered from the entire context, nothing else than the /ree- 
dom from Mosaism (Rom. x. 4) through justification by faith. 
Comp. iii. 13, v. 1. Matthies introduces also the Chris- 
tian life, but without warrant; the spying of the pseudo- 
Christians was directed to the point, whether and to what 
extent the Christians did not conform to the enactments of 
the Mosaic law. ’Ev Xpiore implies as its basis the solemn 
idea of the év Xpior@ clvas (v. 6; 2 Cor. v. 21; Eph iii. 6, 
et al. Comp. Eph. i. 7, iii. 12). Hence: im Christ, as our 
element of life by means of faith (comp. 2 Cor. iii. 17), as 
Christians. — tva pas xatadovdacovow'] is the ‘dangerous 
design which they had in view in their xatacxomfjoa. “Hyas 
applies, as before, to the Christians as such, not merely to 
Paul and Titus (Winer, de Wette), or to Paul and the Gentile 
Christians (Baur); for it must be the wider category of those 
to whom, as the genus, the tueis in ver. 5 belong as the 
species. We must also notice dvayeivy in ver. 5, which is 


1 The Recepta, defended by Reiche, is zaradevawcavras. But B** F G, 17, Dam., 
have xaradovascwow; and AB*CDERN,min,, xeradovascove (so Lachmann, 
Scholz, Tischendorf), The middle (to which, moreover, Lucian, Soloec. 12, 
assigns an unfounded difference from the active) is accordingly abandoned unani- 
mously by the best mss., and is the more readily to be given up, because in this 
case the versions cannot come into consideration, and consequently the import- 
ance of the mss. is all the greater. The middle being most familiar from the 
LXX. (Gen. xlvii. 21; Ex. i. 14, vi. 5; Lev. xv. 46; Ezek. xxix. 18 ; the active, 
only in Jer. xv. 14, xvii. 4; the Apocrypha has the middle only), intruded itself 
unsought. This much in opposition to Reiche, who derives the active from 
2 Cor. xi. 20. Further, as xaradovaseovew has the great preponderance of testi- 
mony, and was very easily liable to the alteration into the subjunctive usual after 
‘va, it is to be adopted (with Usteri, Schott,’ Wieseler, Hofmann), but is not to 
be considered (with Fritzsche) as a corruption of the subjunctive. The Recepta 
xaradovascwrrat, Which K and most of the later mss. have, shows that the 
change into the subjunctive must have been very prevalent at an early date. 
Nevertheless L and one min. have xaradevascevras, which must have sprung 
from the original xaradovadcoven, 


F 


82 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


correlative to the éyowey in ver. 4. The future after iva in- 
dicates, that the false brethren expected their success to be 
certain and enduring. See Matthiae, p. 1186; Klotz, ad 
Devar. p. 683; Rost, ad Duncan. Lex. p. 870. In classical 
authors we find only érws, dpa, and wy thus construed, and 
not iva, as Brunck, ad Eur. Bacch. 1380, supposed (Klotz, ad 
Devar. p. 629), but in the Hellenists and Fathers wa also. 
Comp. Winer, p. 271 [E. T. 361]; Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 202. 
Kara strengthens the idea of the simple verb: to make us wholly 
slaves (of Mosaism), to enslave us. Comp. 2 Cor. xi. 20; Plat. 
Pol. i. p. 315 B, Sovrcdcbat adixws nai xatadedovrAdcbar : 
Thue. iii. 70. 2, and Duker in loc. The mode in which the 
apostle looks at these people does not confound the result with 
the intention (de Wette); it represents the latter correctly 
according to the fact (they desire to bind the Christians to the 
law), but in the form which it assumed from the Pauline point 
of view. Comp. vi 12f. 

Ver. 5. Connection :—“ On account of the false brethren, 
however, Titus was not compelled to be circumcised; ¢o 
these we did not yield even for an hour. Had we consented 
to the suggestion, which was made to us by Christians at 
Jerusalem (see on ver. 3), at least to circumcise Titus, we 
should have thereby yielded to the false brethren standing in 
the background, who declared the circumcision of Gentile 
Christians to be necessary; but this did not at all take place.’ 
— ols] in the sense of rovrow yap. See Stallbaum, ad Phil. 
p.195f.; Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. i 1. 64; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. 
IL. p. 371. — pos dpav] not even for an hour, indicating a 
very short duration of time. Comp. 2 Cor. vii. 8; Philem. 
15; John v. 35; 1 Thess. ii, 17; also apos pilav pomnp, 
Wisd. xviii. 12; pos ddJdyor, mpos Bpayv, and the like. — 
elfapev] namely, I and Barnabas and Titus. — 19 troray7] 
belongs not to dvapelvy (Matthias), an inverted arrangement 
which would be without motive, but to ef£ayev, beside which it 
stands: “through the obedience claimed by the false brethren,” 
that is, by rendering to them the obedience which they deswred. 
On the matter itself, see Acts xv. 1,5. Matthies regards r7 


1 Paul was therefore by no means ‘‘ nearly compelled to have Titus circum- 
cised”’ (Hilgenfeld in his Zeitechr. 1860, p. 121). 





CHAP, IL. 5, - 83 


itroraryy as an appositional explanation of ols (as to this usage, 
see Fritzsche, Diss. in 2 Cor. II. p. 135 f). But the yield- 

ing takes place not to the obedience, but to the demand (r7 
_ é€vroAy). Fritzsche correctly takes it in an ablative sense, but 
explains, “eo obsequio praestito, guod apostolt postularent.” 
But in combination with ols . . . eifauev, and with a juas 
xaradovr. preceding, it would not occur to the reader to 
think of anything else than the obedience claimed by the - 
apevdddeAdor. Besides, it was not the apostles at all who 
demanded the circumcision of Titus, but (see on ver. 3) Chris- 
tians at Jerusalem, acting on the instigation of the wevddderdou, 
so that these latter would have been obeyed by the circumci- 
sion in question. Comp. the state of matters at Acts xxi. 21. 
Holsten, without any indication of support in the context, 
interprets: “by the subordination to the Soxodryres, which had 
been demanded by the false brethren.” Lastly, Hermann 
(who is followed by Bretschneider), entirely in opposition to 
the context; explains it, “quibus ne horae quidem spatium 
Jesu. obsequio segnior fui.” — iva 9 adnOea x.r.r.] Object of 
this non-compliance at that time, which, although in the 
nature of the case it concerned Pauline Christians generally, is 
represented concretely as referring to the Galatians: “in order 
that the truth of the gospel may abide with you; in order that 
by our conduct the principle of Christian freedom should not 
_ be shaken, and ye should not be induced to deviate from the 
truth, which forms the subject-matter of the gospel (ver. 14; 
Col. i. 5), by mixing it up with Mosaism” (comp. érepoy evary- 
yédov, i. 6). A purpose, therefore—and this the readers were 
intended to feel—to which their present apostasy entirely ran 
counter ! — apds tpas] as pos avrov, i. 18, comp. 1 Cor. xvi. 
7; here also it is not the with of simple rest, but expresses 
the relation of an active bearing on life; Bernhardy, p. 265. 
Besides, Paul might justly say apos duds, as the Galatians 
were for the most part Gentile Christians, and in that opposi- 
tion to the false brethren it was the freedom of the Gentile 
Christians which he sought to maintain. The vpas indivi- 
dualizes the readers of the letter (ii 26, iv. 6; Col. i 25; 
Eph. iii. 2, and frequently). The reference to the yet un- 
converted Gentiles, whom the truth of the gospel had still to 


84 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS, 


reach (pos tpuas), as suggested by Hofmann,’ is in complete 
opposition to the text. — Sayeivn] permaneret ; denoting the 
abiding continuance. The truth which they have received 
was not again to be lost. Heb.1.11; 2 Pet. iii, 4; Luke 
xxii. 8; and frequently in Greek authors. 


Note—As by the pevdddergo: (vv. 4, 5) cannot be meant the 
Judaizers at work among the Galatians (which is assumed by 
Fritzsche entirely in opposition to the connection), but only 
the same persons mentioned in Acts xv. 1, 5; they cannot be 
described as false brethren in relation to any one particular 
church (e.g. to the church of Antwoch, into which they had crept 
from Jerusalem, a8 Baur and Reiche think). On the contrary, 
the general form of their antagonism, vv. 4, 5, as well as the 
further account in vv. 7-10, and the whole argument of the 
epistle, admit only of one point of view,—that the apostle, out 
of the certainty of the danéea rod siayysAsov, styles them false 
brethren in relation to Christianity generally, of which, they 
‘had, as regards their Judaizing character and action looked at 
from a Pauline standpoint, falsely pretended to be professors. 
This does not in itself exclude the fact that they had come 
from Jerusalem to Antioch (Acts xv. 1). The inflexible op- 
position offered to them by the apostle in Jerusalem doubtless 
contributed much to the bringing about of the apostolic decree. 
Comp. Marcker, l.c. p. 539. 


Ver. 6. Paul having described in vv. 3-5 the momentous re- 
sult of his relations towards the Christians in Jerusalem (avtois, 
ver. 2), now passes on (corresponding to the xar’ idiay $é Tots 
Soxoict, ver. 2) to his relations towards the apostles, explaining 
that the same result had then followed his discussions with 
them. — The construction 1s anacoluthic. Yor when the apostle 
wrote amo 5é tav Soxovvrwy elvai tt, he had it in view subse- 
quently to finish his sentence with ovdév édraBov, ovdéev €d:- 
dayOnv, or something of that kind; but by the intervening 
remarks ozrofol qrote . . . XNawPaver he was completely diverted 
from the plan which he had begun, so that now the thought 
which floated before his'mind in dzo 8 trav Soxovvrav civai 
tt 1s no longer brought into connection with these words, but 
is annexed in the form of a ground (yap) to mpoowrov Qeds 
avOpwrov ob NawBdver; and this altered chain of thought 


1 Comp. Windischmann, 


EHAP. IL. 6. 85 


occasions ézot to be now placed emphatically at the begin- 
ning. Properly speaking, therefore, we have here a parenthesis 
beginning with ozrofor, which, without any formal conclusion, 
carries us back again by eyoi yap «.t.d. to the main thought, 
leaving the words dmé 6¢ trav Soxotytwyr eivat tu entirely un- 
connected, and merely pointing back by means of o¢ Soxobvres, 
as by a guide-post, to that abandoned commencement of the 
sentence. For it is only in substance, and not in form, that the 
parenthesis is concluded with AauBave. Comp. Rom. v. 12 ff; 
Eph. ii. 1 ff. An anacoluthon is also assumed by Erasmus, 
Luther, Calvin, Piscator, Cornelius a Lapide, Grotius, Estius, 
Morus, Koppe, Rosenmiiller, Winer, Usteri, Matthies, Schott, 
Baumgarten - Crusius, de Wette, Hilgenfeld, and others; so 
_ that—according to the usual view (Wieseler takes the correct 
one)—with éywol yap «.7.r. Paul again takes up the thread of 
the discourse which had broken off with dzo & SoxovvTwv 
elvai tt, and merely continues it actively instead of passively . 
(Winer, p. 529 [E. T. 711]). But this is opposed both by 
éuot, which logically would not be in its proper place at the 
head of the resumed sentence, and also by yap, which does not 
correspond to the mere inguam (ody, 5é) after parentheses, but 
in the passages concerned (also Rom. xv. 27; 1 Cor. ix. 19) 
is to be taken as explaining or assigning a reason. Hermann 
makes out an aposiopesis, so that quid metuerem? has to be 
supplied after did .. . elvai v.' But this is not suggested 
by the context, nor is it permitted by the tranquil flow 
of the discourse, in which no such emotion as warrants an 
aposiopesis is discoverable. Fritzsche. supplies the very same 
thing which in ver. 4 was to be supplied after yrevdadérdous, 
‘making Paul say, “a viris autem (nempe), qui auctoritate vale- 
rent [circumcisionis necessitatem sibi imponi non sivit].” But 
however easy and natural this supplement was in ver. 4 after 
apevdadérgous, because it was suggested as a matter of course 
by the words immediately preceding, in the present case it 
appears both harsh and involved, as the whole body of ideas in 
vv. 4, 5 intervenes and hinders the reader from going back to 
that supplement. And how abrupt would be the position of the 


1 Comp. Dav. Schulz, who believes that guidnam tandem adversus me actum 
est ? is suppressed. | 


86 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. - 


following ozrotoc «.7.A.! Lastly, the (erroneous) idea, that the 
apostles had demanded the circumcision of Titus, is thus vio- 
lently imported into the text. Holsten’s involved construction 
(2. Evang. d. Paul. u. Petr. p. 2'73 f.\—according to which azo 
dé tav Sox. «.7.A. is to be carried on to ver. 9 in conformity 
with the notion of Seftds AauBdvew dad—is shown by éuol 
yap «.7.r., where the Soxodyres already reappear, to be an im- 
possible solution of the anacoluthon, which even thus is not 
avoided. The passage is explained without supposing either 
supplement or anacoluthon:—1. Most simply, and without 
violence to the language, by Burk, in the Stud. wu. Krit. 1865, 
p. 734 ff., making efval re belong to obdéy por Suadépes: “ That 
on the part of those in authority (by their recognition) I am 
something (namely, as respects my outward position), I reckon 
of no value.” But, in reality, Paul attached to his recognition 
by the original apostles the true and great value which it ne- 
cessarily had for him in confronting his opponents ; and hence 
he very carefully relates it in ver. 7. This interpretation 
therefore runs counter to the context. Comp. also, against it, 
Marcker in Stud. u. Krit. 1866, p. 532 ff. 2. Just as little 
allowable is it (with Marcker) to connect azro 5¢ r. Sox. é. 7. with 
the words preceding, “ but certainly (this enduring confirmation 
of Christian freedom was only possible) through the authority of 
the Soxobvres elvai rt.” But to the signification of azo, from 
the side of, a sense would thus be arbitrarily ascribed, which 
is not justified by passages such as Matt. xvi. 21, and must 
have been expressed by some such explanatory addition as in 
Acts‘ii, 22. It was impossible also for Paul—above all in 
this epistle—to conceive the maintenance of the truth of his 
Gentile gospel as conditional on the authority of the original 
apostles, Lastly, instead of the sentence which next follows 
asyndetically (o7otor «.7.X.), we should expect an emphasized 
antithesis (such as dXN orroiot «7.r.). 3. The Greek Fathers, 
Castalio, Calovius, Zachariae, Bolten, Borger, and others, inter- 
pret the passage, “ But as regards those of repute, 1t 1s one and 
the same thing to me,” etc., by which, however, a7ro is quite in 
violation of language interchanged with zepi. So also Riickert,’ 


4 Comp. Olshausen, who, however, assumes that in using é9é¢ Paul had at 
first some other phrase in his mind, but that he afterwards inexactly followed it 


CHAP, II. 6 87 


who at the same time wishes to preserve for do its due 
signification (“on the part of any one, it makes no difference 
to me; that is, what concerns him, is quite indifferent to me”), 
without authority, however, from any actual linguistic usage. 
4, Following Homberg, Ewald understands it as if it stood trav 
5é Soxovvtwy . . . ovdév Suadépw, “ But compared with those who 
etc., however high they once stood, J am in nothing inferior.” 
5. Hofmann (comp. above, against Holsten) brings azo 6é trav 
Soxovvtwv elvai te (aro, from the side of) into regimen with 
ver. 9, and in such a manner that the three doxodytes oTidor 
elvat in ver. 9 are supposed to form the subject of the period 
beginning with azo «.7.A. in ver. 6 ; but this mode of construc- 
tion is decisively condemned by its very inherent monstrosity, 

with its parentheses inserted one within another; and besides — 
this, the repetition of ot Soxotvres in ver. 6 would be entirely 
without aim and simply perplexing, if the continuation of the 
construction as regards dro 6. r. 6. ¢. tr. were still to follow, as 
is supposed by Hofmann. Nevertheless, Laurent, newt. Stud. 
p. 29f,, has agreed with the latter, but has at the same time 
arbitrarily removed from the disjointed construction ozroio .. . 
Tovvavtiov as a marginal note of the apostle——another make- 
shift, whereby dAAa@ rovvayriov, so violently dealt with by Hof- 
mann, finds the connection with iSovres, which it evidently has 
(see below), dissevered. — On doxeiy eivai rt, which may mean 
elther to reckon oneself to be something great, or to be esteemed 
great by others (so here), see Wetstein. Comp. Plat. Huthyd. p. 
303 O, trav roAAdv avOpotrar Kal Tov sever &) Kal SoxotyTov 
Tt elvan ovdey tpiv pérer. The same persons are meant who 
are referred to in ver. 2 by tots Soxodor. But the addition of rv 
elvat, and the ozrofot «.7.X. which follows, betray here a certain 
irritation in reference to the opponents, who would not con- 
cede to Paul an estimation equal to that given to the original 
apostles, as if elvai ts belonged pre-eminently to the latter. — 
ovotol mote Aoav] Now come the parenthetical remarks, on 
account of which Paul leaves his azo 8é trav Sox. clvai te 
standing alone, but which he introduces, lest the high esti- 
mation of those apostles—which in itself, according to the 


up With obdiy jos Se pipss. In all essential points Matthias agrees with Riickert, 
as does also Reithmayr, who improperly compares Xen. Cyr. iv. 1. 4. 


88 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS, 


real (and by him undisputed) circumstances of the case, he by 
no means calls in question—should lead to the inference that 
he had needed instruction from them. Comp. the subsequent 
éuot yap ot Sox. ovdevy mpocavéf., and the thought already 
floating before the apostle’s mind in the anacoluthic amo 6éé 
tov Soxovvtwy etvai te (see above). Wieseler affirms too gene- 
rally, that “ Paul desired to check the overvaluing of the older 
apostles.” The real state of the case is this: Paul, with all 
decision, by way of countervailing that doxeiy eival re of those 
men of high standing which he does not dispute, throws into 
the scale his own independence of them. And the weight of 
this countervailing lies precisely in ozroiod arote 7joav, so far as 

the latter belongs to ovdév poe Stadéper, and is not, as Hofmann 
' will have it, an appendage to trav Soxodyrwy efvai tt. — The 
moré, with a direct or indirect interrogative, is the strengthen- 
ing cunque or tandem which occurs constantly in Greek authors 
(Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem.i. 1), although not elsewhere in the N. 
T. (comp. 2 Mace. xiv. 32); see also Ellendt, Lex. Soph. IT. p. 
615 f. Whosoever they were, in whatsoever high repute they 
stood | while I was then with them, 7 zs all the same to me. 
Riickert makes ozrotoc mean, “ whether high or low, apostles 
or what else ;” holding that Paul speaks intentionally in an 
indefinite way of these men in high repute, as if he did not 
exactly know that they were apostles (?), in order to give the 
less offence in what he said. How strange this would be! for 
every reader knew whom he meant. And how unsuitable to his 
purpose! for what Paul desires to tell, is the recognition he re- 
ceived from the apostles. Many refer omoios wrote joav back to 
the lifetime of Jesus, when those apostles had been His trusted 
disciples: some taking zroré as olim (Vulgate, Jerome, Pelagius, 
Luther, Beza, and others, including Matthies, Schott, Olshausen, 
Hilgenfeld, Wieseler, Ewald); and others, with us, as cungue 
(“ quiqui illi fuerunt, etiam si ab ipso Jesu instituti, perinde 
est,” Hermann; comp. Winer). But in the case of James (see 
on ver. 9) this reference would not be even historically appli- 
cable, or it would need at least to be applied to a different 
kind of relation (that of kinship); see Hilgenfeld. And be- 


1 Not: how friendly and brotherly they were towards me (Matthias), to which 
meaning oddiv wo dsaGipss is far from suited. | 


CHAP. II. 6 89 


sides, there is nothing at all to indicate any such retrospective 
reference to that remote past; the context points merely to 
the time of Paul’s sojourn in Jerusalem. Hence also it must 
not, with others still, be referred to—what was quite foreign 
to the apostle’s aim—the pre-Christian condition of the apostles, 
in which they had been sinners (Estius; comp. Augustine), 
or téudrac and fishermen (Ambrose, Thomas, Cajetanus, Cor- 
nelius a Lapide, and others), zoré being likewise understood 
as olim.' — ovd& por Siahépes] matters to me nothing. See 
Schaefer, ad Dion. Hal. p. 294; Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 394. 
— mpocwmov Ocds avOpamrov ov AapPaver] Nd DON UN IB 
x’, an asyndetic, and thereby more forcible and weighty, 


statement of the reason for ovdév por Svadéper. “ Det judicium. 


sequebatur Paulus,” Bengel. 0°28 83, rpocwmov AapBavey, 


properly, to accept the countenance of any one (not to dismiss), 


is used in the O. T. both in a good sense (to be inclined, or 
gracious, to any one, Gen. xix. 21, xxxii. 21, e¢ al.) and in a bad 
sense, implying a favour and respect which is partial, deter- 
mined by personal considerations (Lev. xix. 15; Deut. x. 17, 
et al.; Ecclus. iv. 27; 3 Esr.iv. 39). In the N. T. 2 2s used 
solely in this bad sense (Matt. xxii 16; Mark xii 14; Luke 
xx. 21; Jude 16. Comp. Acts x. 34; Jas. 1. 9; Rom. ii. 
11; Eph. vi 9; Col. in 26; Jas. 11 1), The transposed 


arrangement of the words lays the chief emphasis upon ampé- 


cwrov, and then by @cds dvOpwrov makes us sensible of the 
contrast between the manner and dignity of the dwine pro- 
cedure and such partiality for human authority. Comp. Hom. 
Od. xix. 363f, 9 ce mept Zeds avOpdrav HYOnpe Ocovdéa 
Oupov ‘yovta, — eyo yap ot Soxodvres ovdev . mpocavéberto] 
Proof, not of his independence of the apostles generally, but 
specially for what he had just said, rpdcwrov Oeds avOp. ov 
AapBave, from personal experience. Hence éuot is emphati- 
cally placed first: “for to me for my part—although others 
may have received instruction from them, to me—they have 
communicated nothing.” Paul's idea therefore is, that if God 


1 It was entirely in opposition to the context, that Chrysostom, Theophylact, 
and Jerome referred it to the earlier teaching of the apostles ; taking Paul to say, 
that whether at an earlier date they had been Juduizers or not was to hima 
matter of indifference. 


90 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS, 


had been partial, He would not have placed him on such parity 
with the Soxodcs, that to him, etc. Riickert, wrongly antici- 
pating, says that the prefixed éwo/ finds its antithesis in ver. 
11: “to me they have communicated nothing, etc.; but indeed, 
when Peter came to Antioch, J was compelled to admonish 
him.” But in this case, at least ver. 11 must have begun 
with éym dé or add’ éyo. According to Wieseler, Paul in 
éuot is thinking of “to me, the former wersecutor,’ an idea 
gratuitously introduced. In Hofmann’s view the antithesis is 
intended to be, that not to him from the others was anything 
submitted, but the converse. Comp. tivés in Chrysostom, and 
the paraphrase of Erasmus. But if this were so, Paul must 
have written od yap éuol «.7.r., just as afterwards d\dad Tov- 
vavtlov avrot «.7.X., in order to have given at least a bare 
indication of this alleged antithesis. — ovdéy mpocavéberto] 
quite as in i. 16 (comp. also Hofmann): they addressed no com- 
munications (“ nihil contulerunt,” Vulgate) fo me, namely, in 
order to instruct and advise me,—a sense which is here also 
demanded by the context; see the sequel, and comp.i.12. It is 
usually understood : ovdév mrpocéPnxar, ovdév SsmpOwoay (Chry- 
sostom), “nihil illi praesumgerunt iis adjicere, quae prius a 
Christo accepta docueram inter gentes,” Beza; as also Valla, 
Estius, Grotius, Bengel, Koppe, Morus, Borger, Flatt, Winer, 
Usteri, Matthies, Schott,’ and others. Comp. Wieseler, Marcker, 
and Hilgenfeld: “ They submitted nothing in addition to that 
which had been submitted by me; they approved the gospel, 
which I am preaching among the Gentiles.” But mpos ex- 
presses merely the direction, and not insuper (see on i 16). 
Should dvati@nut, however, be understood as to impose, mpos 
would certainly express the idea novum opus imponere (Xen. 


1 Baur arbitrarily (I. p. 141, ed. 2) brings in the thought, ‘‘ They have 
brought forward nothing against me, wherein I should have had to acknowledge 
them in the right.”’ Ovdéy is made to mean, nothing conclusive and convincing— 
nothing whereby they would have confuted him and brought him over to their 
side (comp. Baur in the ¢theol. Jahrb. 1849, p. 463). There is not the most 
remote allusion in the passage to any conjlict between Paul and the original 
apostles ; on the contrary, it implies the complete understanding on both sides, 
which was the result of the discussion. The conflict affected the members of the 
church who were stirred up by the ¥1vd¢3sago and the false brethren themselves. 
(vv. 3-5). 














CHAP. II. 7, 91 


Mem. ii. 1. 8); as Riickert (so also Bretschneider and Lechler, 
p. 412) explains it, “ they tmposed on me no further obligations,” 
the observance of the law being the point principally alluded 
to. Comp. also Zeller, Apostelgesch. p. 235. But in opposition 
to this view, apart from the fact that it involves a quite need- 
less departure from the signification of the same word in i 16, 
the circumstance is decisive, that mpocavari@nus in the middle 
would necessarily mean “ suscipere novum opus,” as Xen. Mem. 
ic, and not “<tmponere novum opus,” even though the com- 
parison of the apostle’s obligation to a burden (comp. 1 Cor. 
ix. 16 f.) should appear sufficiently justified by the legal nature 
of the matters imposed. — ovdév] either the accusative of the 
object, or more strongly (comp. 1 16), a no point, in no 
_ respect whatever. The idea that a revelation is intended as 
the contents of zpocay. (Holsten), must be sought for in the 
context: it is not conveyed by the words wer se, 

Ver. 7. "ANAd totvayriov] to be separated merely by a 
comma from. the preceding, being still connected with ydp.. 
“To me they made no kind of communication; but, on the 
contrary, when they had seen etc., the three pillar-apostles 
concluded with me and Barnabas the apostolic alliance,” etc. 
(ver. 9). Hofmann, with a view to extort a regimen for azo 
tay Soxovytwy in ver, 6, very arbitrarily tears asunder the clear 
and simple connection which the words obviously present, 
taking a\\d tovvayriov by itself and dissevered from what 
follows, and supplementing the sense by the insertion, “ They 
have not proposed anything to me, but conversely, I to them.” 
Comp. on tovvavriov, 2 Cor. ii. 7, 1 Pet. iii. 9; very frequently 
(also ravayria) occurring in Greek authors (Schaefer, ad Bos. 
Ell. p. 297). But this strange ellipsis is a device utterly 
unprecedented." — iScvres] after they had seen, namely, from 
the way in which I to them xar’ idiav avebéuny 76 evayy. 3 
xnptacw év trois veo (ver. 2). Usteri, “from the blessed 
result of my preaching.” So also Rosenmiiller, Winer, Baur, 
Hilgenfeld, Holsten, Hofmann; Riickert, Schott, de Wette, 


1 Certainly the 4AA& rebvayriov was, for Hofmann at least, the most refractory 
part of the sentence, which had in some sort of way to be forcibl rm from its 
natural connection with iévr1s,—a connection justly unassailed by expositors. 
And he has managed it by the device of the above mentioned ellipsis | 


92 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


Wieseler, mix the two views; and Fritzsche includes the pre- 
vious labours of the apostle among the Gentiles, ¢.g. in Tarsus 
and Antioch, among the grounds of knowledge. But nothing 
beyond what we have just given can be gathered from the con- 
text. Erasmus appropriately paraphrases, “ ubi communicato 
cum illis evangelio meo perspexissent.” —- 6tt qeriot. T. evaryry. 
t. axpoB. «.t.X.| The emphasis is laid on xaOas ITérpos rijs . 
qepit.,as ver. 8 shows. They saw that my having been divinely 
entrusted with the gospel for the Gentiles was just such (just 
as undoubted, true, direct, etc.), as was Peter’s divine trust 
with the gospel for the Jews; consequently there could be no 
question of any mpocavaGetvat, and nothing could follow but 
complete recognition (ver. 9). The construction (comp. Rom. 
iii. 2; 1 Cor. ix. 17) in the sense of wemlorevrai pos 70 evayry. 
(as F G, 19*, 46** actually read) is regular; as to the perfect, 
. used of the enduring subsistence of the act, see Winer, p. 255 
[E. T. 339]. — rijs axpoBvotias] that is, rav axpoBvotwv 
(Rom. i. 26, ui. 30; Eph. uu. 11), the gospel which belonged 
to the uncircumcised, and was to be preached to them. — 
xabews Ilérpos tis mepurou.] Thus Peter appears as the re- 
presentative of the Jewish apostles, in accordance with his su- 
periority among them (Matt. xvi 18; Acts ii iil iv. v. e¢ al.), 
The destination of Peter as an apostle to the Gentiles also (Acts 
xv. 7; 1 Pet. i 1) is not negatived, but a potior fit denomi- 
natio. — That this passage relates not to two different gospels, 
but to the same gospel for two different circles of recipients, to 
whose peculiarities respectively the nature and mode of preach- 
ing required special adaptation, is obvious of itself, and is clear 
from vv. 8,9. But the passage cannot be worse misunder- 
stood than it has been by Baur, according to whom there was 
a special gospel of the uncircumcision and a special gospel of 
the circumcision, differing in this respect, that the one main- 
tained the necessity of circumcision, while the other allowed it 
“to drop. Comp. Holsten, who discovers the distinctive feature 
\he Gentile gospel in the “gnosis of the death of the cross,” 
in syite of 1 Cor.i 23f. In opposition to such a separation, 
see a]80 Ritschl, altkath. K. Pp. 127 f. 
Ver. 8. A parenthetic historical substantiation of the pre- 
ceding WemlaTevpar TO evayy. THs axpoP., Kabas ITetp. ris 








CHAP. II. 9. 93 


mepit.: for He who has been efficacious for Peter as regards the 
apostleship to the circumcision, has also been efficacious for me 
as regards the Gentiles; that is, “for God, who has wrought 
effectually’ in order to make Peter the apostle to the Jews, 
has also wrought effectually for me, to make me an apostle to 
the Gentiles.” The stress lies on évepyjoas and évjpynoe: God 
has been not inactive, but efficacious, etc. But that in o évep- 
yjoas Paul did not refer to Christ (Paulus, comp. Chrysostom), 


‘is evident not only from passages such as 1 Cor. xii. 6, Phil. 


ii, 13, Col. i. 29, but also from the fact that he constantly 
considers his apostleship to be the gift of God’s grace, bestowed 
upon him through the mediation of Christ (i. 1,15; Rom.1 5, 
xv. 15; 1 Cor. xv. 10; Eph. iii. 2, 7, e¢ al.). — Iérpp is the 
dativus commodi; comp. Prov. xxix. 12 (xxxi. 12), according 
to the usual reading, evepye? yap TO avdpl eis ayald, — eis Ta 
EOvn| in reference to the Gentiles. The precise sense follows 
from the first half of the verse, namely, eis amooroAny tay 
eOvav. The well-known comparatio compendiaria. See Kiihner, 
ad Xen. Mem. iii. 5. 4; Winer, p. 578 [E. T. 778]; Fritzschi- 
orum Opusc. p. 217 f. There is therefore the less reason 
for assuming that Paul desired to avoid the expression eis 
avoot. tT. €Ovwv (Holsten). Observe, however, how Paul 
places himself on a par with Peter; “ perfecta auctoritas in 
praedicatione gentium,” Ambrosiaster. 

Ver. 9. Kat yvovres] is connected, after the parenthesis, 
with iSovres «.7.A. in ver. 7.2 — rhv ydpw thy S00ciody por] 
is not arbitrarily to be limited either to the apostolic office 
(Piscator, Estius, and others; also Hofmann), or to the pros- 


1 Namely, by communicating the requisite endowments, enlightenment, 
strengthening, and generally the whole equipment belonging thereto. It is 
not the divine action towards the attainment of the zxocreay (Vatablus, Schott, 
Fritzsche) that is meant, but the making jit for it; the attainment was indicated 
in ver. 7, and is substantiated in ver. 8 by the further divine action which had 
taken place. But neither are the results of the office, brought about by God’s 
helpful operation, referred to (Winer, Usteri, Baur, de Wette, Hofmann), which 
would anticipate the sequel. 

2 While idévrss denotes the immediate impression of the phenomenon, yvovess 
represents the knowledge of reflection. A further step in the description. Hof- 
mann wrongly remarks, ‘‘ It signifies nothing further than that they had heard 
of the occurrence of his calling.” But this they must have already known years 
before (i. 18 f.). 


94 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS, 


peros successus of the same (Morus, Koppe, Winer, Fritzsche ; 
de Wette, doth); but is to be left quite general: the grace which 
had been given me. They recognised that Paul was highly 
gifted with grace, and was—by the fact that God had so dis- 
tinguished him by means of His grace and thereby legitimized 
him as His apostle—fully fitted and worthy to enter into 
the bond of collegiate fellowship with them. His apostolic 
mission, his apostolic endowments, the blessed results of his 
labour, are all included in the yapis which they recognised, 
—a general term which embraces everything that presented 
itself in him as divinely - bestowed grace and working on 
behalf of his office. — "IadxwBos] the same as in i. 19; 
not the brother of John (Augustine), who at that time had 
been long dead (Acts xii 2); also not the son of Alphaeus 
(Wieseler on i. 19, and in the Stud. wu. Krit. 1842, p. 95 f:); 
but the brother of the Lord, as is obvious of itself after what 
has been remarked on i 19. Comp. on Acts xii. 17. See also 
Hilgenfeld, p. 158 ff.; and Ewald, Gesch. d. apost. Zeit. p. 221 fff. 
The mention of His name here before the other two is not in 
compliance with the view of the false teachers (Windischmann), 
but is quite in due form, as the apostle is relating an official 
act done in Jerusalem, where James stood at the head of the 
church (comp. Credner, Hinl. I. 2, p. 571 ff). There is a 
certain decorum in this—the tact of a respectful consideration 
towards the mother-church and its highly-esteemed represen- - 
tative, who, as the Lord’s actual brother, sustained a more 
peculiar and unique relation to Him than any of the twelve. 
The higher rank possessed by Peter and the apostles proper 
generally as such, is surely enough established by 118f. But 
James, just as the brother of the Lord, had already attained a 
certain archiepiscopal position in the Jewish-Christian mother- 
church, and consequently for Jewish Christianity generally, 
agreeably to the monarchic principle which was involved in 
the latter. If James had been precisely one of the twelve, 
Paul would not (comp. 1 18) have given him precedence over 
Peter; for, as mouthpiece of the twelve, Peter was the first for 
Jerusalem also and for the whole of the Jewish Christians (ver. 
7). The precedence, however, finds its explanation and its justi- 
_ fication solely in the wnique personal relation to Christ—which 











CHAP. II. 9. 95 


belonged to none of the apostles. James, as the eldest of the 
brethren of the Lord (Matt. xiii. 55; Mark vi. 3), was, as it 
were, his legitimate hereditary successor xara cdpxa in Israel. 
— oi Soxodvres otinot elvat] who pass (not passed, see vv. 2, 6) as 
pillars, namely, of the Christian body, the continued existence 
of which, so far as it was conditioned by human agency (for 
Christ is the foundation), depended chiefly on them. The 
metaphor (comp. 1 Tim. iii. 15 ; Rev. iii. 12; Clem. Cor. I. 5) 
is current in all languages. Pind. Ol. ii. 146,”Exrop’ éogare 
Tpoias dpayov dotpaBn Kxiova; Kur. Iph. T. 50. 67 (Jacobs, 
ad Anthol. VII. p, 120); Hor. Od. i. 35. 13, and Mitscherlich 
in loc. Comp. Maimonides, in More Nevoch. 1. 23, “ accupe a 
prophetis, qui sunt columna generis humani ;” also the passages 
in Schoettgen, Hor. p. 728 f.; and the Fathers in Suicer, Zhes. 
IL p.1045f Looking at the frequent use of the figure, it 
cannot be maintained that Paul here thought of the body of 
Christians exactly as a temple (1 Cor. iii. 16; Eph. uv 21), 
although he certainly regarded it as oixodouyn, 1 Cor. iii. 9. 
These Soxotvres otddou' eivas, according to their high repute 
now, when the decisive final result is brought forward, desig- 
nated with solemn precision and mentioned by name, are the very 
same who were characterized in ver..2 as ot doxodvres, and in 
ver. 6 as Soxobvres elval tt, as is evident from the uniform term 
of Soxodvres being used three, times. Hofmann nevertheless 
understands the expression in vv. 2 and 6 more generally, so 
that: what the three Soxodvres orddor civas did is supposed to 
be designated as -that which was done for the sake of the false 
brethren on the part of those standing in special repute; but this — 
view is based on the misinterpretation, by which an awkward 
grammatical connection with ver. 9 is forced upon the ana- 
coluthic dé 8& tav Soxodytwy in ver. 6, and at the same 
time—in the interest of harmonizing (with Acts xv.)—a posi- 
tion in relation to the older apostles, unwarranted by the text, 
is invented to explain the notice dia dé rods wapetodxrt. ypev- 
dadér¢. in ver. 4. — defsds . . . xowwwvias] On the separation 
of the genitive from its governing noun (in this case, because 
the following clause of purpose, iva sels «.7.X., gives the 


1 The accentuation usual before Lachmann, ervas, is incorrect. See Lipsius, 
gramm. Unters. p. 43. 


96 THE, EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS, 


explanation of xowwvias), see Winer, p. 179 f. [E. T. 238]; 
Kiihner, § 865. 1; Fritzsche, ad Rom. II. p. 330f£ Both 
words are without the article, because Sefids did not require 
it (1 Mace. vi. 58, xi. 62, ef al.; Kriiger, § 50. 2.13); and 
in xowwvias the qualitative element is to be made prominent: 
right hands of fellowship. For the giving of the right hand is 
the symbol of alliance (Dougt. Anal. p. 123), 1 Macc. vi. 58, 
and Grimm in loc. In opposition to the idea of an alliance being 
concluded, the objection must ‘not be made (with Hofmann, 
who finds merely a promise of fellowship) that the act took 
place on the part of the apostles only; for, as a matter of 
course, Paul and Barnabas clasped the proffered hands. — iva 
nets eis ta EOvn «.7.X.] The verb to be supplied must be fur- 
nished by the context, and must correspond with eis; see 
Buttmann, neut. Gr. p, 338. Therefore either zropevOapev 
and zropevOaor (Bengel, Fritzsche, Wieseler), or apostolatu fun- 
geremur, ver. 8 (Erasmus, Schott, and many others), or evaryrye- 
AtcwweHa (Winer, Usteri, de Wette). The latter, in no way 
unsuitable to eés (see on 2 Cor. x. 16), is to be preferred, 
because it is suggested immediately by the protasis in ver. 7, 
from which, at the same time, it is evident that the recognition 
was not merely that of a ovvepyds, but really amounted to an 
acknowledgment of apostolic equality (in opposition to Hol- 
sten). Moreover, as regards the partition here settled, the 
ethnographical bearing of which coincided on the whole with 
the local division of territory, we must not supply any such 
qualification as praecipue (Bengel, Schott, and others). On the 
contrary, the agreement was, “ Ye shall be apostles to the Gentiles, 
and we to the Jews ;” and nothing beyond this, except the 
appended clause in behalf of the poor, was thereby settled : 
so that the state of things hitherto existing in respect to 
the field of labour on both sides remained undisturbed. The 
modifications of this arrangement obviously and necessarily 
connected with its practical working, primarily occasioned by 
the existence of the Jewish dsac7opd—in accordance with 
which the principle of the division of the spheres of labour 
could in fact be carried out merely relatively, and without 
exclusive geographical or ethnographical limitation (comp. 
Lechler, p. 415)—-were left an open question, and not dis- 





, CHAP. II 10. 97 


cussed. “The idea that the recognition of Paul on the part 
of the apostles was merely external—simply an outward con- 
cordat—and that they themselves would have wished to know 
nothing of the ministry among the Gentiles (Baur, Zeller), is 
not conveyed in the text, but is, on the contrary, inconsistent 
with the representation given vv. 7-9. According to this, the 
apostles recognised the twofold divine call to apostleship, by 
which two nationally, different spheres of labour were to be 
provided with the one gospel; but a merely external and 
forced agreement, without any acknowledgment or ratification 
of the principles and modes of procedure which had long 
regulated the action of Paul and Barnabas, would have been 
as little compatible with such a recognition as with the apos- 
tolic character generally. If, however, we take the xowwvia in 
our passage to be true and heartfelt,’ then the doubts thrown 
by Baur and his followers upon the truth of the account of 
the apostolic council in Acts fall in substance to the ground. 
How little Paul especially: considered his apostolic call to 
the Gentiles as excluding the conversion of the Jews from his 
operations, may be gathered, even laying Acts out of view, 
from passages such as 1 Cor. ix. 20, Rom. 1 16, ix. 1 ff, 
xi, 14. : 

Ver. 10. After povoy interpreters usually supply a verb 
such as airobyres or t@apaxanodvrres, which in itself would be 
allowable (Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 207f.), but is nevertheless 
quite superfluous; for povoy Tov rrwxyayv wa pnp. appears 
dependent on defids Swxav éwoi xal Bapy. xow., so that it is 
parallel with the preceding iva and limits it. Comp. Matthies, 
Fritzsche, Hofmann. “They made with us a eollegiate alliance, 
to the end that we should be apostles to the Gentiles; .. . 
only that we should not omit to remember the poor of the 
meptroun (not merely of the mother-church) as to support.” 
In that alliance nothing further, in respect to our relation to 
the weputoun, was designed or settled. On pvnpovedvery in the 
sense of beneficent care, comp. Ps. ix. 12; Hom. Od. xviii. 


1 Thiersch (Kirche im apost. Zeit. p. 129) well remarks: ‘‘ When they bade 
farewell, it was not a parting like that when Luther in the castle at Marburg 
rejected the hand of Zwingli, or when Jacob Andreae at Montbeliard refused 
that of Theodore Beza.” 


G 


N 


98 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


267. — pédvov, which belongs to the whole clause, and trav 
atwyov stand before iva on account of the emphasis laid upon 
them. Comp. on Eph. iii. 18; 1 Cor. vii. 29; 2 Cor. ii 4; 
2 Thess. ii 7, e¢ al. The poverty of the Christians of Pales- 
tine, which was the principal motive for this proviso being 
added, finds its explanation in the persecutions which they 
underwent, in the community of goods which they had at 
first, and perhaps also in the expectation of the Parousia as 
near which they most of all cherished. Moreover, the povov 
x.T.\. by no means excludes the‘ ordinances of the apostolic 
council, for Paul here has in view nothing but his recognition 
as apostle on the part of the original apostles in the private 
discussions held with the latter. How Baur misuses povopy 
x.7.r., a8 contrasted with the supposed irreconcilable diversity 
subsisting in doctrine, may be seen in the theol. Jahrb. 1849, 
p. 470; Paulus, L p. 142 ff. ed. 2; comp. also Holsten. In the 
face of real antagonism of doctrine, the older apostles cer- 
tainly would not have tendered Paul their hands; and had they 
desired to do so, Paul would have refused them his! — $ «ai 
éatrovoaca avTo Tovro Totjoat| The aorist, not used instead of 
the pluperfect, relates to the time from that apostolic alliance 
to the composition of the epistle. Paul, however, continues in 
the singular ; for soon afterwards he separated himself from 
Barnabas (Acts xv. 39). So, correctly, Estius, Winer, Usteri, 
Schott. Those who identify our journey with that related in 
Acts xl xii must conclude, with Fritzsche, that Paul desired 
to report concerning himself, and hence only mentioned Bar- 
nabas (and Titus) as well, where it was necessary. Nevertheless 
this joint-mention, although not necessary, would have been 
very natural in our passage; for iva prnpovevapey had just 
been said, and then in a single stroke of the representation, 
with 6 xai éorrovéaca KT, is given:the conclusion of the © 
matter so referred to. — avo rovTo] is not ‘superfluous (Piscator, 
Vorstius, Grotius, Morus), as neither avro alone (Winer, p. 
140) nor rovro alone (see Matthiae, p. 1050; Kiihner, IT. p. 
52'7) is used; it is the emphatic epexegesis of 6 0, hoe wsum 


1 Tertullian (de praescr. 23) already gives the right view : ‘‘inter se distribu- 
tionem offictt ordinaverant, non separationem evangelié, nec ut aliud alter, sed ut 
aliis alter praedicarent.” 








CHAP, IL 11,. 99 


‘(see Bornemann,’ Schol. in Luc. p. LIIL), whereby Paul makes 
his readers feel the contrast between the Jewish Christian 
antagonism and his zeal of love thus shown. Studer and Usteri 
find in avro rodro the tacit antithesis, “but nothing further 
which the apostles had imposed on me.” . Inappropriately, 
for the idea of any other matters imposed was already ex- 
cluded by the previous account. Schott proposes to take 6 as 
és 6 (see on Acts xxvi. 16), but the assumption of this poetical 
use cannot be justified except by a necessity such as is pre- 
sented to us in the N. T. only at Acts xxvi. 16. Still more 
easily might avro todre be explained (Poppo, ad Xen. Cyrop. 
iv. 1. 21; Matthiae, p. 1041; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Symp. p. 
204 A) as on that very account (2 Pet. 1 5; Xen. Anab. 1 9. 
21). But in that case 4 would so naturally take up what 
preceded, that there would be no reason why Paul should 
have brought on that very account so prominently forward. 
It would rather have the appearance of suggesting that, if it 
had not been for the agreement in question, Paul would not 
have cared for the poor. — We have no historical vouchers for 
the truth of 6 xa éorovdaca x.7.X.; for the conveyance of the 
contributions in Acts xi. took place earlier than our journey; 
and the collection mentioned 1 Cor. xvi, 2 Cor. viii. £, Rom. 
xv. 27, comp. Acts xxi 17 f., xxiv. 17, occurred after the compost- 
tion of our epistle. But who would be inclined to doubt that 
assurance? Looking at the more or less fragmentary accounts 
in Acts and the Pauline epistles, who knows how often Paul 
may have sent pecuniary assistance to Palestine? as indeed 
he may have brought the like with him on occasion of his own 
journey, Acts xviii. 20-22. It has, however, been wrongly 
asserted that, by means of this obligation in respect to the 
poor, @ connection was intended to be maintained between the 
Gentile churches and the primitive church, and that at the 
bottom of it lay the wish to bring over the preliminarily con- 
verted Gentiles gradually more and more to the principles and 
the mode of life of the primitive church (Hilgenfeld, in his 
Zettschr. 1860, p. 141). This is an insinuation derived from 
mere fancy. | 

Ver. 11. Paul now carries still further the historical proof 
of his apostolic independence ; “ad summa venit argumentum,” 


100 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


Bengel. For not only has he not been instructed by the 
apostles; not only has he been recognised by them, and received 
into alliance with them; but he has even asserted his apostolic 
authority against one of them, and indeed against Peter. There 
is no ground in the text for assuming (with Hofmann) any 
suspicion on the part of the apostle’s opponents, that in 
Antioch he had been defiant, and in Jerusalem submissive, 
towards Peter. — dre dé 7\Ge Kndas x.7.r.] After the apos- 
tolic conference, Paul and Barnabas travelled back to Antioch, 
Acts xv. 30. During their sojourn there (Acts xv. 33) Peter 
also came thither—a journey, which indeed is not mentioned 


in Acts, but which, just because no date is given in our 


passage, must be considered as having taken place soon after 


the matters previously related (not so late as Acts xviii 23, 


as held by Neander, Baumgarten, Lange; and by Wieseler, in 
favour of his view that the journey Gal. i 1 coincides with 
that of Acts xviii. 22).! — Knddas] The opinion deduced from 
the unfavourable tenor of this narrative, as bearing upon 
Peter, by Clement of Alexandria ap. Euseb. i. 12, that the 
person meant is not the-apostle, who certainly in this case is 
far fron corresponding to his destination as “the rock” of the 
church, but a certain Cephas, one of the seventy disciples, has 
been already refuted by Jerome, and also by Gregory, Hom. 18 
in Ez. — xata mpoowrrov| To his face I opposed him. See Acts 
iii, 13; often in Polybius. Comp. xar’ éfOarpovs, Herod. i. 
120; Xen. Hero, 1, 14: Gal. iii. 1; and «ar’ dupa, Eur. 
Rhes. 421, Bacch. 469. Not coram omnibus (Erasmus, Beza, 
Vatablus), which is not expressed until ver. 14. The opinion 
of Jerome, Chrysostom, Theodoret, and several Fathers, that 
the contention here related was nothing more than a conten- 


! Grotius, although he considers the journey Gal. ii. 1 as identical with that 
in Acts xv., strangely remarks: ‘‘ Videtur significare id tempus, de quo in Act. 
xiii. 1.” Also Hug and Schneckenburger, Zweck d. Apostelg. p. 108 ff., place 
the occurrence at Antiock earlier than the apostolic council,—a view which, ac- 
cording to the chronological course of Gal. i. ii., is simply an error; in which, how- 
ever, Augustine, ep. 19 ad Hieron., had preceded them.— Whether, moreover, 
Peter then visited the church at Antioch for the first time (Thiersch, Kirche im 
apost. Zeitalt. p. 432) must be left undecided ; but looking at the length of time 
during which this church had already existed, it is not at all probable that it 
was his first visit. 


XX 
oe ee OM OS 


CHAP. IL 11. 101 


tion in semblance (cata mpoowroy = secundum speciem J), is 
only remarkable as a matter of history.’ — re xateyywopévos 
jv] not “ quia reprehensibilis or reprehendendus erat” (Vulgate, 
Castalio, Calvin, Beza, Cornelius a Lapide, Elsner, Wolf, and 
others; also Koppe, Borger, Flatt, Matthies); for the Greek 
participle is never used, like the Hebrew, for the verbal adjec- 
tive (Gesenius, Lehrgeb. p. 791; Ewald, p. 538), neither in 
Jude 12, Rev. xxi 8, nor in Hom. J7. 1 388, xiv. 196, xviii. 
427; and what a feeble, unnecessary reason to assign would 
be 6Tt Kxateyvwopévos Hv in this sense! Moreover, xata- 
yuyveckew tiva (not to be confounded with xatay. tTiwds Te, as 
is done by Matthias), so far as its significations are relevant 
here, does not mean reprehendere at all, but either fo accuse, 
which here would not go far enough, or condemnare (comp. 
1 John i. 20, 21; Ecclus. xiv. 2, xix. 5). Hence also it is 
not: quia.reprehensus or accusatus erat (Ambrose, Luther, 
Estius, and others; also Winer, Schott, de Wette), but: quia 
condemnatus erat, whereby the notorious certainty of the offence 
occasioned is indicated, and the stringent grownd for Paul's 
coming forward against him is made evident. Peter, through 
his offensive behaviour, had become the olject of condemnation 
on the part of the Christians of Antioch; the public judgment 
had turned against him; and so Paul could not keep silence, 
but was compelled to do what he certainly did with reluc- 
tance. The passive participle has not a vis reciproca (Bengel, 
comp. Riickert, “ because he had an evil conscience”); the con- 
demnation of Peter was the act of the Christian public in 
Antioch. The idea “ convicted before God” (Ewald) would 
have been expressed, if it had been so meant. If the condem- 
nation is understood as having ensued through his own mode 
of action (Bengel, Lechler, p. 423; comp. Windischmann and 


1 A contest arose on this point between Jerome and Augustine. The former 
characterized the reprehensio in our passage as dispensatoria, so contrived by 
Peter and Paul, in order to convince the Jewish Christians of the invalidity of 
the law, when they should see that Peter had the worst of it against Paul. 
Augustine, on the contrary, asserted the correct sense, and maintained that the 
interpretation of Jerome introduced untruth into the Scriptures. See Jerome, 
Ep. 86-97 ; Augustine, Ep. 8-19. Subsequently Jerome gave up his view and 
adopted the right one: c. Pelag. i. 8; Apol. adv. Rufin. iii. 1. See Mohler, 
gesammelte Schriften, I. p. 1 ff. 


102 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS, 


Hofmann), the question as to the persons from whom the 
condemnation proceeds is left unanswered. 

Ver. 12 ff. Paul now relates the particulars of the occur- 
rence. — aro ’IaxwBov] sent by James. It belongs to éAGeiv. 
Comp. Plat. Prot. p. 309 B, am’ éxeivou Epyouat: Matt. xxvi. 
47; Mark v. 35; 1 Thess iii 6. Why they—and, to judge 
from the i impression made upon Peter, they were certainly men 
of importance, strict in their Jewish-Christian observances 
—were sent to Antioch by James, we know not, any more 
than why Peter journeyed thither.’ But the conjecture that 
they belonged to the wevdaderdor of ver. 4 (Winer, Schott), 
conflicts directly with the fact, that they were sent by James: 
for at the apostolic conference the latter had nowise made 
common cause with the yrevddd5eAdoz ; and therefore in sending 
any of them to Antioch he would have acted very unwisely, or 
would, with reactionary intent (so de Wette, whereby, how- 
ever, the character of James is placed in a very awkward 
position, which is not to be supported by Acts xxi. 18), have 
simply supplied new fuel to the scarcely settled controversy. 

Others (as Studer, Usteri, Zeller”), connecting the words with 
twas, understand adherents of James (comp. of amo IIdatavos 
and the like; Schaefer, Melet. p. 26 ff; Bernhardy, p. 222), 


1 The book of Acts is silent both on this point and also as to the whole scene 
between Peter and Paul,—a silence indeed, which, according to Baur and Zeller, 
is supposed to be maintained intentionally, and in consistency with the false 
representation of the transactions in Jerusalem. According to Ritschl (alékath. 
Kirche, p. 145), they were deputed by James to bring the relation between the 
Jewish and Gentile Christians back to the rule of. the apostolic decree, as James 
understood it, that is, according to Ritschl, in the sense of a retractation of 
the Jewish-Christian defection from the law, and on behalf of restoring the sepa- 
ration between the two parties as respected their customs of eating. This assumed 
task of the e.sis is neither in any way intimated in the text, nor is there a trace 
of it in Acts (comp., on the contrary, xv. 30ff.). Just as little can it be proved 
that, as Ewald thinks, a decree had been passed in the church at Jerusalem 
that the Jewish Christian should refrain from eating in company with Gentile 
Christians (because he did not know whether blood or something strangled 
might be among their food), and that those ris had come to Antioch to make 
known this new decree. Hilgenfeld also assumes that those sent by James 
had some charge relating to withdrawal from the Gentile Christians. Comp. 
Holsten, 2. Hvang. d. Paul. u. Petr. p. 357, in whose opinion they were sent after 
Peter, because his intercourse with the Gentiles had been notified at Jerusalem. 

* So also Vomel, Br. a. d. Gal. mit deutsch. Uebers. u. krit. Anm., Frankf. 
1865, p. 29. 





CHAP. IL 12, 103 


or, a8 Winer (comp. Wolf) says, “qui Jacobi auctoritate sive 
jure seu secus utebantur;” but this brings upon James the 
designation of a party-chief (Some Jacobites !), which would be 
neither necessarily nor wisely introduced here, even supposing 
Winer’s modification to be mentally supplied. Lastly, the 
explanation of Beza, Grotius, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius 
(following Chrysostom), that do "Iax@Bov means nothing 
more than from Jerusalem, because James was the president of 
the church there (comp. Koppe), is an unauthorized setting 
aside of the person, who is named expressly and not without 
due reason. — peta tav eOvav cvvjcbiev] he joined in meals 
with the Gentile Christians. Comp. on ovvec@iew in this 
sense, Plat. Legg. ix. p. 881 D; Luke xv. 2; 1 Cor. v. 11. 
Notice the imperfect. The Jew might not eat with Gentiles 
without incurring Levitical defilement (Acts xi. 3); but Peter, 
. who previously by special revelation (Acts x.f.), had been 
instructed as to the invalidity of this separation in Christianity, 
had in the apostolic conference defended Christian freedom 
(Acts xv. 7 ff), and taken part in passing the decree that, as 
regards food, the Gentile brethren should only have to abstain 
from meat offered to idols, things strangled, and blood (Acts 
xv. 29). This decree was received and accepted with joy 
by the church at Antioch (Acts xv. 30f). It would there- 
fore have been all the easier for Peter in Antioch to follow his 
divinely attained conviction,’ and to take part without hesita- 
tion in the more familiar intercourse of meals with the Gentile 
Christians there—free from any scruple that he should defile 
himself by Gentile food, which no legal enactments restricted 
except as to those three points. But to this free and correct 
standpoint the stricter Jewish Christians, who were still en- 
tangled in the observances of the Levitical precepts as to 
purity (comp. Acts xxi 20), had not been able to rise; and to 
this class belonged the rwés (ver. 12). When, therefore, these 
peopled arrived from Jerusalem and from James, Peter un- 
happily no longer continued his previous liberal-minded con- 
duct in Antioch, but drew back and separated himself from 


1 That the Christian fellowship in meals included also the joint observance 
of the agapae (which Thiersch, Hilgenfeld, and others take to- be meant), is 
obvious. It is not, however, expressly denoted by curicdisy, 





104 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


intercourse at meals with the Gentile Christians, whereby he 
gave a practical denial to his better conviction. How similar 
to his conduct in his former denial of the Lord! Calovius, 
however, justly, in conformity with the temperament of Peter, 
remarks, “ wna haec fuit Petri actio, non habitus.” — goBov- 
pevos Tovs ex qeptt.] By this are meant the Jewish Christians 
generally, as a class, so far as they were represented by those 
ruvés, who belonged to the stricter school. Peter feared the 
Jewish-Christian strictness, displeasure, disapprobation, ete. 
The explanatory gloss of Chrysostom (ov roiro poBovpmevos 7 
xuvduvevon, GAN va ph) arootaow; comp. Theophylact, uy 
oxavdaniabévres atrocKiptncwot THs mlorews), which ‘is fol- 
lowed by Piscator, Grotius, Estius, and others, favours Peter 
quite against the literal sense of the words (Matt. x. 26, xiv. 
5; Mark ix. 18; Luke xi 5; Acts v. 26; Rom. xiii 3). — 
Observe also, on the one hand, the graphic force of the imper- 
fects iréot. and adwp., and, on the other hand, the expression 
of his own bad precedent, éavrdv, which belongs not merely to 
agdwp., but also to twréor. (Polyb. vii. 17. 1, xi 15. 2,i 16. 
10); he withdrew himself, etc, and thereby induced his 
Jewish-Christian associates also to enter on a like course (ver. 
13). It is not, according to the context, correct that these 
imperfects express an enduring separation (Wieseler); the 
behaviour begins when the twés aro "IaxwB. have come; it 
excites the unfavourable judgment of the church, and Paul 
immediately places himself in decided opposition to Peter. 
The imperfects are therefore the usual adumbrativa; they 
place the withdrawal and separation of Peter, as it were, 
before the eyes of the readers. On the other hand, the 
ouvuTrexpi@. which follows is the wider action which took 
place and served further to challenge Paul; hence the aorist. 

Ver. 13. And the rest of the Jewish Christians also played 
the hypocrite jointly with him—those, namely, living in An- 
tioch, who previously, in harmony with the liberal standpoint 
which they had already attained to, had held fellowship at 
meals with the Gentile Christians of the place, but now, misled 
by the influential example of Peter, had likewise drawn back. 
This was hypocrisy on their part and on Peter's, because, © 
although at the bottom of their hearts convinced of Christian 








CHAP, II. 13, 105 . 


freedom, they, from fear of men (ver. 12), concealed the more 
_ liberal conviction of which they were conscious, and behaved 
just as if they-entertained the opposite view. It is true that 
the apostolic council had not decided anything as to the con- 
duct of the Jewish Christians among Gentile Christians; but 
the immorality consisted in the inwardly untrue duplicity of 
their behaviour, which was more than a mere znconsistency 
(Baur) of reformed Judaism, conceived by Paul as being hypo- 
crisy (Hilgenfeld). The view of Holsten, 2. Hv. des Paul. u. 
Petr. p. 357 ff., is similar. — On ouvurexpif., comp. Polyb. 
iii. 92. 5, v. 49. 7; Plut. Mar. 14.17; Joseph. Bell. xv. 7. 5. 
— xal BapvdB.] even Barnabas, who was my associate withal 
_ in the apostleship to the Gentiles (ver. 9), and should conse- 
quently least of all have ventured insincerely to deny the 
principle of Christian freedom, to the disparagement of the 
Gentile Christians! So injurious was the effect of Peter's 
example ! — ovvarnyOn] was jointly led away (led astray), 
namely, from his own standpoint. Comp. 2 Pet. iii. 17 (Rom. 
xii, 16, and Wetstein in loc.). Wore with a finite verb, in the 
secondary sentence (comp. John iii. 16), denotes the conse- 
quence simply as a fact which has occurred. See Tittmann, 
Synon. II. p. 70; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 1012f.; Klotz, 
ad Devar. p. 772. The infinitive would make the representa- 
tion subjective (the seduction being conceived as a necessary 
result). — airay] that is, avtod xal tay AotT@Y Iovd, It is 
emphatically prefixed. The dative is instrumental: by their 
hypocrisy, not ¢o their hypocrisy (Luther and others). No 
one can, without wronging Paul in respect to the choice of 
his strongly inculpating expression,’ either call in question the 
fact that the conduct of Peter is here expressly designated as 
hypocrisy (Schwegler, I. p. 129), or reduce it to a mere 
supposition ; although Ritschl, p. 145, is of opinion that the 


1 This expression is all the more strictly to be understood as it stands, since 
Paul has not anywhere else in his epistles or speeches used either the word éwe- 
xpivsebas, OF vroxprys, or (with the exception of 1 Tim. iv. 2) bwéxpiors. He 
would be the less likely to have omitted to weigh the gravity of the reproach 
conveyed in this very word otherwise strange to him, especially seeing that it 
_was used after so dong a time and was directed against Peter. This remark 
also applies in opposition to Schneckenburger in the Stud. u. Krit. 1855, p. 
564f., and to Moller on de Wette. 


106 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 
reproach thus used does not quite evince a clear and 
thorough conviction of the rightness of the non-Jewish prac- 
tice. The purposely chosen expression in our passage shows, 
on the contrary, that Peter's conviction, which was well known 
to Paul, agreed with the conviction of Paul himself, although 
it was hypocritically denied by the former. Peter’s trroxpross, 
according to the text, consisted in the "Iovdatfew, to which he 
had drawn back after his intercourse with the Gentile Chris- 
tians, not in his previous fellowship with them, which is 
alleged to have been “a momentary unfaithfulness to his 
real conviction” (Baur, in the theol. Jahrb. 1849, p. 476; 
Schwegler, Zeller, Hilgenfeld). And the censure which Paul 
—certainly unwillingly, and with a complete realizing and 
appreciating of the moral situation to which it has reference— 
has directed against Peter expressly on the ground of hypo- 
erisy,; exhibits plainly the agreement in principle of the per- 
sonal convictions of the two apostles (comp. Wiesinger, de 
consensu locor. Gal. ii. e¢ Act. xv. p. 36; Lechler, p. 426). 
Ver. 14. “Ore ove bp0omrodotcr] dpOorrodeiy (comp. 6pOo- 
Barety, Anthol. ix. 11. 4), not preserved elsewhere in Biblical 
language, undoubtedly means to be straight-footed, that is, to 
walk with straight feet (comp. dpborrovs, Soph. Ant. 985; 
Nicand. Alexiph. 419, dp@dzrodes Baivovtes). Here used in a 
figurative sense—as words expressive of walking are favourites 
with Paul in representing ethical ideas (comp. zrepurrareiy, 
orouxely x.7.d.)—equivalent to acting rightly (with straight- 
ness), conducting oneself properly (opGompayety, Aristot. Pol. i. 
5. 8). Vulgate, “ recte ambularent.”* It is the moral dp0drns 
arpafews (Plat. Men. p. 97 B), the opposite of the moral oxoAcov 
(Plat. Gorg. p. 525 A), orpeBrop (Ecclus. xxxvi. 25), yowrov 
(Heb. xii. 13). According to the leaning of Greek authors 


1 Not merely (comp. de Wette) on account of an easily excusable want of 
firmness and clearness in conviction (Bisping), or of-a momentary throwing of 
the same into the background under pressure of circumstances (Reithmayr). 
Even Erasmus exerts himself to come at length to the result, that ‘ Pauli 
objurgatio nihil aliud fuit quam confirmatio parum adhuc sibi constantium.” 

* Hofmann, ‘‘to stand with straight foot.” But comp. suwedsiv, oxuwedsiv, 
to be swift-footed, that is, swift in running. The standing would probably have 
- been expressed, as perhaps by épborracsiv. The épboreday is not lame (yaad), ~ 
but makes cpoxszs sles rois xeciv, Heb. xii. 18. 


6 











CHAP. IL, 14. ; 107 


towards the direct mode of expression, the present is quite 
regular. See Kiihner, § 846. — apés ri ad0. rod evayyénr.] 
arpos is understood as secundwm (2 Cor. v. 10; Luke xii 47; 
Bernhardy, p. 265) by most expositors (including Winer, Riic- 
kert, de Wette, Ewald, Wieseler); by others in the sense of 
direction towards the mark (Flacius, Grotius, Estius, Wolf, 
Morus, Hofmann), which would mean, “so as to maintain and 
promote the truth of the gospel.” The former interpretation is to 
be preferred, because it is the more simple and the first to 
suggest itself, and it yields a very suitable sense. Hence: 
corresponding to the truth, which is the contents of the gospel 
(ver. 5). Certainly Paul never in verbs of walking expresses 
the rule prepositionally by pos, but by «ard (Rom. viii. 4, 
xiv. 15; 1 Cor. iii 3, e al.); but in this passage mpos «.7.r. 
is the epexegesis of dp@as, according to its ethical idea. — &u- 
mpooQey mdvrwy| consequently, not under-some four eyes 
merely, but in the sight of the whole church although not 
assembled expressly for this purpose (Thiersch); tovs dwap- 
Tavovras évwmiov wavtTwy éreyxe, va xal oi Aovrroi poBov 
éywot, 1 Tim. v. 20. “Non enim utile erat errorem, qui 
palam “noceret, in secreto emendare,” Augustine. — « od 
"Iovdaios trdpywv «.7.r.] that is, “If thou, although a born 
Jew, orderest thy mode of living in conformity with that of the 
born Gentiles, ywpis "Iovdaxjs waparnpyjocews (Chrysostom), 
and not with that of the born Jews—a course of conduct, 
which thou hast just practically exemplified by eating in com- 
pany with Gentile Christians—how comes it to pass that 
thou (by the example of the wholly opposite conduct which 
thou hast now adopted since the arrival of those revés) 
urgest the born Gentiles to adopt the custom of the born 
Jews?” What a contradiction of conduct is it, thus in one 
breath to live é@ycxa@s and to urge the é6vn to the ’Iovdaifeu ! 
The present &s denotes that which was constant, accordant 
uith principle, in Peter’s case (contrary to the view of Hil- 
genfeld and others). This is laid down by Paul, with the 
argumentative ¢, as certain and settled, and that not merely by 
inference from his recent experience of Peter having eaten in 
company with Gentiles, but also on the ground of his knowledge 
otherwise of this apostle and of his practical principles on 


108 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


this point, with which the é@xas Gv just before actually 
carried out by Peter was in accordance. Groundlessly and 
erroneously Riickert labours (since it does not run: érevdn .. . 
éfnoas) to extract an entirely different meaning, understanding 
"Tovdaixas fs in an ideal sense (Rom. ii. 28 f.; John i. 48), 
and éOvxas &s as its opposite: “By thy present conduct 
thou showest thyself truly not as a genuine Jew, but as a 
Gentile (sinner); how art thou at liberty to ask that the 
Gentiles should adopt Jewish customs, which by thy beha- 
viour thou thyself dost not honour?” But, in fact, the reader 
could only take the explanation of the €Omxas Ss from pera 
trav eOvav ovvnoOev (ver. 12), and of the "Iovdaixas &s from 
tréorenre . . . WepeTous (ver. 12). No one could light upon 
the alleged ideal view (reverting, in the apodosis, to the em- 
pirical !), the more especially as the breaking off from eating 
with the Gentiles would have to be regarded as a Gentile habit 
(in an ethical sense)! The Gv is not the moral living accord- 
ing to the Gentile or the Jewish fashion, but the shaping of 
the life with reference to the category of external social observances 
within the Christian communion, such as, in the individual 
case in question, the following (Iovdaixés) or non-following 
(€Ovxa@s) of the Jewish restrictions as to eating. — mas] gut 
jit, ut (Rom. ii. 6, vi 2, x. 14, and frequently), indicating the 
ancomprehensibleness of this morally contradictory behaviour. — 
Ta Evy avayxdles ’Iovdailew] indirect compulsion. For the 
Gentile Christians in Antioch must very naturally have felt 
themselves constrained by the imposing example of the highly- 
esteemed Peter to look upon the Jewish habit of living—the 
observance of the special peculiarities of the outward legal 
Judaism (the ’Iovdaifew: comp. Esth. viii 17; Plut. Cic. 7°) 
—as something belonging to Christianity, and necessary for 
partaking in Christian fellowship and for attaining the Mes- 
sianic salvation; and they would shape their conduct in prac- 
tice in accordance with this view (comp. Usteri, p. 66 f.). 
De Wette (comp. also Wieseler, Chronol. p. 198 f£., Komment. 
p. 168) assumes, that the emissaries of James preached the 


1 Where a freedman is spoken of, who was fvovos eg ‘IovdaiZe, and in reference 
to whom Cicero Bays, gi "loudaig wpe xolpey ; Comp. also Ignat. ad Magnes. 10, 


arowey iersy Xperrey "Invevy AcaAssy wal "lovdaiZssy, 





CHAP. IIL. 18, | - 109 


principle of the necessity of observing the law, and that 
Peter gave his support, at least tacitly, to this preaching. This 
is not at all intimated in the text, and is not rendered 
necessary by the literal: sense of dvayxdfew, which is suffi- 
ciently explained by the moral constraint of the inducement 


‘of so influential an example, as it is often used in classical 


authors, “de varia necessitate quam praesens rerum conditio 
efficit” (Sturz, Lex. Xen. I. 18.6). The view which understands 
the word here not at all of indirect constraint, but of definite 
demands (Ritschl, p. 146), by which Peter sought to turn 
them back into the path of Jewish Christianity, is opposed 
to the divine instruction imparted to this apostle, to his utter- 
ances at the council, and to our context, according to which 
the avayxafew can have consisted in nothing more than the 
ovx opOorodeiy as it is represented in ver. 12 f., and conse- 
quently must have been merely a practical, indirect compulsion, 
not conveyed in any express demands. ‘Wieseler obscures the 
intelligibility of the whole passage by understanding the ’Iov- 
daigferv of the observance of the restrictions as to food enacted by 
the apostolic council. In decisive opposition to this view it may 
be urged, that in the whole context this council is left entirely 
unmentioned ; further, that these restrictions as to food had 
nothing to do with the Jewish proselytes (on whose account, 
possibly, their observance might have been called an ’Iov- 
daifew) ; lastly, that the compliance with the same on the part 
of the church at Antioch, especially so soon after the council 
(see on ver. 11), cannot, according to Acts xv. 30, at all be a 
matter of doubt. Moreover, how could Paul, who had him- 
self together with Peter so essentially co-operated towards this 
decree of the council, have—in the presence of Peter, of the 
Christians of Antioch, and even of those who were sent by 
James—characterized the obedience given to the restrictions in 
question by the inapplicable and ill-sounding name ’Iovéaifeuw? 
It would have shown at least great want of tact. 

Ver. 15. A continuation of the address to Peter down to ver. 
21. So Chrysostom, Theodoret, Jerome, Estius, Bengel, Rosen- 
miiller, Tittmann (Opuse. p. 365), Knapp (Scr. var. arg. II. p. 
452 f), Flatt, Winer, Riickert, Schott, Baumgarten-Crusius, de 
Wette and Moller, Hilgenfeld, Ewald, Holsten. Others have 


110 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS, 


looked upon vv. 15-21 as addressed to the Galatians (Theodore 
of Mopsuestia, Oecumenius, Calvin, Beza, Grotius, Semler, 
Koppe, Matthies, Hermann, Hofmann, Wieseler, Reithmayr) ; 
but to this view it may be objected, that Paul himself does 
not indicate the return to his readers until ui. 1, and that the 
bare, brief reproach in ver. 14 would neither correspond to 
the historical character of so important an event, nor stand 
in due relation with the purpose for which Paul narrates it 
(see on ver. 11); as indeed he himself has in vv. 11 and 14 
so earnestly prepared the way for, and announced, his opposi- 
tion, that the reader could not but expect something more than 
that mere question—so hurriedly thrown out—of indignant 
surprise.’ And how could he have written to his (for the 
most part) Gentile-Christian readers tects pices "Iovdatoe 
«.7.r., without telling them whom he meant thereby? Just 
as little can we assume that Paul again turns to the Galatians 
with «at jets in ver. 16 (Calovius, Paulus), or in ver. 17 
(Luther, Calvin), or in ver. 18 (Cajetanus, Neander); or that 
he (Erasmus and Estius by way of suggestion, Usteri) has 
been imperceptibly led away from the thread of his historical 
statement, so that it is not possible to show how much belongs 
to the speech a¢ Antioch. No, the whole of this discourse 
(vv. 15-21)—tthoroughly unfolding the truth from principles, 
and yet so vivid, and in fact annihilating his opponent— 
harmonizes so fully with the importance of a public step 
against Peter, as well as with the object which Paul had in 


1 Indeed the practical renunciation (not mere denial) of the principle of 
Christian freedom required a renewed apology for, and vindication of, the 
latter ; especially as Paul had called Peter to account before the assembled church, 
whereby the act assumed a solemnity to which the brief question in ver. 14 
- alone could in no way seem adequate, and least of all could it suffice to procure 
a duly proportionate satisfaction for the offence given to the church (ver. 11). 
He does not, however, ‘‘ demonstrate” his explanation to Peter (Wieseler’s diffi- 
culty), but presents it in the most vivid and striking dialectic, compressing 
everything which would have afforded matter for a very copious demonstra- 
tion sharply and sternly, towards the defeat of the great opponent who had been 
unfaithful to himself. Hofmann inconsiderately holds that, if Paul after the - 
concession ibwxas Ons x. obx "loudaixws had thus explained himself in a detailed 
statement to Peter, he would have acted absurdly. It-would have been absurd, 
if Paul, in order to say the two or three words to Peter recorded in ver. 14, had 
brought the whole act of the xark wpicwwroy aire dveiorny before the assembled 
church, . 





CHAP. II. 15. 111 


view in relating this occurrence to the Galatians especially 
(among whom indeed these very principles, against which 
Peter offended, were in great danger), that, up to its grave 
conclusion dpa Xpiotos Swpedy azréOavev (ver. 21), it must be 
regarded as an unity—as the effusion directed against Peter at 
Antioch; but, at the same time, it cannot be maintained that 
Paul spoke the words quite literally thus, as he here, after so 
long a lapse of time, quotes from lively recollection of the scene 
which he could not forget. — nets roe Iovdator, cai ovx é& 
éOvav dpapt.| Paul begins his dogmatic explanation in regard to 
the reproach expressed in ver. 14 with a concession: “ We are 
Jews by birth (in this Paul feels the whole advantage of belong- — 
ing to the ancient holy people of God, Rom. iii. 1 f., ix. 1 ff), 
and not sinners of the Gentiles (by Gentile descent).” Gentiles 
as such, because they are a@vouoe and d@eou (Rom. ii. 12; 1 
Cor. ix. 21; Eph. ii. 12), are to the Israelite consciousness 
dpaptwrol and dédecoe (1 Sam. xv. 18; Tob. xiii 6; Wisd. 
x. 20: comp. Luke xviii. 32, xxiv. 7; 1 Cor vi. 1); and 
from this—the theocratical—point of view Paul says ¢& 
éOvav duaptwrol, born Gentiles, and as such sinners, as all 
Gentiles are. Not as if he would look upon the ’Iovdaious 
as not sinners; according to the sequel, indeed, they needed 
justification equally with the Gentiles (see Rom. ui. 3, 22 f, 
v.12; Eph it 2f.). But the passage affirms that the Jews— 
as the possessors of the revelation and the law, of the ancient 
theocratic vio#ecia and the promises (Rom. ix. 4), and as 
belonging to the holy adwapyn and root-stock: of the theocracy 
(Rom. x1. 16)—possessed as their own a religious consecration 
' of life, whereby they stood on a certain stage of righteous- 
ness in virtue of which, although it was not that of the 
true duxatocvvn, they were nevertheless exalted far above the 
Gentiles in their natural state of sinfulness (Eph. ii 12; 

Tit. iii. 5). Luther well says: “Nos natura Judaei in legali 
_ justitia excedimus quidem gentes, qui peccatores sunt, si 
nobis conferantur, ut qui nec legem nec opera ejus habent; 
verum non in hoc justi sumus coram Deo, ezterna est illa 
Justitia nostra.” If dyaptwdo/ had not been unduly under- 
stood according to the purely. ethical idea (the opposite of 
sinlessness), the discourse would not have been.so broken 


112 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


up as by Elsner, Er. Schmidt, and others: “ Mos natura 
Juda, lucet non ex gentibus, peccatores;” comp. Paulus. 
Hofmann’s view is also similar: “that the apostle excluded 
from himself that sinfulness only, which was implied in 
Gentile descent—characteristic of those not belonging natu- 
rally to the Jewish nationality ;” comp. his Schriftbew. I. 
p. 564, 610 (“our sinfulness does not bear the character- 
istic Gentile shape”). Paul wishes, not to affirm the different 
nature of the sinfulness of those born as Jews and Gentiles 
respectively, but to recall the theocratic advantage of the Jews 
over the sinners of Gentile descent; in spite of which advan- 
tage, however, etc. (ver. 16). The contrast lies in the idea of 
a theocratic sanctitas, peculiar to the born Jew, on the one hand ;? 
and on the other, of a profane vitiositas, wherewith the Gentile 
descent is burdened. — nets] has the emphasis: We on our 
part (I and thou). péy is not to be supplied here (Riickert, 
Schott) ; but the concession in ver. 15 stands by itself, and the 
contrast 7s added without preparation in ver. 16. Comp. 
Fritzsche, ad Rom. II. p. 423; Bremi, ad Isocr. Paneg. 105, 
“quando altera pars per 6é sit evehenda.” The contrast thus 
strikes one more vividly, and hence the absence of the pe 
can afford no ground for calling in question (with Hofmann) 
the sense of a concession. Comp. also Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. 
i. 3.15. On the difference between ’Iovdaio: (theocratic bond 
of union) and “Efpaio. (nationality), see Wieseler, dber d. 
Hebréerbrief, 1861, II. p. 28. 

Ver. 16 is usually construed so that efSores . . . Xpiorod 
is a parenthesis; and either the sentence is made to begin 
with seis in ver. 15, and this sets is again taken up by 
the subsequent xal pets (so Castalio and others, Winer, 
Matthies, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Holsten, Reithmayr), 
or sumus is supplied after dwaptwdAoi, a new sentence is 
commenced by eidotes, and xab jets «7. is taken as 
apodosis (Beza and others; also Riickert, Usteri, Schott, 
Fritzsche, de conform. N. T. Lachm. p. 53, Hilgenfeld, Ewald, 
Hofmann, Matthias, Moller). Both forms of construction 
would give eidores . . . Xpuorod as the motive for the ém- 


1 Calvin appropriately says: ‘‘Quia autem promissio haereditariam benedic- 
tionem faciebat, ideo naturale vocatur hoc bonum.” 





‘ CHAP, IL 18 113 


orevoapev. But in this way the statement, how Paul and 
Peter (for these are the subject; see on ver. 15) attained 
to faith, would not tally with history, for the conversion 
of these two apostles did not at all take place by means of 
logical process in the argumentative way of eiSores . . . éare- 
orevcayev. Both of them were in fact miraculously and sud- 
denly laid hold of by Christ; and thereby, on their becoming 
believers, the light of the statement of purpose in the sequel 
dawned upon them. We must therefore consider as correct 
the punctuation of Lachmann,’ who is followed by Wieseler: a 
comma, only before eidores, and a period after Xpiorod, “ We 
are Jews by birth and not sinners of the Gentiles, knowing how- 
ever” (eiSores still belonging to the éoyév, which has to be sup- 
plied), that is, since we nevertheless know, that a man is not 
justified, etc.; so that what thou, Peter, doest (ver. 15), com- 
pletely conflicts with this certainty, which we have notwith- 
standing of our Jewish pre-eminence.—ov Sixatodras dvOpwrros] 
The emphatically prefixed dexasodras is negatived: a man is 
not justified. As to the idea of SixavodcOas, see on Rom.i. 17. 
Here also it appears clearly as an actus forensis, and as incom- 
patible with the perversion of the idea by the Catholics and the 
followers of Osiander. See especially Wieseler zn loc. From 
works of the law, which would be the determining ground of 
God’s acquittal; by means of faith, which is imputed by God as 
righteousness (Rom. v. 5, 24. f.),—these are the contrasted points, 
while the idea of StxarotcGat is the same. Comp. on Rom. iii. 
25 £.— €& Epywr vopuov] vopov is not subjective (works, which 
the law by its precepts calls forth), but objective: works, which 
relate to the law, that is, works by which the precepts of the law 
are fulfilled, which have as their opposite the dyapryuara 
voov, Wisd. ii. 12. See on Rom. ii.15. Our passage testifies 
also in favour of this view by the contrast of wiotews ’Inood 
Xpwictov, inasmuch as the one relation (pywv) to the one 
object (voyov) stands correlatively contrasted with the other 
relation (aiarews) to the’ other object (Inootd Xpiotod), 
Schott, following the older expositors (including Theodoret, 
Pelagius, Erasmus), quite erroneously limits vouos to the cere- 


1 In the small edition ; in the larger one the usual punctuation is followed. 
H 


114 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


monial law,—a limitation which never occurs in the N. T. 
(see on Rom. iit. 20, and Schmid, 7b]. Theol. II. p. 336), and, 


especially where justification is the matter in question, would. 


be quite unsuitable; for the impossibility of justification by 
the law has reference to the whole law, viewed in its require- 
ments jointly and severally, which in its full extent, and in 
the way willed by God, no man can fulfil. Comp. ii. 10; 
Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 259.—éav yxy] not a compromise between 
justification by works and justification by faith in the Jewish- 
Christian consciousness (Holsten, in spite of the apodosis), but 
a transition to another mode of conception: A man is not 
justified by the works of the law; he 2s not justified, except by 
ete. Comp. Hymn. Cer. '7'7 f., ov8é tus GAXos altios Gbavdrwr, 
et on vehernyepéra Zevs. Comp. on Matt. xii 4; Rom. xiv. 
14. See also on i. 7. Consequently we have here neither 
justification by the works, which are done by means of faith (the 
Catholic view), nor Christ's fulfilment of the law, which is 
apprehended by faith.” The former is not Pauline,® and the 
latter has only its indirect truth (for the N.T. nowhere teaches 
the imputation of Christ’s obedience to the law), in so far as the 
atoning work of the Lord completed on the cross, which is the 


specific object and main matter of justifying faith, necessarily 


presupposes His active, sinless obedience (2 Cor. v. 21), of 
which, however, nothing is here said. But here in dav py 
we have the “sola fide” of Luther and his Church. Comp. 
on Rom. ii. 28. It is only the man justified solely by faith, 
who thereupon fulfils by means of the Spirit the require- 
ments of the law; see on Rom. vii. 4. This is the moral 
completion of the relation of the law to redemption. — *Inaod 
Xpiorov| object: on Jesus Christ. Comp. Mark xi. 22; see 
on Rom. iii. 22, and Lipsius,: Rechtfertigungsl. p. 112.—€F and 

1 Although, according to the context, at one time the ethical, and at another 
the ritual, aspect of the law preponderates. Comp. on Rom. iii. 20. 

3 So also Jatho, Br. and. Gal. p. 18f. 

3 See the constantly repeated attacks on the part of the Catholics against 
the evangelical doctrine of justification by faith, in Mohler, Symbol. p. 182, 
ed. 4; Reithmayr, p. 179ff. More unprejudiced is Déllinger, Christenth. u. 
Kirche, pp. 187, 202, and elsewhere. On the other hand, Romang (in the Stud. 
u. Krit. 1867, 1, 2) has made too much concession to the Catholic justification 


by works, and has, like Hengstenberg, erroneously assumed a gradual progress 
of justification. 








CHAP. II. 16. 115 


Sia denote the same idea‘(of causality) under two forms (that 
of origin and that of mediate agency), as Paul in general is fond 
of varying his prepositions (see on Rom. iii. 30 ; 2 Cor. iii. 11; 
Eph. i. 7). In ed (comp. iii, 26) faith is conceived as the 
subjective condition of justification—the presence of which is | 
the necessary causa medians of the latter. Certainly the man, 
as soon as he believes, enters ammediately into the state of 
justification ; but the preposition has (notwithstanding what 
Hofmann says) nothing to do with this relation, any more 
than 連 postpones the being righteous, as the result of action, 
until the very end of life, whereas it may be conceived at any 
moment of life, as a result for the time being. — xat speis] 
begins a new sentence (see above). That which Paul had 
just laid before Peter as a point on which both were con- 
vinced,—ére ov Suxatodras dvOpwiros éF Epywv vowov, eav p42) 
| $ua riot. "I. X.—he now confirms by reminding him of the 
righteousness which they also had aimed at in having become 
believers (émrioredcapev) ; so that Kal jyets, even we both, sup- 
plies the special application of the foregoing general dvO@pwros. 
The order Xptorov "Incody lays a greater stress on the 
Messianic character of the historical person who is the object 
of faith, than is the case in the usual order (comp. ver. 4, 
iii, 26).— Ore é& Epyov vouov od SixatwOnoetar aca odp£] 
Comp. Rom. iii, 20. These words, é€& épyav voyov, take up 
again what had just been said with solemn emphasis, by 
means of the confirmatory 871, since indeed. [aca cdp£ con- 
veys the idea of “ all men” (comp. above, av@pwrros), with the 
accompanying idea of moral weakness and sinfulness, on which 
is based both the need of justification, and also its impossibility 
by means of works in the sight of the justifying God. Comp. 
on Acts ii. 17. Looking at the difference in the terms used 
and the absence of the usual formula of quotation, it is not to 
be assumed that Paul intended here to give a Scripture-proof 
(from Ps. cxliii. 2), as Wieseler and others think. An invo- 
luntary echo of the language may have occurred, while the idea 
was more precisely defined. The negation is here also not 
to be separated from the verb; for it is not waca odp£& which 
is negatived, but S:cawwOjoeras in reference to maca cdp€. 
Fritzsche (Diss. II. in 2 Cor, p. 26) aptly says: “non pro- 


116 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS, 


babitur per praestitum legi obsequium quicquid est carnis.” 
Lastly, the futwre denotes that which never will occur. The 
reference to the judgment (Rom. v. 19), which is discovered 
here by Hofmann and the earlier expositors, is quite out of 
place. Comp. ver. 21. It is otherwise, v. 5; 2 Tim. iv. 8. 
Ver. 17. The 8€ dialectically carries on the refutation of 
Peter; but the protasis beginning with e«¢ cannot have its 
apodosis in ebpéOnuev x. a. a. (Hofmann’); on the contrary, 
it runs on as far as aduaptwdoi, which is then followed by the 
interrogatory apodosis. Consequently: But if we (in order to 
show thee, from what has been just said, how opposed to 
Christ thy conduct was), although we sought to be justified in 
Christ, were found even on our part sinners, This protasis sup- 
poses that which must have been the case, if Peter’s Judaizing 
conduct had been in the right; namely, that the result would 
then have been that faith does not lead to, or does not suffice 
for, justification, but that it is requisite to combine with it 
the observance of the Jewish law. Jf faith does no¢ render 
the "Iovdatfew superfluous, as was naturally to be concluded 
from the course of conduct pursued by Peter, then this seek- 
ing after justification in Christ has shown itself so ineffectual, 
that the believer just stands on an equality with the Gentiles, 
because he has ceased to be a Jew and yet has not attained 
toerighteousness in Christ: he is therefore now nothing else 
than an dywaprwdos, just as the Gentile is. But if this is the 
case, the apodosis now asks, Js Christ, therefore, minister of 
sin (and not of righteousness) ?—seeing that our faith in 
Him, which seeks for righteousness by Him, has the sad 
result that we have been found like the Gentiles in @ 
state of sin. The answer to this question is, Far be wt! It 
is a result to be abhorred, that Christ, instead of bringing 
about the righteousness sought in Him, should be the pro- 
moter of sin. Consequently the state of things supposed in 
the protasis is an anti-Christian absurdity. — The subject of 


1 Hofmann explains it, as if Paul had written si 33 inretusy (if we, when we 
became believers, sought, etc.) Sxasmbivas bv Xprory, sbpibngesy x.7.a. (we thereby 
exhibit ourselves at the same time as sinners). According to Hofmann, the 
’ stpiénusy is intended to apply to both members of the sentence,—a forced, artifi- 
cial view for which the context affords neither right nor reason. 





CHAP. IL 17, 117 


Cyrouvres and evpéOnwev is, as before, Peter and Paul. — 
Enrovvres| emphatically prefixed, in reference to the preceding 
sentence of purpose, iva SixatwOapev x.7.r.; 80 that this nreiv 
Sixatw9. is not in reality different from the muotevew eis 
Xpiot., but denotes the same thing as respects its tendency. 
To the &jrodvres then corresponds the evpéOnyev, which intro- 
duces an entirely different result: if we have been found, if it 
has turned out as a matter of fact, that, etc. Rom. vu. 10; 
1 Cor. iv. 2, xv. 15; 2 Cor. xi 12). As to evdpéOnpev we 
must, however, notice that—as ‘in the apodosis dpa Xpuotos 
K.7.X%. we cannot without proceeding arbitrarily supply any- 
thing but the simple éoriv, and not dy jy (iii. 21)—the aorist 
requires the explanation: inventi sumus (Vulgate, Beza, Calvin, 
and many others’), and therefore neither reperimur (Erasmus, 
Castalio) nor invent: essemus (de Wette and many others), nor 
should be found (Luther), nor were to be found (Schott). Observe, 
moreover, that in etpé@., in contrast to fyrobvres «.7.2., the. 
accessory idea of something unexpected suggests itself (comp. 
on Matt. i. 20). — év Xpicrd] nothing else than what was 
previously put as é« miorews Xpiotod, but expressed according 
to the notion that in Christ, whose person and work form the 
object of faith, justification has zs causal basis (2 Cor. v. 21; 
Acts xiii. 39; Rom. iii. 24). Its opposite: éy vou, iii. 11, 
and the idia dvxavocvvn, Rom. x. 3. — kat adroit] et ipst, also 
on our part, includes Peter and Paul in the class of duaptwroi 
previously referred to in ver. 15. — dpa X. dyapr. Sidx.] is, 
at any rate, a question (Vulgate, numquid), for. with Paul py 
yévoito is always preceded by a question (Rom. iii. 4, vi. 2; 


1 So correctly also Lipsius in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschr. 1861, p. 73 ff. He, 
however, improving on Holsten’s similar interpretation, thus explains the whole 
passage: ‘‘If we, being born Jews, have, by our seeking after the salvation in 
Christ, confessed our sinfulness (and consequently, at the same time, the im- 
potence of the law to make us righteous), does it thence follow that Christ, by 
inviting also us Jews-to seek righteousness in Him and not in the law, has led 
us astray to a life in Gentile impurity?” But this inference does not stand in 
logical consistency with the protasis, and could not even suggest itself as a false 
conclusion ; for azeprias is assumed to be taken in a different sense from épap- 
twroi,—the latter in the sense of defectus justitiae, the former as vitiositas 
ethnica. Holsten also understands duapries as the unfettering of sin in the 
moral life (comp. v. 18; Rom. i. 6f., e¢ al.),—an idea which is here foreign to 
the context. 


118 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


Gal. iii. 21, e¢ al.). With this, however, either mode of writing, 
dpa (Lachmann) or dpa (Tischendorf), may stand. Both ex- 
press igitur, rebus sic se habentibus; but dpa (Luke xviii. 8 ; 
Acts viii. 30), although Paul does not elsewhere use it (but 
just as little does he use an interrogative dpa’), is the livelier 
and stronger. See Klotz, ad Devar. p. 180; Baeumlein, 
Partik. p. 39 f. To take dpa for dp’ ov, nonne (Olshausen, 
Schott), is a purely arbitrary suggestion, which fails to appre- 
hend the subtlety of the passage, the question in which (not 
dpa in itself, as held by Hartung) bears the trace of an ironical 
suspicion of doubtfulness (comp. Buttmann, ad Plat. Charmi. 
14, ed. Heind.). Besides, dpa is never really used for dp’ oi, 
although it sometimes seems so (Herm. ad Viger. p. 823; 
Heind. ad Plat. Theaet. p. 476; Ellendt, Lew. Soph. L p. 216). 
See Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. ii. 6. 1. Riickert has mistaken 
the sense of the whole passage: “If we, although we seek 
grace with God through Christ, nevertheless continue to sin, 
etc., do ye think that Christ will then take pleasure in us, 
greater pleasure than in the Gentiles, and thus strengthen and 
further us in our sin?” Against this it may be urged, that 
Paul has not written evpsoxopefa ; that the comparison with the 
Gentiles implied in xad a’roé would be unsuitable, for the sin 
here reproved would be hypocritical Judaizing; and that ver. 18 
would not, as is most arbitrarily assumed, give the reason for 
the 47) yévorro, but, passing, over the py yévorro and the apodosis, 
would carry us back to the protasis and prove this latter. 
The nearest to this erroneous interpretation is that of Beza 
and Wieseler, who (so also essentially Reithmayr) find ex- 
pressed here the necessity of the union of sanctification with 
justification.? But the right sense of the passage, as given 


1 Which is assumed by Wieseler, Buttmann, Hofmann. 

2 They take the essential sense to be: ‘‘ If the man who is justified in Christ 
has sinned, Christ is not to blame for this ; for (ver. 18) the man himself is to 
blame for the transgression, because he builds again the dominion of sin which He 
had destroyed.” So Wieseler. This interpretation is utterly unsuitable, if ver. 
16 ff. is still addressed to Peter. It may be urged also against it, that Paul, by 
using sipiénusy (instead of sipsexcpsda), would have written in a way both obscure 
and misleading ; further, that the relapse of the justified man into sin did not at 
all suggest or presume as probable the conclusion that Christ was to blame for it; 
moreover, that the expression dyaprias dicxeves must assert something of a far 
stronger and more positive character (namely, sin-producer); lastly, that ver. 18, 


¢ 


CHAP. II. 18. 119 


above, is found in substance, although with several . modifi- 
cations, and in some cases with an incorrect apprehension of 
the aorist eipéOnwev (see above), in Chrysostom, Theodoret, 
Oecumenius, Theophylact, Erasmus, Luther, Castalio, Calvin, 
Calovius, Estius, Wolf, Wetstein, and others; also Semler, 
Koppe, Borger, Flatt, Winer, Usteri, Matthies, Schott, Baum- 
garten-Crusius, de Wette, Hilgenfeld, Ewald, Matthias; several 
of whom, however, such as the Greek Fathers, Luther, Calovius, . 
Koppe, Usteri, Lachmann, taking the accentuation dpa, do not 
assume any question, which does not alter the essential sense, 

but does not correspond with the pu yévovro which follows ; 
' while Hilgenfeld unnecessarily supposes a breviloquence: “ then 
. I ask, Is then Christ,” etc. ? — Xpioros] “in quo tamen quae- 
rimus justificari,” Bengel. — duapr. di:dx.] duaptr. emphatically 
prefixed, in contrast to the SscarwOjvae: one, through whom sin 
receives service rendered, sin is upheld and promoted. The 
opposite, Sudxovoe Sixatoovvys, 2 Cor. xi 15. | 

. Ver. 18. Ground assigned for the pu yévorto: No! Christ 
- is not a minister of sin; for—and such is the result, Peter, 
of the course of conduct censured in thee—if J again build 
up that which I have pulled down, I show myself as trans- 
gressor ; so that Christ thus by no means appears, according to 
the state of the case supposed in ver. 17, as the promoter of 
sin, but the reproach—and that a reproach of transgression— 
falls upon myself alone, as I exhibit myself by my own action. 
— Remark the emphasis—energetically exposing the great 
personal guilt—which is laid first on wapaBarnv (in contrast . 
to duaptias Sidxovos), then on évavror (in contrast to Xpicros), 
and jointly on the juxtaposition of the two words. — In the 
building up of that which had been pulled down Paul depicts the 
behaviour of Peter, in so far as the latter previously, and even 
taken in Wieseler’s sense, would, notwithstanding its carefully-chosen expres- 
sions, contain nothing more than an almost meaningless and self-evident thought, 
in which, moreover, the destruction of the dominion of sin, which has been 
accomplished by Christ or by the justifying grace of God (Rom. viii. 3), would 
be attributed to man (xariduca), 

1 Luther’s gloss: ‘‘ Whoever desires to become pious by means of works, 
acts just as if Christ by His ministry, office, preaching, and sufferings, made us 
first of all to be sinners who must become pious through the law ; thus is Christ 
denied, crucified again, slandered, and sin is built up again, which had previously 
been done away by the preaching of faith.” 


120 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


still in Antioch (ver. 12), had pronounced the Mosaic law not 
to be obligatory in respect of justification on the Christian 
who has his righteousness in Christ and not in the law, and 
had thus pulled it down as a building thenceforth useless, 
but subsequently by his Judaizing behaviour again repre- 
sented the law as obligatory for righteousness, and thus, as 
it were, built up anew the house which had been pulled 
down.’ Paul is fond of the figure of building and pulling 
down. See Rom. xv. 20; 1 Cor. vii 1,x. 23; Eph. 20f; 
Rom. xiv. 20; 2 Cor. v. 1, & al. Comp. Talmud, Berach. 
63. 1, in Wetstein: “jam aedificasti, an destruis? jam sepem 
fecisti, an perrumpes ?”——The first person veils that, which had 
happened with Peter in concreto, under the milder form of a 
general proposition, the subject of which (= one, any one) is 
individualized by J (comp. Rom. vii. 7). — radra] with em- 
phasis: this, not anything else or more complete in its place. 
— trapaBarny] not sinner generally, as .Wieseler, according to 
his interpretation of the whole passage, is forced to explain it 
(see oh ver. 17), but ¢ransgressor of the law (Rom. iv. 15, u. 
25); so that, in conformity with the significance of the figure 
used, voyxov is obviously supplied from the context (vv. 16, 
19),—and that as the Mosaic law, not as the vopos ris ricrews, 
the gospel (Koppe, Matthies). But how far does he, who re- 
asserts the validity of that law which he had previously as 
respects justification declared invalid, present himself as a 
transgressor of the same? Not in so far as he proves that he 
had wrongly declared it invalid and abandoned it (Ambrosius, 
Oecumenius, Erasmus, Vorstius, Baumgarten, Zachariae, Rosen- 
miller, Borger, Usteri, de Wette, Hilgenfeld, Ewald), or as he 
has in the pulling down sinned against that which 1s to him 
right, as Hofmann interprets it,’ but, as ver. 19 shows, because 

1 Comp. Holsten, z. Evang. d. Paul. u. Petr. p. 283, 

2 The application to be made of the general proposition is said to be this : 
‘“W hosoever desires and seeks to become righteous in Christ would not do so, unless 
he recognised the matter in which he sinned as a breach of the law, which he has 
again to make good, and that which he does to make it good is self-confession as 
a transgressor.”” This forced perversion should have been precluded by the very 
consideration that zaeaadsuy in reference to the law cannot be understood in the 
sense of breaking it, like avs +d céBBarey, John v. 18 (comp. vii. 26), but only in 


the sense of Matt. v. 17, according to which, of course, the building up again is 
no making good again. Comp. on xaradvuy robs vonous, Polyb. iii. 8. 2. 





CHAP. II. 19. 121 


the law itself has brought about the freedom of the Christian 
from the law, in order that he may live to God; consequently 
he that builds it up again acts in opposition to the law, and 
thus stands forth as transgressor, namely, of the law in its real 
sense, which cannot desire, but on the contrary rejects, the re- 
exchanging of the new righteousness for the old. Comp. Rom. 
iii 31. See the fuller statement at ver. 19. Comp. Chry- 
sostom and Theophylact (adres yap... 6 vouos .. . pe 
anynoe Tpos THY TioTw Kal erecev adeivat adtov). Bengel, 
moreover, well says: “ Vocabulum horribile, legis studiosiori- 
bus.” The word is purposely chosen, and stands in a climactic 
relation to dwaprwAoé (ver. 17),—the category which includes 
also the Gentiles without law.— cuvmardve] I show. See 
Wetstein and Fritzsche, ad Rom. iii. 5; Munthe, Obss. p. 358 ; 
Loesner, p. 248. But Schott explains it as commendo, laudo (2 
Cor. iii. 1, v. 12, x. 12), making it convey an tronical reference 
to the Judaists, who had boasted of their Judaizing behaviour. 
This idea is not in any way indicated;' and the ironical refer- 
ence must have rather pointed at Peter, who, however, had not 
made a boast of his Judaizing, but had consented to it in a 
timid and conniving fashion. Hence Bengel’s explanation is 
more subtle: “ Petrus voluit commendare se ver. 12 fin.; ejus 
commendationis tristem Paulus fructum hic mimesi ostendit.” 
But according to the connection, as exhibited above, between 
ver. 18 and ver. 17, the idea of commendation is so entirely 
foreign to the passage, that, in fact, ¢uavrov currerdvw expresses 
essentially nothing more than the idea of evpéOnyer in ver. 17; 
bringing into prominence, however, the self-presentation, the 
self-proof, which the person concerned practically furnishes in 
his own case: he establishes himself as a transgressor. 

Ver. 19 f, containing the “summa ac medulla Chris- 
tianismi” (Bengel), furnishes the confirmation of ver. 18; for 
which purpose Paul makes use of his own experience (not—as 
Olshausen and Baumgarten-Crusius hold, contrary to the con- 
text—designating himself as representative of believers generally) 


1 Schott should not have appealed to the form cvveréye, Both forms have 
the same signification. Hesychius: eunerdyss, iwastiv, Pavspody, BiBasovy, rapa 
vilives. Only the form cenerdv is less frequent and later, Polyb. iv. 5, 6, xxviii. 
17. 6, xxxii. 15. 8; 2 Cor. iii. 1, v. 12. 


122 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


with sublime self-assurance and in a way sufficient to shame 
Peter: For I for my own part (to give utterance here to the 
consciousness of my own experience, apart from the experi- 
ence of others) am through the law dead to the law, in order 
..to lie to God. In this view the contrast to Xpioros is not 
expressed already by this éyw (Hofmann); but only by the 
éyo of ver. 20. The point confirmatory of ver. 18 lies in 
Sia vouov; for he, who through the law has passed out of. the 
relation to the law which regulated his life, in order to stand 
in a higher relation, and yet reverts to his legally-framed life, 
acts against the law, wapaBarny éavroy cuvctaver, The vopos 
in both cases must be ‘the Mosaic law, because otherwise the 
probative force and the whole point of the passage would be 
lost; and because, if Paul had intended voyov to refer to 
the gospel (Jerome, Ambrose, Erasmus, Luther, Vatablus, Zeger, 
Vorstius, Bengel, Michaelis, Koppe, Morus, Rosenmiiller, Bor- 
ger, Vater), he must have added some distinguishing definition 
(Rom. iii. 27, viii. 2, ix. 31; comp. 1 Cor. ix. 21). The im- 
mediate context, that is, the Xpior@ cuvertavpwpat x.7.r. which 
closely follows (and not ver. 16), supplies precise information 
how Paul intended the &:a vogov vou@ aréfavoy to be under- 
stood. By the crutifixion the curse of the law was fulfilled 
in Christ (iii. 13); and so far Christ died through the law, 
which demanded, and in Christ’s death received, the accom- 
plishment of its curse. In one, therefore, who is crucified 
with Christ, the curse of the law is likewise fulfilled, so that 
in virtue of his ethical fellowship in the death of Jesus he . 
knows himself to be dead &@ voyou; and consequently at the 
same time dead ¢o the law (comp. Rom. vii. 4); because, now 
that the law has accomplished in his case its rights, the bond 
of union which joined him to the law is broken; for xarnp- 
ynOnwey amd tod vopod, amolavortes ev @ kateryoueba, Rom. 
vii. 6. So, in all essential points, Chrysostom’ and others, 
Zachariae, Usteri (Schott wavers in his view, Riickert still 

1 Not, therefore, as Hermann interprets, d:& vésou sy xariaAven, through the 
law rejected by myself. 

2 He indeed also specifies the interpretation, by which »éue» is understood of 
the gospel, as well as the view, which takes vine» of the Mosaic law, but eluci- 


dates the relation of 3 by Deut. xviii. 18. He nevertheless evidently gives 
the preference to the interpretation given above. 


CHAP. IL. 19. '123 


more so): comp. Lipsius, /.c. p. 81 f.; Weiss, Ubi. Theol. p. 363 ; 
Moller on de Wette, p. 50. This is the only interpretation 
which keeps closely to the context, and is therefore to be 
preferred to the views of others, who understand 6:2 voyou to 
refer to the Messianic contents of the law and the prophets, by 
which Paul had been induced to abandon the law (Theodoret, 
Corn. a Lapide, Hammond, Grotius, and others; also Baum- 
garten-Crusius), and of others still, who find the insufficiency of 
the law for salvation expressed, as Winer (“lex legem sustulit ; 
ipsa lex, cum non posset mihi salutem impertire, mei me juris 
fecit atque a suo imperio liberavit”), Olshausen, Matthias, and 
likewise Hofmann, who understands it to refer to the know- 
ledge acquired through the law, that it was impossible to 
attain righteousness in the way of the law,—which righteous- 
ness, therefore, could only be attained by means of faith; — 
comp. Hilgenfeld, Reithmayr, also Ewald, whose interpretation 
would seem to call for 6a rov vouov. Neither is there sug- 
gested in the context the reference to the pedagogic functions 
of the law, ii. 24, which is found by Beza (“lex enim terrens 
conscientiam ad Christum adducit, qui unus vere efficit, ut 
moriamur legi, quoniam nos justificando tollit conscientiae 
terrores”), Calvin, Wolf, and others; also by Matthies, who, 
however, understands éua as quite through (“having passed 
quite through the law, I have it behind me, and am no 
longer bound to it”). De Wette thus explains the pedagogic 
thought which he supposes to be intended: “ By my having 
thoroughly lived in the law and experienced its character in my 
own case, I have become conscious of the need of a higher 
moral life, the life in the Spirit; and through the regeneration 
of my inner man I have made my way from the former to 
the latter.” So also, in all. essential points, Wieseler, although 
the usus paedagogicus of the law does not produce regenera- 
tion and thereby moral liberation from its yoke (which, how- 
ever, dsa voyxov must affirm), but only awakens the longing 
after it (Rom. vii. 21 ff.), and prepares the ground for justifica- 
tion and sanctification. The inner deliverance from the yoke 
of the law takes place dsa avevparos (v. 18; Rom. viii 2). 
A clear commentary on our passage is Rom. vii. 4-6. — iva 
Ocd tjow] that I might live to God, that my life (brought 


124 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


about by that d7réOavov) might be dedicated to God, and 
should not therefore again serve the vdyos,—which is the 
case with him who @ xaréAvoe tatra wadw oixodope: (ver. 
18). Comp., moreover, Rom. vi. 11.— Xpior@ cvvectavpwpar] 
Situation in which he finds himself through that dia voyou 
vou@ ‘améGavov, and accompanying information how this event 
took place in him. Corresponding with this, afterwards in 
ver, 20, &@ . . . Xptoros contains information as to the way 
in which tva @c@ Sjow was realized in him. With Christ 
I am crucified, thus expressing the consciousness of moral 
fellowship, brought about by faith, in the atoning death of 
Christ,—a subjective fellowship, in which the believer knows 
that the curse of the law is accomplished on himself because 
it is accomplished on Christ (comp. iii. 13) (8a vopuou aré- 
Gavov), and at the same time that his pre-Christian ethical 
state of life, which was subject to the law, is put an end to 
(vou@ améBavov). Comp. Rom. vi. 6, vii. 4, and on Col. ii 
20. Observe also how in this very passage it is evident 
from the whole context, that ovy in ovveoravp. and in the 
corresponding expressions (Rom. vi. 8; Col. ii 12, 20, e al.) 
denotes not the mere typical character of Christ or the 
resemblance to Him (Baumgarten-Crusius), but the actual jfel- 
lowship, which, as accomplished and existing in the conscious- 
ness of faith, is matter of real experience. On the perfect, 
which expresses the blessed feeling of the continuance of what 
had taken place, comp. vi 14. Here it is the continuance of 
the liberation of the moral personal life from the law, which 
was begun by the crucifixion with Christ. 

Ver. 20. Za 5é ovxére eyw, & Se ev euot Xpioros] The 
comma which is usually placed after {@ 6é is correctly ex- 
punged by Lachmann, Riickert, Usteri, Matthies, Schott, 
Tischendorf, Wieseler, Hofmann ; for, if €@ . . . éyw were not 
to be conjoined, aAAd must have stood before ovxére. The 
second 6é is our but indeed after a negative (Hartung, Partikell. 
I. p. 171), and &@ and & are on both occasions emphatically 
prefixed: alive however no longer am I, but alive indeed is 


1 fy @1p Siew is therefore not (with Chrysostom, Cajetanus, Calvin, and 
others) to be joined to Xpery curscratpapas; for it essentially belongs to the 
completeness of the thought introduced by yédp. 


CHAP. II. 20. 125° 


Christ in me; whereby the new relation of Jéfe is forcibly con- 
trasted to the previously expressed relation of death (Xpiot@ 
cuveot.), After the crucifixion of Christ followed His new 
life; he, therefore, who is crucified with Christ, thenceforth 
lives also with Him; his whole pre-Christian moral person- 
ality is, in virtue of that fellowship of death, no longer in life 
(6 madaws avtod avOpwros cvvestavpwOn, Rom. vi. 6), and - 
Christ is the principle of life in him. This change is brought 
about by faith (see the sequel), inasmuch as in the believer, 
according to the representation here given of Paul’s own ex- 
perience, it is no longer the individual personality that is the 
agent of life (“mortuus est Saulus,” Erasmus), but Christ, who 
is present in him (through the Spirit, Rom. viii. 9 f.; Eph. iii. 
16 f.), and works, determines, and rules everything in him, fw 
Sé ovxére eyo, &% Sé ev euol Xpioros: the mind of Christ is 
in him (1 Cor. ii 16), the heart of Christ beats in him (Phil. 
i, 8), and His power is effectual in him. Thereby is the 
proof of the words iva @e@ fjow rightly given; see on Rom. 
vi. 10.—6 8¢ viv &@ ev capxi «.7.r.] Explanation of what 
has just been said, @ ... Xpucros: but that which I now 
live in the flesh, I live in faith on, etc. This explanation 
is placed by 6é in formal contradistinction to the preceding 
apparent paradox. The emphasis, however, lies on viv, now, 
namely, since the beginning of my Christian condition of life, so 
that a glance is thrown back to the time before the Xpior@ 
cuvectavpwpat, and viv corresponds with ovdxérs. Noy is often 
understood—as by Erasmus, Grotius (adhuc), Riickert, Usten, 
Schott, following Augustine and Theodoret—ain contrast not 
with the pre-Christian life, but with the future life after death 
(rather: after the mapovola). A reference of this kind is, 
however, entirely foreign to the context, does not harmonize 
with the emphasis which is laid on viv by its position, and is 
by no means required by év capxi; for this addition to &@ is 
made by Paul simply with a view to indicate that after hts 
conversion the material form of his life remained the same, 
although its ethical nature had become something entirely 
different. — €v capxi] denotes life in the natural human 
phenomenal form of the body consisting of flesh. The context 
does not convey any reference to the ¢ehical character of 


126 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


the odp£ (as sedes peccati), Comp. Phil i 22; 2 Cor.x 3. . 
— & wioter] not per fidem (Chrysostom, Beza, and others), 
but, corresponding to év capxi, in faith; so that faith—and 
indeed (comp. 1 16) the faith in the great sum and substance 
of the revelation received, in the Son of God (notice the 
anarthrous ziores, and then the article affixed to the more 
precise definition)—is the specific element in which my life 
moves and acts and is developed. It is prefixed emphatically, 
in contrast to the entirely different pre-Christian sphere of 
life, which was the vouos. — tod dyamrjoavros pe x.7.A.] points: 
out the special historical fact of salvation, which is the subject- 
matter of the faith in the Son of God, giving impulse to this” 
new life. Comp. Rom. viii. 37; Eph. v. 2. Kaé is explana- 
tory, adding the practical proof of the love. Observe also the 
pé and inrép éfod (see on i. 4) as expressive of the conscious and. 
assured fiducia in the fides.\—Lastly, the construction is such, 
that 8 is the accusative of the object to {#, and the whole 
runs on in connection: the life which I live, I live, etc. See 
Bernhardy, p. 106; Fritzsche, ad Rom. I. p. 393f.; Dissen, ‘ 
ad Dem. de cor. p.302. The interpretation: quod vero attinet, 
quod, etc. (Winer), is indeed grammatically admissible (see on 
Rom. vi..10), in so far as 6 is likewise retained as the accu- 
sative of the object; but it needlessly i ee the flow of the 
discourse. 

Ver. 21. Negative side—opposed to an asitasonialis Juda- 
ism —- of the life which Paul (from ver. 19) has described 
as his own. By this negative, with the grave reason 
assigned for it, e¢ ydp x«.7.r., the perverse conduct of Peter is 
completely condemned. — J do not annul (as is done by 
again asserting the validity of the law) the grace of God (which 
has manifested itself through the atoning death of Christ). — 
aQera| as in iii. 15, Luke vii 30, 1 Cor. 1 19, 1 Tim. v. 12, 
Heb. x. 28: make of none effect; see the sequel. It is here 
the annulling—practically involved in the Judaistic courses— 


1 Luther well says, ‘‘ Hae voces: dilexit me, plenissimae sunt fidei, et qui 
hoc breve pronomen me illa fide dicere et sibi applicare posset, qua Paulus, 
- etiam futurus esset optimus disputator una cum Paulo contra legem.” But this 
faith is not the fides formata (Catholics, including Bisping and cae a 
although it is the source of Christian love and Christian life. 





CHAP. IL 21. 127 


of the grace of God in Christ, which is in fact rendered in- 
operative and cannot make righteous, if righteousness is fur- 
nished by the law. The rejection of grace (Vulgate and others, 
aljicio) which is involved in this, is a practical rejection’ As — 
to a@ereiy generally, which does not occur until after Polybius, 
see Schweigh. Lew. Polyb. p. 12. — et yap «.1.d.] justifies what 
has just been said, ovx dOerd. — S81 vopov] through the law, 
namely, as the institute which brings about justification by 
virtue of the works done in harmony with it (comp. on iii. 11). 
This is emphatically prefixed, so that Xpscres corresponds in 
the apodosis. — dwpedy] not: without result (Erasmus, Paraphr., ° 
Piscator), a meaning which it never has either in classical 
authors (in whom it occurs in the sense of gratis only) or in 
the LXX., but: without reason, without cause, as 1 Sam. xix. 5, 
Ps, xxxiv. 8 (not Job 1. 9): comp. John xv. 25; Ecclus. xx. 
21, xxix. 6f.; Ignat. Trall. 10, Swpedy otvy drobyjcko. 
Chrysostom justly says: epirtés 0. tod Xpwotod Odvaros, 
which was the very act of the grace which desired to justify 
men. This death would have taken place wnnecessarily ; it 
would have been, as it were, an act of superfluity (comp. 
Holsten), if that which it was intended to effect were attain- 
able by way of the Jaw. Erasmus aptly remarks, “est autem 
ratiocinatio ab impossibili.” Observe the exclusive expression 
of the clause assigning the reason of ov« a@era, which allows of 
no half-and-half division of justification between law and grace. 


Note.—Paul is discreet enough to say nothing as to the im- 
pression which his speech made on Peter. Its candour, resolu- 
tion, and striking force of argument would, however, be the less 
likely to miss their aim in the case of Peter, seeing that the 
latter was himself convinced of Christian freedom (Acts xv. 
7 ff), and had played the hypocrite in Antioch only by con- 
nivance from fear of men (ver. 13). But as, according to this 
view, an opposition of principle between the two apostles 
cannot be conceded (contrary to the view of Baur and his 
followers), we must abstain from assuming that this occurrence 
at Antioch had any lasting and far-reaching consequences ; for 
it simply had reference to a moral false step taken in opposi- 
tion to Peter's own better judgment, and the scandal arising 
therefrom. It was therefore so essentially of a personal nature, 


1 So that 4 yepis obxirs yiveras vaps, Rom, xi. 6. 


128 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS, 


that, if known at all by Luke, it might well have remained un- 
mentioned in Acts—considering the more comprehensive his- 
torical destination of that work—without suggesting any sus- 
. picion that the absence of mention arose from any intentional 
concealment (comp. on Acts xv.). Such a concealment is but 
one of the numberless dishonest artifices of which the author of 
Acts has been accused, ever since certain persons have thought 
that they recognised in our epistle “the mutely eloquent 
accuser of the Book of Acts” (Schwegler), which is alleged to 
throw “a veil of concealment” over the occurrences at Jeru- 
salem and Antioch (Baur, Paulus, I. p. 148, ed. 2). 


CHAP. IIL 129 


CHAPTER III. 


Ver. 1. After éBdoxave Elz. (and Matth.) has 7 aanéeia pa 
atidecba:, against decisive evidence. An explanatory addition 
from v. 7. — év iu] is wanting in A B C8, min, and several 
vss. and Fathers, and is omitted by Lachm. But not being 
required, and not understood, how easily might it be passed 
over! There was no reason in the text for attaching it as a 
gloss, least of all to xar épdaaruors awpoeyp. (as conjectured by 
Schott), for these words were in fact perfectly clear by them- 
selves. Justly defended also by Reiche. — Ver. 8. évevAroyndy- 
covrat] Elz. gives edAoy., against decisive testimony. In Acts 
lit 25 also, évévAoy. is exchanged in several authorities for the 
usual simple form. — Ver. 10. According to decisive evidence, 
ér1 is to be adopted (with Griesb., Lachm., Scholz, and Tisch.) 
before érimardparos. — Ver. 12. After aire Elz. has dybpwaroc, 
against decisive testimony. Addition from the LXX., Lev. 
xvii. 5; Rom. x. 5. — Ver. 13. Instead of yéyp. yép, read, on pre- 
ponderating testimony, with Lachm. and Tisch., és: yéyparras 
approved by Griesb. The former arose from ver. 10. — Ver. 17. 
After @sod, Elz., Scholz, Reiche, have «/¢ Xpsorév, in opposition to 
A BCvx, min., several vss. and Fathers. Added as a gloss, in 
order, after ver. 16, to make it evident from ver. 24 what covenant 
is intended, although this is obvious from the context, and the 
addition was therefore by no means necessary (as maintained 
by Ewald and Wieseler). In the sequel, éry is (with Griesb., 
Lachm., Scholz, Tisch.) to be placed after the number, according 
to decisive evidence. — Ver. 19. zpoosrédn] Griesb. and Scholz 
(following Mill and Bengel) read éréém. Not sufficiently attested 
by D* F G and afew min., vss., and Fathers; and the compound 
verb appeared to conflict with ver. 15. — Instead of @ érqyyearau, 
only Land many min., along with some Fathers, read 3 érjyy. 
A reading arising from the fact that @ was not understood. — 
Ver. 21. rod Gov] is wanting only in B, Clar. Germ. Ambrosiast. 
(bracketed by Lachm.), and is therefore so decisively attested 
that it cannot be regarded as an explanatory addition. The 
self-evident meaning and the previous reference without rot @sod 
(see ver. 16 ff.) led to the. omission. — Ver. 21. ay é véuou jv] 

I | 


130. THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS, 


Many variations. FG have merely éx véwov;? D*, Damasc., éx 
youov av; A BC, Cyr., éx véuou (B, év véuw) dv jy. In default of in- 
ternal evidence, the latter is, with Lachm., Tisch., Schott, to be 
preferred as the best attested (comp. &, é véuou fv dv). The 
omission of dy arose from the 7 following, just as easily as the 
omission of %v from the following 7. The Recepta is to be con- 
sidered as the restoration of the original é& in a wrong place. 
— Ver. 23. cvyxexAsiozivs] A B D* F GX, 31, Clem. (once) Cyr. 
Damasc. read ovyxAciouévor. Recommended by Griesb., adopted 
by Lachm., Scholz, Schott. The Recepta, specially defended by 
Reiche, is an ancient emendation of the not-understood present 
participle. — Ver. 28. &¢ tors iv Xpsor@ "Inood] A has eors Xprorod 
"Inood; and &, gore év Xprorw I. But sJ¢ was very easily suppressed 
by the preceding ius%, and then é Xpror® "Inood was altered in 
accordance with the beginning of ver. 29. The reading %& 
instead of «% in F G and several vss., also Vulgate, It., and 
Fathers, is an interpretation. — Ver. 29. xa/] is wanting in 
ABCDER, 89**, and a few vss. and many Fathers, and is 
expunged by Lachmann, Tisch., and Schott; justly, because it 
was inserted for the purpose of connection. 





CONTENTS.—Paul now begins to unfold to his readers 
that righteousness comes not from the law, but from .faith. 
With this view, after having expressed censure and surprise, 
he refers in the first place to their own experience, namely, to 
their reception of the Holy Spirit (vv. 1-5). He then passes 
on to Abraham, who had been justified by faith, and of whom 
believers were the sons who, in conformity with Scripture, 
were to enjoy with Abraham the blessing announced to him 
(vv. 6-9). For those that trust in works of the law are 
cursed, and by the law can no man be justified (vv. 10-12). 
It is Christ who by His atoning death has freed us from the 
curse of the law, in order that this blessing should reach the 
Gentiles through Christ, and the promised Holy Spirit should 
be received through faith (vv. 13, 14). But the covenant of 
promise concluded with Abraham, which moreover applied not 
merely to Abraham, but also to Christ, cannot be abrogated by 
the law which arose long after (vv. 15-18). This leads the 
apostle to the question as to the destination of the law, 


1 Which Buttmann in the Stud. u. Krit. 1858, p. 488, considers as probably 
the original reading. 








CHAP. IIL 1. 131 


which he briefly answers in ver. 19 positively, and then in 
vv. 20-23 negatively, to the effect that the law is not opposed 
to the promises. Before the period of faith, the law had the 
office of a cravdaywyos in reference to Christ; but after the 
appearance of faith this relation came to an end, for faith 
brought believers to the sonship of God, because by baptism — 
fellowship with Christ was established, and thereupon all dis- 
tinctions apart from Christ vanished away (vv. 23-28). And 
this fellowship with Christ includes the being children of . 
Abraham and heirs of the promises. | | . 

Ver. 1. O irrational Galatians! With this address of severe . 
censure Paul turns again to his readers, after the account of 
his meeting with Peter; for his reprimand to the latter (ii. 
15-21) had indeed so pithily and forcibly presented the 
intermixture of Judaism with faith as absurd, that the excited 
apostle, in re-addressing readers who had allowed themselves 
to be carried away to that same incongruous intermingling, 
could not have seized on any predicate more suitable or more 
naturally suggested. The more inappropriate, therefore, is 
the idea of Jerome (comp. also Erasmus, and Spanheim ad 
Callim. H. in Del. 184, p. 439), who discovered in this ex- 
pression a natural weakness of understanding peculiar to the 
nation. But the testimony borne on the other hand by The- 
mist. Or. 23 (in Wetstein, on i. 6) to the Galatian readiness 
to learn, and acuteness of understanding—the consciousness of 
which would make the reproach all the more keenly felt—is 
also (notwithstanding Hofmann) to be set aside as irrelevant. 
Comp. Luke xxiv. 25; Tit. iii. 3. — ris tyas éBdoxave] ris 
conveys his astonishment at the great ascendency which the 
perversion had succeeded in attaining, and by way of emphatic 
contrast the words tis buds are placed together: Who hath 
bewitched you, before whose eyes, etc.? Comp. v. 7. — 
Bacxaivw (from Bdfw, to speak) means here to cast a spell 
upon (mala lingua nocere, Virg. Eel. vii. 28), to bewitch by 
words, to enchant (Bos, Exercitatt. p. 173 f£., and Wetstein),— 
a strong mode of describing the perversion, quite in keeping 
with the indignant feeling which could hardly conceive it 
possible. Comp. Sacxavia, fascinatio, Plat. Phaed. p. 95 B; 
Bdcxavos, Plut. Symp. v. 7; a8donavros, unenchanted. Hence 


132 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS, 


the word is not to be explained, with Chrysostom and his 
followers: who has envied you, that is, your previous happy 
condition ?—although this signification is of very frequent 
occurrence, usually indeed with the dative (Kihner, II. p. 
247; Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 462; Piers. ad Herodian. p. 470 
f.), but also with the accusative in Ecclus. xiv. 6, Herodian. 
ii, 4. 11. — ols xar’ odOarpots "Ino. Xp. wpoeypadn &v 
ipiv éoravpwpévos] This fact, which ought to have guarded 
the Galatians from being led away to a Judaism opposed to 
the doctrine of atonement, and which makes their apostasy 
,the more culpable, justifies the question of surprise, of which 
the words themselves form part; hence the mark of interroga- 
tion is to be placed after éotavp. — Kat’ ddOarpovs] before 
the eyes. See examples in Wetstein. Comp. «ar dupara, 
Soph. Ant. 756, and on ii. 11. — wpoeypddn] is explained 
by most expositors, either as antea (previously) depictus est 
(Chrysostom, Luther, Erasmus, Castalio, Beza, Cornelius a 
Lapide, and others; also Hilgenfeld, Reithmayr), or palam 
depictus est (most modern expositors, following Calvin ; includ- 
ing Winer, Paulus, Riickert, Usteri, Matthies, Olshausen, Baum- 
garten-Crusius, de Wette, Reiche, Ewald, Wieseler, Hofmann, 
Holsten), with which Hofmann compares the brazen serpent 
in the wilderness, and Caspari (in the Strassb. Beitr. 1854, 
p. 211 f.). even mixes up a stigmatization with the marks of 
Christ’s wounds, which Paul, according to vi. 17, is supposed 
to have borne on his own body. But these interpretations are 
opposed not only by the words év tpi (see below), but also by 
the wsus loguendi. For, however frequent may be the occurrence 
of ypadevv in the sense of to paint, this signification can by no 
means be proved as to mwpoypade, not even in Arist. Av. 450 
(see Rettig in Stud. u. Krit. 1830, p. 97). The Greek ex- 
pression for showing how to paint, tracing out, in the sense of 
a picture given to copy, is doypddew. Following Elsner and 
others, Morus, Flatt, and Schott understand it as palam scriptus 
est (1 Macc. x. 36; Lucian, Zim. 51; Plut. Mor. p. 408 D, 
Demetr. 46, Camill. 11 e al.’): “ita Christus vobis est ob 


1 On this meaning is based the interpretation of Ambrose, Augustine, and 
Lyra, ‘‘He was proscribed, that is, condemned,” which is indeed admissible so 
far as usage goes (Polyb. xxxii. 21, 12, xxxii. 22,1; Plut. Brut. 27), but quite 








CHAP. III. 1. 133 


oculos palam descriptus, quasi in tabula vobis praescriptus,” 
Morus. This is inconsistent with év div, for these words 
cannot be joined with éoravpwpévos (see below); and Schott’s 
interpretation : 7n animis vestris—so that what was said figura- 
tively by ols... mpoeyp. is now more exactly defined sermone 
proprio by év tuiv—makes the év vpiv appear simply as some- 
thing quite foreign and unsuitable in the connection, by which 
_ the figure is marred. In the two other passages where Paul 
uses mwpoypadery (Rom. xv. 4; Eph. iii. 3) it means to write 
beforehand, so that mpo has a temporal and not a local significa- 
tion (comp. Ptol. viii. 25. 15, and see Hermann on our passage); - 
nor is the meaning different in Jude 4 (see Huther). And so 
it is to be taken here.! Paul represents his previous preaching 
of Christ as crucified to the Galatians figuratively as a writing, 
which he had previously written (apoeypadn) in their hearts 
(év dpiv). Comp. 2 Cor. iii 2 f In this view nar’ 6d0ar- 
povs is that trait of the figure, by which the personal oral 
instruction is characterized: Paul formerly wrote Christ before — 
their eyes in their hearts, when he stood before them and preached 
the word of the cross, which through his preaching impressed ttself 
on their hearts. By his vivid illustration he recalls the fact 
to his readers, who had just been so misled by a preaching 
altogether different (i. 6). With no greater boldness than in 
2 Cor. ul 2 f, he has moulded the figure according to the 
circewmstances of the case, as he is wont to do in figurative 
language (comp. iv. 19); but this does not warrant a pressing 
of the figure to prove traits physically imcompatible (an objec- 
tion urged by Reiche). - Jerome and others, also Hermann, Bret- 
schneider, and Rettig, Jc. p. 98 ff, have indeed correctly kept 
to the meaning olim scribere (Rettig, however, remarking un- 
decidedly, that it may also mean palam scribere), but have 
quite inappropriately referred it to the prophecies of the O. T.: 
“ quibus ante oculos praedictio fuit Christi in crucem sublati,” 
Hermann. Apart from the circumstance that the precise mode 
unsuitable to the context. Comp. Vulgate: proscriptus est, instead of which, 
however, Lachmann has praescriptus est. 

1 So taken correctly also by Matthias, who, however, explains the expression 
from the idea of an amulet used against the enchantment. But this idea would 


presuppose some secret writing, the very opposite of which is conveyed by the 
expression. 


134 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


of death by crucifixion is not mentioned in the prophetical 
utterances, this would constitute a ground for surprise on the 
part of the apostle of a nature much too general, not founded 
on the personal relation of Paul to his readers, and therefore by 
no means adequate as a motive; and, in fact, vv. 2—4 carry back 
their memory to the time, when Paul was at work among them. 
— é wiv] is not, with Grotius, Usteri, and others, to be set 
aside as a Hebrew pleonasm (023 1X), but is to be understood 
as in animis vestris (comp. 2 Cor. ii. 2; Soph. Phil. 1309: 
ypahov dpevav Eow; Aesch. Prom. 791, Suppl. 991, Choeph. 
450), and belongs to wpoeypddn; in which case, however, the 
latter cannot mean either palam pictus or palam scriptus est, 
because then év duiy would involve a contradictio in adjecto, and 
would not be a fitting epexegesis of ofy (Winer, comp. Schott), 
for the depicting and the placarding cannot take place otherwise 
than on something external. To take & tuiv as among you 
and connect it with wpoeyp., would yield not a strengthening 
of ols (as de Wette holds), but an empty addition, from which 
Reiche and Wieseler also obtain nothing more than a purport 
obvious of itself! On the other hand, Hofmann hits upon the 
expedient of dividing the words ols . . . éoravp. into two 
andependent sentences: (1) Before whose eyes 1s Jesus Christ ; (2) 
as the Crucified One, He has been freely and publicly delineated 
among you. But, apart from the linguistically incorrect view of 
mpoeypadn, this dismemberment would give to the language 
of the passage a violently abrupt form, which is the more 
intolerable, as Paul does not dwell further on the asyndetically 
introduced spoeyp. év vuiv éoravp. or subjoin to it any more 
particular statement, but, on the contrary, in ver. 2 brings 
forward asyndetically a new thought. Instead of introducing 
it abruptly in a way so liable to misapprehension, he would 
have subjoined srpoeypddn — if it was not intended to belong 
to of —in some simple form by yap or 6re or &> or dove. 
Without any impropriety, he might, on the other hand, figura- 
tively represent that he who preaches Christ to others writes 


1 Reiche, ‘‘id factum esse a se, gentium apostolo, inter eos praesente”’ (not, 
it might be, alio loco or per homines sublestae fidei, not clanculum, but cunctis, 
publico eorum conventu, etc.). Wieseler: ‘‘not merely from a distance by means 
of an epistle,” 





CHAP, III. 2, | 135 


(not placards or depicts) Christ before their eyes in their hearts. 
Most expositors connect év tuiv with éqravp., and explain 
either as propter vos (Koppe), contrary to the use of & with 
persons (see on i. 24); or, unsuitably to the figurative idea xa7’ 
opOarpovs «.7.r., in animis vestris ;' or (as usually) inter vos: 
“so clearly, so evidently . . . just as if crucified among you,” | 
Riickert. But the latter must have been expressed by os éy 
Upiv éotavp., and would also presuppose that the apostle’s 
preaching of the cross had embodied a vivid and detailed 
description of the crucifixion. It was not this however, but 
the fact itself (as the ttaornptov), which formed the sum and 
substance of the preaching of the cross; as is certain from the 
apostle’s letters. Lastly, Luther’s peculiar interpretation, justly 
rejected by Calovius, but nevertheless again adopted in sub- 
stance by Matthias that ev duiy éoravp. is a severe censure, 
“guod Christus (namely, after the rejection of grace) non vivit, 
sed mortuus in eis est (Heb. vi. 6),” which Paul had laid before 
them argumentis praedictis,—is as far-fetched, as alien from 
the usual Pauline mode of expression, and as unsuitable to the 
context as the view of Cajetanus, that, according to the idea 
“ Christ suffers in His members” (Col. 1. 24), év tu. éoravp. is 
equivalent to for the sake of whom ye have suffered so much. — 
éotaup.| as the Crucified One, is with great emphasis moved - 
on to the end: Comp. 1 Cor. i, 2,123. 

Ver. 2. The foolishness of their error is now disclosed to 
them, by reminding them of their reception of the Holy Spirit. 
“Vide, quam efficaciter tractat locum ab experientia,” Luther, 
1519. — rodro povov bérw pabeiy ad’ tpav] This only—not to 
speak of other self-confessions, which I might demand of you 
for your refutation—hzs only I wish to become aware of from you. 
Bengel pertinently remarks: “ ovov, grave argumentum.” To 


1To this category belongs Bengel’s mystical interpretation, ‘‘ forma crucis 
ejus in corde vestro per fidem expressa, ut jam vos etiam cum illo crucefigeremini.” 
Thus the expression would signify the killing of the old man which had taken 
place through ethical: fellowship in the death of Christ, to which iv dy. 
isvavp. is referred by Storr also. A similar view is taken by Jatho, Br. an d. 
Gal. p. 24: that iv dui» is proleptic, ‘‘so that He, as the atoning One, came 
into and abode in you ;” comp. Ewald, ‘‘to paint clearly before the eyes that 
Christ is now really crucified in them, and, since they have Him in them, He 
has not been crucified for them in vain ;” also Windischmann. 


136 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


take waGeiv (with Luther, Bengel, Paulus) in the narrower sense 
to learn—the apostle thus representing himself ironically as a 
scholar—is justified neither by the tone of the context nor by 
the tenor of the question, which in fact concerns not a doctrine, 
but simply a gece of information ; pavOdvew is well known in 
the sense of to come to know, cognoscere. See Acts xxiii. 27 ; 
Ex. ii. 4; 2 Macc. vu. 2; 3 Macc. 11; Xen. Cyr. vi 1. 31; 
Hell. ii. 1.1; Aesth. Agam. 615. Comp. Soph. Oed. Col. 505: 
tovTo BovAopat pabeiv. — ad’ bpov] is not used instead of aap’ 
va (Riickert); for azo also may denote a direct pabeiy (comp. 
especially Col. i. 7): see on 1 Cor. xi. 23. And this is what 
Paul means, for he conceives himself speaking with his readers 
as if they were present. — é& épywy vopov x.7.r.] Was it your 
fulfilment of works which the law prescribes (comp. on ii. 16), 
or was it the preaching to you of fazth (that is, faith in Christ), 
which caused your reception of the Spirit?) The mvedua is 
the Holy Spirit (the personal divine principle of the whole 
Christian nature and life), and the Holy Spirit viewed gene- 
rally according to His very various modes of operation, by 
which He makes Himself known in different individuals ; 
not merely in relation to the miraculous gifts, 1 Cor. xii—xiv. 
(Chrysostom, Theophylact, Jerome); for Paul reminds the 
whole body of his readers of their reception of the Spirit, and 
it is not till ver. 5 that the duvvdweus are specially brought 
forward as a specific form of the operations of the Spirit. 
Comp. Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 27 £—The 4 which 
follows means: or, on the other hand ; “ duo directe opposita,” 
Bengel. The dxov miorews is explained either as the hearing 
. of faith (reception of the gospel preached: Vulgate, Beza, 
Bengel, Morus, Riickert, Usteri, Schott, Matthias, Reithmayr, 
and others), or as that which 1s heard, 1.¢. the report, the message 
of faith, which treats of faith. axoy admits of either meaning 
(for the former, comp. Plat. Theaet. p. 142 D.; Plut. Mor. 
p. 41 E; Soph. £7. 30; LXX. 1 Sam. xv. 22: and for 
the latter, comp. Plat. Phaedr. p. 274 C; Dem. 1097. 3; 
LXX. Isa. liii. 1; John xii. 38; 1 Thess. ii. 13; Rom. x.17; 
Heb. iv. 2; Ecclus. xli. 23). But aiorews is decisive in 
favour of the latter, for it is never the “ doctrina fidei” (see 
on i. 23), but always the subjective fazth, which however, as 








CHAP. IIL 3. 137 


here, may be regarded objectively ; and hence also adherents of 
the second interpretation (as Calvin, Grotius, Zachariae, Rosen- 
miiller, and others) are wrong in taking miotis as system of 
doctrine. Moreover, axon, in the sense of preaching (discourse 
heard), but not in the sense of auditio, is familiar in the N. 
T. (so even in Rom. x. 16, John xii 38, passages which 
Matthias seeks to explain differently); hence Holsten incor- 
rectly takes wiorews as the genitive of the subject to dxojs, 
so that the aiotis is the dxovovca,—a view opposed also by 
Rom. x. 17. But Hofmann also is incorrect in holding that 
it should be construed é« aiotews axons (faith in news an- 
nounced) ; against which the antithesis é£ épywv voyov is de- 
cisive. Through the news concerning faith, which was preached 
to them, the readers had become believers (Rom. x. 17; Heb. 
iv. 2), and consequently partakers of the Holy Spirit. Lastly, 
Flatt and Matthies, following a few ancient expositors, have 
quite arbitrarily and, although not without linguistic precedent 
in the LXX. (1 Sam. xv. 22), without any countenance from 
the N. T., understood dxojs as equivalent to émaxojs (Rom. i. 5, 
xvi. 26; 1 Pet. i. 22). The acceptance of the dxo) mictews 
which took place on the part of the readers was understood 
by them as a matter of course, since from this adxoy proceeded 
the reception of the Spirit. They were in fact called through 
the gospel. | | 

Ver. 3. Are ye to such a degree irrational ?—pointing to what 
follows. The interrogative view (in opposition to Hofmann) is 
in keeping with the fervour of the language, and is logically 
justified by the indication of the high degree implied in 
odtws. On ovtws, comp. Soph. Ant. 220, ove éorw oitw 
pepos: John ii. 16; Gal 1.6; Heb. xi. 21; and see Voigt- 
lander, ad Luc. D. M. p. 220; Jacob, ad Luc. Alex. p. 28. — 
évapEdpevor mvevpatt, vov capKi émuterciobe ;| After ye have 
begun by means of the Spirit, are ye now brought to completion 
by means of the flesh? The second part of the sentence is 
ironical: “ After ye have made a beginning in the Christian 
life by your receiving the Holy Spirit (ver. 2), are ye now to be 
made perfect by your becoming persons whose life is subject 
to the government of the odp&? Do ye lend yourselves to 
such completion as this?” In the same measure in which the 


138 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


readers went back to the legal standpoint and departed from 
the life of faith, must they again be emptied of the Holy Spirit 
which they had received, and consequently be re-converted 
from mvevyatixol into capxixol (Rom. vii. 5, 14), that is, men 
who, loosed from the influence of the Holy Spirit, are again 
under the dominion of the cdp£ which ‘impels to sin (Rom. 
vii. 14 ff., viii. 7 f., e¢ al.). For the law cannot overcome the 
odp& (Rom. viii. 3,4; 1 Cor. xv. 56). According to this view, 
therefore, wvedua and odp£' designate, not Christianity and 
Judaism themselves, but the specific agencies of life in Chris- 
tianity and Judaism (Rom. vii. 5, 6), expressed, indeed, with- 
out the article in qualitative contrast as Spirit and flesh, but in 
the obvious concrete application meaning nothing else than 
-the Holy Spirit and the unspiritual, corporeal and psychical 
nature of man, which draws him into opposition to God and 
inclination to sin (see eg. Rom. iv. 1; John iii. 6). — évapEd- 
pevor] What rt is which, they have begun, is obvious from 
mvetpa éhaBere in ver. 2, namely, the state into which they 
entered through the reception of the Spirit—the Christian 
life? This reception is “ the indisputable sign of the existence 
and working of true Christianity,” Ewald. — émuredcicGe] is 
understood by most modern expositors (including Baumgarten- 
Crusius, de Wette, Hilgenfeld, Ewald, Wieseler, Hofmann) as 
middle (comp. Luther, Castalio, and others); although Koppe 
(with whom Riickert agrees) entirely obliterates the literal 
sense by the assumption, that it is put so only for the sake of 
the contrast and denotes “tantum id, quod nune inter Gal. 
fiert solebat, contrarium pristinae eorum sapientiae,” etc. Winer 
explains more definitely : “carne finire, h. e. ita ad tyv odpxa 
se applicare, ut in his studiis capxtxois plane acquiescas ;” 
and Wieseler: “instead of your advancing onward to the goal, 


! Following Chrysostom, Theophylact, and many ancient expositors, Riickert, 
Usteri, and Schott believe that eapxi is chosen with special reference to circum- 
cision (Eph. ii. 11). But the context by no means treats specially of circum- 
cision, and the contrast of itself necessarily involved sapxé. 

3 Bos, Wolf, and others, as also Schott, assume the figurative idea of a race 
in the stadium. But this reference would require to be suggested by the conteat 
(asin v. 7); for although iwrsasioa.s is used of the completion of a race, as of 
every kind of completion (Herodian. viii. 8. 5, iii. 8. 17 f., iv. 2. 7), it has not 
this special meaning of itself, but acquires it from the context. 








CHAP, III. 3. 139 


ye make the. most shameful retrogression ;” comp. Hofmann. 
But éziredeiy and ézuredcicGas always denote ending in the 
sense of completion, of accomplishing and bringing fully to 
a conclusion (consummare): see especially Phil. i. 6, 0 évap&a- 
pevos . . . émetenéoes; 1 Sam. iii. 12, dpEouas xa émitedéow : 
Zech. iv. 9; Luke xiii. 32; Rom. xv. 28; 2 Cor. vii. 1, viii. 
6,11; Heb. viii 5, ix. 6. Comp. Thucyd. iv. 90. 4, dca qv 
trroXNourra emrtreneoas: Xen. Anab. iv. 3.13. If, therefore, the 
word is taken as middle, it must be explained: “ After ye have 
begun (your Christian life) with the Spirit, do ye now bring 
(that which ye have begun) to completion with the flesh?” 
Comp. Holsten. But the active fo complete is always in the 
N. T. represented by ézriredety, not by érereActo Oar in the middle 
(comp., on the contrary, 1 Pet. v. 9), however undoubted is the 
occurrence of the medial use among Greek authors (Plat. Phil. 
p. 27 C; Xen. Mem. iv. 8. 8; Polyb. i. 40. 16, ii 58. 10, v. 
108. 9). Moreover, the tocaira émdOere eixn which follows 
(see on ver. 4) makes the subject of érureAcitoOe appear as siu/- 
fering, and thereby indicates the word to be passive, as, follow- 
ing the Vulgate (consummaminz), Chrysostom, and Theophylact, 
many of the older expositors have understood it,—viz., so 
that the Judaistic operations, which the readers had experience 
of and allowed to be practised on themselves, are expressed by - 
antiphrasis, and doubtless in reference to their own opinion 
and that of their teachers, as their Christian completion (réd€toe 
moveiaGe!), Comp. also Matthias, Vomel, Reithmayr. But how 
cutting and putting to shame this irony is, is felt at once from 
the contradictory juxtaposition of carne perficimint ! Nearest 
to our view (without, however, bringing forward the <ronical 
character of the words) comes that of Beza, who says that per- 
fictmint applies to the teaching of the pseudo-apostles, who 
ascribed “Christo tantum initia, legi perfectionem justitiae.” 
Comp. Semler. The present denotes that the Galatians were 
just occupied in this éveteXeto8ae. Comp.i.6. The emphatic 
vov (“nune, cum magis magisque deberetis spirituales fieri 
relicta carne,” Bengel) should have prevented it from being 
taken as the Altec future (Studer, Usteri). 


1 Some of them indeed translating it passively, but in the interpretation (comp. 
Erasmus, Calvin, and others, also Bengel) not strictly maintaining the passive sense. 


140 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


Ver. 4. After Paul, by the viv capxl émiredciobe, has re- 
minded his readers of all that they had most foolishly sub- 
mitted to at the hands of the false apostles, in order to be 
made, according to their own and their teachers’ fancy, finished 
Christians, he now discloses to them the uselessness of it in 
the exclamation (not interrogation), “ So much have ye suffered 
without profit!” What he means by tocatra émdéere, is there- 
fore everything with which the false apostles in their Judaistic 
zeal had molested and burdened the Galatians,——the many 
exactions, in name of compliance with the law, which these 
had necessarily to undergo at the hands of their new teachers, 
Comp. 1. 6 f, iv. 10, v. 2, 8, vi. 12, i, 4. Comp. 2 Cor. xi, 
20. Bengel refers it to the patient endurance of the apostle’s 
ministry, produced through the Holy Spirit; but this view is 
not at all suggested by the context, and would not correspond 
to the sense of mdoyew (but rather of dvéyeoOar). All the 
expositors before Schomer (in Wolf) and Homberg, as also 
Grotius, Calovius, Wolf, Semler, Michaelis, Morus, Riickert, 
Olshausen, Reithmayr, and others, understand it (following 
Chrysostom and Augustine) of the sufferings and persecutions 
on account of Christianity ; so that Paul asks, “Have ye suf- 
fered so much in vain? Seeing, namely, that ye have fallen 
-away from the faith and hence cannot attain to the glory 
which tribulation brings in its train” (2 Cor. iv. 17; Rom. 
viii. 17). But, apart from the fact that no extraordinary suffer- 
ings on the part of the Galatians are either touched upon in 
the epistle (iv. 29 is quite general in its character) or known 
to us otherwise, this interpretation is completely foreign to 
the connection. After Schomer and Homberg, others (includ- 
ing Schoettgen, Raphel, Kypke, Zachariae, Koppe, Rosenmiiller, 
Borger, Flatt, Winer, Usteri, Schott, Baumgarten-Crusius, de 
Wette, Hilgenfeld, Wieseler, Hofmann, Matthias) explain it: 
“So many benefits (by means of the Spirit) have ye experienced 
in vain?” So also Fritzsche, Diss. I. in 2 Cor. p. 54, and 
Holsten. Certainly racye, something befalls me, is a vox media 
(hence Matthies even wishes to understand it of the agree- 
able and disagreeable together), which, according to the well- 
known Greek usage, as the passive side of the idea of soveiy, 
may be employed also of happy experiences (Xen. Anab. v. 5. 


CHAP, III. 4, 141 


9: dyabov pév tt mrdoyew, Kaxov Sé pndév); but, as the latter 
use of the word always occurs with a qualitative addition 
either expressed (ed, ydpwv, Tepmrvoy, dya0d, dviotpa, or the like) 
or indicated beyond doubt by the immediate context (as Joseph. 
Antt. iii. 15.1: d0a rabovtes é& abtod nai wnrixwy evepyeotav 
petanaBorres), it is not to be found at all in the whole of the 
New Test., the LXX., or the Apocrypha (not even Esth. ix. 
29). Thus the interpretation, even if tocatra could convey 
any such qualitative definition of the text, is without precedent 
in the usage of Scripture. Paul in particular, often as he 
speaks about the experiences of divine grace, never uses for 
this purpose zracyew, which with him always denotes the ex- 
perience of suffering. He would have written, as the correla- 
tive of the bestowal of grace, éAdfere or edéEacbe (2 Cor. vi. 
1). Ewald’s suggestion of powerful and vehement movements 
of the Spirit is forced, and unwarranted by the text. The 
very word tocatra points to the suffering of evil, just as 
TONG, paAa TWOAAA trabeiv, without xaxd or the like, is fre- 
quently so used in Greek authors. — ele xal eixyj] A hint 
that the case might be still worse than was expressed in eixj: if 
endeed it 1s only in vain (and not even to the positive jeopardy 
of your Messianic salvation) that ye have suffered. On xai, 
compare Hartung, Partvkell. I. p. 136; Baeuml. Partch. p. 150. 
So, in substance, Beza, Grotius, Wolf, Semler, Kypke, Michaelis, 
Rosenmiiller, Paulus, Matthies, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, 
de Wette, Ewald, Wieseler, Matthias, and others. Chrysostom 
and his followers discover a mitigation and encouragement to 
improvement in the words (et yap BovAnBeinré Gnow avavippas 
kal avaxrncacba: éavrods, ovx eixy, Chrysostom), as also 
Ambrose, Luther,’ Erasmus, Calvin, Clarius, Zeger, Calovius, 
Cornelius a Lapide, Estius, Zachariae, Morus, and others. In 
this case xaf must be understood as really (Hartung, I. p. 
132); but the idea of improvement, whereby the supposed case 
of the e¢x would be cancelled, is not indicated by aught in the 
context. Even should the words be taken as merely leaving 
open the possibility, that matters had not actually already gone 
so far with the readers (Hofmann), Paul himself would have 


1 **Objurgat quidem, sed ita ut semper oleum juxta infundat, ne eos ad des- 
perationem adigat. . . , Non omnino abjeci spem de vobis,” 


6 


142 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS, 


rendered his very earnest reproach rocaira éma0. eixyn both pro- 
blematical and ambiguous, and would thus have taken the whole 
pith out of it.—edye] assuming, namely, that ye even only, etc., 
makes the condition more prominent, and serves to intensify 
the mere e<. Paul fears that more may take place than that 
which was only expressed by ei#7. This, however, is conveyed 
by the context, and is independent of the yé, instead of which 
aép might have been used. See Baeuml. lc. p. 64 f. Comp. 
on 2 Cor. v. 3; Eph. iii 2. Still more marked prominence 
would have been given to the condition by eizrep ye xai (Plat. 
Theaet. p. 187 D; Herod. vi. 16). 

Ver. 5. After the logical parenthesis (vv. 3, 4), ody resumes 
(Hartung, Partikell. II. p. 22 f£.; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 719) 
what was said in ver. 2, but in an altered tense (the pre- 
sent), in order to annex the example of Abraham as a proof 
of justification by faith. — émrvyopnyav and évepyay are not 
to be understood as «imperfect participles (Castalio, Bengel, 
Semler, and others); for, if referring to the reception of the 
Spirit for the first time corresponding to éAdfere in ver. 2, 
Paul must have written éiyopyyjcas and évepyjcas. No, 
he denotes the émeyopnyety x.7.d. as still continuing among the 
Galatians; it has not yet ceased, although now, of course, in 
consequence of the active efforts of the Judaizers under which 
they had suffered, it could not but be less strong and general 
than previously (viv capxt étitedcioGe, ver. 3); “ nondum 
ceciderant, sed inclinabantur, ut caderent,’ Augustine. — In 
émruyopnyelv the evi is not insuper, but denotes the direction, 
~ as in the German ‘ darreichen, zukommen lassen’ (2 Cor. ix. 10; 
Col. ii 19; 2 Pet. i. 5; comp. also Phil. 1. 19). — xab évepy.] 
and-—to make mention of a particular ydpiopa — which, 
etc. — duvayers] may be miracles (1 Cor. xii. 10), in which 
case év is among (Winer and others); or miraculous powers 
(1 Cor. xii. 28), in Which case év is within you (Borger, 
Usteri, Matthies, Schott, Olshausen, Wieseler, and others). 
The analogy of 1 Cor. xii. 6 (comp. -Phil. ii 13; Eph. ii. 2) 
favours the latter. — é& Epywv vopuou, 4 éE axons wict.] se. - 
mot tovro (Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 336), or émiyopnyel opty 
TO Tvedpa x. évepyel Suvapes év vutv; Is this his operation 
upon you caused by works of the law or by the news of faith 2. 


CHAP. IIL 6, 7. 143 © 


comes it in consequence of your prosecuting those works, or of 
such news being communicated to you? by the former way 
of active merit, or by the latter way of the reception of divine 
preaching? As to axon wiotews, here also not (with Hof- 
mann) = wiotis axons, see on ver. 2. 

Ver. 6. The answer, obvious of itself, to the preceding 
question is: é& axons wiotews ; and to this, but not directly to 
that question itself (as Hofmann holds, according to his wrong 
interpretation of axojs wiotews), Paul subjoins—making use 
of the words well known to his readers, Gen. xv. 6, according 
to the LXX.—that great religious-historic argument for the 
righteousness of faith, which is presented in the justification 
of the progenitor of the theocratic people. Seeing that Paul 
has just specified the .operation of the Spirit caused by the 
preached news of faith, as that which proves the justifying power of 
faith, he may with just logic continue: even as Abraham believed 
God (trusted His Messianic promise; comp. on John viii 56), 
and w (this faith) was counted to him as rightcousness, that is, 
in the judgment of the gracious God was imputed to him as 
rectitude.' Neither, therefore, is a colon to be placed (with 
Koppe) after ’A8p., nor (with Beza and Hilgenfeld) is ver. 6 
to be considered as protasis and ver. 7 as apodosis, for ver. 7 
is evidently independent, and it would be a very arbitrary 
course (with Hilgenfeld) to take ver. 6 as an anacoluthon. 
See, moreover, on Rom. iv. 3; Hoelemann, de justitie ex fide 
ambabus in V. T. sedibus, Lips. 1867, p. 8 ff. For the reward 
of Abraham’s justifying faith according to Gen. l.c., see Jas. ii. 
22 f.; 1 Macc. it 52; and Mechilta in Jalkut Sim. I. £ 69. 3, 
“hoc planum est, Abrahamum neque hunc mundum neque 
futurum haereditate consequi potuisse, nisi per fidem, qua 
credidit, q. d. Gen. xv. 6.” 

Ver. 7. Know ye therefore (since Abraham’s faith ‘was 
counted to him for righteousness) that those who are of faith, 
etc. — ywwoxere is taken as indicative by Cyprian, ep. 63 ad 
Caecjl., Jerome, Ambrose, Luther, Erasmus, Beza, Menochius, 


1 It is self-evident from the words of the text, how improperly the idea of 
sanctification is here mixed up with justification by the Catholics (also Bisping 
and Reithmayr). We have here justification simply as an actus forensis of the 
divine judgment, and that proceeding from grace. Rom. iv. 2 ff. 


144 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


Piscator, Semler, Rosenmiiller, Riickert, Reithmayr, and others. 
The tone of the passage is more animated by taking it as im- 
perative.. — oi é« aiot.| designates believers, according to 
this their specific peculiarity, under the point of view of origin. 
It is fatth from which their spiritual state of life proceeds. 
Comp. Rom. ii 8, iii. 26, iv. 14; John xviii. 37, e al. — 
ovrou| has the emphasis (comp. Rom. vill. 14, ix. 6): these, and 
no others. The contrast here is usually supposed to be: not 
the bodily descendants of Abraham. But how foreign to the 
context is a comparison: between the bodily and spiritual 
children of Abraham! The only interpretation in harmony 
with the context is: “these, and not those who are é& Epywv 
vouov.” See vv. 8-10. So also, correctly, Riickert and 
Wieseler. — viot ’ABp.] children of Abraham in the true 
sense. For the true vioi can have no,nature different from 
the essential nature of the father. aap John viii. 8, 39 ; 
Rom. iv. 11 f. 

Vv. 8, 9. After having pointed out from the Scripture that 
none other than believers are sons of Abraham, Paul now 
shows further according to Scripture that none other than 
these have a share in Abraham’s Dlcessing, that is, are justified. 

Ver. 8. 4é] marks the transition from the sonship of 
Abraham pertaining to believers to the participation in his: 
blessing. —- mpoitdovca] personification. Comp. ver. 22; Rom. 
iv. 3, ix. 17; John vii. 38. The Scripture foresaw and the 
Scripture announced beforehand, inasmuch as whatever God 
foresaw and announced beforehand—in reference, namely, to 
that which is at present taking place—formed an element of 
Scripture, and was expressed in it. Comp. the frequent Aéyee 
» ypadn ; likewise Stphra, f. 186.2: Quid vidit (AN) scriptura, 
etc. — é« miotews] is the main point of the participial 
sentence: of faith, not of the works of the law as the causal 
condition on the side of man. — Sixato?] present, for the time 
foreseen (mpoidodca) was the Christian present. — ra vn] 
the Gentiles (comp. ver. 14), so that the latter have not to 
subject themselves to the law in order to become righteous. 
— Tpoevyyyedicato] pre-announced the glad tidings. mpo 

1 The Vulgate has in Lachmann’s text, cognoscite. So also Castalio, Calvin, 
and others, as well as most modern expositors. 





CHAP. IIL 8 . 145 


refers, as in mpoiSovca, to the future realization in Christian 
times. This promise was a gospel before the gospel. The 
word does not occur elsewhere in the New Test., in the LXX., 
or the Apocrypha; but it is found in Philo, de opif. m. p, 7 A, 
de nom. mut. p. 1069 D; also Schol. Soph. Trach. 335. —- 

drt évevroynOno. év cot mavta ta evn] Gen. xii. 3, quoted . 
according to the LXX. with the recitative é71, but so that, 
instead of waocas at gudat Ths yas, wdvra Ta Gyn is adopted 
from Gen. xviii. 18 (comp. also xxii 18); and this not 
accidentally, but because Paul is dealing with Gentile Chris- 
tians, whom it was desired to subject to the law. Hence 
(and see ver. 14) it is not to be explained (with Winer, 
Matthias, Schott, Baumgarten-Crusius, following earlier expo- 
sitors) of all nations, both Jews and Gentiles. — The emphasis 
in this utterance of promise is to be laid, not on wdvta (Schott), 
but on the prefixed évevAoynOyjcovrar. For if the Scriptur 
had not foreseen that faith would justify the Gentiles, it would 
not have promised - blessing ii Abraham to all the -Gentiles; 
from which it follows (ver. 10) that it is believers who receive 
this blessing, and not those of the law, on whom indeed the 
Scripture pronounces not blessing, but curse (ver. 10). The 
characteristic évevAoy. can only be meant to apply to those 
who are of faith, and not to those who are of the law. What 
it is that in Paul’s view is expressed by évevAoyeioGat, Gen. 
xii. 3, in its Messianic fulfilment, is evident from the preced- 
ing 6re éx« tmictews Sixatot Ta EOvn, namely, God’s gracious gift 
of justification (the opposite of the xardpa, vv. 10, 11), which, 
because it is promised as 6lessing, can only be shared by 
believers, and not by those of the law who are under cure.’ 
The correctness of this view is certainly confirmed by ver. 14, 
where to the reception of the blessing there is annexed, as a 
further reception, that of the Holy Spirit, so that the bestowal 


1 De Wette, who is followed by Wieseler, understands the blessing to be 
‘‘ the whole salvation of the kingdom of God,”—an idea too comprehensive for 
the context. Bahr (in Stud. u. Krit. 1849, p. 920) erroneously concludes from 
ver. 14, that by the blessing is meant the reception of the Spirit. See on ver. 14. 
This reception, as well as the Messianic salvation generally,—or, ‘‘ the good 
which is intended for mankind,” as Hofmann puts it,—ensues as a consequence 
of the siacyia, as the Messianic deere ensues as a consequence of the 
xardépe, if the latter, as in the case of those who adhere to the works of the law, 


K 


146 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


of the Spirit is not included in the idea of the evdAoyia, but 
this idea is limited in conformity with the context to the justi- 
fication, with which the whole reception of salvation begins. 
— éy cos is not: per tuam posteritatem, t.e. Christum (Jerome, 
Oecumenius, Menochius, Estius, Calovius, Rambach, Morus, 
Borger, Flatt, Schott; comp. also Bengel), by which interpre- 
tation the personal coi (and how much at variance with ver. 
9!) is entirely set aside, as if év T@ omépparti cov (ver. 16) 
were used. But itis: in thee; that is, in the fact that thou 
art blessed (art justified) is involved (as a consequence) the 
blessedness of all the Gentiles, in so far as all the Gentiles 
are to attain justification by faith, and it is in the blessing of 
Abraham, the father of all the faithful (Rom. iv.), that the 
connection between faith and justification is opened and in- 
stituted for all future time. Comp. Ellicott. On évevroyeiobar, 
to be blessed in the person of any one, a word which does not 
occur in Greek authors, comp. Acts ui. 25, Ecclus. xliv. 21. 
Ver. 9: “Qore] The general résult from vv. 7,8. If, namely, 
believers are sons of Abraham (ver. 7), and if’ the Scripture, in 
its promise of blessing to Abraham, has had in view faith as 
the source of divine justification for the Gentiles, believers 
accordingly are those who are blessed with believing Abraham. 
@®ore is used in its common acceptation of the actual conse- 
. quence, and is therefore not to be explained in the sense of 
o’tws viv, to which Hofmann’s view comes. — ot é« awiotews] 
has the whole emphasis, as in ver. 7.— ov 1T@ wiot@ 'ABp. | 
Paul does not repeat év, but writes ovv, because he looks 
from the present time of evAoyodyras into the past, in which 
Abraham stands forth as the blessed one, with whom those 
who become blessed are now placed on a like footing. ovdv 
is not, however, equivalent to xafws, a view on behalf of 
which appeal ought not to be made to Rom. viii. 32 (Koppe and 
others); but it expresses fellowship, for believers, inasmuch 
is not cancelled (ver. 10). The siacyia, therefore, is not yet the blessing of 
Messianic salvation itself, the *Amnpoveyia, but, as Hunnius (in Calovius) aptly 
explains it, ‘‘ Benedici in hac promissione est liberari maledictione legis aeternae 
et vicissim haeredem scribi justitiae et bonorum coelestium.” Grotius is much 
too indefinite : ‘‘ Summa bona adipiscentur.” Also Ewald’s paraphrase, ‘‘ the 


blessing of the true religion,” is too general. Beza, Usteri, Riickert, take the 
right view ; comp. also Moller (on de Wette) and Reithmayr. 





CHAP. III. 10, 147 


as they are blessed (justified), share with believing Abraham 
the same divine benefit which began in his person and is ex- 
tended to believers as the viovs homogeneous with him. The 
predicate wrucr@ is added to ’Afp., in order to denote the simi- 
larity of the ethical character, which necessarily accompanies 
the similarity of the result. 

Ver. 10. Argumentum e contrario for the correctness of the 
result exhibited in ver. 9." For how entirely different is the 
position of those who are workers of the law! These, as a 
whole, according to the Scripture, are under @ cwrse; so that 
it cannot be supposed that they should become blessed. The 
extension of the argumentative force of the yap to the whole 
series of propositions, vv. 10-14 (Holsten, Hofmann), so that 
ver. 10 would only form the introduction to the argument, is 
the less to be approved, because this yap is followed by a 
second and subordinate ydp, and then in ver. 11 an argument 
entirely complete in itself is introduced by 5é Moreover, by 
the quotation of Scripture in-ver. 10 that which it is intended 
to prove (éc0e «.7.X.) is proved completely and strikingly.” — 
Scot yap && Epywv vouov eciciy] the opposite ‘of the of é& 
awiorews in ver. 7: for all who are of works of the law, that 
is, those whose characteristic moral condition is produged and 
regulated by observance of the law (comp. on Rom. ii. 8), 
the men of law, of éyouevot tod voyov, Oecumenius. Comp. 
o épyatouevos, Rom. iv. 4. — The quotation is from Deut. 
xxvii. 26 freely after the LXX.; and the probative force of . 
the passage in reference to dcot . . . td Katdpay eiot turns 
on the.fact that no one is adequate, either quantitatively or 
qualitatively, to the dumévew ey maot «.7.r.;° consequently 
all who are é€& épywy vouou are subjected to the curse here 
ordained. He alone would not be so, who should really render 
the complete (ev maot) and constant (éupéver) obedience to the 
law, by virtue of which he as a doer of the law would neces- 
sarily be pronounced righteous (Rom. ii. 13), and would have 


1 The conclusion is based upon the dilemma : either from faith or from the 
law. Tertium non datur. This is no supposititious idea (as Hofmann objects), 
but a necessary logical assumption, such as exists in every argument e con- 
trario. 

* In opposition to Holsten, 2. Hvang. d. Paul. u. Petr. p. 290. 


148 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


a claim to salvation as ode/Anua (Rom. iv. 4); but see Rom. 
iii, 9-20, vii. 7-25. — émixardparos] se. éort, WN, xarnpd- 
pevos, Matt. xxv. 41, that is, has incurred the divine opy7. 
Comp. Rom. iv. 15. The word does not occur in Greek 
authors, among whom xardpatos is frequently used. But 
comp. Wisd. iii, 13, xiv. 8; Tob. xiii, 12; 4 Mace. ii 19. 
The amwdcva, eternal death, the opposite of the Sjcera: in 
ver. 11, ensues as the final destiny of the émrxardpatos (comp. 
Matt. xxv. 41), the consummation and effect of the xardpa. 
— ds ovx éupéver] What is written in the book of the law is 
conceived as the normal range of action, which -man sfeps be- 
yond. Comp. Acts xiv. 22; Heb. viii. 9; 2 Tim. iii 14; Xen. 
Ages. 1,11; Thue. iv. 118. 9; Plat. Legg. viii p. 844 C; Polyb. 
iii 70. 4; Isocr. de Pace, p. 428 jfin.; Liban. IV. 271, Reiske; 
Joseph, Antt. villi. 10. 3, et al. More frequently used by 
classical authors with the mere dative than with év. — maou] 
as well as the previous 7ds, is found in the Samaritan text 
and in the LXX., but not in the Hebrew. Jerome, however, 
groundlessly accuses the Jews of: mutilating the text on pur- 
pose (to mitigate the severity of the expression). — tod zroc7- 
oat aura] design of the dupéves «.7.r. 

Ver. 11 f. 4é] carrying on the argument. After Paul in 
ver. 10 has proved the participation of believers in the bless- 
ing of Abraham by the argumentum e contrario, that those who 
are of the law are under curse, it is his object now—=in order 
to complete the doctrinal explanation begun in ver. 6 on 
the basis of Scripture—to show, on the same basis, the only 
way of justification, and that (a) negatwely: it is not by 
the way of the law that man becomes righteous (vv. 11, 12), 
and (6) positwely: Christ has made us free from the curse of 
the law (ver. 13), Observe (in opposition to Wieseler’s ob- 
jection) that in d:casodrat wrapd +. Oc@, the being justified in 
spite of the curse, and consequently the becoming free from it, 
is clearly and necessarily implied by the context preceding 
(ver. 10) and following (ver. 13). — Vv. 11 and 12 contain 
a complete syllogism ; 0 Sixatos ex aiot. Sjoeras forming the 
major proposition, ver. 12 the minor, and év vou@ ovdets 
Sixavodrar Tapa tm Oe@ the conclusion. The subtle objec- 
tions of Hofmann are refuted not only by the combination o 


CHAP, IIL. 11. 149 


Sixawos éx triorews, but also by the necessary inner correlation 
of Suxastoovvn and fw7, which are put as reciprocal. — The first 
6re is declaratory, and the second causal: “but that through 
the law no one. . ., is evident, because,” etc. Homberg and 
Flatt take them conversely: “ But because through the law no 
one. . ., itis evident that,” etc. The circumstance that 5j\op 
Sr¢ must mean 7 7s evident, that (Flatt), comp. 1 Cor. xv. 27, 
is not to be adduced as favouring the latter view; for in our 
interpretation also it has this meaning, only érs is made to 
precede (see Kiihner, II. p. 626). Against it, on the other 
hand, we may urge, that ver. 12 would be quite superfluous 
and irrelevant to the argument, and also that o Sixasos éx 
miorews Ejoerat, as a well-known aphorism of Scripture, is far 
more fitly employed to prove than to be itself proved. Far 
better is the view of Bengel, who likewise is not inclined to 
separate d7A0v re: “ Quod attinet ad id (the former é7z thus 
being equivalent to eis éexelvo, Stt, 2 Cor. i 18, xi 10; John 
ii. 18, ix. 17), quod in lege nemo justificetur coram Deo, id 
sane certum est,” etc. The usual view is, however, more na- 
tural’ and more emphatic. Hofmann, in loc. and Schriftbew. 
I. p. 615 f, wishes to take vv. 11, 12 as protasis to vv. 13, 
14; according to his view, dre specifies the cause, and d7Aov 
(or SAovore) only introduces the illustration of this cause. 
But we thus get a long parenthetically involved period, 
differing from the whole context, in which Paul expresses 
himself only in short sentences without periodic complica- 
tion; moreover, the well-known use of SyAovoTs as namely 
(see especially Buttmann, ad Plat. Crit. p.106; Bast, Palacogr. 
p- 804) does not occur elsewhere in the N. T., although the 
opportunities for its use were very frequent (1 Cor. xv. 27, 
1 Tim. vi. 7, are wrongly adduced) ; further, it is @ priori very 
improbable that the two important quotations in vv. 11, 12 
should be destined merely for incidental illustration (comp. Rom. 
i. 17); and lastly, there would result an awkward thought, as 
if, namely, Christ had been moved to His work of redemption, 


1 For if we take Bengel’s explanation, the 3%Aey will not suit well the fol- 
lowing words, because they form an utterance of Scripture. We should expect 
possibly yiyparras, so that then the first 3+: would have to be understood as: 
iva cides, 37s (Fritzsche, Quaest. Luc. p. 59 ff. ; Schaef. ad Dem. II. p. 71). © 


150 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS, 


in the death on the cross, by the reflection contained in vv. 11, 
12 (comp., on the contrary, iv. 3-5; Rom. viii. 3; 2 Cor. 
v. 21). — & vopug] not: by observance of the law, which would 
be é& épywv vououv (Erasmus, Koppe, Rosenmiiller, and others), 
but: through the law, in so far, namely, as the law is an insti- 
tution which does not cancel the curse so pronounced and 
procure justification ; for otherwise faith must have been its 
principle, which is not the case (see the sequel). The law is 
consequently, 2 principle, not the means by the use of which 
@ man can attain to justification. On this aévvarov rod vouov 
(Rom. viii. 3), comp. Lipsius, Rechtfertigungsl. p. 68 ; Neander, 
II. p. 658 ff.; Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 286 f. Xptoros in ver. 
13 corresponds to the emphatically prefixed év vouw (what by 
the law is not done, Christ has effected); therefore év is not 
to be understood (with Riickert, de Wette, and others) as: i, 
in the condition of Judaism, or in the sense of the rule 
(Wieseler), but as: through, by means of. — mapa ro Oca] 
qudice Deo, opposed to the judgment of men. Comp. Rom. 
ii, 13; Winer, p. 369 [E. T. 492]. — 0 Steatos ee mlorews 
tjoetai] an aphorism of Scripture well known to the readers, 
‘which therefore did not need any formula of quotation (D* 
E F G, Syr. Erp. It., have yéyparras ydp before Sr, F G also 
omitting d7Aov). Comp. 1 Cor. xv. 27; Rom. ix.7; and van 
Hengel in loc. The passage is from Hab. ii. 4, according to the 
LXX. (0 8é Sixavos ex mior. pou &joeras, or, according to A.: 
6 8& Sle. pou ée mr. p. £), where it is said: The righteous (P™S) 
shall through his fidelity (towards God) become partaker of 
(theocratic) life-blessedness. The apostle, glancing back from 
the Messianic fulfilment of this saying—which he had every- 
where in view, and experienced most deeply in his own con- 
sciousness—to the Messianic destination of it, recognises as 
its prophetic sense: “ He who 1s righteous through Sarth (in 
Christ) shall obtain (Messianic) life.” Comp. on Rom. i. 17. 
In so doing Paul, following the LXX., which very often 
renders M08 by zioris, had the more reason for retaining 
this word, because the faithful self-surrender to God (to His 
promise and grace) is the fundamental essence of faith in 
Christ; and he might join é« qictews to o Sixasos, because 
the life é« micrews presupposes no other righteousness than 








CHAP. III. 12. 151 


that é« miotews. Here also, as in Rom, lc. (otherwise in Heb. 
x. 38), the words 6 Sixavos é« miotews are to be connected 
(Chrysostom, Cajetanus, Pareus, Bengel, Baumgarten, Zacha- 
riae, Michaelis, Semler, Morus, Griesbach, Knapp, Riickert, 
Winer, Gramm. p. 129 [E. T. 170], Hilgenfeld, Reithmayr, 
Hoelemann, and others), and not é« aicrews Sjoerat (so most 
of the older expositors, following Jerome and Augustine; also 
Borger, Winer, Matthies, Schott, de Wette, Wieseler, Ewald, 
Holsten, Hofmann, Matthias): for Paul desires to point out 
the cause of the righteousness, and not that of the life of the 
righteous, although this has the same cause; and in ver. 12, 
6 Toijoas aura stands in contrast not to o Sixasos merely, but 
to o Sixatos éx mictews. Compare, besides, Hoelemann, /.c. p. 
41f Paul, however, did not write o é« miotews Sixatos or 
Sixavos o éx mlotews, because this important saying was well 
known and sanctioned by usage in the order of the words given 
by the LXX.; so that he involuntarily abstained from the 
freedom of dealing elsewhere manifested by him in quoting 
from Scripture. The grammatical correctness of the junction 
of éx aiot. to Sixatos is evident from the fact that the phrase 
Sixatodabas éx mior. is used; comp. ver. 8. 
Ver. 12. Minor proposition ; dé the syllogistic atgui. See 
on ver, 11. — ovx ori éx mictews, is not of faith, is not an 
‘institution which has faith as the principle of its nature and 
action. Comp. ver. 10.— dA’ o troimoas #.7.d.] but he who shall 
have done them (namely, the wpooraypara and xpluarta of God, 
Lev. xviil. 5) shall live (shall have life in the Messiah’s king- 
dom) through them, so that they form, in this way of doing, the 
channel of obtaining life. Thus in the express words of the law 
(Lev. xviii. 5), likewise presumed to be familiar to his readers, 
Paul introduces the nature of the law as contrasted with ex 
aiorews. Comp. Rom. x. 5. After arr’, yéypamras is not 
(with Schott) to be supplied (comp. also Matthias, who under- 
stands even ov« éorw as runs. not); but, as the form with the 
apostrophe indicates, Paul has connected a@AX’ immediately 
with 0 rrowjoas aird, leaving it to the reader not only to ex- 
plain for himself avrd and év avrots from his acquaintance 
with the O. T. context of the saying referred to, but also to 
complete for himself the connection from the first half of the 


- 152 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


verse : “ The law, however, has not faith as its principle; but 
the doer of the commandments—this is the axiom of the law 
—shall live by them.” Comp. on Rom. xv. 3; 1 Cor. i 31. 
Ver. 13. Connection: “ Through the law no one becomes 
righteous (vv. 11,12); Christ has redeemed us from the curse.” 
See on ver. 11. The asyndeton renders the contrast stronger. 
Comp. Col ii. 4. Riickert (comp. also Flatt, Koppe, Schott, 
Olshausen) reverts to ver. 10, supplying péy in ver. 10, and 
dé in ver. 13. This is incorrect, for Xpiotos finds its appro- 
priate antithesis in the words immediately preceding; and, as 
in general it is a mistake thus to supply wéy and 6é, it is 
here the more absurd, because écoe in ver. 10 has expressly 
received in ydp its reference to what precedes it. Against 
Hofmann’s interpretation, that ver. 13 is apodosis to vv. 
11, 12, see on ver. 11. — yas] applies to the Jews; for 
these were under the curse of the law‘ mentioned in ver. 10, 
and by faith in Christ made themselves partakers of the re- 
demption from that curse accomplished by Him, as Paul had 
himself experienced. Others have understood it as the Jews 
and Gentiles (Gomarus, Pareus, Estius, Flatt, Winer, Matthies). 
But against this view it may be urged, that the Gentiles 
were not under the curse of the Mosaic law (Rom. ii. 12); 
that a reference to the natural law as well (Rom. ii 14, 15) 
is quite foreign to the context (in opposition to Flatt); that 
the law, even if it had not been done away by Christ, would 
yet never have related to the Gentiles (in opposition to Winer), 
because it was the partition-wall between Jew and Gentile 
(Eph. 1. 14 f); and lastly, that afterwards in ver. 14 eis ta 
éGvn is placed in contrast to the judas, and hence it must not 
be said, with Matthies, that it so far applies to the Gentiles 
also, since the latter as Christians could not be under obliga- 
tion to the law,—which, besides, would amount to a very 
indirect sort of ransom, entirely different from the sense in 
which it applied to the Jews. — éEnyopacey] Comp. iv. 5; 
1 Cor. vi. 20, vii. 23; Eph. i. 7; 2 Pet. ii. 1; Matt. xx. 
28; Rev. v. 9 Diod. Hue. p. 530. 4; 1 Tim. ii 6; Polyb. 
1 Which is not to be turned into a subjective condition, as Bahr (Stud. u. 


Krit. 1849, p. 922) wishes, who explains it as the state of spiritual death, in 
consequence of his erroneous view of svaeyia in ver. 8. 





CHAP. IIL 13. 153 


iii, 42. 2. Those who are under obligation to the law as the 
record of the direct will of God,’ are subject to the divine 
curse expressed therein; but from the bond of this curse, 
from which they could not otherwise have escaped, Christ has 
redeemed them, and that by giving up for them His life upon 
the cross as a AvTpov paid to God the dator et vindex legis — 
having by His mors satisfactoria, suffered according to God’s 
gracious counsel in obedience to the same (Rom. v. 19; Phil 
ii. 8), procured for them the forgiveness of sins (Eph. i. 7; 
Col. i.14; Rom. iit 24; 1 Tim. il. 6: Matt. xx. 28, xxvi. 
28), so that the curse of the law which was to have come 
upon them no longer had any reference to them. This modus 
of the redemption is here expressed thus: “by His having 
become curse for us,” namely, by His crucifixion, in which He 
actually became the One affected by the divine opy7. The 
emphasis rests on the catadpa, which is therefore placed at the 
end and is immediately to be vindicated by a quotation from 
Scripture. This abstract, used instead of the concrete, is pur- 
posely chosen to strengthen the conception, and probably indeed 
with reference to the DDN n2eP, Deut. xxi. 23; comp. Thilo, 
ad Protev. Jac. 3, p.181. But xardpa is used without the 
article, because the object is to express that which Christ has 
become as regards the category of quality—He became curse, 
entered into the position, and into the de facto relation, of one ~ 
visited with the divine wrath ; it being obvious from the con- 
text that it was in reality the divine curse stipulated in the 
law, the accomplishment of which He suffered in His death, 
as is moreover expressly attested in the passage of Scripture 
that follows. Comp. Weiss, Wbl. Theol. p. 321,d; Kahnis, 
Dogm. I. p. 518 f.,, ITI. p. 382; Delitzsch, 2 Hebr. p. 714. 
The idea of xardpa as the curse of God—obvious of itself 
to every reader—forbids us to explain away (with Hofmann) 
the “ becoming a curse” as signifying, not that God. accom- 
plished Hts curse on Christ, but that God decreed respecting 
Christ that He should suffer that which men did to Him as 
fulfilment of the curse of the Jaw, which was not incurred by, 

1 For in the apostle’s view everywhere, and here also, the law is this, and ver. 


19 is not at variance with its being so (in opposition to Ritschl in d. Jahrb. f. 
D. Theol. 1863, p. 523 f.). Comp. on Col. ii. 15. 





154 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS, 


and did not apply to, Him. The exact real parallel, 2 Cor. v. 21, 
ought to have prevented any such evasive interpretation. And 
if Paul had not meant the curse of God, which Christ suffered 
inrép 1jv,—as no reader, especially after the passage of Scrip- 
ture which follows, could understand anything else,—he would 
have been practising a deception. Christ made sin by God, 
and so suffering the divine curse—that is just the foolishness 
of the cross, which is wiser than men (1 Cor. i. 25). Comp., 
besides, Rich. Schmidt, Paulin. Christol. p. 81, who, however, 
regards the contents of our passage and of 2 Cor. v. 21 under 
the point of view of the cancelling of sin (sin being viewed as 
an objective power), and thus comes into contact with Hof- 
manu’s theory. — wrép nuav] That vzrép, as in all passages in 
which the atoning death is spoken of, does not mean instead of 
(so here, Bengel, Koppe, Flatt, Riickert, Reithmayr, following 
earlier expositors; comp. also Lipsius, Rechifertigungsl. p. 1341), 
see on Rom. v. 6. Comp. oni 4. The satisfaction which 
Christ rendered, was rendered for our benefit ; that it was vi- 
carious,’ is implied in the circumstances of the case itself, and 
not in the preposition. The divine curse of the law must have 
been realized by all, who did not fully satisfy the law to which 
they were bound (and this no one could do), being compelled 
to endure the execution of the divine épy7 on themselves; but 
for their deliverance from the bond of this curse Christ inter- 
vened with His death, inasmuch as He died as an accursed 
one, and thereby, as by a purchase-price, dissolved that rela- 
tion to the law which implied a curse. Comp. 1 Cor. vi. 20, 
vi. 23; Col. u. 14. This effect depends certainly on the 
sinlessness of Christ (2 Cor. v. 21), without which His sur- 
rendered life could not have been a Avrpov (Matt. xx. 28), 
and He Himself, by the shedding of His blood, could not 
have been a tAacrypiov (Rom. iii. 25), because, with guilt of 


1 As is expressly stated in Matt. xx. 28, 1 Tim. ii. 6, by ¢y»ei. Comp. 
Thomasius, Chr. Pers. u. Werk, III. 1, p. 88 ff. ; Gess, in the Jahrb. f. Deutsche 
Theol. II. 4, III. 4. The less satisfactory is it, therefore, with Schweizer in the 
Stud. u. Krit. 1858, p. 425 ff., to find that the essential import of our passage 
only amounts to this, that the Mosaic law had been set aside on the appearance 
of Christianity, and that this setting aside was decisively evinced by the death 
on the cross. See, on the other hand, Baur in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschrift, 1859, p. 
226 ff., and in his newt. Theol. p. 156f. 


CHAP. III. 13. 155 


His own, He would have. been amenable to the curse on His 
own account, and not through taking upon Him the guilt of. 
others (John i. 29); but utterly aloof from and foreign to the 
N. T. is the idea which Hilgenfeld here suggests, that the curse 
of the law had lost its validity once for all, because it had for 
once shown itself as an wnrighteous curse. The death of Christ 
served precisely to show the righteousness of God, which has 
its expression in the curse of the law. See on Rom. i 25. 
— drt yéyp. . . . Evdov is not an epexegesis to yevou. var. ry. 
«ar. (Matthias, who writes 6, rz), but is a parenthesis in which 
the yevopuevos xatdpa, which had just been said of Christ, is 
vindicated agreeably to. Scripture, by Deut. xxi. 23, freely 
quoted from the LXX." Accursed (visited with the wrath of 
God) zs every one who (according to the LXX., in which the 
article is wanting, every one, if he) is hanged ona tree. The 
original historical sense of this passage applies to those male- 
factors who, in order to the aggravation of their punishment, 


1 The LXX. has xszarnpapives tad @sod wits xptedpsves iw) Evrov. The owe 
@rov is also expressed in the Hebrew. Jerome accuses the Jews here also of 
intentional falsification of the text, alleging that in an anti-Christian interest 
they had inserted the name of God into the original text. Bahr, in the Stud. wu. 
Krit. 1849, p. 928 ff., is of opinion that Paul purposely omitted tas @100, 80 as 
not to represent Christ as cursed by God (with which Hofmann agrees); that He 
was called cursed only because, through His death, He appeared as cursed before 
all to whom the law was given. But this is incorrect, because the expression is 
not Paul’s, and because, so interpreted, the whole proof adduced would amount 
only to a semblance, and not to a reality. Christ has certainly averted from men 
the curse of God which was ordained in the law (ver. 10), by the fact that He, 
as the bearer of the divine curse, died while hanging on the cross. Having 
thus actually become i:xardpares, He became the propitiatory sacrifice for those 
who were subject to the law, whom He consequently redeemed from the definite 
divine curse of the law (ver. 10), so that on the part of God the actus forensis of 
justification now commenced ; and for this reason, although the crucified One 
was iavixarcépares, Paul could elsewhere represent Him as éepen sbwdias (Eph. v. 2). 
Luther aptly remarks : ‘‘ 4% vis negare ewm esse peccatorem et maledictum, negato 
eliam passum, crucificum et mortuum.” The cause of the non-adoption of swe 
@sov cannot be that Paul, under the influence of a subordinate value assigned to 
the law as not directly given by God, had the passage imprinted on his mind 
without éwé @sod (Ritschl, Uc. p. 526), for he did not entertain any such estimate 
of its inferior value. We must, in fact, simply abide by the explanation that he 
quoted the passage of Scripture from a free recollection (as is already shown by 
ivixacdépaves and the addition of 2), and in doing so, having in view only the 
‘‘cursed” as the point of the passage, left unnoticed the entirely obvious ied 
@sev. In a similar way, in ver. 11, in the quotation Hab. ii. 4, he does not adopt 
the wev of the LXX. 


~ 


156 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


were after their execution publicly hung up on a (probably 
cross-shaped) stake,’ but were not allowed to remain hanging 
over the night, lest such accursed ones should profane the holy 
land (Deut. xxi. 23; Num. xxv. 4; Josh. x. 26; 2 Sam. iv. 
12). See Lund, Jid. Hetligth. ed. Wolf, p. 536; Saalschiitz, 
Mos. R. p. 460 f.; Bahr in the Stud. wu. Krit. 1849, p. 924f. 
Now, so far as Christ when put to death hung upon a stake 
(comp. Acts v. 30, x. 39; 1 Pet. ii 24), the predicate eézruxa- 
taparos applies also to Him; and this furnishes the scriptural 
proof of the preceding yevoyrevos xatdpa. - 

Ver. 14. Divine purpose in Christ’s redeeming us (the 
Jews) from the curse of the law; in order that the blessing 
promised to Abraham (justification ; see on ver. 8) might be 
imparted in Christ Jesus to the Gentiles (not: to all peoples, as 
Olshausen and Baumgarten-Crusius, following the earlier. ex- 
positors, take ra vn, in opposition to the context). So long, 
namely, as the curse of the law stood in force and conse- 
quently the Jews were still subject to this divine curse, the 
Gentiles could not be partakers of that blessing; for, according 
to that promise made to Abraham, it was implied in the pre- 
ference which in the divine plan of salvation was granted to 
the Jews (Rom. i 17, xv. 8, 9, iii 1, 2, ix. 1-5), that salva- 
tion should issue from them and pass over to the Gentiles 
(comp. Rom. xv. 27; John iv. 22, xi. 52). Hence, when 
Christ by His atoning death redeemed the Jews from the 
curse of the divine law, God, in thus arranging His salvation, 
must necessarily have had the design that the Gentiles, who 
are expressly named in the promise made to Abraham (ver. 8), 
should share in the promised justification, and that not in 
some way through the law, as if they were to be subjected to 
this, but in Christ Jesus, through whom in fact the Jews had 
been made free from the curse of the law. The opposite of 
this liberation of the Jews could not exist in God’s purpose in 
regard to the Gentiles. Riickert takes a different view of the 
logical connection (as to which most expositors are silent), in 
the light of Eph. ii. 14 ff: “So long as the law continued, an 
impenetrable wall of partition was set up between the Jewish 


1 Analogous to our former custom of fastening criminals on the wheel, in 
order to aggravate the punishment. 


CHAP. IIL. 14 157 


and the Gentile world; . . . and just as long it was simply 
impossible that the blessing should pass over to the Gentiles.” 
But the context speaks not of the law cself as having been done 
away, but of the curse of the law, from which Jesus had re- 
deemed the Jews; so that the idea of a partition-wall, formed 
by the law itself standing between Jew and Gentile, is not 
presented to the reader. Usteri thus states the connection: 
“Christ by His vicarious death has redeemed us (Jews) from 
the curse of the law, in order that (justification henceforth 
being to be attained through faith) the Gentiles may become 
partakers in the blessings of Abraham, since now there is 
required for justification a condition possible for all_—namely, 
faith.” Comp. Chrysostom, Oecumenius, and Theophylact. 
But since the point of the possibility of the justification of the 
Gentiles is not dealt with in the context, this latter expedient 
is quite as arbitrarily resorted to, as is Schott’s intermingling of 
the natural law, against the threatenings of which faith alone 
yields protection (Rom. ii. 12 ff, iii. 9 ff). — eis ra On] might 
reach to the Gentiles (Acts xxi. 17, xxv. 15), that is, be im- 
parted to them (Rev. xvi. 2). Comp. on 2 Cor. vii. 13f 
Such was to be the course of the divine way of salvation, from 
Israel to the Gentiles. Observe, that Paul does not say Kai eis 
7. Ov, as if the Gentiles were merely an accessory. — 1 
evAoyla tov ’ABp.] the blessing already spoken of, which was 
pre-announced to Abraham (ver. 8), the opposite of the 
xatdpa; not therefore life (Hofmann), the opposite of which 
would be @avatos, but justification—by which is meant the 
benefit itself (Eph. 1 3; Rom. xv. 29), and not the mere 
promise of it (Schott). — év Xptor@ ’Incod] so that this recep- 
tion of the blessing depends, and is founded, on Christ (on His 
redeeming death). The dvd rijs ariarews which follows expresses 
the matter from the point of view of the subjective medium, 
whilst €v Xptora@. presents the objective state of the case—the 
two elements corresponding to each other at the close of the 
two sentences of purpose. — fa tiv érraryeNiay «.7.r.] cannot 
be subordinated to the previous sentence of purpose (Riickert), 
for it contains no benefit specially accruing to the Gentiles 
(Paul must have written AdSwor, which Chrysostom actually 
read—evidently an alteration arising from misunderstanding), 


158 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS, 


It is parallel to the first sentence of purpose by way of climax : 
comp. Rom. vii. 13; 2 Cor. ix. 3; Eph. vii 19f. After Paul 
had expressed the blessed aim which the redeeming death 
of Christ had in reference to the Gentiles——namely, that they 
should become partakers of the evAoy/a of Abraham,—he raises 
his glance still higher, and sees the reception also of the Holy 
Spirit (the consequence of justification) as an aim of that re- 
deeming death; but he cannot again express himself in the 
third person, because, after the justification of the Jews had 
been spoken of in ver. 13 and the justification of the Gentiles 
in ver. 14 (fa els ta 01m... "Inood), the statement now 
concerns the justified generally, Jews and Gentiles without 
distinction: hence the first person, AdBwper, is used, the sub- 
ject of which must be the Christians, and not the Jewish 
Christians only (Beza, Bengel, Hofmann, and others). This by 
no means accidental emergence of the first person, after ta 
€6vn had been previously spoken of in the third, is incom- 
patible with our taking the reception of the Spirit as part 
of the eddoyla (Wieseler), or as essentially identical with it 
(Hofmann). — ry ézraryyeNiav tod mvedpatos] Thy émaryedav 
AapBavery means to become partakers in the realization of the 
promise (Heb. x. 36; Luke xxiv. 49; Acts i. 4); but tov 
mvevpatros may be either the genitive of the subject (that which 
as promised by the Spirit) or of the object (the promised Spirit). 
The latter interpretation (comp. Acts ii. 33; Eph. i. 13) is 
the usual and correct one.’ For if (with Winer) we should 
explain it, “bona alla, quae a divino Spiritu promissa sunt” 
(Luke xxiv. 49; Acts i 4), then, in conformity with the con- 
text, this expression must refer back to ver. 8 (apoidotca 7 
ypady K.T.A. TpoeunyyeAicato t@ ’APp. x.7.r.); and to this 
the first person AdSwpevy would not be suitable, as Paul re- 
ferred that promise given to Abraham in the Scripture (by 
the Holy Spirit) to the Gentiles. And if ry émayyeAlay Tod 
amvevpatos were essentially the same as the evAoyia.robd ’ABp., 
it would be entirely devoid of the explanatory character of an 


1 So that ery iwayysAiay is to be referred to the O. T. promise of the com- 
munication of the Holy Spirit (Joel iii.; Acts ii. 16),—a promise well known to’ 
all the apostle’s readers. Hilgenfeld incorrectly holds that ‘‘ the promise given 
to Abraham is directly designated as an iwayytAia rot wvsduares (a promise, the 
substance of which is the wrsvuea).” 


CHAP, III. 15. 159 


epexegesis, — 6a +. wiot.] For faith is the causa apprehendens 
both of justification and of the reception of the Spirit; comp. 
vv. 2—5, v. 5. . 

Vv. 15-18. What Paul has previously said concerning 
justification, not of the law, but of faith, with reference to that 
promise given to Abraham (vv. 8-14), could only maintain 
its ground as true before the worshippers of the law, in the 
event of its being acknowledged that the covenant once entered 
into with Abraham through that promise was not deprived of 
validity by the subsequent institution of the law, or subjected 
to alteration through the entrance of the law. For if this 
covenant had been done away with or modified by the law, 
the whole proof previously adduced would come to nothing. 
Paul therefore now shows that this covenant had not been 
envalidated or altered through the Mosaic law. 

Ver. 15.1 ’AdeAgpor] Expressive of loving urgency, and con- 
ciliating with reference to the instruction which follows. Comp. 
Rom. x. 1. How entirely different was it in ver. 1! Now the 
.tone of feeling is softened. — xara dvOpwiov Aéyw] not to be 
placed in a parenthesis (Erasmus, Calvin, and many others), 
points to what follows—to that which he is just about to say 
in proof of the immutability of a divine duaOynn. The analogy | 
to be adduced from a human legal relation is not intended to 
be excused, but is to be placed in the proper point of view; 
for the apostle does not wish to adduce it from his higher 
standpoint as one enlightened by the Spirit, according to the 
measure of divinely-revealed wisdom, but he wishes thus to ac- 
commodate himself to the ordinary way among men (of adducing 
examples from common life), so as to be perfectly intelligible 
to his readers (not in order to put them to shame, as Calvin 
thinks). Comp. dv@pm7elws and dv@pwirivws (Dem. 639. 24, 
1122. 2; Rom. vi. 19). See generally on Rom. iii. 5; 1 Cor. 
ix. 8; and van Hengel, Annot. p. 211 f. — duos] yet. The 
logical position would be before ovdeis. A Stabjxn, although 
human, no one yet cancels. Such a transposition of the 
dyes (which here intimates a conclusion @ minor?) is not un- 


1 As to vv. 15-22, see Hauck in Stud. u. Krit. 1862, p. 512 ff. ; Matthias, 
d. Abschn. d. Gal. Br. iii. 15-22, Cassel, 1866. As to vv. 15-29, see Buhl, in the 
Luther. Zeitschr. 1867, p. 1 ff. 


160 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS, 


frequent in classical authors, and again occurs in the case of 
Paul, 1 Cor. xiv. 7. See on this passage. There is there- 
fore all the less’ reason for writing it ous, in like manner 
(Morus, Rosenmiiller, Jatho), which would be unsuitable, since 
that which is te be illustrated by the comparison only follows 
(at ver.17). Riickert (so also Olshausen and Windischmann) 
takes it in antithetical reference to xara dvOp. Néyw: “I de- 
sire to keep only to human relations; nevertheless,” etc. This 
would be an illégical antithesis. Others, contrary to linguistic 
usage, make it mean yet even (Grotius, Zachariae, Matthies), 
or guin imo (Wolf), and the like. — xexvpwpévnr] ratified, 
made legally valid, Gen. xxiii 20; 4 Mace. vii 9; Dem. 485. 
13; Plat. Pol. x. p. 620E; Polyb. v. 49. 6; Andoc. de myst. 
§ 84, p. 11; comp. on 2 Cor. ii. 8. — Siabienv] not testament 
(Heb. ix. 1 6 f), as the Vulgate, Luther, Erasmus, and many 
others, including Olshausen, render it, quite in opposition to 
the context; nor, in general, voluntary ordainment, arrange- 
ment (Winer, Matthies, Usteri, Schott, Hofmann : “ destination 
as to anything, which we apply for one’s benefit,” Holsten, fol- 
lowing earlier expositors) ; but in the solemn biblical significa- 
tion of M3, covenant (Jerome, Beza, Calvin, Zachariae, Semler, 
Koppe, Flatt, de Wette, Hilgenfeld, Wieseler, Matthias, Reith- 
mayr, and others; also Ewald: “ contract”), asin iv. 24 and all 
Pauline passages. The emphatic prefixing of advO@pwrov points 
to the majus, the dva6n«n of God; and God had entered into 
a covenant with Abraham, by giving him the promises (ver. 
17. Comp. Gen. xvii. 7; Ex. ii. 24; Lev. xxvi. 42; Luke i. 
72; Acts iii, 25; 2 Macc. i. 2; Ecclus, xliv. 20, 22). The 
singular (a4vOpe7rov) is not opposed to this view; on the con- 
trary, since avOpwiov Siabnxn is put as analogue of the 
diaOynxn of God (which God has established), there could, in 
accordance with this latter, be only one contracting party 
designated: a ratified covenant, which a man has established. 
The ratification, as likewise follows from the d:a8jxn of God, is 
not to be considered as an act accomplished by a third party ; 
but the covenant is legally valid by the definitive and formal 
conclusion of the parties themselves who make the agreement 
with one another. — ov6dels aOeret 4 émidiat.] ‘viz. no third party. 
Such an interference would indeed be possible in itself, and 


CHAP. III. 16, 161 


not inconsistent with the idea of a covenant (as Hofmann 
objects). But cases of this sort would be exceptional, and, 
in the general legal axiom expressed by Paul, might well be 
left unnoticed. On aOereiv Siabjx., to do away a covenant, 
irritum facere, comp. 1 Macc. xv. 27; 2 Mace. xiii. 25; 
Polyb. xv. 1. 9, iii. 29. 2, xv. 8. 9. Tliat ovde’s is not the 
same subject as avOpe7ov (Holsten'), is evident both from the 
expression in itself, and from the application in ver. 177, where 
the v1d rod Ocod corresponds to the avOpwirov and the (per- 
sonified) voues, which comes in as a third person, to the ovdels. 
— } émidtatdooerat] or adds further stipulations thereto, which 
were not contained in the covenant. That the é7t in the 
word éridiatdcoerat (not occurring elsewhere) denotes contra 
(Schott), is inconsistent with the analogy of émdcaTiOnpt, 
éridiaywookw, émidiaxpivo, and so forth (comp. Joseph. Bell. 
ii, 2. 3, a€iav ris émidsaOjuns tHv Siabneny eivas xupiwtépar, 
Antt. xvii. 9.4); in that case dvtidvatdooeras must have been 
used, Erasmus, Winer, Hauck, and others wish at least to 
define the nature of the additions referred to as coming into 
conflict with the will of the author of the dva8jxn or changing 
it; but this is arbitrary. The words merely affirm: no one 
prescribes any addition thereto; this is altogether against the 
general rule of law, let the additions be what they may.— 
Chrysostem aptly remarks: py ToApa tis dvatpéeyrar pera 
taita Gav 4 tmpooGeivat ti, TodTO yap éoTW' fH émidiatdc- 
CETAL. 

Ver. 16. This verse is usually considered as minor proposi- 
tion to ver. 15, so that vv. 15-17 contain a complete syllogism, 
which is, however, interrupted by the exegetical gloss ov Neyer 
x.7.r., and is then resumed by rodro dé Aéyw in ver. 17 (see 
Morus, Koppe, Riickert, Schott, de Wette, Hilgenfeld). But 
against this view it may be urged, (1) that the minor pro- 
position in ver. 16 must necessarily, in a logical point of 
view,—as corresponding to the emphatic dus avOpwrov in 
ver. 15,—bring into prominence the divine character of the 
promises, and must have been expressed in some such form 


1 ‘* Yet in the sphere of the human no one cancels his voluntary disposition, 
which has become legally valid.” Matthies also identifies the subject in ot3sis 
with the founder of the deésan. 


L 


162 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


as @eos S¢ rH ’ABp.; and (2) that the explanation as to xal ro 
oréppart avrod, so carefully and emphatically brought in (not 
merely “ allusive,” Hilgenfeld), would be here entirely aimless 
and irrelevant, because it would be devoid of all reference to 
and influence on the argument. The train of ideas is really 
as follows (comp. also Wieseler) :—After Paul has stated in 
ver. 15 that even a man’s legally valid covenant is not in- 
validated or provided with additions by any one, he cannot 
immediately link on the conclusion intended to be deduced 
from this, viz. that a valid covenant of God is not, annulled 
by the law coming afterwards; but he must first bring forward 
the circumstance which, in the case in question, has an essential 
bearing on this proof,— that the promises under discussion 
were issued not to Abraham only, but at the same time to his 
descendants also, that is, to Christ. From this essential circum- 
stance it is, in fact, clear that that covenant was not to be a 
mere temporary contract, simply made to last wp to the time of 
the law. Accordingly, the purport of vv. 15-17 is this: “Even 
a man’s covenant legally completed remains uncancelled and 
without addition (ver. 15). But the circumstance which con- 
ditions and renders incontestable the conclusion to be thence 
deduced is, that the promises were spoken not merely to 
Abraham, but also to his seed, by which, as is clear from the 


. singular r@ oméppatt, is meant Christ (ver. 16). And now— 


to complete my conclusion drawn from what I have said in 
vv. 15 and 16—what I mean is this: A covenant previously 
made with legal validity by God is not rendered invalid by 
the law, which came into existence so long afterwards” (ver. 
17). — 1@ be Ap. éppéOnoay ai érraryyerias K. TO orréppate 
avrov| The emphasis is laid on xal 7@ orréppate avrod, the 
point which is here brought into prominence as the further 
specific foundation of the proof to be adduced. This element 
essential to the proof lies in the destination of Christ as the 
organ of fulfilment ; in the case of a promise which had been 
given not merely to the ancestor himself, but also to Christ, 
the fulfiller, it was not at all possible to conceive an a@érncss 
by the law. Comp. also Holsten, 2 Hv. d. Paul. u. Per. p. 
204. The passage of the O. T. to which Paul refers in cat 


To omépuatt avtov, is considered by most expositors, fol- 


4 


CHAP, III. 16, 163 


lowing Tertullian (de carne Christi, 22) and Chrysostom, to be 
Gen. xxii. 18 : dvevroynOjoovras év T@ oTéppati cov TavTa 
Ta €0yn ths yfs. But, from the words ob Adyer: Kai Tois o7rép- 
pacw x.t.d. which follow, it is evident that Paul was thinking 
of a passage in which cal tO oréppari cov is expressly 
written. Hence (with Estius and Bengel, Baumgarten-Crusius, 
de Wette, Hilgenfeld, Wieseler, Hofmann, Reithmayr, Buhl) the 
passages Gen. xiil. 15, xvii. 8, are rather to be assumed as those 
referred to,—a view confirmed by the expression «Anpovoyia in 
ver. 18.1 Comp. Rom. iv. 13. — ép5é6ncav"] they were spoken, 
that is, given, as some min., Eusebius and Theophylact, actually 
read é500ncav. The datives simply state to whom the promises 
were spoken, not: in reference to whom (so Matthias) —an in- 
terpretation which was the less likely to occur to the reader, 
well acquainted as he was with the fact that the promise 
was spoken directly to Abraham, who at the same time repre- 
sented his owéppa. — ai érayyediat] in the plural: for the 
promise in question was given on several occasions and under 
various modifications, even as regards the contents; and in- 
deed Paul himself here refers to a place and form of promise 
different from that mentioned above in ver. 8. In «at ro 
orréppate avtod he finds that Christ is meant; hence he adds 
the following gloss (Midrasch): od Aéyeu Kai toils omréppacww 
«.T.»., In Which the singular form of the expression is asserted 
by him to be significant, and the conclusion is thence drawn 
that only one descendant (not: only one class of descendants, 
namely the spiritual children of Abraham, as, following Augus- - 
tine, Cameron and others, Olshausen and Tholuck, d. A. 7. im 
neuen I. p. 65 ff ed. 6, also Jatho, hold) is intended, namely 
Christ. That this inference is purely rabbinical (Surenhusius, 
xatarr. p. 84 f.; Schoettgen, Hor. p. 736; Dopke, Hermeneut. 
I. p. 176 ff.), and without objective force as a proof, is evident 


1 The correct view is found even in Origen, Comment. in Ep. ad Rom. iv. 
4, Opp. IV. p. 5382: ‘*Ipse enim (apostolus) haec de Christo dicta esse inter- 
pretatur, cum dixit : ‘Scriptum est, tibi dabo terram hance et semini tuo. Non 
dixit: et seminibus, tanquam in multis, sed semini tuo, tanquam in uno, qui est 
Christus.’”” Comp. also p. 618, and Homil. 9 in Genes. Opp. II. p. 85; and 
earlier, Irenaeus, Haer. v. 32. 2; later, especially Jerome. 

2 As to this form, which has preponderant attestation (Lachm., Tisch.), 
comp. on Rom. ix. 12; Kiihner, I. p. 810, ed. 2. 


164 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


from the fact that in the original text Y¥ is written, and this, 
in every passage in the O. T. where it expresses the idea of 
progentes, is used in the singular (in 1 Sam. viii. 15, D2'Yt are 
segetes vestrae), whether the posterity consists of many or of one 
only (Gen. iv. 25; 1 Sam. i 11; Targ. Ps. xviii. 26, where 
Isaac is called Abraham’s yt’). Also the later Hebrew and 
Chaldee usage of the plural form in the sense of progenies (see 
Geiger in the Zettschr. d. morgenl. Cesellsch. 1858, p. 307 ff.) 
does not depend, any more than the Greek use of ozéppata 
(Soph. 0. C. 606. 1277; O. RB. 1246; Aesch. Zum. 909), on 
the circumstance that, in contradistinction, the singular is to 
be understood a> ep’ évos. Comp. 4 Mace. xviii. 1: & Tay 
"ABpapaiwy omeppdtev amoyovo. taises ’Iopanditat, weiGece 
r@ vouw tout. The classical use of aiuara is analogous 
(comp. on John 1,13). Moreover, the original sense of these 
promises, and also the t@ omréppate of the LXX., undoubtedly 
apply to the posterity of Abraham generally: hence it is only 
in so far as Christ is the theocratic culmination, the goal and 
crown of this series of descendants, that the promises were 
spoken to Him ; but to discover this reference in the singular 
Kal T@ oTréppati cov was a mere feat of the rabbinical subtlety, 
which was still retained by the apostle from his youthful 
culture as a characteristic element of his national training, 
without detriment to the Holy Spirit which he had, and to 
the revelations which had been vouchsafed to him. Every 
attempt to show that Paul has not here allowed himself any 
rabbinical interpretation of this sort (see among recent ex- 
positors, particularly Philippi in the Mecklenb. Zeitschr. 1855, 
p. 519 ff.: comp. also Hengstenberg, Christol. I. p. 50 f.; 
Tholuck, /.c., and Hofmann) is incompatible with the language 
itself, and conflicts with the express 6s éors Xpuoros ; which 


1In the so-called Protevangelium also, Gen. iii. 15, the LXX. translators 
have referred ewipsa to an individual (to a son); for they translate, airis cou 
enpiess xsQaagy. But it does not thence follow that this subject was the Messiah, 
to whom the 4Hyy*, correctly understood by the LXX., but wrongly by the 


Vulgate (conteret), is not suitable. The Messianic reference of the passage lies 
in the enmity against the serpent here established as the expression of a moral 
idea, the final victorious issue of which was the subject-matter of the Messianic 
hope, and was brought about through the work of the Messiah. Comp. Heng- 
_ stenberg, Christol. I. p. 26 ff. ; Ewald, Jahrb. II. p. 160 f. ; also Schultz, alétest, 
Theol. 1. p. 466 f. 


CHAP, III. 16. 165 


clearly shows that we are not to understand ovepydtwy with 
ém) troAX@v, nor oméppatos with 颒 évos (Hofmann, Buhl), 
but that the contrast between many persons and one person 
is the point expressed. But the truth itself, which the gloss 
of the apostle is intended to serve, is entirely independent of 
this gloss, and rests upon the Messianic tenor of the promises 
in question, not on the singular r@ oréppatit. — ov réyer] se. 
@cos, which is derived from the historical reference of the pre- 
vious €p6é0ycav, so well known to the reader. Comp. Eph. iv. 
8, v. 14. — os emt wodd@v] as referring to many individuals, 
in such a manner that He intends and desires to express a 
plurality of persons. On ézri, upon, that is, in reference to, 
with the genitive along with verbs of speaking, see Heindorf, 
ad Plat. Charm. p. 62; Bernhardy, p. 248; Ast. Lex. Plat. I. 
p. 767. — & éors Xpictos] which oréppa, denoting a single 
individual, 7s Christ. The feebly attested reading 6 is a mis- 
taken grammatical alteration; for how often does the gender 
of the relative correspond by attraction to the predicative 
substantive! See Kiihner, II. p. 505. Xpioros is the per- 
sonal Christ Jesus, not, as some, following Irenaeus (Haer. v. 
32. 2) and Augustine (ad i. 29, Opp. IV. p. 384), have 
explained it: Christ and His church (Beza, Gomarus, Crell, 
Drusius, Hammond, Locke, and others; also Tholuck, Olshausen, 
Philippi /.c., Hofmann), or the church alone (Calvin, Clericus, 
Bengel, Ernesti, Doderlein, Nosselt, and others). Such a mys- 
tical sense of Xpuoros must necessarily have been suggested by 
the context (as in 1 Cor. xi. 12); here, however, the very 
contrast between zroAX@v and évos is decidedly against it. 
See also vv. 19, 22, 24, 27, 28. Ver. 29 also is against, 
and not in favour of, this explanation; because the inference 
of this verse depends on the very fact that Christ Himself is 
the ozréppa tod "ABp. (see on ver. 29). The whole explanation 
is a very superfluous device, the mistaken ingenuity of which 
(especially in the case of Tholuck and Hofmann) appears in 
striking contrast to the clear literal tenor of the passage.’ 


! Tholuck holds that in ver. 16 Paul desired to show that the promises could 
not possibly extend to ‘‘the posterity of Abraham in every sense,” and that 
consequently the natural posterity was not included ; that the singular points 
rather to a definite posterity, namely the believing. The latter are taken along 
with Christ as an unity, and, partly as the spiritual successors of the patriarch; 


166 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS, 


It is not, however, Christ in His pre-human existence, in 
so far as He according to the Spirit already bore sway in the 
patriarchs (1 Cor. x. 1 ff), who is here referred to, because it 
is only as the Adyos évoapxos that He can be the descendant 
of Abraham (Matt. i 1; Rom.i 3). Comp. ver. 19. 

Ver. 17. Result of vv. 15 and 16, emphatically introduced 
by robro 5é Aéyw, but this which follows (see on 1 Cor. i. 12) 
I say as the conclusion drawn from what is adduced in vv. 
15 and 16: A covenant which has been previously made valid 
(ratified) by God, the law... does not annul: What covenant 
is here intended, is well known from the connection, namely, 
the covenant made by God with Abraham, through His giving 
to him, and to his ovépya included along with him, the pro- 
‘ mises in Gen. xii 3, xviii, 18 (ver. 8), xiii 15, xvii. 8 (ver. 
16). The xdpwors (comp. on ver. 15) is not any separate act 
following the institution of the covenant, but was implied in 
the very promises given; through them the covenant became 
valid. The zpo in zpoxexvp. is correlative with the subsequent 
peta, and therefore signifies: previously, ere the law existed. — 
6 meta TeTpaxdota K.T.A.] cannot be intended to denote a com- 
paratively shor¢ time (Koppe), which is not suggested by the 
context; but its purport is: The law, which came into existence 
so long a time after, cannot render invalid a covenant, which 
had been validly instituted so long previously by God and 
consequently had already subsisted so long. ‘“ Magnitudo in- 


partly in their oneness with the great Scion proceeding from his family, they con- 
stitute the descendants of Abraham. But in this case Paul, instead of as iwi 
weAawy, must at least have written os tw! wdévewy; instead of ws ig” ivas, ws ial 
rov ivds; and instead of é¢ lors Xperds, he must have written ¢ ivew 4 ixxAncia 
avy Xpiergp. — According to Hofmann, in loc. (not quite the same in his Schrift- 
bew. II. 1, p. 107 f.), Paul, following the analogy of Gen. iv. 25 and thinking 
in vois oxipuaesw of several posterities by the side of each other, lays stress on the 
oneness of Abraham’s posterity expressed in the singular, the expression in the 
singular serving him only as the shortest means (?) for asserting a fact testified 
to by Scripture generally ; but, on the other hand, he has, by means of estimat- 
ing this unit of posterity in the light of the history of redemption, been able, 
and indeed obliged, to interpret rw ewipuari cov as referring to Christ, the pro- 
mised Saviour, without thereby maintaining that this expression in the singular 
could signify only an individual, and not a race of many members. But in this 
way everything which we are expected to read in the plain words is imported 
into them, and artificially imposed upon them, by the expositor. Besides, in 
Gen. iv. 25 ewipuea irspoy means nothing more than another son. 





CHAP, III. 17, 167 


tervalli auget promissionis auctoritatem,” Bengel. According 
to Hofmann, the statement of this length of time is intended 
to imply that the law was something new and different, which ~ 
could not be held as an element forming part of the promise. 
But this was obvious of itself from the contrast between pro- 
mise and law occupying the whole context, and, moreover, 
would not be dependent on a longer or shorter interval With 
regard to the nwmber 430, Paul gets it from Ex. xii 40 (in 
Gen. xv. 13 and Acts vii 6 the rownd number 400 is used) ; 
but in adopting it he does not take into account that this 
number specifies merely' the duration of the sojourn of the 
Israelites in Egypt. Consequently the number here, taken by 
itself, contains a chronological inaccuracy ; but Paul follows 
the statement of the LXX., which differs from the original 
text—the text of the LXX. being well known to and current 
among his readers—without entering further into this point 
of chronology, which was foreign to his aim. In Ex. xii. 
40 the LXX. has  6€ xatoiuxnows Tov vidv "Iop. iy xate- 
knoav év yn Aly. kal év yp Xavady (the words «. é y. X. 
are wanting in the Hebrew), érn tetpaxdota tpidxovra, This 
text of the LXX. was based upon a different reckoning of the 
time—a reckoning which is found in the Samaritan text and 
in Joseph. Anti. u. 15. 3. See Tychsen, Hace. X. p. 148. 
The interval between God’s promise to Abraham and the 
migration of Jacob to Egypt—an interval omitted in the 
430 years—cannot indeed be exactly determined, but may 
be reckoned at about 200 years; so that, if Paul had wished 
to give on his own part a definition of the time, he would not 
have exceeded bounds with 600 years instead of 430. The 
attempts to bring the 430 years in our passage into agree- 
ment with the 430 years in Ex. xii. -40 are frustrated by 
the unequivocal tenor of both passages.’ — yeyovws] is not 


1#.g. Grotius: The time in Ex. xii. 40 is reckoned from Abraham’s 
journey to Egypt. Perizonius, Orig. Aeg. 20; and Schoettgen, Hor. p. 736 
The 430 years do not begin until after the period of the promises, that is, after 
the time of the patriarchs, and of Jacob in particular. Bengel, Ordo temp. 162 : 
The terminus a quo is the birth of Jacob. Comp. Olshausen: Paul reckons 
from Jacob and his journey into Egypt. In like manner Hofmann: The ¢er- 
minus a quo is the time ‘‘at which the promise given to Abraham was aé all 
repeated ;” also Hauck: ‘‘ From Jacob, as far as the pure, genuine evipua 
*ABp. reached.” 


168 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS, 


said ad postponendam legem (see, on the contrary, John i. 177), 
as Bengel thinks (“non dicit data, quasi lex fuisset, antequam 
data sit”); for every law only comes into existence as law with 
the act of legislation —On de«upoi, invalidates, overthrows, comp. 
Matt. xv. 6; Mark vii. 13; 3 Esr. vi 32; Diod. Sic. xvi 24; 
Dion. H. vi. 78; and adxvpoy zrovety, in more frequent use 
among Greek authors. — es To xatapy. TH érayy.] Aim of 
the dxupot: in order to do away the promise (by which the 
5a6nxn was completed), to render it ineffective and devoid 
of result. Comp. Rom. iv. 14. “ Redditur autem inanis, si 
vis conferendae haereditatis ab ea ad legem transfertur,’ Bengel. 
Observe once more the personification of the law. 

Ver. 18. “I am right in denying, that through the law the 
S:aOyxn passes out of force and the promise is to cease.” The 
proof depends on the relation of contrast between law and 
promise, whereby the working of the one excludes the like 
working of the other. Sor if the possession of the Messianic 
salvation proceeds from the law, which must have been the case 
if God’s covenant with Abraham had lost its validity by means 
of the law, then this possession comes no longer from promise,— 
a case which, although necessary on that supposition, cannot 
occur, as is evident from the precedent of Abraham, to whom 
salvation was given by God through promise. The mode of 
conclusion adopted in Rom. iv. 14 is similar. — éx vopuov] so 
that the law is the institution which causes this result (in the 
way of following its commandments). Comp. on év vou, ver. 
11. — % xAnpovouia] the possession, non), refers in the theo- 
cratic-historical sense of the O. T. to the land of Canaan and 
its several portions (Deut. iv. 21; Josh. xiii. 23); but in its 
N. T. sense, the conception of the xAnpovoyla is elevated to 
the idea of its Messianic fulfilment (Matt. v. 5), so that the 
kingdom of the Messiah and the whole of its fulness of sal- 
vation and glory are understood thereby (1 Cor. vi. 9; Gal. 
v. 21; Eph. v. 5; Acts xx. 32, e al.). Comp. on Rom. iv. 
13; Ephi1l. So also here; and Paul uses this word (not 
4 swrnpia, » Cwy, or the like) because he has previously (see 
on ver. 16) referred to passages in which the «Aypovopia (that 
is, according to this Christian idealizing of the O. T. historical 
sense : the kingdom of the Messiah) is promised. — ovxére] The 


" CHAP, IIL. 19. 169 


one relation, if it exists, cancels the other. It is (in opposition 
to Koppe) the logical (not historical) no longer. Comp. Rom. 
vil. 17, xi. 6. — 60 érrayyedlas] by means of promise, so that 
in his-case the possession of the Messianic salvation is the 
fulfilment (by way of grace) of a promise, and not the possible 
result (by way of reward) of rendering prescribed services, 
and the like, which fall under the idea of the vosos. — xe- 
xapiotat] sc. THY KANpovoniay donavet (Vulgate), bestowed by 
way of gift (the contrast to édetAnua, Rom. iv. 4,16), namely, 
as a future possession to be realized at the time of the zrapovcia 
(Matt. viii 11). On yaplfecOas rwi rt, comp. Rom. viii. 32; 
1 Cor. 1. 12; Phil. 1 29, i. 9; Acts xxvii. 24; Xen. Cyrop. 
viL 6. 22; Polyb. xvi 24.9. Without supplying anything, 
Schott and Matthias render: to Abraham God has, through 
promise, been gracious. Comp. Holsten: He has bestowed a 
favour on him. But the supplying of tiv xAnpovoyiay har- 
monizes best with the immediate context and the logical 
relation of the two divisions of the verse, the second of which 
forms the propositio minor, and therefore, like the major, must 
speak of the «Anpovoyia.' Caspari (in d. Strassb. Beitr. 1854, 
p. 206 ff), following classical usage, but not that of the N. T., 
has wrongly taken xeydpioras in a passive sense, so that God 
is conceived as the inheritance. This is in opposition to the 
context, and also against the view of the N. T. generally, ac- 
cording to. which the xAnpovoyia proceeds from God (Rom. 
viii 17), and is not God Himself, but eternal life (ver. 21; 
Tit. iii. 7; Matt. xix. 29, e¢ al.), the kingdom of the Messiah 
(v. 21; 1 Cor. vi 9, xv. 50; Jas. ii 5), and its salvation 
(Rom. 1 16) and dominion (Rom. iv. 18 f.; Matt. v. 5; 2 
Tim. ii 12). 

Ver. 19.? After Paul has shown in vv. 15-18 that the law 
does not abolish the far earlier covenant of promise, he might 
very naturally be met by the inquiry, “ According to this 
view, then, what sort of end is left to be served by the law 
in connection with the history of salvation?” Hence he him- 
self raises this question and answers it. — ri ody o vopos] se, 


1 Ver. 18 is a syllogismus conditionalis of the nature of a dilemma, the con- 
clusion of which, because self-obvious, is not expressed. 
2 On ver. 19, see Stélting, Beitrdge z. Hxegese d. Paul. Br. 1869, p. 50 ff. 


170 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


éore: how does tt stand therefore (if it is the case that the law 
does not abolish the covenant of promise) with the law? <A 
general question, in which, to judge from the answer that 
follows, the apostle had in view the purpose for which God 
gave the law. On the neuter r/, with a nominative follow- 
ing, comp. 1 Cor. iii. 5 (in the correct reading): ri ody éorey 
"Arrod\rws; and see Stallbaum, ad Gorg. p. 501 E; Bernhardy, p. 
336 f. Following J. Cappellus, Schott (also Matthies, though 
undecidedly, Jatho and Wieseler) takes ri for Sa 7/; very 
unnecessarily, however, and in opposition to the constant use 
of the r/ ovv so frequently recurring in Paul’s writings (Rom. 
iii, 1, iv. 1, e¢ al.; comp. Gal. iv. 15). — trav mapaBdcewr 
xdpw mpocetéOn] for the sake of transgressions it was added ; 
that is, in order that the transgressions of the law might be 
brought out as real, it was, after the covenant of promise was 
already in existence, superadded to the latter (mapeo7Oev, 
Rom. v. 20). The law namely, because it gives occasion to 
the potency of sin. in man to bring about in him all evil 
desire (Rom. vii. 5, 8), and nevertheless is too weak as a 
counter-power to oppose this sinful development (Rom. viii. 
3), is the Suvayus tis dpuaprias (1 Cor. xv. 56; and see Rom. 
vii. 7 ff); but sin— which, although existing since Adam 
(Rom. v. 13), is yet increased by that provocation of the law 
—has only come to assume the definite character of rapaBacts 
in virtue of the existence of the law and its relation thereto 
(Rom. iv. 15). - The same purpose of the law is expressed in 
Rom. v. 20, but without the stricter definition of sin as wapa- 
Bacts. Accordingly, rdv rapaf. yapuv is not (with Wetstein) 
to be rationalized to this effect: “Lex sine dubio eo consilio ~ 
lata est, ut servaretur, vraxojs yapw; vitio tamen hominum 
evenit, ut peccata multiplicarentur.” This is in itself correct 
(comp. Rom. vii. 12), but is irrelevant here, where the point 
in question is the position of the law in connection with the 
- divine plan of salvation, the final aim of which is redemption. 
The real idea of the apostle is, that the emergence of sins— 
namely, in the penal, wrath-deserving (Rom. iv. 15), moral form 
of transgressions—which the law brought about, was designed by 
God (who must indeed have foreseen this effect) when He gave 
the law, and designed in fact as a mediate end in reference to 


CHAP, IIT.-19. 171 


the future redemption ; for the evil was to become truly great, 
that it; might nevertheless be outdone by grace (Rom. v. 20). 
The result, which the law, according to experience, has on the 
whole effected, and by which it has proved itself the divapus 
Tis dwaptias (comp. also 2 Cor. iii. 6), could not be otherwise 
than the aim of God. Comp. Ritschl, p. 74f£; Baur, neutest. 
Theol. p. 140 f.; Hilgenfeld, Wieseler, Holsten, Hofmann, 
Reithmayr, Matthias (who, however, assumes the intentional 
appearance of an ambiguity), Stolting, and others ; also Lipsius, 
Rechtfertigungsl. p. 75; Lechler, apost. Zeit. p. 110. Luther 
(1519) strikingly remarks: “Ut remissio propter salutem, ita 
praevaricatio propter remissionem, ita lex propter transgres- 
sionem.” Observe, further, the article before mapaf., which 
summarily comprehends, as having really that character, the 
transgressions arising and existing since the giving of the 
law; comp. Holsten, z. Hv. d. Paul. u. Petr. p. 297. Others! 
consider that by ray wapaB. ydpw the recognition of sins is 
expressed as the aim of the law. So Augustine, Calvin, Beza, 
Piscator, Calovius, Wolf, Schoettgen, Michaelis, Windischmann, 
and others; also Winer (“ut manifestam redderet atque ita 
argueret illam, quam Judaei peccando sibi contrahebant, cul- 
pam”). But (1) this idea could not have been expressed by 
the mere trav rapa. yapw; for although ydpu is not always 
exclusively used in its original sense, for the sake of, in favour 
of, but may also be taken simply as on account of; still, in 
order to be intelligible, Paul must have written rijs éreyvacews 
Tov TapaBdoewy ydpw as signifying: in order to bring sins 
to recognition as transgressions. And (2) the point of the re- 
cognition of sin was entirely foreign to this passage; for in 
Tév tapaB. ydpw Paul desires to call attention to the fact 
that the law, according to the divine plan, was intended to pro- 
duce exactly the objective, actual (not merely the subjective) 
opposite of the Sccacoovvn (comp. vv. 21, 22). On account 
of this connection also the interpretation of many expositors, 


1 Some unexegetically combine the two explanations, as Bengel : ‘‘ ut agnos- 
cerentur et invulerescerent.”’ 

4 Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 947, appropriately remarks : ‘‘ xép» cum genitivo 
dictum: in gratiam alicuius, inde alicuius aut hominis aut rei causa significans, 
quamquam minime semper gratia adsignificatur, quae Ammonii doctrina est, p. 
53.” Comp. 1 John iii. 12. 


172 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


ad coercendas transgressiones, is wholly to be rejected, because 
opposed to the context. So Jerome, Chrysostom, Oecumenius, 
Theophylact, Erasmus, Grotius, Zachariae, Semler, Morus, 
Koppe, Rosenmiiller, Paulus, Riickert, Olshausen, Neander, 
Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Baur, Ewald (“in order ¢o 
punish them more strictly”); also Messner, Lehre d. Ap. p. 
222, and Hauck, comp. Buhl; several, such as Grotius and 
Riickert, think that the inclination to Egyptian idolatry is 
chiefly referred to. This view is decidedly disposed of by 
the expression mapaB8dcewy, since wrapaBaces as such could 
only come into existence with the law (Rom. iv. 15); pre- 
viously there were sins, but no transgressions——a view with 
which Rom. v. 14 does not conflict, because the matter in 
question there is the transgression of a quite definite, positive 
command of God. Zhe two last interpretations are combined 
by Flatt and Schott, as also by Reiche, following older ex- 
positors (comp. also Matthies),—-a course inconsistent with 
hermeneutical principles in general, and here in fact involv- 
ing an amalgamation of two erroneous views. — mpocetéOn] it 
was added, is not inconsistent with what was said in ver. 15, 
ovdeis . . . emidtatdocertat, because in the latter general pro- 
position under ovdeds third persons are thought of. The law, 
moreover, was not given as ézridiaOnKxn (see on ver. 15), but 
as another institution, which, far from being a novella to the 
S:aOnxn, was only to be a temporary intermediate. measure 
in the divine plan of salvation, to minister to the final ful- 
filment of the promise. See the sequel, and comp. Rom. v. 
20, x. 4. — aypis od EXOn TO oréppa w.7.r.] terminus ad 
quem of the merely provisional duration of this added insti- 
tute. But these words are neither to be connected, in disregard 
of their position, with d:ataye’s (Hofmann), nor to be placed 
in a parenthesis; for the construction is not interrupted. As 
to dypus ob EXOn, usque dum venerit, comp. on Rom. xi. 25. 
According to the general usage of the N. T. (Buttmann, newt. 
Gr. p, 198), the subjunctive, and not the optative (Matthiae, p. 
1158), is used. Paul has not put dv, because there was no 
idea in his mind of any circumstances which could have 
hindered the event. See Stallbaum, ad Phaed. p. 62 C; 
Hermann, de part. dv, p. 110 ff: Hartung, Partikell. IL p. 





CHAP. II. 19. 173 


291 ff. Comp. on 1 Cor. xi. 26. — 1d oméppa S erayy.] 
that is, Christ, whose advent, according to ver. 16, necessarily 
brought with it the fulfilment of the promise. The dative, 
however, does not stand for ets dy (Winer, Usteri), but just 
as in ver. 16: to whom the promise was made. — émny- 
yeAtat] not promiserat (Vulgate, Bengel, Flatt, Hofmann), 
comp. Rom. iv. 21, Heb. xii. 26; but promissio facta est 
(2 Macc. iv. 27), because thus it is not requisite to supply 
@ecds, and the expression corresponds very naturally with 
éppeOncay ai émayyeddae in ver. 16. Hence also it is super- 
fluous to supply 4 KAnpovowla (Ewald).—dcatayels 80 dyyédov 
év x. pec.) the mode in which o vowos mpoceréOn, or the form 
of this act: having becn ordained through angels, etc. On 
diatdocew vopuov, comp. Hesiod, gy. 274. The simple tdc- 
cewv voxov is more frequently used, as in Plat. Legg. p. 863 D. 
It means fo ordain a law, that is, to issue tt for obedience, not 
to arrange it for sublication (Stélting), so that the angels 
would be described here as the diaskeuastat of the law,—an 
idea which has no support anywhere, and would run counter 
to the view of the directly divine origin of the law (Ex. xxx. 
18, xxxii. 16; Deut. ix. 10). As to the use of the aorist 
participle in the language of narration, see Hermann, ad Viger. 
p. 774; Bernhardy, p. 383. The tradition that the divine 
promulgation of the law took place amidst the ministry of 
angels, is first found in the LXX., Deut. xxxiu. 2 (not in the 
original text); then in Heb. ii 2, Acts vu. 38, 53, Joseph. 
Anitt. xv. 5. 3, and in the Rabbins, and also in the Samaritan 
theology. Comp. on Acts vil. 53; Delitzsch, on Hebr. ii. 2. 
Because the tradition itself and its antiquity are thus beyond 
doubt, and there is no warrant for supposing that Paul did not 
know it or was not likely to adopt it (as, indeed, he adopted other 
traditional teachings, 1 Cor. x. 4, 2 Cor. xii 2), it is a mere 
mistaken evasion to explain did as inter or coram (Calovius, 
Loesner, Morus), which would have ultimately to be referred 
to the idea “ by the mediation of” (as 2 Tim. ii. 2). The same 
remark applies to the view which looks upon the ayyéAwy even 
as men, like Moses and Aaron (Zeger, and revived by Cassel, 
d. Mittler e. exeg. Versuch, 1855); Chrysostom left it optional 
to understand it either of priests or of angels. As to the 


174 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


monstrous amplifications which this tradition of the agency 
of the angels underwent at the hands of the later Rabbins, 
see Eisenmenger, entdecktes Judenth. I p. 309 f. Paul does 
not look upon the angels as authors of the law (as held by 
Schulthess, Voigtlander in Keil and Tzschirner’s Anal. IV. p. 
139 ff, and Huth, Commentat. Altenb. 1854),—a point which 
is certain from the whole view taken in biblical history of the 
law generally as divine (see the apostle’s own designation of 
the law as vopos Qeod, Rom. vii. 22, 25), and as ypady (vers. 
10, 13, iv. 21 f., e al.), and here especially is all the more 
decidedly indicated by the use of the da (and not vz), for 
every reader in fact conceived of the angels as ministering 
spirits of God (comp. LXX. Deut. xxxili. 2: é« deEuav avrod 
diyyeXou per’ avrov), who accompanied the Lord appearing in 
majesty; and consequently no one could attach any other 
sense to dd than “ ministerio angelorum,” which is clear as 
the meaning in Heb. ii, 2 from a rod xuplov in ver. 3. — 
év xeupt péoirov"] For Moses received the tables of the law 
from God, and carried them down to the people. Thus in the 
legislation he was the middle person between the Giver of the 
law and its recigents; with the tables in his hand, he was God's 
envoy to Israel, acting between the two parties. On account 
of this historical circumstance (Ex. xxxi. 18, xxxii. 15), ey 
xeupi is to be understood not merely as a vivid mode of desig- 
nating the mediation (73), but quite literally: comp. Ex. 
xxxii. 15; Lev. xxvi 46. In the N.“T. the designation of 
Moses as pecitns forms the basis of the expression in Heb. 
vill 6, ix. 15, xu. 24; and on the subject itself, comp. Acts 
vi. 38. This designation does not occur in the O. T. or in 
the Apocrypha; but by the Rabbins Moses is called mediator 
"D1D, "y¥oN, also mw. See Schoettgen, Hor. p. 738 £.; Wetstein, 
p. 224. Comp. Philo, de vita Mos. II. p.678 f.A; and on the 
matter itself, Deut. v. 5; also Joseph. Anti. iii, 5. 3. The 
better known and the more celebrated Moses was as mediator 
of the law (comp. Aboth R. Nath. i. 1, “Legem, quam Deus 
Israelitis dedit, non nisi per manus Mosis dedit”), the more 
decidedly must we reject every interpretation in which the 


1 usciens is a word ‘that belongs to the later Greek (Polyb., Lucian, ef al.). 
Comp. Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 121. It occurs in the LXX only in Job ix. 33. 


CHAP, III. 19. | 175 


peoirns—not more precisely defined by Paul, but presumed to 
have its historical reference universally familiar—is not re- 
ferred to Moses. This applies not only to the view of most 
of the Fathers (Origen, Athanasius, Ambrose, Jerome, Augus- 
tine, Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact; so also Beza, Lyra, 
Erasmus, Calvin, Pareus, Calovius, and others), who, following 
1 Tim. ii 5, Heb. viii. 6, ix. 15, xii. 24, take the Mediator to 
be Christ,’ but also to Schmieder’s view (nova interpr. Gal. iii. 
19, 20, Numburg. 1826), that an angel is intended—the angel 
of the law, who, according to Jewish theology, had the special 
duty of teaching Moses the law. Certainly the Rabbins speak 
of an angel of the law (he was called Jefifia; see Jalkut 
Rubeni, f. 107. 3); but this part of their teaching cannot be 
shown to have existed in the time of the apostles, nor can 
it find a biblical basis in the passages quoted by Schmieder 
(Ex. xix. 19 f, xx. 18, xxxiiii 11; Num. xii. 5-8; Deut. 
v. 4f.; also Ex. xxxiiii 18-23, xl. 35; Deut. xxxiii 2; 
Ps. lxviii 18; Acts vii. 53; Mal iii. 1). ‘See also, in opposi- 
tion to Schmieder,’ especially Liicke in the Stud. wu. Krit. p. 
97 f— The object for which Paul has added Swatayels . . . 
pectrov, is not to convey the impression of an inferior, subordt- 
nate position held by the law in comparison with that of the | 
gospel or that of the promise, inasmuch as the former was 
ordained not directly by God, but through angels and a 
mediator ® (Luther, Elsner, Wolf, Estius, Semler, Rosenmiiller, 
Tychsen, Flatt, Riickert, Usteri, de Wette, Baur, Ewald, Hof- 
mann, Reithmayr, Hauck, and others; comp. also Olshausen, 
and Lipsius, Rechtfertigungsl. p. 77 ; Vogel in the Stud. wu. Krit. 


1So also very recently Culmann, zwm Verstindn. der Worte Gal. iii. 20, 
Strassb. 1864. : 

? With whom Schneckenburger agrees. See on ver. 20. 

§ Luther, 1538: ‘‘ Lex est servorum vox, evangelium Domini.” Hofmann : 
Paul gives his readers to understand that the event of the giving of the law was 
no fulfilment of the promise (see, however, on ver. 20). Bengel : God committed 
the law to angels ‘‘ quasi alienius quiddam et severius.” Buhl confines himself 
to saying that Paul wished to represent the difference between the mode of re- 
velation in the case of the law and that of the covenant of promise. But the 
question regarding the purpose of this representation as bearing on the apostle’s 
argument thus remains unanswered. According to Hilgenfeld, Paul’s intention 
was to detach as far as possible the origin of the law from the supreme God; and 
in this respect also he was the precursor of Gnosticism. 


176 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


1865, p. 530), but to enable the reader to realize the glory of 
the law in the dignity and formal solemnity of its ordination. 
So Calvin and others, including Winer, Schott, Baumgarten- 
Crusius, Wieseler, Matthias; comp. Weiss, bib]. Theol. p. 284. 
It may be decisively urged in favour of the latter view, (1) 
that, if the mention of the angels was intended to suggest a 
lower relation in comparison with a higher, this higher relation 
must have been distinctly expressed (as in Heb. ii. 2), or at 
least must have been quite definitely discoverable from the im- 
mediate context (by the addition of a povov perhaps, or the like). 
Regarded in themselves, the appearance of angels and the agency 
of angels (comp. also 1. 8) are always conceived as something 
majestic and glorifying,’ even in respect to Christ (Matt. xxiv. 
31, xxv. 31; John i. 52; 1 Tim. iii 16, e al.), and especially 
in respect to the law (LXX. Deut. xxxii 2; Acts vii 38, 53), 
the bestowal of which was one of the high divine distinc- 
tions of Israel (Rom. ix. 4). Just as little can it be said (2) 
that év yevpt pwecirov is a depreciatory gtatement, for in fact 
the gospel also is given ev yetpt pecitov; to which argument 
the objection cannot be made, that the Mediator of the gospel, 
as the Son of God, is far more exalted than the mediator of 
the law: for év yeipl pecirov does not state at all what kind 
of mediator it was who intervened in the promulgation of the 
law, but leaves the dignity or lowliness of his person entirely 
out of view, and asserts only that a mediator was employed in 
the giving of the law; so that in respect of this relation re- 
garded by itself there was no qualitative difference between 
the law and the gospel: both were mediated, given through the 
hand of a mediator. By way of comparison and contrast with 
the gospel, év yeupt dvOpwirov or some such expression must 
have been used, whereby the mediation of the law would 
be characterized as inferior to that of the gospel. Lastly, (3) 
it by no means formed a part of the plan and object of the 
apostle to depreciate the law as a less divine institution,—a 
course which, besides being inconsistent with his recognition 
of the law elsewhere (Rom. vii. 12—25), would have been even 


1 Hence we must not say with Schmid, dibl. Theol. II. p. 280, that the in- 
tention was to intimate that the giving of the law was not “‘ the absolute normal 
act” of the divine economy. 


CHAP. IIL 19, . 177 


unwise in dealing with zealots for the law; whereas it was in 
the highest degree appropriate to acknowledge the high dignity 
of the law as evinced in the majesty and solemn formality of its 
promulgation, and then to show that it had by no means can- 
celled the promises. Thus the glory of the law glorified the 
covenant of promise, while the apostle’s opponents could not 
find any antagonism to that law. In opposition to these argu- 
ments, the appeal to 6 @eds, ver. 20 (Usteri, Schneckenburger, 
de Wette), has the less weight, because in mpooeré6n and d:a- 
raryeis (ver. 19) God in fact is obviously the acting subject, and 
the promise also was expressed passively by émnyyeAtas (with- 
out @eds). According to Holsten, z. Evang. d. Paul. u. Petr. p. 
299 ff., Paul intends to express “the pneumatic truth,” that, in 
the purpose of God, the significance of the law in the economy 
of salvation was to be that of a mediator, viz. between promise 
and fulfilment. But if this were so, how wonderfully would 
Paul have concealed his thoughts! He must have said that 
this mediatorial position of the law exhibited itself in the form 
of its bestowal; for this in itself, and apart from any other 
intimation, could in no way be known to the reader, to whom 
angelic and mediatorial agency presented themselves only as 
historically familiar attributes of the majesty and divinity of 
the law. The law itself would not be placed by these attri- 
butes in the category of the peolrns. Nor is Stélting’s view 
more worthy of acceptance, who, in Suara. dv’ dyyédwv, detects 
the idea: “im order that the Jews might obtain the blessing of 
Abraham” (Heb. i. 14), and explains év yeipi pecirov to mean 
that the law served as an instrument to the mediator for re-. 
conciling discordant parties with one another (and these parties 
are alleged to have been the Jews and Gentiles). These two 
ideas, which are only in a very indirect way compatible with 
the scope of the Pauline teaching as to the relation of the law 
to the gospel, or with history itself, could not have been found 
out by the readers, especially after ver. 18, and after rav 
mapaBdo. yap, and would have needed a more precise ex- 
planation in what reference they were to be taken. In unison 
with the history of the giving of the law, which was familiar to 
every reader, the two points could only be understood as remini- . 
scences of the historical circumstances in question ; and peoirns 
M 


178 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS, 


in particular could not be conceived as a reconciling mediator, 
but only in the sense conveyed in Acts vii 38. 

Ver. 20 down to py yévoito, ver. 21. “ But from the fact 
that the law was ordained through a mediator, % must not at 
all be concluded that it 1s opposed to the promises of God.” The 
expression just used, év yewp) eatrov, might possibly be turned 
to the advantage of the law and to the prejudice of the pro- 
mises, in this way, that it might be said: “Since the idea of a 
mediator supposes not one subject, to whom his business relates, 
but more than one, who have to be mutually dealt with, and 
yet God (who gave the law through a mediator) is one, so that 
there could not be one God who gave the law and another 
who gave the promises (for there are not more Gods than 
one); it might possibly be concluded that, because the law 
was ordained by God in a different way from the promises,— 
namely, by the calling in of a mediator acting between the 
two parties,—the earlier divine mode of justification (that of 
faith) opened up in the promises was abolished by the law, 
and instead of it, another and opposite mode of justification 
(that of the works of the law) was opened up by God.” 
Paul conceives the possibility of this inference, and therefore © 
brings it forward, not, however, as an objection on the part of 
opponents, but as his own reflection; hence he expresses the 
concluding inference, 0 ovy vopos «.7.A., in an interrogative 
form, to which he thereupon replies by the disclaimer, 27) 
yévotro. The explanation of the words, which in themselves 
are simple enough, is accordingly as follows: “ But the media- 
tor+—not to leave unnoticed an inference which might possibly 
be drawn to the prejudice of the promises from the é +yewpi 
peoirov just said—but the mediator, that is, any mediator, does 
not belong to a single person, but intervenes between two or 
more; God, on the other hand, 1s a single person, and not a plu- 
rality. Js a now—when these two propositions are applied 
an concreto to the law and the promises—+s it now to be thence 
inferred that the law, which was given through a mediator, and 
in which therefore there took part more subjects than one, 
in point of fact two (namely, God and Israel), between whom 
the mediator had to deal, 7s opposed to the divine promises, in 
which the same one God, who in the case of the law acted 





CHAP. III. 20, 21. 179 


through a mediator and so implied two parties, acted directly ? 
God forbid! From this point of difference in the divine be- 
stowal of the law and the promises, by no means is any such 
conclusion to be arrived at to the prejudice. of the latter, as if 
now, through the law mediatorially given by the one God, 
another divine mode of justification were to be made valid.” 
In this view, ver. 20 contains two loct communes, from the 
mutual relation of which in reference to the two concreta under 
discussion (the law and the promises) in ver. 21 a possible in- 
ference is supposed to be drawn, and proposed by way of ques- 
tion for a reply. The 6é is in both cases adversative: the 
first introducing a supposed objection, and the second an inci- 
dental point belonging to this objection, the relation of which 
incidental point to the first proposition strengthens the doubt 
excited; 6 pecirys denotes the mediator absolutely as genus 
(“quae multa sunt cunctis in unum colligendis,’ Hermann, ad 
Iph. Aul. p. 15, pref.): évds ot« Err is predicate, negativing 
the évos elvae as regards the mediator, with emphatic stress 
laid on the prefixed évés (not on the ov«, as Hofmann thinks), 
and évos is masculine, without requiring anything to be sup- 
plied: els éorw is predicate, and els, in conformity with the 
axiom of monotheism here expressed, is used quite in the 
same purely numerical sense as évos previously. Lastly, in the 
interrogative inference, ver. 21, 6 vduos is used, as the close 
annexation by ovv sufficiently indicates, in precise correlation 
to o peoirns in ver. 20 (for the law was given through a 
mediator, ver. 19), and trav émayyedtav tod Oeod to @ émny- 
yeArat, ver. 19; but the emphasis in this question of ver. 21 
is laid upon «ard, for’ Paul will not allow it to be inferred 
from the two propositions expressed in ver. 20 (1 ‘yévoto), 
that the law stood in a relation to the promises which was 


1 Not neuter, as Holsten takes it, although é 33 Osés sis éeesv which follows can 
only indicate the masculine. Holsten, notwithstanding all his subtle acuteness, 
errs also in making the law itself, in opposition to the tenor of the words, to be 
the psoiens (see on ver. 19), and in explaining the predicate sJs attached to é @sés 
in the sense of the immutability of the divine will; holding that the law stands, 
not in unity with the promise, but between the two component parts of the latter 
(the giving of the promise and its fulfilment), and that God’s one saving will 
reveals itself in the promise and its two parts. See, in i eat to Holsten, 
Hilgenfeld in his Zeitschr. 1860, p. 230 ff. 


180 ‘THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


antagonistic to them and opposed to their further validity 
as regards justification. —- The numerous different interpreta- 
tions of this passage—and it has had to undergo above 250 
of them — have specially multiplied in modern times: for 
the Fathers of the Church pass but lightly over the words 
which in themselves are clear, without taking into considera- 
tion their difficulties in relation to the general scope of the 
passage,—mostly applying the o S¢ peoirns évos ovx Eoruy, 
taken correctly and generally, to Christ,’ who is the Mediator 
between God and man, and partly casting side-glances at the 
opponents of Christ’s divinity (see Chrysostom); although 
a diversity of interpretation (some referring pecirns to Moses, 
and others to Christ) is expressly mentioned by Oecumenius. 
Although no special degmatic interest attached to the passage, 
nevertheless in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries (see 
Poole’s Synopsis) the variety of interpretations was already such 
that almost every interpreter of importance (yet, as a rule, 
without polemical controversy, because the dogmatic element 
did not come into play) took a way of his own. It became, 
however, still greater after the middle of the eighteenth 
century (especially after grammatico-historical exegesis gained 
ground, but with an abundant intermixture of its philological 
aberrations), and is even now continually increasing. How 
often have the most mistaken fancies and the crudest conjec- 
tures sought to gain acceptance in connection with our pas- 


1 Jerome, however, explains the passage as referring to the two natures of 
Christ : ‘‘manu mediatoris potentiam et virtutem ejus debemus accipere, qui 
cum secundum Deum unum sit ipse cum Patre (6 3i @1é5, as God), secundum 
mediatoris officium (6 3% zscirns) alius ab eo intclligitur” (ivés obx tora)! Theo- 
doret understands é 33 ptcizns definitely of Afoses, who intervened between God 
and the people (ivts ovx teri), but holds that é 33 @ses sis ives affirms that it is 
one and the same God who first gave the promises to Abraham, then gave the 
law, and now has shown the goal (ré wipes) of the promises. Mszirns is explained 
as referring to Moses by Gennadius in Oecumenius (p. 742 C) ; on the other hand, 
Chrysostom and Theophylact take as a basis the conclusion, dees xa} i Xparrég 
Bue civay iors psoirns, Osod SnAadd xa} dvdporws (Theophylact).—Among modern 
Catholic expositors, Windischmann and Bisping have closely followed Jerome in 
the reference of the second half of the verse to the two natures of Christ. The 
meaning is supposed to amount to this, that the promise was directly addressed 
from God to God (i.e. to Christ), and the passage is thus'a locus classicus in 
favour of the divinity of Christ. Not so Reithmayr, who in substance follows 
the interpretation of Theodoret. 





CHAP, III. 20, 21. 181 


sage, the explanation of which was regarded as a feat of 
exegetical skill! For a general view of the mass of interpre- 
tations, the following works are of service :—Koppe, Fac. VII. 
p. 128 ff. ed. 3: Bonitz, Plurimor. de 1. Gal. ii. 20 sententiae 
examinatae novaque gus interpr. tentata, Lips. 1800; also his 
Spicileg. observatt. ad Gal. 11. 20, Lips. 1802: Anton, Diss. U. 
Gal. iii. 20 ecritice, historice, et exeg. tract. in Pott’s Sylloge, V. 
p. 141 ff: Keil (seven programmes), in his Opuse. I. p. 211 ff. : 
Winer, Hac. III.: Schott, p. 455 ff.: Wieseler, and de Wette 
ed. Moller, in loc. It is enough that out of the multitude of 
various interpretations — omitting the criticism in detail of 
the earlier views down to Keil’—we specify the more recent 
literature, and adduce the following: 1. Keil, who comes 


1 Luther, 1519: ‘‘Ex nomine mediatoris concludit, nos adeo esse peccatores, 
ut legis opera satis esse nequeant. Si, inquit, lege justi estis, jam mediatore non 
egetis, sed neque Deus, cum sit ipse unus, secum optime conveniens. Inter duos 
ergo quaeritur mediator, inter Deum et hominem, ac si dicat ; impiissima sit in- 
gratitudo si mediatorem rejicitis, et Deo, qui unus est, remittitis,” etc. Erasmus 
in his Paraphr., understanding Christ as referred to (in the Annotat. he says 
nothing at all about the passage) : ‘‘ Atqui conciliator, qui intercedit, inter plures 
intercedat oportet ; nemo enim secum ipse dissidet. Deus autem unus est, quo- 
cum dissidium erat humano generi. Proinde tertio quopiam erat opus, qui 
naturae utriusque particeps utramque inter sese reconciliaret, Deum placans sua 
morte, et homines sua doctrina ad verum Dei cultum pelliciens.” Calvin also, 
explaining the passage of Christ, considers: ‘‘diversitatem hic notari inter Judacos 
et gentiles. Non unius ergo mediator est Christus, quia diversa est conditio 
eorum, quibuscum Deus, ipsius auspicils, paciscitur, quod ad externam per- 
sonam. Verum P. inde aestimandum Dei foedus negat, quasi secum pugnet aut 
varium sit pro hominum diversitate.” Castalio gives the sense of the words 
correctly : ‘‘Sequester autem internuntius est duorum, qui inter sese aliquid 
paciscuntur: atqui Deus unus est, non duo,” but then draws therefrom the 
strange inference: ‘‘itaque necesse est Mosen Dei et Israelitarum internuntium 
fuisse, nec enim potest Dei et Dei internuntius fuisse, cum duo Dei non sint ;” 
and from this again he infers that both parties had thus promised something, 
God promising life and the Israelites obedience ; and lastly, with equal arbitrari- 
ness: ‘nunc quoniam legi parere nequeunt, supplicio sunt obnoxii.” Grotius 
(comp. Beza): ‘* Non solet sequester se interponere inter eos, qui unum sunt 
(ix3s, neuter), i.e. bene conveniunt; Deus sibi constat,” from which he arbitrarily 
infers: ‘‘ quare nisi homines se mutassent, nunquam opus fuisset mediatore neque 
tum neque nunc.” Comp. Schoettgen, who, however, assumes the first part of 
the verse to be an objection on the part of the Jews, and 6 33 @s0; sis torsy to be 
Paul’s reply. Wolf, although referring «seivev in ver. 19 to Moses, yet in ver. 
20 understands gscizns of Christ: ‘Tle vero mediator (qui imprimis hic respi- 
ciendus est) unius non est (sed duorum), quorum unus est Deus.” Clarke, who 
understands «soir. in ver. 19 as referring to Christ: ‘‘Quilibet vero pscirns est 
duarum partium. Deus est una pars. Ergo quorum erit Christus mediator nisi 


182 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS, 


nearest to our view, explains thus (see Opuse. I. p. 365 ff.): 
“ Mediatorem quidem non untius sed duarum certe partium esse, 
Deum autem, qui Abrahamo benefictt aliquid promiserit, unum 
modo fuisse; hincque apostolum id a lectoribus suis colligi volu- 
asse, in lege ista Mos. pactum mutuwm Deum inter atque popu- 
lum Israelit. mediatoris opera intercedente initum fuisse, contra 
vero in promissione rem ab unius tantum (Dei sc., qui solus eam 
dederit) voluntate pendentem transactam, hincque legi ist nihil 
plane cum hac ret fuisse, adeoque nec potursse ea novam illius 
promissionis implendae conditionem constitur, coqgue ipso promis- 
sionem hane omnino tolli.” But (a) to take the second half of 
the verse not generally, like the first, but historically, as if #v 
was written, is an arbitrary deviation from the parallelism ; 
and (0) the conclusion professedly to be drawn by the reader, 


Dei et hominum?” Bengel discovers the syllogism : ‘‘ Unus non utitur media. 
tore illo (i. e. quisquis est unus, is non prius sine mediatore, deinde idem per 
mediatorem agit); atqui Deus est unus (non est alius Deus ante legem, alius 
deinceps, sed unus idemque Deus) ; ergo mediator Sinaiticus non est Dei, sed 
legis, Dei autem promissio.” Wetstein: ‘‘Sicut quando arbitrum vel medium 
vel sequestrum dicimus, intelligimus ad officium ejus pertinere, ut non uni tan- 
tum partium faveat, sed utrique sese aequum praebeat ; ita etiam quando Deum 
dicimus, intelligimus non Judaorum solum, sed omnium hominum patrem. 
Unde statim colligitur, Mosen, qui inter Judaeos solum et Deum medius fuit, 
non veri nominis medium fuisse, sed a bonitate Dei expectari debere alium, 
totius humani generis negotium gerentem, 1 e. Christum.” Michaelis (follow- 
ing Locke): ‘‘ But this law cannot, in respect to the Gentiles, alter anything in 
the former covenant of God. For one of the parties who had a share in this 
covenant, namely the Gentiles, had not empowered Moses as a mediator and 
knew nothing of him ; but God Himself is only one party, and cannot alter His 
covenant through a mediator appointed on one side only.” Nosselt (Hzxerci- 
tatt. ad 8. 8. interpr. p. 143 ff.) and Rosenmiiller: ‘‘Zlle autem (Moses nempe) 
mediator illius unius (prolis Abrahamicae, the Christians!) non est, Deus autem 
est unus (communis omnium) Deus.” Morus, interpreting it as a syllogism 
with an interrogative major: ‘‘ Hic vero (Moses) nonne est mediator ejus,. qui im- 
mutabilis est? Subsumtio: atqui vero Deus est immutabilis. Conclusio ; num ergo 
lex adversari potest, etc?’’ Gabler (Prolus. ad Gal. iii. 20, 1787) has the same 
alteration in the sense of s%s: ‘‘ He (Moses) was not, however, a mediator of 
something immutable,” etc. Koppe: “Jam quidem non viuw Mosis tantum suus 
est pscirns (plures fuerunt, imprimisque ¢ usciens vis xasv. diabixns Jesus), sed 
unus tamen idemque Deus est, qui misit omnes, is adeo debet sibi constare nec 
potest secum ipse pugnare.” So also in substance, Baumgarten-Crusius: ivés 
means for one matter; and the sense is, ‘‘ that the law has been one of the many 
divine institutions, but as such it must stand in connection with the general 
plan of the divine government.” —Some of these interpretations condemn them- 
selves, and others find their refutation in our examination of the more modern 
interpretations after Keil. 


CHAP. Il. 20, 21. 183 


hineque legi istt nihil, etc., is quite without warrant, for Paul 
himself puts as a question in ver. 21 the inference which he 
conceives may be possibly drawn from ver. 20. 2. Schleier- 
macher’s explanation is essentially similar Gn Usteri, Lehrbegr. 
p. 186 ff.): “ Zhe mediator of an agreement does not exist where 
there ts only one person, but always presupposes two persons ; these 
were God and the Jewish nation. But God is One in reference to 
His promises; that 2s, God therein acts quite freely, uncondiron- 
ally, independently, and for Himself alone, as One numerically, 
because it is no agreement between two, but His free gift (xapus). 
Does the law therefore conflict, etc.?”* But in this view (a) 
the application of ver. 20 to the concreta of the law and the 
promises, which is in fact not made until ver. 21, is imported 
into and anticipated in ver. 20. Moreover, (6) els imperceptibly 
changes from its numerical sense into the idea of aloneness 
and independence ; and (c) the idea of free grace is arbitrarily 
introduced, and is not expressed by Paul. Nearest to this 
interpretation of Schleiermacher and Usteri comes Hilgenfeld, 
whose interpretation,? accompanied essentially by the same 
difficulties, ultimately amounts to the non-Pauline idea, that 
the position of God as a party in regard to the law is not in 
harmony with the divine unity (that is, with the divine 
monarchy). Comp. also Lipsius, Rechifertigungsl. p. 77, ac- 
cording to whom Paul negatively “strikes the law to the 
ground as incompatible with the sole agency of God.” But 
how could Paul desire to strike to the ground the law, which 

1In essential points, Usteri (Kommentar, p. 121; comp. with Beilage, p. 
239) agrees with Schleiermacher in his explanation. Moreover, tho substance of 
Schleiermacher’s interpretation is already to be found in Zachariae, who para- 
phrases as follows: ‘‘A mediator presupposes two parties who make some pro- 
mise to each other, inasmuch as a promise made on one side without a counter 
promise does not need any mediation between two. But in the case of Abraham 
God alone promises, who grants him a promise out of free grace.” 

In his Commentary. He takes another view in his Zeitschr. 1860, p. 
236 ff. : ‘‘ Paul wished to express that the covenant of the law, being ordained ~ 
through angels and a mediator, and consequently through a plurality, shows 
itself thereby to be entirely different from the covenant of promise which was given 
by the divine unity, and consequently cannot cancel the latter.” But this can- 
celling might certainly have been inferred from the very difference ; besides, the 
plurality, which is supposed to be implied in ivés odx kerix, would have nothing 


at all to do with the angels, but would necessarily refer only to the mediator, who 
has to mediate between two—in this case, between God and the Israelites. 


184 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


to him was @ytos, dyaOos, and mvevpatixos (Rom. vii. 12, 14) ? 
No, all he desires to show is, that, notwithstanding the diver- 
sity of its divine bestowal from the mode of giving the pro- 
mise, it is not opposed to the promise. 3. Winer: “ Non potest 
peoltns cogitari aut fing, qui sit évos, unius h. e. unius par- 
tis: 0 868 Ocds els ears, Deus est unus, una (altera) tan- 
tummodo pars; wa quaenam est altera? gens Israel. Jam st 
hoc, sponte efficitur, legem Mos. pertinere etiam ad Judacos, hosque 
legt istt observandae adstrictos fwisse.”" Thus ver. 20 contains 
only a parenthetical idea, Paul having in view to re-establish 
the dignity of the law, which appeared weakened by trav arapa8. 
xapw mporereOn : “ Lee Mos. data fuit peccatorum gratia ; prop- 
terea vero non est, quod quis eam tanquam ista érayyeria 
longe wnferrorem contemnat ; data enim et ipsa est auctoritate 
divina— Statay. 80 ayyéXov— gentique Hebr. tanquam 
agendi norma proposita év yetpl peait. ds odK orev évds.” 
It cannot be urged against Winer, that Paul must necessarily 
have written o els (see Winer, Gramm. p. 110 [E. T. 144)). 
But (a) in the logically exact chain of argument there is no 
indication at all that ver. 20 is to be taken as a paren- 
thesis. (6) Since o pecirns is subject, 0 @cos, which likewise 
is placed at the beginning of the sentence, may not be arbi- 
trarily understood as predicate. (c) It must have been more 

1 In the explanation of the words Kern (in the Tid. Zeitsehr. 1830, 8) 
agrees with Winer, only he does not insert tantwmmodo in the second clause. 
He looks upon the words as an opponent’s objection, and in 6 33 @sés sis iors 
he finds the idea intimated, that God in consequence took it upon Himself to 
bless those who obey the law ; whence the question follows: Does therefore the 
law, by which God has bound Himself to make blessed on account of works, 
conflict with the promises of God? But against this view it may be urged that 
there is absolutely nothing to indicate ver. 20 as the language of an opponent ; 
further, that the points brought forward against Winer, under (6), (c), and (d), 
equally apply here; and lastly, that the idea found in é 33 @sés sis ivew is not 
suggested by the context, but arbitrarily introduced. Baur also, Paulus, II. 
p. 215f. ed. 2 (comp. his neutest. Theol. p. 157), agrees with Winer in his 
conception of the words: the mediator belongs not to one, but to two parties, 
but God is only the one of the two parties. By this Paul is supposed to 
intimate, that the law has a merely subordinate significance, just as that of 
the mediator, insomuch as he is not himself one of the two parties, is merely 
subordinate : *‘ the iwayysria, a3 @ 3iabyxn in which God sis iors without 
@ wscirns having anything to do with it, stands higher than the vinos, which 
cannot be conceived without the uscirns and ts essentially conditioned by him.” 
But in this interpretation Paul would noé have said what he meant to say, and 


CHAP. IIL 20, 21. 185 


precisely indicated by Paul, if it were intended that the first 
éotiv should be understood as the copula of a general judg- 
ment, and the second as historical (appears in the giving of the 
law); for every reader, if he had understood the first half of the 
verse as a general judgment, would naturally understand the 
second in like manner. (d) It would not occur to any reader 
to refer els to a suppressed 0 @repos: for évds had just been 
used absolutely in a numerical sense, in which therefore els at 
once presents itself; and this the more, because the first sentence, 
by its negative form, has prepared the way for an antithesis 
to follow. (¢) The idea which o Sé eds efs éorw is supposed 
to indicate: therefore the law 1s obligatory on the Israelites, 
conveys something which is so eftirely a matter of course, 
that it could not be made use of at all as an element of 
the dignity of the law; for the law was, in fact, given to 
the Israelites, and even to ¢hink of that obligation as non- 
existent would have been incongruous, And (/) even assum- 
ing such a superfluous idea, in what a strangely mysterious 
way would Paul have intimated it! That which he meant to 
say, he would wholly without reason have concealed, and have 
given out as it were a riddle. Apart from the unsuitableness 
of the idea generally, and from the inappropriate efs, he must 
have said: o 5é Iapana els éorw. 4. Schulthess has sought to 
vindicate his interpretation (proposed in Keil and Tzschirner’s 


would have said what he did nofmean. The view of Holsten (Deutung u. Bedeut. 
d. Worte Gal. iii. 20, Rostock 1853, and Jnhalt u. Gedankengang des Gal. Br. 
1859, pp. 39 ff., 63 ff.) is allied to the explanation of Baur. Holsten understands 
pecirns as referring to the law, and makes ivés neuter: Between the law and the 
promise the relation is not that of an %, but of an essential distinction: but God 
is at one with Himself, not presenting any difference with Himself, namely, 
in the sense of the immutability of the divine will. This explanation cannot 
be accepted, because it starts from the supposition that the law is placed under 
. the category of the «sciens. Paul cannot have so conceived it, because he has 
said that the law was ordained through a «scirns ; therefore law and media- 
tor must have been present to his mind as different ideas. — Steinfass (in 
Guericke’s Zeitschr. 1856, p. 237) understands the literal sense definitely and 
correctly, but from the words 6 3% @scs sis iorsy derives the tacit idea: God there- 
fore is not the other party, and consequently is not under the law—by which 
the freedom of Christ as the Son of God from the law is supposed to be proved. 
But this is an idea foreign to the context and imported into the passage, not 
even quite Pauline ; for submission to the law certainly formed a part of the 
state of humiliation of the Son of God (Gal. iv. 4), while as to the state of 
exaltation His elevation above the law is a matter of course. 


186 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


Anal, II. 3, p. 133 ff) in his Engelwelt, Engelgesetz und Engel- 
dienst, Ziirich 1833, and in de G. Hermanno, enodatore ep. P. ad 
Gal., Ziirich 1835, viz.: “ Hie mediator (Moses) non est mediator 
unius, tc. communis tilius Det, qui olim Abrahamo spopondit, 
per eum aliquando gentes beatum iri, et qui est unus, 8. communis 
omnium parens, sed est potius mediator angelorum.”* But (a) 
how erroneous it is to assume that the anarthrous évdés should 
denote the universal God of men, and how alien this reference 
is to the context! (b) How opposed is the &:’ dryyéAwy to the 
notion, that Moses was “ mediator angelorum”! (c) How at 
variance is the idea of the law as the work of angels with 
the conception throughout the Bible (comp. on ver. 19) of the 
law as the work of God! In how wholly different a way 
must Paul have spoken of and proved such a paradox, and 
how frequently would he have reverted to it (especially in the 
Epistle to the Romans) in his antinomistic discussions! 5. 
Akin to this, as far as the idea is concerned, is the interpreta- 
tion of Schmieder (Wova interpr. 1. Paul. Gal. iii. 19 f., Numb. 
1826, and in Tholuck’s literar. Anz. 1830, No. 54): “ Quivis 
minister vel multorum est vel unius: atqut mediator non est 


1 Similar also is the interpretation of Caspari (in the Straseb. Beitr. 1854, p. 
206 ff.), that ‘‘ Moses, the middle-man of the angels who gave the law, is not 
the mediator of the One who gave the promise; he is the mediator of many 
angels, but God is one.” Vogel’s explanation (in the Stud. u. Krit. 1865, p. 
524) comes in substance to the same effect : ‘‘ Where there is a mediator, there 
is a@ plurality of those commissioning him; such a plurality existed in the 
giving of the law; but God is one; consequently the law proceeded from a 
plurality distinct from God, and the angels form this plurality.” In opposition 
to Vogel, see Hilgenfeld, in his Zeitschrift, 1865, p. 452 ff. ; Matthias, in the 
monograph quoted at ver. 19, p. 30 ff. ; Hauck, in the Stud. u. Krié. 1866, p. 
699 ff. Nevertheless Hauck (in the Stud. u. Krit. 1862, p. 541 ff.) has likewise 
assumed a plurality in «scirns—the plurality of men, whom Moses represents as 
one out of the midst of them (but uscirns does not mean this); hence he cannot be 
representative of the one God. Nothing in our passage can be regarded as more 
certain than that é gscirns, applied to the act of giving the law, embraces in 
itself the idea : sy Rwxs xvpios (not directly, but) ava picoy aired xa) kya mivoy 
cay viev lopanad iv oo ops: Zura by ytspl Maven (Lev. xxvi. 46). Buhl, dc. p. 13, 
has interpreted the passage similarly to Hauck, but with an incorrect inference 
from the negation of necessity to the negation of possibility: the mediator always 
represents a great number of persons; but God is single, and as such does not 
need any mediator: therefore the mediator (ver. 19) cannot be the representa- 
tive of God, but, on the contrary, can only accept the law for a plurality of 
recipients. Thus the law stands in contrast to the covenant of promise, which 
was given to the One ewrippa. 


CHAP, III. 20, 21. 187 


unius: ergo est multorum minister. Quit multorum est minister, 
ad quod genus mediator pertinet, non est unius: atgut Deus (ab- 
solute) unus est; ergo cum multorum sit mediator, non est Det 
minister.” The connection is supposed to be: “ Concedo legem 
per angelos datam esse a Deo, non humana arte inventam, sed eo 
ipso, quod per angelos ministros, non per Dewm aut Dei filium 
promulgata est, inferior est evangelio.”' This interpretation is 
objectionable, (a) in a general point of view, because it rests 
wholly on the erroneous view that peoirov in ver. 19 applies 
not to Moses, but to the angelus mediator ; (b) because Paul 
could not have expressed so peculiar an antinomistic argument 
more obscurely or more enigmatically than by thus omitting 
the essential points; (c) because the idea of pecirns by no 
means implies that the peoirns is the “minister multorwm:” he 
may be commissioned as well by one as by many, as, in fact, 
Christ was commissioned as a pecitns by One, viz. by God. 
See also, in opposition to Schmieder, Liicke in the Stud. wu. 
Krit. 1828, p. 95 ff; Winer, Eve. III. p. 171 ff. 6. Steudel, in 
Bengel’s Archiv I. p. 124 ff, supposes that ver. 19 is an oppo- 
nent’s question: “ To what purpose then serves the law? Was 
at bestowed merely somehow as an additional gift on account of 
transgressions (in order to be transgressed), until the seed should 
come to whom the promise applied? And yet was it made known 
through angels, and by the ministry of a mediator ?’ To which 
Paul answers, “ Certainly through the ministry of a mediator ; 
only he was not the mediator of an united seed (of the ozrép- 
patos Tav miotevoytwy, ver. 16), but God is one (not another 
for the Gentilcs).” But (a) there is nothing that indicates any 


1 Schneckenburger’s explanation (in his Beir. p. 189 ff., and in the Stud. w. 
Krit. 1835, p. 121) agrees with Schmieder’s. Huth’s attempt at an explanation 
(Comment. de loco Gal. iii. 19f., Altenb., 1854) agrees partly with Schmieder and 
partly with Schulthess; he understands i» ysspi pscirov of an ‘‘angelus mediator,” 
and then in ver. 20 finds the idea that the law proceeds from angels, and not from 
God, as follows: ‘‘ Mediatore enim nihil opus fuisset, si unus tantummodo legem 
tulisset ; at si multitudo quaedam, qualis est angelorum, legem ferre vult, tum 
rei summa exsequenda tradilur uni, qui mediatoris vicem inter legis latores et 
eos, gerat, quibus lex destinata est. 1aec autem ratio cadere non potest in Deum, 
quippe qui nus numero sit, ideoque mediatore non indigeat. Ex hoc ipso igitur, 
quod in ferenda lege Mosaica opus fuit mediatore, colligendum est, originem ejus 
repeti non debere ab uno Deo, sed a pluribus, h. e. ab angelis, quorum mediator 
vice fungebatur.” 


188 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


such division of the passage into dialogue ; and (6) how strange 
it would be that Paul should have grasped, and furnished a 
reply to, nothing but the Jast part of the opponent’s question, 
év xeipt eolrov, which, moreover, would be only a subordinate 
part of it! (c) The article must be added to évos, if it is to 
apply to the ovépua already spoken of (as assumed also by 
Jatho); but no supplement whatever to évos is suggested by the 
context ;? and if rod évds owépparos were read, then, according 
to ver. 16, it would mean not the body of Christians, but 
Christ Himself? (d) évos and ely would be taken in different 
senses: wnited and one*® '7. Sack (in the Tub. Zeitschr. 1831, 
I. p. 106 f.) supposes that Paul avails himself of the idea of 
a mediator to limit the recognition of the law, which perhaps 
some Jewish Christians were disposed to assert to an exag- 
gerated extent, and says: “ Zhe mediator, however, is not of one 
kind, but God is One and the same. For us Christians there is 
certainly another mediator than Moses; but God, the God im 
both Testaments, 1s nevertheless One and the same.” But it is 
obvious that évos éorw cannot mean unius generis est, and it 
is equally evident that the clause, “for us Christians there is 
certainly,” etc., is arbitrarily brought in. See also Schnecken- 


1 This applies also against Kaiser’s strange attempt (de apologetic. Hv. Joh. 
consiliis, Erl. 1824, p. 7 ff.) to obtrude the entirely foreign supplement of vids : 
‘* Hic mediator Moses non est unius filius, Deus autem (nempe) est unus :”” Moses 
is not to be compared with Christ, the only-begotten Son of God. 

2 This remark also applies to the very forced and arbitrary explanation of 
Mich. Weber (Paraphr. cap. III. ep. ad Gal. 1863): ‘‘ Hie autem interventor 
(Moses) non est interventor unius illius posteritatis Abrahami, quam paulo 
ante Christianos esse dizi, Israelitarum xara awvsvpa, sed Israclitarum xara 
capxa interventor quippe in quo spem suam fiduciamque ponunt (Joh. ii. 45). 
Ex hac igitur parte, in interventore, Jsraclitae xark& capxe differunt ab Israelitis 
RaTe Srvseven, quippe qui spem fiduciamque suam non in Mose, sed in solo 
Christo ponunt, psciry @sc¥ x. avbpowwy (1 Tim. ii. 5). In Deo autem (6 33 
@:6s) nulla est diversitas; nihil discriminis Israelitis xaca& cdpxra cum Lsraelitis 
xare wxveven intercedit, eundem Deum verum colunt tli quem hi, Deus est unus 
idemque. Utrique habent quidem darov xai Zaacy interventorem, non autem 
&AAov xal ZAAey Deum.” 

3 And in sis the relation of God to the Jews and Gentiles would be arbitrarily 
assumed. This is also done by the anonymous writer in the Stud. u. Krit. 1867, 
p. 331 ff., according to whom our passage is intended to assert that the mediator 
of the law was not only the mediator of God, but also had reference to the Jewish 
people, whereas God with His promise had reference to all the nations of the 
earth, both Jews and Gentiles. 








CHAP. III. 20, 21. 189 


burger, Beitr. p. 187 f, and (in opposition to Steudel, Kern, 
and Sack) Winer, Zettschr. f. wissensch. Theol. II. 1, p. 31 ff. 
8. Hermann: “ Jnterventor non est unius (1. ¢. interventor ubt 
est, duos minimum esse oportet, inter quos tlle interveniat); Deus 
autem unus est: ergo apud Deum non cogitart potest interventor ; 
esset enim is, gut intercederet inter Deum et Deum, quod absur- 
_dum est.” And the connection is: “ Jd agebat P. ut ostenderet, 
legem Mosis, quae nihil neque cum promissione Abrahamo data 
neque cum praesente effectione promissionis commune haberet, dum- 
taxat interim valuisse, jam autem non amplius valere. Rationem 
reddit hanc, quod superaddita sit (ideo wpocetéeOn dixit), eoque 
non pertineat ad testamentum, cui non liceat quidquam add ; 
deinde quod non, sicut. testamentum illud, ab ypso Deo condita et 
data, sed disposita per angelos allataque sit manu inierventoris : 
atqgua interventori, quod interventor non sit unius, non esse locum 
apud Deum, qui unus sit, utpote testator, cujus unius ex volun- 
tate nemine intercedente haereditatem capiat haeres.” But (a) 
it could not be expected that the reader should derive from 
ver. 20 the idea that no mediator is conceivable in the case of 
God on account of His oneness; nor could it be so conceived 
by Paul himself, for, in fact, with the one God a mediator may 
certainly have a place,—not, however, “inter Deum et Deum,” 
into which absurdity no one could fall, unless Paul so expressed 
it, but enter Deum et homines, in which office the history of the 
theocracy showed so many mediators and at last Christ Him- 
self. (b) The question in ver. 21 (ovv), with the answer expres- 
sive of horror, 1) yévorro, presupposes that the subject-matter 
of this question—consequently an antagonistic relation of the 
law to the promises—*might possibly (although quite unduly) 
be derwed from ver. 20. But according to Hermann, Paul in 
vv. 19 and 20 has already proved that an antagonism of the 
law to the promises does nof exist, that the law was no longer 
valid, and had nothing at all in common with the promises. So, 
in a logical point of view, the question in ver. 21, 0 ody vopos 
x.T.r., could not be asked, nor could the answer px) yévotto be 
made. (c) It may, besides, be urged against Hermann, that 
not only is 6 dyy. év yetpl peo. regarded as lowering the 
authority of the law, but a quite undue stress is also laid upon 
apoceréOy ; for in ver. 19 the emphasis lies on tay wapaf. 





190 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


xapw. 9. Matthies (as in substance also Rinck, Lucubr. crit. 
p. 172 ff, and in the Stud. u. Krit. 1834, p. 309 ff.) inter- 
prets: “ But the mediator .. . does not relate to one, for his 
nature 1s in fact divided or disunited, since he is placed between 
two sides or parties opposed to one another; and therefore in 
connection with him we cannot think of unity, but only of dua- 
lity, or of the variance subsisting between two parties; but God . 
as One, comprehends in Himself nothing but unity, so that 
His nature contains no variance or disunion.” . Thus also, in 
the main, de Wette,' and among the older expositors Jac. Cap- 
pellus. But the simple numerical conception of unity is thus 
arbitrarily transformed into the philosophical idea, and the 
contrast of plurality is turned into the contrast of diswnion. 
How could a reader discover in 0 @eds els éorw anything 
else than the popular doctrine of Monotheism? 10. Schott: 
“ Mediator quidem non unt tantum (eidemque immutadbili) ad- 
dictus est homint 8. parti, 1. € in quavis causa humana, quae 
mediatore indiget, duae certe adsunt partes, quibus weairns in- 
serviat, sive res inter duos tantum homines singulos transigatur, 
sive multitudo sit ingens eorum, qui alterutram vel utramque 
partem constituant (v.c. populus). . . ubi plures imo multi efus- 
dem foederis participes sunt et fiunt ( praesertim ubi maxima est 
singulorum vicissitudo, dum mortuis succedunt sostert), facile 
etiam mutatis animorum consilis atque propositis, foedus muta- 
tur aut tollitur, weolrn cujus ope constitutum fuerat haud im- 
pediente ... proinde ex co quidem, quod lex Sinaitica év yerpi 
peoitou promulgata est (ver. 19), non sequitur auctoritatem et 
competere perpetuam [his verbis P. corrigere voluit perversam 
corum opinionem, qur in defendenda legis auctoritate perpetua 
valitura ad personam Mosis mediatoris provocarent] .. . attamen 
Deus est unus, qua semper idem manet Deus immutadilis, foedus 
legislations Sinaiticae non fuit humanae, sed divinae auctori- 
tatis, neque ab arhitrio hominum, sed a voluntate Det pendebat 
immutabiis. His perpendendis quaestio excitabatur (ver. 21), 
an forte haec legislatio Sinart. auctoritate divina insignis ipso 
Deo jubente promissionem Abrahamo datam egusmodi limitibus 


1 According to him, the idea in the second clause is merely: ‘‘that which 
God in Himself, irrespective of the disunion which has arisen between Him and 
men, has promised, is elevated above this disunion.” 





CHAP, III. 20,, 21. 191 


circumscribere (mutare) voluerit, ut non amplius esset promissio, 
cujus eventus liberae tantum Dei gratiae adnecteretur.” How 
much is supplied by the expositor in this interpretation so 
copiously provided with modifying clauses! But it is decid- 
edly erroneous, on account of the sense of els and évos being 
changed into the idea of ammutabilis (for which Schott should 
not have appealed to Rom. iii. 30, Phil. i. 27); and also because 
the proposition o 8¢ peolrns évos ov« éotw is limited to causae 
humanae, and yet the inference is supposed to be therein 
conveyed that the Sinaitic legislation is not always valid. 
Paul assuredly could never have thus illogically corrected 
the zealots for the law, and then in the very same breath 
have set aside the inference by attamen Deus est unus. 11. 
Gurlitt (in the Stud. u. Krit. 1837, p. 805 ff; 1843, p. 715 ff.) 
refers évds to the Gentile Christians, as one of the two di- 
visions of the omépua "ABp.: “ The law was given through 
angels and through a mediator, and God indeed is throughout 
only One; what proceeds from Him, therefore, demands in every 
case equal recognition. It must nevertheless be taken into con- 
sideration, that the mediator is no mediator of those who were 
previously Gentiles, and that therefore the law was not destined 
Sor the latter by God Himself.” But, apart from the fact that 
in this view of éyés there must have been previous mention 
of a twofold posterity of Abraham and rod évos must have 
been here used, and not to mention that the évos and els 
are not taken as alike in sense, the interpretation must be at 
once pronounced decidedly wrong, because it depends upon the 
erroneous view that the ozrépya, vv. 16, 19, means not merely 
Christ Himself, but also the corpus mysticum of Christ. 12. 
Olshausen, taking o 5¢ @eds els dorw as: God is one or a 
single one, and consequently only one party, explains it thus: © 
“Mediation presupposes a state of separation, and there can 
be no mediation in the case of one; since God is the one 
party, there must also have been a second, viz. men, who were 
separated from God. In the gospel it is otherwise: in Christ, 
the representative of the Church, all are one; all separations 
and distinctions are done away in Him” (ver. 28). Thus 
Paul, in order to call attention to the inferiority of the law 
to the gospel, gives a cursory, parenthetic explanation as to the 


192 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS, 


idea of a mediator. This is (1) unsuitable to the context; for 
in ver. 19, dtatay. &: ayyéXwy ev yeipt peo. has set forth the 
glory of the giving of the law. (2) The idea: and consequently 
also only one party, is quite arbitrarily added to o 8 Q@eos 
els €orwv. (3) In like manner, all the rest which is supposed 
properly to constitute the sense of the words (“ men, who were 
separated from God ;” “in the gospel it is otherwise,” etc.) is 
the pure invention of the expositor. 13. Matthias} cor- 
rectly explaining the first half of the verse, sees in o dé @eds 
els €orw the minor premiss of an enthymeme, which has to be 
completed by supplying the major premiss and conclusion : 
“If God 1s one of those two parties, the law, although ordained 
by angels, 1s nevertheless an ordinance of God; but God is 
this; and consequently the law, etc., 1s an ordinance, not of 
angels, but of God.” Against this interpretation we may urge 
that the special connection with the point dsatayels 80’ dy- 
yéXwv is not conveyed by the text; that the explanation of els 
by alter is contrary to the context; that ver. 21 would be un- 


suitably subjoined from a logical point of view (see on xara, 


ver. 21); and lastly, that the idea of the law being an ordi- 
nance of God was one altogether undisputed and not needing 
any proof. 14. Ewald (comp. also his Jahrb. IV. p. 109) 
assumes that Paul with this “quick flash of thought” intended 
to say: “The idea of the mediator necessarily presupposes 
two different living beings between whom, as being at vari- 
ance or separated, mediation has to take place; because the 
mediator of one is not, does not exist at all, is an impossibility. 
But since God is in strictness only One, and does not consist of 
two inwardly different Gods or of an earlier and later God, it 
is evident that Moses as mediator did not mediate between the 
God of the promise and the God of the law, and thereby mix up 
the law with the promise and cancel the promise by the later 
law; but he only mediated (as is well known) between God 
and the people of that time.” But even this interpretation, 
the thought of which would probably have been expressed 
most simply by Paul writing o 8 pecitns Qcod éorw, 0 SE 
@eds els éotiv, is liable to the objections urged above (under 8) 


1 After several earlier attempts, according to his last view of 1866, in the 
monograph quoted at ver. 15. 








CHAP. III. 20, 22. 193 


against Hermann’s explanation. 15. According to Hofmann 
(compare also his Schrifibew. II. 2, p. 55 ff), the jirst half of 
the verse is intended to affirm that, where there 2s only one to 
whom something is to be given, there is no room for mediator- 
ship; such an individual recipient may receive it directly. 
Now, as the promise ran to Abraham’s posterity as an unity, 
it is evident that the giving of the law, just because it was 
destined for a plurality of individuals, could be no fulfilment 
of the promise. The second half of the verse, which with dé 
passes on to the divine side of the event, places the unity of God 
in contradistinction to the plurality of angels ; that which comes 
to men through the latter must be of a different kind from the 
promised gift, which the One was to give tothe One—the one God 
to the one Christ. Thus on this side also it is clear that the 
giving of the law was not the fulfilment of the promise, but 
was only ordained for the time, until Christ should come. 
But (a) all this artificial interpretation must at once fall to 
the ground, because it conceives évds to be opposed to a 
plurality of recigient subjects; for it is not true that the’ be- 
stowal through a mediator presupposes such a plurality, seeing 
that it may take place just as well with one as with many re- | 
cipients. (0) It is incorrect that the unity of God is placed 
in contrast with the plurality of angels (which is not even 
marked, by 7roAXa@p ayy. or the like): it stands in gontrast to 
the évds ovx éorw, and it is untrue that the “ mediateness of 
the giving involved its taking place through many”—just as 
if the mediate giving could not with equal fitness take place 
through one, as in fact it has very often been given by God 
through one! (c) Paul’s intention is, not to show that the 
giving of the law was not the fulfilment of the promise, but, 
as is clearly evident from ver. 21, to show that the law 
was not opposed to the promise. — 16. Wieseler: “ Moses as 
mediator, however (€ being restrictive), has reference not merely 
to God (but also to men): for a mediator from his nature has 
not reference to one (but to two parties) ; but God is one. Gon- 
sequently the failure of that mediatorial office of Moses was 
based on the fact, that he as mediator had to do not only 
with God, but also with men. The fault does not lie with the 
faithfulness of God, who appointed him as mediater,—an idea 
XN 


194 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


which cannot be entertained,—but rather with the action 
‘of men,’ etc. Against this interpretation it may be urged, 
not only that the words els éoriw imperceptibly acquire the 
sense: 73 only one of the two parties, which Paul would cer- 
tainly have been able to express otherwise than by the con- 
fession of monotheism (Deut. vi. 4; Jas. it 19; Rom. iii. 30; 
1 Cor. viii. 4, 6, e& al.), but also that the idea of a failure 
on the part of the law-giving, and of the blame due for it, 
was remote from the apostle’s mind, and would here be un- 
suitable to the divine purpose expressed in ver. 19. The law 
became to men the Sdvayis tas dwaprias (1 Cor. xv. 56); 
but this falls to be regarded not as a failure on the part of 
the law-giving, but as a necessary stage in the development of 
the divine plan of salvation (ver. 22 ff.; Rom. vii). 17. 
According to Stélting (Bettrdge 2. Exeg. d. Paul. Br. 1869, 
p. 86 ff.), évés and els are to be taken in the sense of absolute 
unity. Ver. 20 is supposed to contain a syllogism with a sup- 
pressed conclusion: viz., A mediator does not belong to one; but 
God is one ; consequently a mediator does not ‘belong to God. 
Accordingly God is absolutely excluded from any mediation 
through the law: the objects of this mediation are on the one 
hand the Jews, and on the other hand their contrast, the Gentiles ; 
and the law was to unite these two dissociated parts, which it 
effected by showing that the Jews were in need;of redemption, 
and by making the Gentiles capable of redemption (Rom. iii. 
22, 29f.). The mediator, with the law in his hand, is sup- 
posed to have placed himself between Jews and Gentiles, and to 
have made both equal through the law,—an equalization which 
does not take place with God,.as there is not one God of the 
Jews and another God of the Gentiles, between whom media- 
‘tion might occur, but only a single God, who treats Jews and 
Gentiles with’ equal justice, being, as He is, a single Person 
without opponent, an absolute unity. Even this acutely 
carried out interpretation is not tenable: for (a) the reader 
finds no indication in the text that évds and els are to be 
taken in the pregnant sense of absoluteness; and Paul, in 
order to be understood, must at least have written, in the 
second half of the verse, something like o 5¢ @eds 6 dvtas els 
(or 6 amaAa@s els) éorw. Nor (6) is it correct that absolute 








CHAP. III. 20, 21 | : 195 


unity excludes the being an object of mediation; because the 
absolutely one God has allowed mediation to take place be- 
tween Himself and man, not only through Christ, but also in 
the ancient history of salvation, through His ministers (the 
angels, Moses, and the prophets). (e) There is nothing in the 
words of the passage to make us think of the Jews and . 
Gentiles as objects of the mediation ; since the law is rather 
to be recognised as the pecorovyov (Eph. ii 14) between the 
two, which had to be removed by Christ in order to their 
union. To the national consciousness, not only of the apostle, 
but also of his readers, God and Israel could alone occur as 
the parties reconciled with one another through the peoirns. 
(d) It is not correct that the conclusion drawn from ver. 20 
is not expressed. It is expressed in ver. 21, and rejected as 
erroneous.—Lastly, Riickert confines himself to the correct 
translation of the words, “ The mediator does not refer to one 
(but always to more than one); but God is one;” from which 
is to be concluded, “ Therefore the mediator does not refer to 
God alone, but also to others.” He, however, at the same time 
- confesses that he does not see any way, in which these pro- 
positions and this conclusion are to be connected with the fore- 
going passage, so as to yield any relevant and lucid thought. 
‘While Riickert has thus despaired of an explanation on his. 
own part, he has not questioned the title of the passage to 
receive an explanation. . But this course, to which Michaelis 
was already inclined,’ has been actually adopted by. Liicke 
(in the Stud. u. Krit. 1828, p. 83 ff.), who holds ver. 20 to 
be a gloss, which had originally served, on the one hand, to 
explain the conclusion of ver. 19 (the mediator was inter- 
preted as applying to Christ, and it was desirable to point 
out that this mediator belonged not merely to the Jews, but 
also to the Gentiles), and, on the other, to give a reason 
for the beginning of ver. 21. But the witnesses in favour 
of its genuineness? are so decisively unanimous, that no other 


1 <<] wished, in fact, that it were allowable for me in the explanation to 
pass over the whole verse, and to give it out as a marginal note of some reader 
pot understanding Paul, which had found its way into the text. oe eneele 
Paraphr. p. 33, ed. 2. 

. fare is not even the slightest variation in the individual words, or in their 


196 THE EPISTLE OF PADL TO THE GALATIANS. 


passage can appear better attested. Liicke only makes use of 
an argumentum a silentio.—namely, that Irenaeus, Tertullian, 
and Origen do not cite our verse (Clement of Alexandria has 
it at least once, in the Zheodot. ed. Col. p. 797 A); but little 
stress can be laid on this, when we consider how lightly in 
general the Fathers were wont to pass over the words in 
question, without even discerning in them any special import- 
ance or difficulty. 

Ver. 21. 6 ody vopos Kata Tay érayyenoy ;| ovv, the refer- 
ence of which is differently explained according to the different 
interpretations of ver. 20, draws an inference, not from the 
definition of the object of the law in ver. 19 (Castalio, Luther, 
Gomarus, Pareus, Estius, Bengel, and others, including Liicke, 
Olshausen, de Wette, Wieseler, Hofmann, Stolting), but from 
ver. 20, which is not arbitrarily to be set aside, or to be treated 
merely as an appendage of ver. 19. The law, namely, which 
was given through a mediator, and therefore essentially other- 
wise than the promise, might thereby appear to introduce on 
the part of God another way of granting the Messianic sal- 
vation than the promises, and consequently to be opposed to 
the latter. See the fuller statement at ver. 20. — xara ray 
érraryryedtav] See vv. 8,16. The «ara is the usual contra, in 
opposition to. Matthias incorrectly explains it: “ Is it included 
under the idea of the promises?” Since the simple éor/—and 
not, possibly, rdoweras (see Lobeck, Phryn. p. 272)—is to be 
supplied, the expression would be wholly without the sanction 
of usage. Moreover, looking to the specific difference in the 
ideas of the two things, Paul could not have asked such a 
question at all. — ed yap é606n vopos «.7.r.] ground assigned 
for the yu yévocro, and therefore proof that it would be incor- 
rect to conclude from ver. 20 that the law was opposed to the 
promises. For if it had been opposed to the promises, the law 


arrangement,—a fact which, judging by critical analogy, would be scarcely con- 
ceivable in a text compiled from a double gloss. Only the Eth. adds duorum 
at the end, evidently an exegetical addition, the author of which appears to 
have had in his mind some explanation which bore a similarity to that of 
Clarke, Locke, Winer, or Gurlitt. 

1 Also in 1 Cor. vi. 15, ody (in opposition to Stélting’s appeal to the passage) 
introduces a possible (mischievous) inference from what immediately precedes, 
to be at once repelled with horror by ua yivure, 


CHAP. lL. 24, 197 


must have been in a position to procure life; and if this 
were so, then would righteousness actually be from the law; 
which, according to the Scriptures, cannot be the case (ver. 
22). — vouos] just as in the whole context: the Mosaic law, 
although without the article, as in ii 21, 11, 11, 18; Winer, 
p. 117 [E. T. 152], — 0 duvdy. Swor.] The article marks off 
the definite quality which, in the words ef yap é600n vopos, is 
conceived by the lawgiver as belonging to the law (Winer, 
p. 127 [E. T. 167]; Kiihner, ad Yen. Mem. ii. 7,13): as that 
which is able to give life ;. and this is the point of this condi- 
tional sentence. — Cworrotjjcau| “ Hoc verbo praesupponitur 
mors peccatori intentata,” Bengel. The {w7, however, which 
the law is not able to furnish, is not the being alive morally 
(Winer, Riickert, Matthies, Olshausen, Ewald, Wieseler, Hauck, 
Hofmann, Buhl, and others, following older expositors), but, in 
harmony with the context, the everlasting Messianic life (see 
Kauffer, de bibl. Sw7s aliwviov notione, p. 75), as is evident 
from ver. 18 (ei yap é« vouou 4 KAnpovoyia) and from ver. 22. 
Comp. also 2 Cor. iii. 6. The moral quickening is presupposed 
in this {woroijoat. The law, in itself good and holy, could 
not subdue the dominion of the principle of sin in man (Rom. 
viii. 3), but rather necessarily served to promote this dominion 
(see on ver. 19), and was therefore unable to bring about the 
eternal life which was dependent on obedience to the law 
(ver. 12): given unto life, it was found unto death, Rom. 
vil. 10. Paul never uses Cwo7roreiy of the moral quickening, 
nor ovéworrovety either (Eph. i. 5; Col. ii, 13). The fw is 
the eternal life which is manifested at the Parouwsia (Col. ii. 
3 f.), and therefore in reality the «Anpovoylia (vv. 18, 29). 
Comp. joerat, ver. 12, to which our wor. glances back. — 
SvTws ex vopou dv hy % Sixatocvvn] then in reality (not merely 


1 This consequence depends upon the dilemma: Life may be procured either 
through the promises or through the law. If, therefore, the law stands in oppo- 
sition to the promises, so that the latter shall no longer be valid, the Zaw must 
be able to procure life. This dilemma is correct, because no third possibility is 
given in the divine plan of salvation. 

* Even if 2» be not genuine, this interpretation is not altered (Buttmann, 
neut. Gr. p. 194, 6); and we cannot explain (with Hofmann) : ‘‘If there was 
given, etc., then was,” etc. This imperfect (erat) would be illogical; Paul 
would have written ieriy or yiyevsy. 


198 : THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


in Jewish imagination) the law would be that, from which the 
existence of righteousness would proceed, namely, by its enabling 
men to offer complete obedience. The argument proceeds ab 
effectu (fworrotjoat) ad causam (4 Sixatocvvn), for, without 
being righteous before God, man cannot attain eternal life: 
not as Riickert, Wieseler, Hofmann, and others, in accord- 
ance with their view of Gwo7., are compelled to assume, a 
causa (the new moral life whereby the law is fulfilled) 
ad effectum (the Sixatoovvn which would be acquired by the 
fulfilment of the law). The relation between {worrotijoar 
and % Sixacoovvn is aptly indicated by Oecumenius: ovx 
gwoev ovdé edixalwoev, and by Bengel: “Justitia est vitae 
Fundamentum.” 

Ver. 22. But the case supposed (€500 voyos o Suvap. 
Cworrorjoat) does not exist: for, on the contrary, according 
to the Scriptures all men have been subjected to the dominion 
of sin, and the purpose of God therein was, that the promised 
salvation should not come from the law, but should be bestowed 
on believers on account of faith in Christ. What sort of posi- 
tion is assigned under these circumstances to the law, is then 
stated in ver. 23. — ouvéxreicey 4 ypady x.7.X.] Scripture is 
personified, ‘as in ver. 8. That which God has. done, because 
it 1s divinely revealed and attested in Scripture (see Rom. 111. 
9-19) and thereby appears an infallible certainty, is repre- 
sented as the act of Scripture, which the latter, as in its 
utterances the professed sclf'- revelation of God, has accom- 
plished. The Scripture—that is, when regarded apart from 
the personification, God, according to the divine testimony of 
the Scripture—zhas brought all into ward under sin, that is, has 
put the whole of mankind without exception into the relation 
of bondage, in which sin (comp. Rom. iii 9) has them, as it 
were, under lock and key, so that they cannot escape from 
this control and attain to moral freedom. On the figurative 
expression, and on the conception of the matter as a divine 
measure (not a mere declaration), compare on Rom. xi. 32. 
Following Chrysostom (7éy£ev) and others, Hermann finds 
the sense: “per legem demum cognitum esse peccatum” (Rom. 
vil. 7 f£., iii, 19 ff), which, however, does not correspond with 
the significance of the carefully-chosen ocuvéxrecoev, and is 


CHAP. IIL 292, : 199 


also at variance with 1 ypady, which is by no means— 
as, following the Fathers (but not Theodoret), Beza, Calvin, 
Baumgarten-Crusius and others think—equivalent to vopos, 
but denotes the O. T., whilst o vouos in the whole connec- 
tion is the institute of the law. The bond of guilt which is 
implied in the dominion of sin is obvious of itself, without any 
need for explaining dyapriav as the guilt of sin. — Moreover, 
the emphasis is on the prefixed ovvéxrccoey: included, so that 
freedom, that is, the attainment of Sicacocvvn, is not to be 
thought of. Suy«delew, however, does not denote: to include 
together, with one another, as Bengel, Usteri, and others hold 
(not even in Rom. xi. 32), which is clearly proved by the fact 
that the word is very often used of the shutting up of one, 
unaccompanied by others (1 Sam. xxiv. 19; Ps. xxxi 9; 
Polyb. xi. 2.10; 1 Macc. xi. 66, xii. 7); but ovy corresponds 
to the idea of complete custody, so that the enclosed are en- 
tirely and absolutely held in by the barriers in question. 
Comp. Herod. vii. 129: Aduvn ouyKAniopévn mavrobev, Eur. 
Hee. 487; Polyb. i 17. 8,i 51. 10, iii, 117. 11; also Plat. 
Tim. p. 71 C, where it is used with éudparrew; 1 Mace. iv. 
31, v. 5. Una includere would be ovyxaraxndelew, Herod. i. 
182; Lucian, Vit. auct. 9, D. mort. xiv. 4. — 1a wavra] the 
collective whole, not: all which man ought to do (Ewald), but like 
Tous mwavtas, Rom. xi. 32. The neuter used of persons, who are 
thus brought under the point of view of the general category : 
the totality. See on 1 Cor.i 27; Arrian. v. 22.1. According 
to Calvin, Beza, Wolf, Bengel, and others (comp. also Hofmann), 
Ta travta is supposed to refer not merely to men, but also to 
everything which they are, have, or do. But the figurative 
ouvéxreccev, and also the context by .tots aiorevovor and the 
personal indications contained in ver. 23 ff, give the prefer-: 
ence to our interpretation. Besides, ra wravra, taken of things, 
would mean all things (Xen. Mem. i. 11; Rom. xi. 36, e¢ al.), 
which is here unsuitable. Comp. on the matter itself, Rom. 
il. 9, 19. — iva 4 érayyedia x.7.r.] the purpose of God, be- 
cause that which was previously represented as the action of 
Scripture was in reality the action of God. Therefore we must 
not (with Semler, Koppe, Rosenmiiller, Flatt, Winer, Matthias, 
and others) explain logice: quo appareat dari, etc. — 1 émay- 


200 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


yerla] that which was promised, a sense which the abstract 
receives through S067. Comp. ver. 14. That which is meant 
is the promised gift, already well known from the context, 
namely, the «Anpovoyia, vv. 16, 18. — ex wicrews] not from 
obedience to the law, which with that subjection under the 
control of sin was impossible, but so that the divine bestowal 
proceeds, as regards its subjective cause, from faith in Jesus 
Christ ; comp. ver. 8. The emphasis is on this é« mor. I. 
X., and not on ézayyeAia (Hofmann); see ver. 23 ff. — roils 
murtevovet] is explained by Winer and others as an apparent 
tautology arising from the importance of this proposition (and 
therefore emphatic); but without adequate ground (and passages 
such as ver. 9, Rom. i 17, Phil. iii. 9, are not relevant here) ; 
the expression, on the contrary, is quite in keeping with the 
circumstances of the Galatians. That salvation was intended 
for believers, was not denied; but they held to the opinion that 
obedience to the law must necessarily be the procuring cause 
of this salvation. Paul therefore says: in order that, in virtue 
of faith in Jesus Christ, not in virtue of obedience to the law, 
salvation should be given to the believers—so that thus the 
believers have no need of anything further than faith. Comp. 
v. 4f. 

Ver. 23. 4é] no longer connected with add (Hofmann), 
but leading over to a new portion of the statement (the coun- 
terpart to which is to follow in ver. 25),—-namely, to the posi- 
tion which the law held under the circumstances expressed in 
ver. 25. Before the introduction of faith, it was to guard and 
maintain those who belonged to it in this relation of bondage, 
so that they should not get rid of it and become free,—a libera- 
tion which was reserved for the faith which was to come. — 
apo Tov 5é édGety] Sé in the third place with the prepositional 
phrase. See Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 397; Klotz, ad Devar. 
II. p. 378 f. — Here also wloris is neither doctrina fidem pos- 
tulans, the gospel, as most ancient expositors and Schott think, 
nor the dispensation of faith (Buhl, comp. Riickert), but subjec- 
- twe faith, which is treated objectively. Comp. on i 23, ii. 2. 
As long as there was not yet any belief in Christ, faith was 
not yet present; but when on the preaching of the gospel men 
believed in Christ, the faith, which was previously wanting, . 


CHAP. III. 23. 201 


had come, that is, had now set in, had presented itself,— 
namely, in the hearts of those who had become believers. On 
e\Oeciy as applied to mental things and states, which set in, 
comp. Pind. Vem. i. 48 (hopes); Plat. Pol. iii. p. 402 A (under- 
standing) ; Soph. 0. R. 681 (Soxeyots). Comp. also Rom. vii. 9. 
— wd vouov éppovpovpeBa ovyKretopevor] (see the critical 
notes): under the law we were held in custody, so that we were 
placed in ward with a view to the faith about to be revealed. 
The subject is: we Jewish Christians (ver. 25); the emphasis 
is on wd voyuov, and afterwards on ior, The law is repre- 
sented as a ruler, wader whose dominion (76 vopov) those who 
belonged to it were held in moral captivity, as in a prison; so 
that they, as persons shut up in the ¢povpa under lock and. 
key, were placed beyond the possibility of liberation—which 
was only to ensue by means of the faith that was to be re- 
vealed in the future! The words and the context do not yield 
more than this: the paedagogic efficacy of the law is not in- 
ferred till ver. 24, and is not to be anticipated here. This view 
ig opposed to that of many expositors (Chrysostom, Theophy- 
lact, Oecumenius, Erasmus, Grotius, Estius, Winer, Riickert, 
Schott, Ewald, and others), who find already expressed here 
that paedagogic function, which, however, is understood in the 
sense of the “usus politicus” of the law (but see on ver. 24): 
“in severam legis disciplinam, guae ne in omnem libidinem 
effunderemur cavit, traditi,” Winer. But the whole explana- 
tion of the law guarding from sin (to which also Wieseler 
refers éfpoup.) is opposed to the correct interpretation of trav 
mapaBacewy yapw (ver. 19), and also to ver. 22. The cap- 
tivity so forcibly described by Paul is just the sinful bondage 
under the law, Rom. vii. 1; 1 Cor. xv. 56. . Observe, more- 


1 If, with Winer, Usteri, and Schott, igpevp. is explained merely as asservaba- 
mur (1 Pet. i. 5),—comp. Hofmann, ‘‘we were held in keeping,” —it yields, accord- 
ing to the connection with cuyxsxAsopive:s, and with the inference thereupon of 
the paedagogic function of the law, too weak a thought. Comp. Wisd. xvii. 16. 
Luther, Calvin, and many others, including Riickert and de Wette, have rightly 
found in épeup. and evyxsxa. the figurative idea of a prison (¢povpsov, Plat. Az. p. | 
365 EB; @povpe, Plat. Phaed. p. 62ff.). The prison, however, is not the law 
itself; but the latter is the ruler, under whose power the captives are in prison, 
—hbecause, namely, under the law, asthe dévapess ris deaprias (1 Cor. xv. 56), they 
are not in a position to attain to the freedom of moral life. 


202 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


over, in order to a just, understanding of the passage, that 
urd vopoyv, according to the very position of the words, cannot 
without proceeding arbitrarily be connected with ovye«X. (50 
de Wette, Wieseler, and many others, also my own former 
interpretation),—a connection which is not warranted by the 
other thought, ver. 22,—but must be joined to é¢poup. (Augus- 
tine and many others, also Hofmann, Reithmayr, Buhl); and 
further, that the present participle cvy«Aecdpevoe (with the eds 
THY PéAX, «.T.A. belonging to it) forms the modal definition of 
édpoupovpeda, representing the continued operatjon of the latter, 
which, constantly appearing in fresh acts, renders liberation im- 
possible. Hofmann (comp. his Schrifibew. IL. 2, p. 59) under- 
stands ovyxdelew eis in the sense of constraining to something ; 
it expresses in his view the constraining power, with which 
subjection to the law served to keep the people directed 
towards the faith which was to be revealed in the future." 
Such an use of the phrase is indubitably found among later 
Greek authors, and is especially frequent in Polybius (see 
Raphel, and Schweighiuser, Lex. Polyb. p. 571 f.); but how im- 
probable, and in fact incredible it is, that Paul should have here 
used this word in a different sense from that in which he used 
it immediately before in ver. 22, and in the kindred passage, 
Rom. xi. 32 (he has it not elsewhere)! This sense could not 
have occurred to any reader. JBesides, the idea of constraint 
against one’s will, which must be conveyed in ovyxdevop. 
eis (see Fritzsche, ad Rom. II. p. 545), and which Hofmann 
obliterates (“the law conferred on the people «ds distinctive 
position, and its abiding in this distinctive position was at the 
same time an abiding directed towards the faith that was to 
come”), would neither agree with the text (vv. 22, 24) nor 
harmonize with history (Rom. xi; Acts xxviii.-25 ff). — es 
THY pédAXNovcay triotw atroxadvdOfvat] As eis in ver. 24 is 
evidently to be understood as ¢elic, and as the temporal inter- 
pretation wsgue ad (Erasmus, Grotius, Michaelis, Koppe, Morus, 
Rosenmiiller, Riickert, Usteri, and others) after apo rod edGeiv 
Thv tiotw, which includes in itself the terminus ad quem, 

1 Raphel, Polyd. p. 518, has understood evyxasiay sis in a similar way to 


Hofmann, and finely paraphrased it : ‘‘ eo necessitatis quem adigere, ut ad fidem 
tanquam sacram ancoram confugere gogatur.” Comp. Bengel. 


CHAP, III. 24. 203 


would be very unmeaning, es is to be explained: towards the 
faith, that is, with the design, that we should pass over into 
the state of faith. Luther (1519) aptly remarks: “in hoc, ut 
fide futura liberaremur.” In accordance with the view of 
Oecumenius, Theophylact, Augustine, Calovius, Raphel, Bengel, 
Hofmann, eis «.7.X. is to be connected with ovyxAeouevos, 
because the latter, without this annexation of the telic state- 
ment eis «.7.X., would not form a characteristic modal defini- 
tion of éfpovp. This ets «7X. is, in the history of salvation, 
the divine aim of that ovyxAerots, which was to cease on its 
attainment; Christ is the end of the law. Comp. ver. 22, 
where iva «.7.X. corresponds with the eis «.7.r. here. — pér- 
Novear] is placed first (Paul did not write, els rt. wlor. 7. werd. 
a7rox.), because with that earlier situation is contrasted the sub- 
sequent futwre state of things which was throughout the object 
of its aim. Comp. on Rom. vii. 18. Similarly in 1 Pet. 
v. 1, 2 Mace. viii. 11. — dsroxadvd@ijvac] for so long as there 
was not yet belief in Christ, faith had not yet made its appear- 
ance: it was still a (in the counsel of God) Aidden element of 
life, which became revealed as a historical phenomenon, when 
Christ had come and the gospel—the preaching of faith (vv. 2, 
5)—-was made known. ‘AzroxanX. cannot be understood as the 
infinitive of design and, according to the reading ouyxexdeuc- 
pévot, a8 belonging to the latter word (Matthias: “in order to 
become manifest, as those who were under the ban with a view 
to the future faith”), because in the religious-historical con- 
nection of the text it must signify the final appearance of the 
blessing of salvation, which hitherto as a yuvorypiov had been 
unknown (Rom. xvi. 25). Besides, Paul would thus have 
written very far from clearly ; he must at least have placed the 
infinitive before ovyxexdetc. 

‘Ver. 24. Accordingly the law has become our paedagogue unto 
Christ. As a paedagogue (see on 1 Cor. iv. 15) has his wards 
in guidance and training for the aim of their future majority, 
so the law has taken us into a guidance and training, of which 
Christ was the aim, that is, of which the aim was that we 
in due time should no longer be under the law, but should 
belong to Christ. This munus paedagogicum, however, re- 
sulting from ver. 23, did not consist in the restriction of 


204 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


sin, or in the circumstance that the law “ ab inhonestis minarunt 
asperitate deterreret” (Winer, and most expositors, including de 
Wette, Baur, Hofmann, Reithmayr, but not Usteri, Hilgenfeld, 
Wieseler),—-views decidedly inconsistent with the aim ex- 
pressed in ver. 19, and with the tenor of ver. 23, which by no 
means expresses the idea of preparatory improvement; but it 
consisted in this, that the law prepared those belonging to it 
for the future reception of Christian salvation (justification by 
faith) in such a manner that, by virtue of the principle of sin 
which it excited, it continually brought about and promoted 
transgressions (ver. 19; Rom. vii 5 ff.), thereby held the 
people in moral bondage (in the ¢povpd, ver. 23), and by pro- 
ducing at the same time the acknowledgment of sin (Rom. 
iii, 20) powerfully brought home to the heart (Rom. vii 24) 
the sense of guilt and of the need of redemption from the 
divine wrath (Rom. iv. 15),—a redemption which, with our 
natural moral impotence, was not possible by means of the 
law itself (Rom. ii. 19 f., viii, 3). Luther appropriately re- 
marks: “Lex enim ad gratiam praeparat, dum peccatum 
revelat et auget, humilians superbos ad auxilium Christi 
desiderandum.” See also Weiss, d:b/. Theol. p. 287 f; Hol- 
sten, 2. Evang. d. Paul. u. Per. p. 315 f. Under this paeda- 
gogal discipline man finally cries out: tadaimrwpos éyo, Rom. 
vii. 24. — eis Xpiorov] not usgue ad Christum (Castalio, J. 
Cappellus, Morus, Rosenmiiller, Riickert, Matthias), but desig- 
nating the end aimed at, as is shown by wa é« a. Sux.; 
comp. ver. 23. Chrysostom and his successors (see Suicer, 
Lhes. II. pp. 421, 544), Erasmus, Zeger, Elsner, and others, 
refer ets to the idea that the law mpos rov Xpictoy, os éorw 6 
d:ddoxanos, amnye, just as the paedagogi had to conduct the 
boys to the schools and gymnasia (Plat. Lys. p. 208 C; Dem. 
313. 12; Ael V. #. iti. 21). But this introduces the idea 
of Christ as a teacher, which is foreign to the passage ; He is 
conceived of as reconciler (iva éx aio. din.). — va é« wicrews 
dixatw6.] is the divine destination, which the paedagogic func- 
tion of the law was to fulfil in those who were subject to it. 

1 Comp. Liban. D. xxv. p. 576C: awpiirey ply voy wavdayoyioousys abewy chy 


Hpowipsory, ws av Thy awd Tov vouou Cnelay cradvousyas ewPporsir dvayrecwvres, Comp. 


also Simplic. Hpict. 10, p. 116, ed. Schweigh. ; and see Grotius on our passage. 


CHAP. III. 25, 26. 205 


The emphatic é« miotews (by fatth, not by the law) shows 
how erroneously the paedagogic efficacy of the law is referred 
to the restriction of. sin. 

Ver. 25. No longer dependent on the @ore in ver. 24. 
Paul now desires to unfold the beautiful picture of the salva- 
tion which had come. — ovxért] This is the breathing afresh of 
freedom. On the matter itself, comp. Rom. vi 14, x. 4, vii 
25.— ind maSay.] without article: under tutorial power. 

Ver. 26. The argumentative emphasis is laid first on mdvres, 
and then, not on viol,—which expositors have been wont to 
understand in the pregnant’sense: sons of full age, free, in con- 
trast to the zrasc/ implied in wadaywyos (see, against this view, 
Wieseler and Matthias),—but on viol @eod, because in this 
@cod the vio actually has its express and full definition, and 
therefore to supply the defining idea is quite unwarrantable. 
All of you are sons of God by means of faith ;’ but where all 
without exception and without distinction are sons of God, 
and are so through faith, none can be, like Israel before the 
appearance of faith, under the dominion of the law, because 
the new state of life, that of faith, is something altogether 
different,—namely, fellowship with the viorns of Christ (ver. 
27). To be ason of God through faith, and to be under the 
old tutorial training, are contradictory relations, one of which 
excludes the other. The higher, and in fact perfect relation, 
excludes the lower. — zravres] Paul now speaks in the second 
person, because what is said in ver. 26 f. held good, not of 
the Jewish Christians alone (of whom he previously spoke in 
the jirst person), but of all Christians in general as such, conse- 
quently of all his readers whom he now singles out for address ; 
whether they may have previously been Jews or Gentiles, now 
they are sons of God. Hofmann supposes that Paul meant by 
the second person his Gentile-Christian readers, and wished to 
employ what he says of them in proof of his assertion respect-- 
ing those who had been previously subject to the law. In 


132 ¢. wier. stands third in the order of emphasis, but has not the main 
stress laid upon it in contradistinction to the wévess (Hofmann), as if it stood 
immediately after wdvess yap. 

2 Theodoret aptly remarks: i3:%s ray wswierivxérey od TiAssoy® oi yap CHAS 
They cay viny Venwaricovews Otoy ; 


206 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS, 


this case he must, in order to be intelligible, have used some’ 
such words as xal yap tpets EOvn aayres «7.4. According 
to the expression in the second, person used without any 
limitation, the Galatian Christians must have considered 
themselves addressed as a whole without distinction,—a view 
clearly confirmed to them by the dcot (ver. 27), and the 
"Iovdaios ovdé “EAAnY comp. with aavtes tpets (ver. 28). 
Where, on the other hand, Paul is thinking of the Galatians 
as Gentile Christians (so far as the majority of them actually 
were so), this may be simply gathered from the context (iv. 8). 
— évy Xpior@ Incod] belongs to wiotews. According to the 
construction muorevey &v tun (see Mark i 15; Eph.i 13; 
LXX. Ps. lxxviii. 22, Jer. xii. 6; Clem. 1 Cor. 22: 4 & 
Xpicr@ awiorss, Ignat. ad Philad, 8: & T@ evayyergtw ov 
muotevo), ) lots év Xpicre is fides in Christo reposita, the 
faith resting in Christ; the words being correctly, in point of 
grammar, combined so as to form one idea. See Winer, p. 
128 [E. T. 169]; Fritzsche, ad Marc. p. 63, ad Rom. I. p. 
195f£ Comp. Eph 11,15; Coli 4; 1 Tim ii 13. But 
Usteri, Schott, Hofmann, Wieseler, Ewald, Matthias, Reith- 
mayr (Estius also pronouncing it allowable), join ev Xp. ’I. with 
viot Geob éeore, of which it is alleged to be the modal defini- 
tion ; specially explaining the sense, either as “utpote Christo 

prorsus addictt” (Schott), or of the “inclusion in Christ” (Hof- 
- Inann), or as assigning the objective ground of the sonship, 
which has its subjective ground in 8:4 7. wior. (Wieseler; comp. 
Hofmann and Buhl). But all these elements ure already 
obviously involved in dia +. ariot. itself, so that & X. ’I., as 
parallel to dua r. 7., would be simply superfluous and awk- 
ward; whereas, connected with dia 7. 7., it expresses the 
emphatic and indeed solemn completeness of this idea (comp. 
ver. 22), in accordance with the great thought of the sentence, 
coming in all the more forcibly at the end, as previously in the 
case of éAGeiy (ver. 23) and éAovons (ver. 25) the wlotis was 
mentioned without its object, and the latter was left to be 
understood as a matter of course. | 

Ver. 27. The words just used, viol cod dore, expressing 
what the readers as a body are through faith in Christ, are 
now confirmed by the mention of the origin of this relation ; 


CHAP. IIL. 27. 207 


and the ground on which the relation is based is, that Christ is 
the Son of God. Comp. Chrysostom: ef 0 Xpictos vids rod 
Oecod, od 5é adrov évdéducat, roy vidv Eywv ev éavt@ Kal pos 
avrov opowwlels eis play ouyyéveray Kal play idéav iyOn¢. 
Luther, 1519: “Sz autem Christum induistis, Christus autem 
filtus. Det, et vos eodem indumento filit Dei estis.” — écor] 
corresponding to the emphatic adyres in ver. 26. — eis 
Xpicrov] in relation to Christ (see on Rom. vi. 3), so that 
- ye who belong to Christ through baptism become partakers 
in fellowship of life with Him. — Xpuorov éevedvcacbe] 
laying aside the figure, according to the connection: Ye have 
appropriated the same peculiar state of life, that is, the very 
same specific relation to God, in which Christ stands; conse- 
quently, as He is the Son of God, ye Have likewise entered 
into the sonship of God, namely by means of the mvevpa 
viobeclas received at baptism (iv. 5—7; Rom. viii. 15; 1 Cor. 
vi. 11; Tit. i. 5). Observe, besides, how baptism neces- 
sarily presupposes the perdvoa (Acts ii. 38) and faith (comp. 
Neander, IL. p. 7'78 f.; Messner, Lehre der Ap. p. 279). The 
entrance on the state of being included in Christ, as Hofmann 
from the point of view of elva: év X. explains the expression, is 
likewise tantamount to the obtaining a share in the sonship of 
God. The figure, derived from the putting on of a charac- 
teristic dress is familiar both to the Greek authors and the 
Rabbins (Schoettgen, Hor. p. 572). See on Rom. xiii. 14. 
In the-latter passage the putting on of Christ is enjoined, but it 
is here represented as having taken place; for in that passage 
it is conceived under the ethical, but here under the primary 
dogmatic, point of view. Comp. Luther, 1538. Usteri in- 


' Looking at the very general occurrence of the figure, and seeing that the 
context contains no indication whatever of any special reference, we must en- 
tirely reject any historical or ritual references. See the many discussions of the 
earlier expositors in Wolf. By some the figure was looked upon as referring to 
heathen customs (as Bengel : ‘‘ Christus nobis est toga virilis”), by others to 
Jewish customs (‘‘ it applies to the putting on of the robes of the high priest 
at his appointment,” Deyling, Obss. III. p. 480, ed. 2), by others to Christian 
customs (‘‘it applies to the putting on of new—at a later time white—gar- 
ments after baptism,” Beza). The latter idea is especially to be set aside, 
because the custom concerned cannot be shown to have existed in apostolic 
times; at any rate, it has only originated from the N. T. idea of the putting on 
of the new man, and is its emblematic representation. 


208 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS, 


correctly desires to find in the évdvecOa, Xpicrov of our pas- 
sage, not the entering into the sonship of God, but the putting 
on of the new man (Col. iii. 9-11), having especial reference 
to the thought of the universalistic, purely human element, 
in which all the religious differences which have hitherto 
separated men from one another are done away. This view 
is inconsistent with the word actually used (Xpiorov), and 
with the context (viol @eod, ver. 26). Nevertheless, Wieseler 
has in substance supported the view of Usteri, objecting to 
our interpretation that viol @eod expresses a sonship of God 
different from that of Christ, who was begotten of God. It is 
true that Christians are the sons of God only by adoption 
(viofecla); but just by means of this new relation entered 
upon in baptism, they have morally and legally entered into 
the like state of life with the only-begotten Son, and have 
become, although only His brethren by adoption, still His 
brethren. Comp. Rom. viii 29. This is sufficient to justify 
the conception of having put on Christ, wherein the meta- 
physical element of difference subsists, as a matter of course, 
but is left out of view. On the legal aspect of the relation, 
comp. ver. 29; Rom. viii. 17. — Moreover, that the formula 
éy Xpior® elvat is not to be explained from the idea Xpiorov 
évdvcacGat, see in Fritzsche, ad, Rom. II. p. 82. Just as 
little, however, 1s the converse course to be adopted (Hof- 
mann), because both eva & ti and évdvcacbai tive or Te 
are frequently used in the N. T. and out of it, without any 
correlation of the two ideas necessarily existing. The two 
stand independently side by side, although in point of fact it 
is correct that whosoever is ¢v Xpiot@ has put on Christ 
through baptism. 

Ver. 28. After ye have thus put on Christ, the distinctions 
of your various relations of life apart from Christianity have 
vanished; from the standpoint of this new condition they 
have no further validity, any more than if they were not in 
existence. — vt] is an abbreviated form for éveors (1 Cor. vi. 
5; Col. iii. 11; Jas. i 17), not the adverbially used preposi- 
tion (Hom. Od. vii. 96; Schaefer, ad Bos, p. 51; Kiihner, 
II. § 618), as Winer, Usteri, Wieseler, and others assume, 
with the accent thrown back. Against this view it is decisive, 





CHAP. III. 29. 209 


that very frequently év and év are used together (1 Cor. vi. 5, 
and frequently in Greek authors, as Xen. Anabd. v. 3. 11; 
Herod. vii. 112), and yet there is no éori added, whereby the 
évt shows that it stands independently as a compound word 
= éyveots or évetot. Comp. Ellendt, Lew. Soph. I. p. 591. 
Translate : there is not, namely, in this state of things when ye 
have all put on Christ, a Jew, etc. The dels in vv. 28, 29 
shows that the individualizing form of statement, applying to 
the readers, is still continued ; therefore Hofmann is wrong, 
although consistent with his erroneous interpretation of the 
second person in ver. 26f, in taking éu as general: “in 
Christ,” or “ now since faith has come,” on the ground that éy 
ipiv is not added (which was obvious of itself from the con- 
text). As to the idea generally, comp. Col. i. 11; Rom. x. 
12; 1 Cor. xii, 13. — dpcev nat O7drv] Comp. Matt. xix. 4. 
The relation here is conceived otherwise than in the previous 
oux . .. ovdée, namely: there are not male and female, two 
sexes; so that the negative is not to be supplied after xat 
(Bornemann, ad Act. xv. 1). — mavres yap «.7.r.] Proof from 
the relation cancelling these distinctions, which is now con- 
stituted: For ye all are one, ye form a single moral person; 
so that now those distinctions of individuals outside of Chris- 
tianity appear as non-existent, completely merged in that 
higher unity to which ye are all raised in virtue of your fel- 
lowship of life with Christ. This is the els’ xawwds dvOpwrros, 
Eph. ii. 15. Observe the emphatic madyres as in ver. 26, and 
Scot in ver. 27. — év Xpiot@ "Incod] Definition of els éore. 
They are one, namely, not absolutely, but in the definite sense 
of their relation as Christians, inasmuch as this unity is causally 
dependent on Christ, to whom they all belong and live (i. 20; 
2 Cor. v. 15 f.; Rom. xiv. 8). See Col. i 11. 

Ver. 29. But by your thus belonging to Christ ye are also 
Abraham's posterity: for Christ is indeed the ovéppa ‘AB. 
(ver. 16), and, since ye have entered into the relation of Christ, — 
ye must consequently have a share in the same state, and 
must likewise be Abraham’s owépya; with which in confor- 
mity to the promise is combined the result, that ye are heirs, 
that is, that ye, just like heirs who have come into the pos- 
session of the property belonging to them, have as your own 

O 


210 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS, 


the salvation of the Messianic kingdom promised to Abraham 
and his seed (the realization of which is impending). — 6é] 
drawing a further inference, so that, after the explanation con- 
tained in ver. 28, et 5¢ duets Xpeorod in point of fact resumes 
the Xpiorov evedvcacbe of ver. 27. The emphatic tpeis has 
as its background of contrast the natural descendants of Abra- 
ham, who as such do not belong to Christ and therefore are 
not Abraham’s ovépua. — tod ’ABp.] correlative to Xpictod, 
and emphatically prefixed. Ye are Abraham's seed, because 
Christ is so (ver. 16), whose position has become yours (ver. 
27). Comp. Theodoret and Theophylact. — xaz’ érary.] for 
T@ ’ABp. éppnOncay at érayyedlas cat Te orépparte avrod, 
ver. 16. It is true that this owépyua in ver. 16 is Christ: but 
Christians have put on Christ (ver. 27), and are altogether one 
in Christ (ver. 28); thus the xar’ éraryy. (in conformity with 
promise) finds its justification. But the emphasis is laid, not 
on «xat’ érayy. as contrasted with xara vouoy (Baumgarten- 
Crusius, Ewald, Wieseler), or with another order of heirs (Hof- 
mann), or with natural inheritance (Reithmayr), but on «Anpo- 
vouot, Which forms the link of connection with the matter 
that follows in ch. iv., and both here and at iv. 7 constitutes 
the important key-stone of the argument. This «Anpovopor is 
the triumph of the whole, accompanied with the seal of divine 
certainty by means of xar’ errayy.; the two together forming the 
final death-blow to the Judaistic opponents, which comes in 
all the more forcibly without «af (see critical notes). The 
alleged contrast was obvious of itself long before in the words 
omépua tov ’’ABp. (comp. ver. 18). The article was no more 
requisite than in ver. 18. — «Anpovouot] The connection with 
the sequel shows, that the sense of heir is intended here. Tod 
"ABp. is not, however, to be again supplied to «Anpovopos, as 
might be inferred from ozrépua; but, without supplying a geni- 
tive of the person inherited from, we have to think of the 
KAnpovoula of the Messianic salvation. Comp. Rom. viii. 17. 
Against the supplying of rod ’ASp. we may decisively urge not 
only the sequel, in which nothing whatever is said of any in- 
heriting from Abraham, but also xar’ érayy. For if Paul had 
wished to express the idea that Christians as the children of 
Abraham were also the heirs of Abraham, the xat’ émaryy. 


CHAP. IIL 29. . 211 


‘would have been inappropriate ; because the promise (ver. 16) 
had announced the heirship of the Messianic kingdom to 
Abraham and his seed, but had not announced this heir- 
ship in the first instance to Abraham, and then announced 
to his seed in their turn that they should be Abraham’s heirs. 





212 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


CHAPTER IV. 


Ver. 6. nua] Elz. has ina, against decisive testimony, after 
the foregoing éoré. — Ver. 7. xAnpovéuos] Elz. and Scholz add 
@s0U di Xprorov. There are many variations, among which xAzp. 
d:& @sod has most external attestation, viz. A B C* x*, Copt. 
Vulg. Boern. Clem. Bas. Cyr. Didym. Ambr. Ambrosiast. Pel ; 
so Lachm., Schott, Tisch. The Recepta xAnp. Ocod d:& Xpiorot is 
defended by C. F. A. Fritzsche in Fritzschiorum Opuse. p. 148, 
and Reiche ; ‘whilst Rinck, Zucubr. crit. p. 175, and Usteri, hold 
only xAnp. da Xpiorod as genuine, following Marian.** Jerome 
(238, lect. 19, have xAnp. da "Inood Xpiorot); Griesb. and Riick., 
however, would read merely xAnpovéuos (80 178 alone). Theophyl. 
Dial. c. Maced., and two min., have from Rom. viil 17 xAnp. wiv 
G00, ovyxdAnp. 8s Xpsorov. Amidst this great diversity, the much 
preponderating attestation of xAnp. d:& Oeod (in favour of which 
F G also range themselves with xAnp. dc ©sév) is decisive; so 
that the Recepta must be regarded as having arisen from a gloss, 
and the mere xAnpovduos, which has almost no attestation, as _ 
resulting from a clerical omission of &:& @s0d. — Ver. 8. pice: um] 
So A BC D* Ex, min, vss., Ath. Nyss. Bas. Cyr. Ambr. Jer. 
Approved by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. But Elz. 
Matth. Scholz, Schott, Reiche, have 49 guess. Opposed to this is 
the decisive weight of the evidence just given, and the internal 
ground, that in ro75 2) piss obo: be0% people might easily find the 
entire non-existence of the heathen gods, which could not but 
be more satisfactory than our reading, leaving as this does to the 
gods reality in general, and only denying them actual divinity. 
The same cause probably induced the omission of puos in K, 117, 
Clar. Germ. codd. Lat. in Ambr. Ir. Victorin. Ambrosiast. — 
Ver. 14. weipacudy ov rév] So Elz. Matth. Scholz, Tisch. Reiche, 
following D*** K L, many min., and a few vss. and Fathers. 
But A B C** D* F Ga*, 17, 39, 67*, Copt. Vulg. It. Cyr. Jer. 
Aug. Ambrosiast. Sedul., have repacuiv izav. Recommended by 
Mill. and Griesb., adopted by Lachm. And justly; iwév not 
being understood, was either expunged (so C*?, min., Syr. Erp. 
Arm. Bas. Theophyl.; approved by Winer, Riick., Schott, 
. Fritzsche), or amended by wou rév, Comp. Wieseler. — Ver. 15. 


CHAP. IV. 213 


ris ot] Grot., Lachm., Riick., Usteri, Ewald, Hofm., read od oi, 
which is indeed attested by A B C F GX, min., Syr. Arr. Syr. p. 
(in the margin), Arm. Copt. Vulg. Boern. Dam. Jer. Pel, but 
by the explanations of Theodore of Mopsuestia (ra oty ri¢ évratda 
avril rob wou 6 waxap.), Lheodoret, TheophyL, and Oecum., is pretty 
well shown to be an ancient interpretation.— The %v which 
follows is omitted in A BC LX, min., Aeth. Damasc. Theophyl. 
Theodoret, ms. Expunged by Lachm. and Scholz, also Tisch. 
Rightly. According as rig was understood either correctly as 
expressing quality, or as equivalent to ov, either jy (DEK 
et al.) or gor: (115, Sedul. Jer.), or even viv (122, Erp.), was 
supplied. In Oecum. the reading %v is combined with the ex- 
planation sod by recourse to the gloss: viv yap ody spa abrév. — 
dv] before éax. is wanting in ABC D* F Gx, 17, 47, Dam. 
Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch.: a grammatical addition. — 
Ver. 17. éxxaAsioa: buds] Elz. has éxx2. yua¢, which is found only 
In a very few min., was introduced into the text by Beza,' and 
must be looked upon as an unnecessary conjecture. — Ver. 18. 
rd Cnroveba] A C and four min., Damasc. have %nActcbas merely 
(so Lachm.), while B 8, and three min., Aeth. Vulg. Jer. Ambro- 
siast., read ZnActede. The latter is an ancient error in transcrib- 
ing, which involved the suppression of the article. The correct 
form ZnActedas was restored, but the article, which seemed super- 
fluous, was not recovered. — Ver. 21. d&xovers] D E F G, 10, 31, 
80, Vulg. It. Sahid. Arm., and Fathers, have dvaywaoxers. An 
ancient interpretation. — Ver. 24. 800] Elz. has ai dtc, against 
decisive testimony. — Ver. 25. “Ayap] is wanting inC F GR, 
17, 115, Aeth. Arm. Vulg. Goth. Boern. Cyr. Epiph. Damasc. 
Or. int. Ambrosiast. Jer. Aug. Pel. Sedul. Beda. Deleted by 
Lachm. and Wieseler, condemned also by Hofmann, who refers 
*Ayap to the Syriac Church, although it is attested by A B D E 
K L, and most min., Chrys., and others, But instead of yap, 
A BD E, 37, 73, 80, lect. 40, Copt. Cyr. (once), have 6. The 
juxtaposition of yap “Ayap led to the omission sometimes of the 
"Ayap, and sometimes of the yép. After the latter was omitted, 
in a part of the witnesses the connection that was wanting 
was restored by 8; just as in the case of several, mostly more 
recent authorities, instead of yép after dovrcts:, 8¢ has crept in 
(so Elz.), because the argument of the apostle was not under- 
stood. — ovororye7 8¢] D* F G, Vulg. It. Goth., read 4 cvcrayotca ; 
D*, however, not having the article. A gloss, in order to ex- 
hibit the reference to “Ayap in ver. 24. — Ver. 26. juav] Elz. 
reads ardvrwy yuov; Lachm. has bracketed rdavrav, But it is 


1 Beza himself allows that tuzs stands in all the codd. (in the fifth edition 
he adds: Latin), but considers that the sense requires suas. 


214 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


wanting in BC* DEF GR, some min., most vss., and many 
Fathers. Deleted by Tisch.; defended by Reiche. An ampli- 
fying addition, involuntarily occasioned by the recollection of 
iii. 26, 28, and the thought of the multitude of the réxva (ver. 27). 
— Ver. 28. us%... doviv) Lachm. and Schott, also Tisch., read 
uusig gore, following B D F G, some min., Sahid. Aeth. Ir. Vic- 
torin. Ambr. Tychon. Ambrosiast. Justly; the first person was 
introduced on account of vv. 26 and 31. — Ver. 30. xAnpovoujon] 
Lachm. reads xAnpovoujoe, following B D E 8 and Theophylact ; 
from the LXX. — Ver. 31. dpa] A C, 23, 57, Copt. Cyr. Damasce. 
Jer. Aug., have qut% 3; B D* Ex, 67**, Cyr. Marcion, read 
86. The latter is (with Lachm. and Tisch.) to be preferred ; 
for yue7% 8% a&deAgos 1s evidently a mechanical repetition of ver. 
28 (Rec.), and dpa is too feebly attested (F G, Theodoret, have 


dpa, oby), 





ConTENTS.— Further discussion of the «dnpovopovus etvas (iii. 
29), as a privilege which could not have been introduced before 
Christ, while the period of nonage lasted, but was jirst intro- 
duced by means of Christ and Christianity at the time appointed 
by God, when the earlier servile relation was changed into 
that of sonship (vv. 1-7). After Paul has expressed his 
surprise at the apostasy of his readers, and his anxiety lest he 
may have laboured among them in vain (vv. 8-11), he entreats 
them to become like to him, and supports this entreaty by a 
‘sorrowful remembrance of the abounding love which they had 
manifested to him on his first visit, but which appeared to have 
been converted into enmity (vv. 12-16). He warns them 
against the selfish zeal with which the pseudo-apostles courted 
them (ver. 17), while at the same time he reproves their 
fickleness (ver. 18), and expresses the wish that he were now 
present with them, in order to regain, by an altered mode of 
speaking to them, their lost confidence (vv. 18-20). Lastly, 
he refutes the tendency to legalism from the law itself, namely 
by an allegorical interpretation of the account that Abraham 
had two sons, one by the bond-woman, and one by the free 
woman (vv. 21-30), and then lays down the proposition that 
Christians are children of the free woman, which forms the 
groundwork of the exhortations and warnings that follow in 
ch. v. (ver. 31). , 

Ver. 1. Aéyo 5€] Comp. iii. 17, v.16; Rom. xv. 8; 1 Cor. 


CHAP. IV. 1. 215 


i. 12: now I mean, in reference to this «Anpovoyia brought in 
through Christ, the idea of which I have now more exactly to 
illustrate to you as for the first time realized in Christ. This 
illustration is derived by Paul from a comparison of the pre- 
Christian period to the period of the non-free, slave-like child- 
hood of the heir-apparent. — 颒 dcov ypovov] As in Rom. vii. 
1; 1 Cor. vii. 39. — 6 KAnpovoyios] The article as in o pealrns, 
iii, 20: the heir in any given case. KaAnp. is, however, to be 
conceived here, as in Matt. xxi. 38, as the heir of the father’s 
goods, who is so not yet in actual personal possession, but de 
jure—the heir apparent, whose father is stzJ alive. So Cameron, 
Neubour (Bibl. Brem. v. p. 40), Wolf, Baumgarten, Semler, 
Michaelis, and many others, including Winer, Schott, Wieseler, 
Reithmayr. But Riickert, Studer (in Usteri), Olshausen (unde- 
cided), Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wefte, Hilgenfeld, Hofmann, fol- 
lowing Chrysostom, Theodoref, and most of the older expositors, 
conceive the heir as one whose father is dead. Incorrectly, 
on account of ver. 2; for the duration of the guardianship (in 
which sense v7 ézutporrous, ver. 2, must then be understood) 
' could not have been determined by the will of the father,’ but 
would have depended on the Jaw (Hermann, Staatsalterth.§ 121). 
Hofmann thinks, indeed, that the point whether the father was 
bound by a law of majority is not taken into account, but only 
the fact, that it is the father himself who has made arrange- 
ments respecting his heir. But in this view the mpoecyia, 
as prescribed by the father, would be entirely illusory; the 
notice would be absurd, because the apobecpla would be 
not Tod martpos, but Tov voyov. — vymios] still in boyhood. 
Comp. 1 Cor. xii. 11. “Imberbis juvenis tandem custode 
remoto gaudet equis,” etc., Virg. Aen. ix. 649. Quite in oppo- 


sition to the context, Chrysostom and Oecumenius refer it to. 


mental immaturity (Rom. ii. 20; Hom. JI. v. 406, xvi. 46, et 
 al.). — ovdév Stadéper SovdAov] because he is not sui juris. 
Comp. Liban. in Chits, p. 11 D, in Wetstein. — xvpios mravtwr 


1 Baumgarten - Crusius, indeed, appeals to the proof adduced by Giottling 
(Gesch. d. Rém. Staatsverf. pp. 109, 517), that Gaius, I. 55. 65, 189, comp. 
Caes. Bell. Gall. vi. 19, mentions the existence of a higher. grade of the patria 
potestas among the Galatians. But in this way it is by no means shown that 
the time of majority was, after the death of the father, dependent on the settle- 
ment which he had previously made. 


216 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


av} although he is lord of all, namely de jure, in eventum, as 
the hetr-apparent of all the father’s goods. Consequently 
neither this nor the preceding point is inconsistent with the 
hypothesis that the father is still alive (as Hofmann and 
others have objected). Comp. Luke xvi. 31. — The «Anpo- 
vopos varios represents, not the people of Israel (Wieseler); 
but, according to the connection with iii 29 (comp. iv. 3), the 
Christians as a body, regarded in their earlier pre-Christian 
condition. In this condition, whether Jewish or Gentile, they 
were the heir-apparent, according to the idea of the divine 
predestination (Rom. viii. 28 ff.; Eph. 1 11; John xi. 52), in 
virtue of which they were ordained to be the Israel of God 
(vi. 16), the true ovrépya of Abraham. 

Ver. 2. ’Esrirporros means here not guardian (dpdavav 
émlrpotros, Plat. Legg. p. 766 C; Dem. 988. 2; Xen. Mem. i. 2. 
40; 2 Macc. xi 1, xiii. 2, xiv. 2; comp. also the rabbinical 
DIPMNMIpN in Schoettgen, Hor. p. 743 f.), as it is explained by 
all who look upon the father as dead (see, however, on ver. 1), 
but overseer, governor, and that without any more special defini- 
tion (Herod. i 108; Pind. Ol.i 171; Dem. 819. 17; Xen. 
Occ. 21. 9; and very frequently in classical authors) ; it is 
neither therefore to be taken (as in Matt. xx. 8; Luke viii. 3) 
as synonymous with oixovoyos (which would give a double 
designation without ground for it), nor as equivalent to maséa- 
ywyos (which would be an arbitrary limitation). The term 
denotes any one, to whose governorship the boy is assigned 
by the father in the arrangement which has been made of 
the family affairs; and from this category are then specially 
singled out the oixovoyuot, the superior slaves appointed as 
managers of the household and property (Luke xvi. 1), on 
whom the vymius was dependent in respect to money and 
other outward wants. — dype' ris mpoleculas tod matpos] 
Until the appointed time of the father, until the term, which 
the father has fixed upon for releasing his son from this state 
of dependence. 1 mpoUecpila, tempus praestitutum, does not 
occur elsewhere in the N. T., but is frequent in classical 
authors. See Wetstein; also Jacobs, Ach. Tat. p. 440. 

Ver. 3. “Hyets] embraces Christians generally, the Jewish 
and Gentile Christians together. In favour of this view we may 





CHAP. IV. 3. | | 217 


decisively urge, (1) the sense of orovyeia tod Koopov (see 
below) ; (2) ver. 5, where the first iva applies to the Jewish 
Christians, but the second, reverting to the first person, applies 
to Christians generally, because the address to the readers 
which follows in ver. 6 represents these as a whole, and not 
merely the Jewish Christians among them, as included in the 
preceding tva tv viobeciay arord8apev; lastly, (3) that the 
‘ovxéTs and tore, said of the Galatians in vv. 7 and 8, point 
back to the state of slavery of the seis in ver. 3. Theréfore 
nets is not to be understood as referring either merely to the 
Jewish Christians (Chrysostom and most expositors, including 
Grotius, Estius, Morus, Flatt, Usteri, Schott, Baumgarten- 
Crusius, de Wette, Wieseler) ; or—as Hofmann in consistency 
with his erroneous reference of iii. 29 to the Gentile readers 
holds—to “ the Old Testament church of God, which has 
now passed over into the New Testament church ;” or to the 
Jewish Christians pre-eminently (Koppe, Riickert, Matthies, 
Olshausen) ; or, lastly, even to the Gentile Christians alone 
(Augustine). — dre juev vyjmot] characterizes, in terms of the 
prevailing comparison, the pre-Christian condition, which, in 
relation to the Christian condition of the same persons, was 
their age of boyhood. Elsewhere Paul has represented the con- 
dition of the Christians before the Parousia, in comparison with 
their state after the Parousia, as a time of boyhood. See 
1 Cor. xiii. 11; Eph. iv. 13. — tad ra orotyeia tod Kocpov 
nev Sedova.] corresponds, as application, to the ovdéy diadépes 
SovAov . . . GANA UTO EmritpdTOUsS eoTt Kal oixov. The word 
arovyetov—which denotes primarily a stake or peg standing 
in a row, then a letter of the alphabet (Plat. Theaet. p. 202 E; 
Xen. Mem. ii. 1.1; Arist. Poet. 20. 2; Lucian, Jud. voc. 12), 
then, like apyn, element (see Rudolph on Ocell. p. 402 ff.)— 
means here at all events element, which signification has de- 
veloped itself from the idea of a letter, inasmuch as a word is 


1 A point on which almost all expositors agree. Yet Luther, 1519, following 
the precedent of Tertull. c. Marc. v. 4, adopted the signification of letters: ‘* pro 
ipsis literis legis, quibus lex constat. . . . Mundi autem vocat, quod sint de iis 
rebus, quae in mundo sunt.” So also in 1524, and at least to a similar effect in 
1588. More recently Michaelis has also explained it as letters ; holding that the 
acts of the Levitical law were intended, because, taken as a whole, they had 
preached the gospel by anticipation. Similarly Nosselt, Opuse. II. p. 209, takes 


218 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


a series of the letters which form it (Walz, Rhetor. VI. p. 110). 
In itself, however, it might be used either in the physical sense 
of elementary substances, which Plato (Ruhnk. ad Tim. p. 283) 
calls also yévn (2 Pet. iii 10, 12; Wisd. vii. 17, xix. 18; 4 
Mace. xii 13; Plat. Zim. p. 48 B, 56 B, Polit. p. 278 C; Philo, 
de Opif. m. p. 7, 11, Cherub. p. 162; Clem. Hom. x. 9), as it 
frequently occurs in Greek authors applied to the so-called 
four elements (comp. Suidas, s.v.), or in the intellectual sense of 
rudimenta, first principles (Heb. v. 12; Plut. de pueror. educ. 
16; Isocr. p. 18 A; Nicol. ap. Stob. xiv. 7. 31; see Wetstein). 
_ In the latter sense the verb orovyevoty was used to signify the 
instruction given to catechumens; Constitt. ap. vi. 18. 1, vii. 
25. 2. Comp. our expression the A, B, C of an art or science. 
In the physwal sense—in which it is used by later Greek 
authors for. designating the stars (Diog. L. vi. 102; Man. iv. 
624; Eustath. Od. p. 1671, 53)—it was understood by most 
of the Fathers: either as by Augustine (de civ. D. iv. 11), who 
thought of the Gentile adoration of the heavenly bodies and 
of other nature-worship; or as by Chrysostom, Theodoret, 
Ambrose, Pelagius, who referred it to the Jewish observance 
of new moons, feasts, and Sabbaths, which was regulated by 
the course of the moon and sun. So, combining the Gentile 

and Jewish cultus, Hilgenfeld, p. 66 (comp. in his Zettschr. 
- 1858, p. 99; 1866, p. 314), who ascribes to the apostle the 
heterogeneous idea of “sidereal powers of heaven,” that is, of the 
stars as powerful animated beings (comp. Baur and Holsten) ; 
and Caspari (in the Strassb. Beitr. 1854, p. 206 ff.), in whose 
view Paul is supposed to have placed Mosaism in the cate- 
gory of star and nature worship; and likewise Reithmayr, 
although without such extravagances. But because the expres- 
sion does not apply either merely to the circumstances of the 
heathen, or merely to those of the Jewish, cultus (see, on the 
contrary, vv. 8—10),—to the latter of which it is in the physical 


ereue as signs (Arist. Eccl. 652, where it is used for the shadow of the plate 
on the sun-dial ; comp. Lucian, Gall. 9, Cronos. 17), holding that the Jewish 
ceremonies are thus named because they prefigured the future Christian wor- 
ship. These views are all erroneous, because the expression eroytia +. xdopev 
applies also to Gentile habits. 

1 Comp. generally, Schaubach, Commentat. quid ererctia rou xécpov in N. T'. 
sibi velint, Meining. 1862. 


CHAP. IV. 3. | 219 


sense not at all suitable, for the Jewish celebrations of days 
and the like were by no means a star-worship or other (pos- 
sibly unconscious) worship ef natwre, under which man would - 
have been in bondage, but were an imperfect worship of God— 
and because the context suggests nothing else than the contrast 
between the imperfect and the perfect religion, as well as also 
on account of the correlation to vy7iot, the physical sense of 
orovyetov is altogether to be rejected.’ Besides, it would be 
sdifficult to perceive why Paul, if he had thought of the stars, 
should not have written rod ovpavod instead of rod Kocpouv. 
Hence Jerome (also twés in Theophylact, and Gennadius 
in Oecumenius, p. 747 D), Erasmus, Castalio, Beza, Calvin, 
Grotius, and most of the later expositors, though with various 
modifications, have correctly adhered to the sense rudimenta 
disciplinae, which alone corresponds to the notion of the yymiérns 
(for the age of childhood does not get beyond “rst prineiples). 
The otowyeia rod: Koopov are the elements of non-Christian 
humanity (xdopos; see 1 Cor. vi. 2, xi. 32, ef al.), that is, the 
elementary things, the immature beginnings of religion, which 


1 With strange arbitrariness Schulthess (Zngelwelt, pp. 118, 129) has recently 
anticipated Hilgenfeld in re-asserting this sense ; holding that the stars are meant, 
but that Paul is glancing at the Jewish ministry of angels (Job xxxviii. 7 (!)). 
More thoroughly Schneckenburger (in the theol. Jahrb. 1848, p. 445 ff.) has 
again defended the physical reference (elements of the visible world). Comp. 
Holsten, z. Hv. d. Paul. u. Petr. p. 323. In this interpretation the law must 
be excepted (as is done by Holsten) from the ersysia,—an exception which is 
forbidden by the whole connection with ch. iii., and is also inconsistent with the 
concrete instances in vv. 8 and 10; see above. Neander also—who, however, 
introduces the idea of the sensuous forms of religion—would retain the physical 
reference, which is decidedly assumed by Lipsius (Rechtfertigungsl. p. 83), who 
‘specially commends the interpretation of Hilgenfeld ; whilst Messner (Lehre d. Ap. 
p. 226) agrees in substance with Neander, holding that dsdoua. twéd ra oroiysia rod 
xoopeov is ‘the dependence of the religious consciousness on the earthly, sensuous, 
perishable things, of which this earthly xésxes, as to its fundamental elements, 
consists.” But why, then, the restriction ‘‘as to its fundamental elements ?”’ 
And the idea of perishableness is tmported. Ewald understands by it. the 
elements of the world, into the whole of which life must be brought through the 
spirit, and unity and meaning through God ; it comprehends the Jewish observ- 
ances as to meats and days, as well as the heathen star-worship. Yet how unsuited 
to popular apprehension (as pertaining to natural philosophy) would the whole 
expression thus be! an enigmatic designation for the heathen worship, and an 
unsuitable one for the Jewish cultus, which is based on divine precept. As to 
the way in which Hofmann understands the material elements of ‘the world, see 
the sequel. | 


220 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


occupy the minds of those who are still without the pale of 
Christianity. Not having attained to the perfect religion, the 
xorpos has still to do with the religious elementary state, to 
which it is in bondage, as in the position of a servant. Rudi- 
ments of this sort are expressly mentioned in ver. 10; hence 
we must understand the expression, not in a onesided fashion 
as the elementary knowledge, the beginnings of religious per- 
ception in the non-Christian world (comp. Kienlen, in the 
Strassb. Beitr. II. p. 133 f£)}—with which neither the idea of 
the relation as slavery, nor the inclusion of the Jewish and 
Gentile worships under one category would harmonize—but 
as the rudimenta ritualia, the ceremonial character of Judaism 
and heathenism} with which, however, is also combined the 
corresponding imperfection of religious knowledge. Comp. 
Col i. 8, 20. Against the explanation, “ religious elemen- 
tary things of the world,” the objection has been made, that 
this idea is not suitable either to Judaism, in so far as the 
latter was a divine revelation, or even to heathenism, which, 
according to Paul, is something foreign to religion ; see espe- 
cially Neander. But the latter part of the objection is erro- 
neous (Acts xvii. 22, 23); and the former part is disposed of, 
when—n the light of the pretensions put forth by the apostle’s 
opponents, which were chiefly based on the ceremonial side of 
the law—we take into account the relative character of the idea 
rudimenta, according to which Judaism, when compared with 
Christianity as the absolute religion, may, although a divine 
institution, yet be included under the notion of crovyeia, 
because destined only for the vjmreoe and serving a transitory 
propaedeutic purpose. Comp. Baur, Paulus, IT. p. 222, ed. 2; 
Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 289; also Ritschl, altkath. K. p. 73. 
Most of the older expositors, as also Olshausen, Baumgarten- 
Crusius, de Wette (with many various and mistaken inter- 
pretations of xdopos® see Wolf and Riickert in loc.), have 
referred the expression merely to Judaism (the law “as a 
means of training calculated only for the age of childhood,” de 
Wette, who is followed by Wieseler), whilst Koppe and Schott 
only allow the analogous nature of ethnicism to be included inci- 
dentally ; but, besides what has been above remarked on 7s, 
1 Comp. Schaubach, lc. p. 9 ff. 





CHAP. IV. 3. 221 


these views are at variance with the idea of rod xoopov. This 
idea is, at all events, too wide to suit the law, which was given 
to the people of Israel only ; whether it be taken as applying to 
mankind generally (de Wette, Wieseler), or to the unbelieving 
portion of mankind, in contrast to the dys in a Christian 
sense. Certainly it might appear unwise (see especially 
Wieseler) that Paul should have placed Judaism and heathen- 
ism in one category. But, in point of fact, he has to deal 
with Judaistic seductions occurring in churches chiefly Gentile- 
Christian: he might therefore, with the view of more effec- 
tually warning them and putting them to shame, so designate 
the condition of bondage to which by these seductions they 
were induced to revert, as to comprehend it in the same cate- 
gory with the heathen cultus, from the bondage of which they 
had been not long before liberated by Christianity. According 
to Hofmann, the crovyeia t. xdopou are contrasted with the 
promise given to Abraham of the xAnpovoyia xocpov, Rom. iv. 
13. He supposes that out of the destruction of the material 
elements of the present world (2 Pet. iii 10) the otxoupévn 
péAXovea (Heb. ii. 5) will arise, and that this will derive its 
nature and character from the Spirit, the communication of 
which is the beginning of the fulfilment of that promise. 
Israel, however, has been in bondage under the material 
elements of which the present world is composed, inasmuch 
as in what wt did and what rt left undone wt was subject to 
stringent laws, which had reference to the world in its existing 
materiality ; it had to conform itself to the things of this 
corporeal world, whilst the promise had been made to it that 
it should be lord of all things. Apart from the erroneous 
application of sets (see above), every essential point in this 
interpretation is gratuitously introduced. In particular, the 
contrast on which it is based—namely, that of the new world 
of the aidéy which is to come—is utterly foreign not only to 


1 Olshausen, feeling the difficulty which the idea of xéeyos puts in the way 
of the reference to Judaism, hits upon the arbitrary expedient of taking the 
expression to apply to the merely external and literal way of apprehending 
the O. T., which confines itself merely to the actions, without considering the 
idea involved in them. ‘‘ This was the procedure of the Judaists, and in thig 
shape the Old Test. appeared not merely as the beginning of divine life, but also 
as given over to the world,” etc. 


222 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


the whole context, but even to the words themselves; for, if 
Paul had had this contrast in view, he must, in order not to 
leave his readers wholly without a hint of it, have at least 
added a rovrov (1 Cor. vii. 31, i. 20, iii. 19; Eph. ii. 2) to 
Tov xoopov. It is, moreover, incorrect to discover in the 
orotyeia the opposite of the future world, so far as the latter 
has its nature from the Spirit. The world of the aiay pédrw», 
as the new heaven and the new earth (2 Pet.-iii. 13), must 
likewise be corporeally material, and must have its orovyeia, 
although the oyijua of the old world will have passed away 
(comp. on 1 Cor. vii. 31). — jyev SedovrAwp.] may be taken 
either together, or separately; the latter is to be preferred, 
because it corresponds more emphatically to the ovdey Suadéper 
SovAou (ver. 1) and the iro éwitpomrous dors (in ver. 2): we were 
enslaved ones. 

Ver. 4. “Ore 58 #AOe 7d TrANpwpa Tod ypovov] corresponds to 
the dype THs mpolecp. Tod trarp. (ver. 2). The time appointed 
by God, which was to elapse until the appearance of Christ (o 
povos)—consequently the pre-Messianic period—is conceived 
as a measure which was not yet full, so long as this period had 
not wholly elapsed (comp. Gen. xxix. 21; Mark i 15; Luke 
xxl 24; John vii 8; Joseph. Anti. vi. 4. 1, ¢ al.). Hence 
TO TANpwpA TOD ypovoy is: that moment of time, through which 
the measure of time gust mentioned became full, Comp. on Eph.. 
i 10, and Fritzsche ad Rom. IL p. 473.—On what historical 
conditions Paul conceived that counsel as to the fulness of time 

to depend (Theophylact: 6re aay eldos xaxias SieFeNOodca 4 
gvots 7) avOpwrlvn édeiro Oepareias. Baur: “ when mankind 
was ripe for it;” de Wette: “conditioned by the need of cer- 
tain preparations, or by the necessity of the religious develop-. 
ment of mankind which had reached a certain point”), cannot, 
after his view of the destination of the law which intervened 
between the promise and its fulfilment (iii 19, 24; Rom. v. 
20), remain doubtful. Theophylact takes in substance the 
right view. The need had reached its height. Comp. Chry- 
— sostom, ad Eph.i. 10: Gre uddvora guedrov drrodAvo Gar, TOTE 
SieowOncav. Without due ground Baur perceives: here (see 


1 He does not add redrev in Col. ii, 8, 20, just because the contrast suggested 
by Hofmann was far from his thoughts. 


CHAP. IV. 4 223 


his neut. Theol. p. 173) the idea that Christianity proceeded 
from a principle inherent in humanity, namely, from the ad- 
vance of the mind to the freedom of self-consciousness. — 
éFarréotetxev] He sent forth from Himself. Ver. 6; Acts vii. 
12, xi. 22, xvii. 14, e¢ al.; Dem. 251. 5; Polyb. i. 11.-1, 
iv. 26. 2, iv. 30. 1, and frequently. The expression presup- 
poses the idea of the personal pre-existence of Christ (see 
Rabiger, Christol. Paul. p. 16; Lechler, apost. Zed. p. 50; 
Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 316 ff), and therewith at the same 
time His personal divine nature (Rom. vii. 3, 32; Phil uu. . 
6; 2 Cor. viii 9); so that im reality the apostle’s idea 
coincides with the Johannean o Adyos qv mpos 7. Ocov and 
Qcds Fv O Adyos, but is not to be reduced to the notion of 
“the ideal first man” (Hilgenfeld), whose human birth, on 
account of His pre-existence, is conceived by Paul as not 
without a certain Docetism.’ This remark also applies against 
the view of Beyschlag referring it to the pre-existent prototype 
of man (Christol. d. N. T. p. 220 ff.), in connection with which 
the Messianic name of Son is supposed to be carried back from 
the historical to the pre-historical sphere. This is at variance 
with the express designation as wpwroroxos mdons KTicews 
(Col. i. 15), which likewise forbids us to say, with Hofmann : 
“ By the very fact, that God has sent Him forth from Himself 
into the world, He zs the Son of God.” According to Col. 1. 
15, He is, even before the creation, in the relation of Son to 
the Father, as begotten by Him,—a relation, therefore, which 
could not be dependent on the subsequent sending forth, or 
given for the first time along with the latter. — yevouevoy éx 
yuvaixos| so that He was born of a woman; the relation of the 
aorist participle is the same as in Phil ii 7f£ The reading 
_ yevv@pevov—attested only by min., and otherwise feebly, al- - 
though recommended by Erasmus, adopted by Matthias, and 
defended by Rinck—is a correct interpretation (as to the mean- 
ing, but not as to the tense; see Phot. Qu. Amphil. 90), which 
also occurs at Rom. i. 3, in Codd. mentioned by Augustine. 
Who this yuvn was, every reader knew ; we must not, however, 
say with Schott, following many of the older expositors, “de 


1 See, on the contrary, Rom. i. 3; indeed, Paul throughout is the very opposite 
of Docetism. | 


224 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS, 


virgine sponsa dicitur” (comp. Augustine, Serm. 16 de temp. ; 
Jerome, and others); but comp. Job xiv.1; Matt.xi11. Nor 
is anything peculiar to be found in é« (“ex semine matris ... 
non viri et mulieris coitu,” Calvin; comp. Cornelius a Lapide, 
Estius, Calovius, and others; Theophylact, following Basil, 
Jerome, and others: é« ris ovcias avTis capa AaBovra); on 
the contrary, é« is quite the wswal preposition to express the 
being born (John iii. 6; Matt. 16; 1 Pet. i 22, e¢ al; 3 
Esr. iv. 16; 4 Macc. xiv. 14; frequently used also in classical 
authors with yiyveoOar). This very fact, that Christ, although 
the Son of God, whom God had sent forth from Himself, 
entered into this life as man (Rom. v. 15; 1 Cor. xv. 21; Acts 
xvii. 31) and—just as an ordinary man enters into temporal 
life—as one born of woman, Paul wishes to bring into promi- 
nence as the mode of carrying out the divine counsel. Comp. 
Rom. viii. 3; Phil ii. 7. The supernatural generation which 
preceded the natural birth was not here in question; its 
mention would even have been at variance with the connec- 
tion which points to Christ’s humiliation: it is not, however, 
anywhere else expressly mentioned by the apostle, or certainly 
indicated as a consequence involved in his system (Weiss). 
Comp. on Rom.i 3. Nor is it to be inferred from é£avré- 
orevvey, in connection with the designation of Him who was 
sent forth as the Son (Hofmann, comp. also his Schriftbew. IT. 
1, p. 84); because, while it is assumed that as the Son of God 
He was already, before His incarnation, with God (6 Aoyos Fv 
mpos tov @edov), the mode of His incarnation—how He was 
born xata capxa éx oméppatos Aavid (Rom. i. 3; comp. ix. 
5; 2 Tim. ii. 8; Acts ii. 30)—is not defined. — yevouevoy 
i7rd vopov}] Luther: “made under the law;” and so most 
expositors: legi suljectum. But it is arbitrary to take yevop. 
here in another sense than before ;' and the vivid emphasis of 
the twice-used yevou. is thus lost. Hence Michaelis, Koppe, 
Matthies, Schott, de Wette, Lechler, rightly understand yevop. 
as natum. Thus also, in fact, “ the beginning of an elvas imo 


1 Viewed by itself, yivsedas sas with the accusative, in the sense to be subject 
to, is, in a linguistic point of view, quite as correct (1 Macc. x. 38; Thuc. i. 
110. 1; Lucian. Abdic. 28) as with the dative (Herod. vii. 11; Xen. Anab. vii. 
2. 8, vii. 7. 82; Thuc. vii. 64. 2). 


CHAP, IV. 5. 225 


vouov” (Hofmann) is expressed, and expressed indeed more 
definitely. Paul desires to represent the birth of the Son of 
God not merely as an ordinary human birth, but also as an 
ordinary Jewish birth (comp. Heb. ii. 14-17); and he there- 
fore says: “born of a woman, born under the law,” so that He 
was subjected to circumcision and to all other ordinances of 
the law, like any other Jewish child. But God caused His 
Son to be born as an ordinary man and as an ordinary Israelite, 
because otherwise He could not have undergone death—either 
at all, or as One cursed by. the law (ii. 13), which did not 
apply to those who were not Jews (Rom. i 12)—and could 
not have rendered the curse of the law of none effect as regards 
those who were its subjects. Comp. Rom. viii. 3 f; Heb. iii. 
14f. For this reason, and not merely on account of the con- 
trast to. tov viov adtod (Schott), Paul has added yevou. éx yuv., 
ev. U7rd vow., a8 a characteristic description of the humiliation 
into which God allowed His Son to enter. See the sequel. — 
With respect, moreover, to the perfect obedience of Christ to the 
law, it was a preliminary condition necessary for the redeeming 
power of His death (because otherwise the curse of the law 
would have affected Him even on his own account); but it is 
not that which is «mputed for mghteousness: on the contrary, 
this is purely faith im the itacrnpsov of His death. See 
on ii. 13; Rom. iv. 5, 24, v. 6 ff, e al. The doctrine of 
the Formula Concordiae as to the amputation of the obedientia 
Christi activa (p. 685) is not borne ouf by the exegetical proof, 
of which our passage is alleged to form part; but the atoning 
death of Christ is the culminating point of His obedience to- 
wards God (Rom. v.'19; Phil. ii. 8; 2 Cor. v. 21), without 
the perfection of which He could not have accomplished the 
atonement; and the form which this obedience assumed in Him, 
in so far as He was subject to the Jaw, must have been that of 
legal obedience (comp. Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 130). 
Ver. 5. The object for which God sent forth His Son, and 
sent Him indeed yevou, é« yuvair., yevou. bard vopxov, — Tors 
inro vopov] The Israelites are thus designated in systematic cor- 
respondence to the previous yevoy. td vouov, Comp. iii. 25, 
iv. 21,v. 18; Rom. vi. 14. — é£ayopdoy] Namely, as follows 
from tovs dard vouov, from the dominion of the law, vv. 1-3 
P 





226 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


(in which its curse, iii. 11, is included), and that through His 
death, iii 13. Erasmus well says: “dato pretio assereret 
in libertatem.” — ta rn viobec. dtrordB.] The aim of this 
redemption ; for of this negative benefit the vio#ec’a was the 
immediate positive consequence. But Paul could not again 
express himself in the third person, because the wofecia had 
been imparted to the Gentiles also, whereas that redemption 
referred merely to the Jews; but now both, Jews and Gen- 
tiles, after having attained the viofecia no longer imo ra 
arouxyéia To Kocpouv joav SedovrAmpévor (ver. 3): hence Paul, 
in the first person of the second sentence of purpose, speaks 
from the consciousness of the common faith which embraced 
both the Jewish and the Gentile portions of the Christian body, 
not merely from the Jewish-Christian consciousness, as Hof- 
mann holds on account of éoré in ver. 6. Comp. the change 
of persons in iii. 14. —- The vio6ec/a is here, as it always is, 
adoption (see on Eph. i 5; Rom. viii. 15; and Fritzsche, in 
loc.),—a meaning which is wrongly denied by Usteri, as the 
signification of the word allows no other interpretation, and the 
context requires no other. Previously not different from slaves 
(vv. 1-3), as they were in the state of vymorns, believers 
have now entered into the entirely different legal relation 
towards God of their being adopted by Him as children. 
Comp. Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 338 f The divine begetting (to 
which Hofmann refers) is a Johannean view; see on John 
i. 12. In the divine economy of salvation the gracious gift 
of the viofecia was needed in order to attain the xAnpovopia ; 
while in the human economy, which serves as the figure, the 
heir-apparent becomes at length heir as a matter of course. 
Accordingly Paul has not given up (Wieseler) the figure on 
which ver. 1 ff. was based—a view at variance with the express 
application in ver. 3, and the uninterrupted continuation of the 
same in ver. 4; but he has merely had recourse to such a free 
modification in the application, as was suggested to him by the 
certainly partial difference between the real circumstances of 
the case and the figure set forth in vv. 1, 2. Comp. ver. 7. 
— atronraf.] not: that we might again receive, as is the mean- 
ing of aoXapB. very often in Greek authors (see especially 
Dem. 78. 3; 162.17), and in Luke xv. 27; for before Christ 


CHAP. IV. 6. | 227 


men never possessed the viofecia here referred to (although 
the old theocratic adoption of the Jews was never lost, Rom. 
ix. 4): hence Augustine and others are in error when they 
look back to the sonship that was lost in Adam. Nor must 
we assume with Chrysostom, Theophylact, Bengel, and others, 
including Baumgarten-Crusius, Hofmann, and Reithmayr, that, 
because the viofecl/a is promised, it is denoted by dazoAaf. as 
opetAopévn,—a sense which is often conveyed by the context 
- in Greek authors and also in the N. T. (Luke vi. 34, xxiii. 41; 
Rom. i 27; Col. iii. 24; 2 John 8), but not here, because it 
is not the viofecla expressly, but the xAnpovoyia (iii. 29, iv. 7), 
which is the object of the promise. As little can we say, with 
Riickert and Schott, that the sonship is designated as fruit 
(amo = inde) of the work of redemption, or, with Wieseler, as 
fruit of the death of Jesus apprehended by faith: for while it © 
certainly 7s so in point of fact, the verb could not lead to it 
without some more precise indication in the text than that 
given by the mere éEwyop. On the contrary, dzroAdf. simply 
denotes: to take at the hands of any one, to receive, as Luke 
xvi. 25; Plat. Legg. xii. p. 956 D, and very frequently in 
Greek authors. | 

Ver. 6. A confirmation of the reality of this reception of 
sonship from the experience of the readers; for the éoré, — 
which, after the foregoing more general statement, now comes 
in with its individual application (comp. ili. 26), does not 
refer to the Galatians as Gentile Christians only (Hofmann), 
any more than in iii 26-29. — 6re] is taken by most ex- 
positors, following the Vulgate, as quontam (Luther, Castalio, 
Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Bengel, Semler, Morus, Rosenmiiller, 
Paulus, Olshausen, Baumgarten - Crusius, de Wette, Baur, 
Hilgenfeld, Ewald, and others). And this interpretation (on 
drt, because, at the beginning of the sentence, comp. 1 Cor. 
xi. 15; John xx. 29, xv. 19) is the most simple, natural, and 
correct; the emphasis is laid on viol, which is therefore placed 
at the end: but because ye are sons, God has sent forth the 
Spirit of His Son, etc. He would not have done this, if ye — 
had not (through the viofecia) been viol; thus the reception 
of the Spirit is the experimental and practical divine testi- 
mony to the sonship. Jf not sons of God, ye would not be the 


228 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS, 


recipients of the Spirit of His Son. The Spirit is the seal of 
the sonship, into which they had entered through faith—the 
divine onpetoy attesting and confirming it; comp. Rom. viii. 16. 
See also Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 340. Others (Theophylact, 
Ambrose, Pelagius, Koppe, Flatt, Riickert, Schott) take dr: as 
that, and treat it as an abbreviated mode of saying: “ But that 
ye are sons, 13 certain by this, that God has sent forth,” etc. 
(comp. ii, 11). This is unnecessarily harsh, and without any 
similar instance in the N. T.; modes of expression like those 
in Winer, p. 575 f. [E. T. 774], and Dissen, ad Dem. de Cor. p. 
205, are different. Wieseler takes it as equivalent to eis éxeivo, 
dre (see on Mark xvi 14; John ii 18, ix. 17, xi. 51, xvi. 19; 
1 Cor. iL 26; 2 Cor.1 18, xi 10): “as concerns the reality 
(éoré is to have the emphasis) of your state as sons.” But 
this would unnecessarily introduce into the vivid and direct - 
character of these short sentences an element of dialectic re- 
flection, which also appears in Matthias’ view. Hofmann 
handles this passage with extreme violence, asserting that dre 
Sé is an elliptical protasis——the completion of which is to be 
derived from the apodosis of the preceding period, from é£azréor. 
in ver. 4 onward,—that éoré viot is apodosis, and that the fol- 
lowing é£azréor. x.7.r. is the further result connected with it. 
In Hofmann’s view, Paul reminds his (Gentile) readers that 
they are for this reason sons, because God has done that act 
éEarréorethev x.T.r. (ver. 4), and because He has done it in the 
way and with the design stated in ver. 4 This interpreta- 
tion is at variance with linguistie usage, because the supposed 
elliptical use of dr 5é does not anywhere occur, and the ana- 

logies in the use of ei 5é, etc. which Hofmann adduces—some — 
of them, however, only self-invented (as those from the epistles 
of the apostle, 2 Cor. 1. 2, vi 12)—are heterogeneous. And 
how abruptly éaréor. 6 Ocds x.7.rX. would stand! But, as 
regards the thought also, the interpretation is unsuitable; for — 
they are sons, etc., not because God has sent Christ, but be- 
cause they have become believers in Him that was sent (iii. 26 ; 
John 1 12); it is not that fact itself, but their faith in it, 
which is the cause of their sonship and of their reception 
of the Spirit; comp. ui 14. To refer the sending of the 
Spirit to the event of Pentecost (as Hofmann does), by which 


CHAP. IV. 6. 229 


God caused His Spirit to initiate “a presence of a new kind” 
in the world, is entirely foreign to the connection; comp., on 
the contrary, iii, 2, v.14. — é£awéorecnkev 0 Oeds x.7.r.] for 
it is ro mvedpa TO éx Ocov, 1 Cor. ii. 12. Observe the sym- 
metry with ¢£aréor. x.7.X. in ver. 4. The phrase conveys, in 
point of form, the solemn expression of the objective (ver. 4) 
and subjective (ver. 5) certainty of salvation, but, in a dogmatic 
point of view, the like personal relation of the Spirit, whom 
God has sent forth from Himself as He sent forth Christ. — 
TO Tvevpa Tov viov avTov] So Paul designates the Holy Spirit, 
because he represents the reception of the Spirit as the proof 
of sonship ; for the Spirit of the Son cannot be given to any, 
who are of a different nature and are not also viol @eod. 
Comp. Rom. viii. 9. But the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of 
Christ, inasmuch as He is the divine principle of Christ's self- 
communication, by whose dwelling and ruling in-the heart 
Christ Himself (comp. on 2 Cor. iii. 17) dwells and rules 
livingly, really, and efficaciously (ii. 20) in the children of God. 
See on Rom. vii. 9,14. Comp. the Johannean discourses as 
to the self-revelation and the coming of Christ in the Paraclete. 
—— 7pav] The change of persons arose involuntarily from the 
apostle’s own lively, experimental consciousness of this blessed- 
ness. Comp. Rom. vii. 4.— xpdfov] The strong word expresses 
the matter as it was: with crying the deep fervour excited by 
the Spirit broke forth into appeal to the Father. Comp. 
Rom. vii. 15; also Ps. xxii. 3, xxvii. 1, xxx. 8; Baruch ii. 
1,iv. 20. Zhe Spirit Himself is here represented as crying 
(it is different in Rom. lc.), because the Spirit is so com- 
pletely the active author of the Abba-invocation, that the man 
who invokes appears only as the organ of the Spirit. Comp. 
the analogy of the opposite case—the crying of the unclean 
spirits (Mark i. 26, ix. 26). — ’ABB& o watnp] The usual 
view taken by modern expositors, following Erasmus and 
Beza, in this passage, as in Rom. viii. 15 and in Mark xiv. 
36, is, that o waryp is appended as an explanation of the Ara- 


1 See the usual view of the ancient expositors, following Augustine, in Luther: 
** Abba pater cur geminarit, cum grammatica ratio non appareat, placet vulgata 
ratio mysterii, quod idem Spiritus fidei sit Judaeorum et gentium, duorum popu- 
lorum unius Dei.” Comp, Calvin and Bengel. 


230 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


maic Abba for Greek readers (so Koppe, Flatt, Winer, Riickert, 
Usteri, Schott); along with which stress is laid on the “ child- 
like sound” of the expression, se foreign to the Greek readers 
(Hofmann). But see, against this view, on Rom. viii. 15. No; 
?ABRa, the address of Christ the Son of God to His Father, 
which had been heard times without number by the apostles 
and the first believers, had become so established and sacred 
in Christian prayer that it had assumed the nature of a 
proper name, so that the deep and lively emotion of the con- 
sciousness of sonship could now superadd the appellative o 
matnp; and the use of the two in conjunction had gradually 
become so habitual (Bengel appropriately remarks, “ haec 
tessera filiorum in Novo Testamento ”), that in Mark xiv. 36, 
by an hysteron proteron, they are placed even in the mouth of 
Christ. In opposition to this view, which is adopted by Hil- 
genfeld and Matthias, it has been objected by Fritzsche, ad 
Rom. II. p. 140, that 6 warjp expresses exactly the same as 
the Aramaic N38, and that, if NaN had assumed the nature of 
@ proper name, this name would very often have occurred in 
- the N. T. and afterwards instead of @eds; and people would 
not have said constantly ’A8B8a@ o marnp, but also ’ABBa o 
Geos. But these objections would only avail to confute our 
view, if it were maintained that ’A88a had become in general 
@ proper name of God (as was ni" in the O. T. and the other 
names of God), so that it would have been used at every kind 
of mention of God. The word is, however, to be regarded 
merely as a name used in prayer: only he who prayed ad- 
dressed God by this name; and just because he was aware 
that this name was an original appellative and expressed the 
paternal character of God, he added the purely appellative 
corresponding term 6 marjp, and in doing so satisfied the 
fervour of his feeling of sonship. This remark applies also 
to Wieseler’s objection, that "ABPa could only have continued 
to be used as an appellative. It might become a name just 
as well as, for instance, Adonai, but with the consciousness 
still remaining of its appellative origin and import. Moreover, 
that the address in prayer ’A8@ o rrarnp took its rise among 
the Greek Jewish-Christians, and first became habitual among 
them, is clear of .itself on account of the Hebrew Absa. It is 





CHAP. IV. 7. 231 


to be remarked also, that, according to the Rabbins, analogous 
emotional combinations of a Hebrew and a Greek address, 
which mean quite the same thing, were in use. See Hrub. 
f. 53. 2: "3 “(mi domine, mi xvpie). Comp. Schemoth rabd. 
f.140. 2: ‘ann ip. See Schoettgen, Hor. p. 252. Fritzsche’s 
view is, that the "Aa of prayer, which had through Christ’s 
use of it become sacred and habitual, was so frequently ex- 
plained on the part of the teachers of the Gentile Christians, 
as of Paul, by the addition of o warnp, that it had become a 
habit with these teachers to say,’ ASP& o warnp. But this 
would be a mechanical explanation which, at least in the case 
of Paul, is & priort not probable, and can least of all be assumed 
an a case where the fervid emotion of prayer? is exhibited. Paul 
would have very improperly allowed himself to be ruled by 
the custom. Wieseler contents himself with the strengthening 
of the idea by two synonymous expressions, but this still fails 

to explain why mdtep, wdrep (comp. Soph. 0. C. 1101), or 
 gdtep 6 TaTHp Hav (comp. Kupte 6 Kiptos Hpdv, Ps, viii. 2), 
is not said, just as «vpve, kvpe, and the like. — On the nomi- 
native with the article, as in’ apposition to the vocative, see 
Kriiger, § 45. 2. 7. 

Ver. 7. “Qore}] Inference from vv. 5 and 6. — ovxére] no 
longer as in the pre-Christian condition, when thou wast in 
bondage to the orowyela tod Kxoopov. — ¢i] The language, 
addressing every reader, not merely the Gentile readers 
(Hofmann), advances in its individualizing application: ver. 
5, atrohaBwpev ; ver. 6, gore; ver. 7, e<. Comp. v. 26, vi. 1. 
— et 56 vids, kab KAnpovomos] But if thou art a son (and not 
a slave, who does not inherit from his master), thow art also an 
heir, as future possessor of the Messianic salvation, and art 
so (rot in any way through the law, but) through God (6a 
@cov; see the critical notes), who, as a consequence of His 
adoption of thee as a son, has made thee also His heir. To 
fiim thou art indebted for this ultimate blessing, to be 
attained by means of sonship. This dua @cod cannot also 
apply to vids (Hofmann), so that aA’ should include all the 

1 And let it be noticed, that in all the three passages where ’ABBa é carp 


occurs (Rom. viii. 15; Gal. iv. 6; Mark xiv. 36), the most fervid tone of 
prayer prevails. 


232 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


rest of the verse in one sentence. With ei 5é a new sentence 
begins. Otherwise Paul must have written: aA’ vids, vids dé 
dy xat KAnpovopos. Riickeft unjustly blames the apostle for 
having, in ef dé vids, xal xAnp., departed from the right track 
of his thoughts, because in ver. 1 he had started at once from 
the idea of «Anpovozos. But in ver. 1 the apostle, in fact, has 
not started from the Messianic idea of xAnpovopos, but from its 
lower analogue in civil life. With respect to the legal aspect 
of the conclusion itself, ef 5¢ vios, xal xAnp. (comp. Rom. viii. 
17),—in which, by the way, the father is conceived as dividing 
the inheritance during his lifetime,—the idea is not based on 
the Jewish law of inheritance,’ according to which the (legiti- 
mately born) sons alone,’ if there were such,—the first-born 
among these taking, according to Deut. xxi. 17, a double por- 
tion,—-were, as a rule, intestate heirs (see Keil, Archdol. II. 
§ 142; Ewald, Alterth. p. 238 f.; Saalschiitz, If. RB. p. 820 f). 
The apostle’s idea is founded on the intestate succession of 
the Roman law, with which Paul as a Roman citizen was 
acquainted, as in fact it was well known in the provinces 
and applied there as regarded Roman citizens. Comp. also 
Fritzsche, Tholuck, and van Hengel, on Rom. viii. 17. Ac- 
cording to the Roman law sons and daughters, whether born 
in marriage or adopted children (and Paul conceives Christians 
as belonging to the latter class), were intestate heirs. It is 
evident in itself, and from iii. 28, that vios, which Paul used 
here on account of its correlation with dodAos, does not, in the 
popular mode of expression, exclude the female sex. On the 
whole of this subject, see C. F. A. Fritzsche, utrum Pauli 
argumentatio Rom. viii. 17 e¢ Gal. iv. 7, Hebraeo an Romano 
jure aestimanda sit, in Fritzschior. Opusc. p. 143 ff. To assume 
a mere allusion to general human laws of succession (Wieseler) 
is not sufficient ; for Paul has very distinctly and clearly con- 
ceived and designated the viorns of the Christian as a relation 
of adoption, which presupposes for his conclusion as to the 
heirship a special legal reference, and not merely the general 


'So Grotius, who says: ‘‘Jure Hebr. filii tantum haeredes, sed sub illo 
nomine indicantur omnes fideles cujusque sint sexus.” The fact that Christians 
are the adopted children of God, is decidedly opposed to this, 

2In Prov. xvii. 2 nothing is said of adoption. 


: CHAP. IV. 8. 233 


and vague correlation of the ideas of childship and heirship. 
The clear precision of his thought vouches for this, and it 
ought not to be evaded by declaring such a legal question even 
foolish (Hofmann),—a dogmatical judgment which is all the 
more precipitate, as the specific Johannean idea of the divine 
begetting of the children of God (comp. Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 
717 ff.) can by no means be found in the Pauline wvetpa 
viobecias' (see on Rom. viii. 15). ‘Besides, vioBecia is, and 
afteg all remains, nothing else than the quite definite legal 
idea of adoption, which separates the vioi elomrounrot or Geroé 
(Pollux, iii. 21) from those begotten or yvnovol. 

Ver. 8. ’AAAG] Nevertheless, how fearfully at variance is 
your present retrograde attitude with the fact of this divine 
deliverance from your previous lost condition! This topic is 
dealt with down to ver. 11. Observe that dAXa introduces 
the two corresponding relations tore pév and viv 4é in con- 
junction.” — tore] then ; reminds the readers of the past time, 
in which they were still SodAo: (ver. 7). — ov« eiddres Ocov] 
Cause of the éSovAevcate which follows. In the non-know- 
ledge of God (for ov« eidor. forms one idea) lies the funda- 
mental essence of the heathenism, to which the apostle’s 
‘readers had mostly belonged. Comp. 1 Thess. iv. 5; Acts 
xvii. 23, 30, e¢ al. As to the relation of the thought to 
Rom. i. 20f., see on that passage. — édovrAcvoare] The aorist 
simply designates the state of bondage then existing as now 
at an end, without looking at its duration or development. 
See Kiihner, II. p. 73 £ — rots dices py ovot Oeois] to the 
gods, who by nature however are not so! For, in the apostle’s 
view, the realities which were worshipped by the heathen as 
gods, were not gods, but demons. See on 1 Cor. x. 20. In 
his view, therefore, their nature was not divine, but at the 


1 The adoption into the state of children takes place on God’s part along with 
justification, and is on man’s part certain to the believing self-consciousness, to 
which the avsvpa viebscias also attests it. Beyschlag (Christol. p. 222) wrongly 
holds that the communication of the Spirit is itself the vicsciaz. No, those who 
receive the Spirit are already believing, justified, and thereby visésro, and obtain 
through the Spirit the testimony that they are vici,—a testimony which agrees 
with that of their own consciousness, cvpeaprupsi, Rom. viii. 16. 

? But so, that the thought introduced by 3¢ (ver. 9) is the main a 
Comp. Baeumlein, Partikell. p. 168. 


234 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS, 


same time not of mere mundane matter (Ewald) (comp. Wisd. 
xiii. 1 ff); 1t was demoniac—a point which must have been 
well known to the Galatians from his oral instruction. — The 
negation denies suljectively, from the apostle’s view. Comp. 
2 Chron. xiii. 9: éyévero eis iepéa r@ pun dvTs Oep. 

Ver. 9. I'vovres Oeov] After ye have known God through the 
preaching of the gospel. Olshausen’s opinion, that eiddres 
denotes more the merely external knowledge that God is, 
while yvovres signifies the inward essential cognition, is shown 
to be an arbitrary fancy by passages such as John vii. 37, 
viii. 55; 2 Cor. v. 16. — parrov Sé] imo vero, a corrective 
climax (Rom. viii. 34; Eph. v. 11; Jacobs, ad Ach. Tat. IT. p. 
955; Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. ii. 13.6; Grimm, on Wisd. vii. 
19), in order to give more startling prominence to the follow- 
ing was émuotpédete «.7.r., a3 indicating not a mere falling 
away from the knowledge of God, but rather a guilty opposi- 
tion to Him. — yvwobévres iro Geod] after ye have been known 
by God. This is the saving knowledge, of which on God’s 
part men become the objects, when He interests Himself on 
their behalf to deliver them. Into the experience of having 
been thus graciously known by God the Galatians were 
brought by means of the divine work which had taken place 
in them, anticipating their own volition and endeavour—the 
work of their calling, enlightenment, and conversion;’ so 
that they therefore, when they knew God, became in that 
very knowledge aware of their being known by God,—the one 
being implied in the other—through their divinely bestowed 
admission into the fellowship of Christ.? See on 1 Cor. viii. 
3, xii 12; also Matt. vu. 23. Hofmann desires the con- 
dition of the acceptance of grace to be mentally supplied; but 
this is arbitrary in itself, and is also incorrect, because those, 


1 Hence in point of fact Theophylact (following Chrysostom) rightly ex- 
plains: wpocangbivrss bas Osov. Because of God's knowing them they have known 
God; consequently not, ‘‘ proprio Marte vel acumine sui ingenii vel industria, 
sed quia Deus misericordia sua eos praevenerit, quum nihil minus quam de ipso 
cogitarent,” Calvin. 

2 Comp. Ignat. ad Magnes. interpol. 1: 3,’ of (through Christ) tyvers Ose», 
BadAAY 33 Uw’ abrov iyveelnes. Similarly, in an opposite sense, ad Smyrn. 5: és 
Tints ayveoverss aprevyras (abnegant), wadroy 01 spyidnear (abnegati sunt) iw’ aiced 
(by Christ). 


CHAP. IV. 9. 235 


who are the objects of God’s gracious knowledge, are already 
known to Him by means of His wpoyrwors as the credituri 
and are ordained by Him to salvation (see on Rom. viii. 29 f.). 
But the literal sense cognoscere is not to be altered either into 
approbare, amare (Grotius and others), or into agnoscere suos 
(Wetstein, Vater, Winer, Riickert, Usteri, Schott, Baumgarten- 
Crusius, and others); nor is it to be understood in the sense ~ 
of Hophal: brought to the knowledge (Beza, Er. Schmidt, Cor- | 
nelius a Lapide, Wolf, Nosselt, Koppe, Flatt, and others); nor 
- can we, with Olshausen, turn it into the being penetrated with 
the love wrought by God, which only follows upon the being 
known by God, 1 Cor. viii. 3. Lastly, there has been intro- 
duced, in a way entirely un-Pauline, the idea of the self- 
recognition of the Divine Spirit in us (Matthies), or of the 
consciousness of the identity of the human and the divine 
knowing (Hilgenfeld). On the deliberate change from the 
active to the passive, yvorres, yvwoGévres, comp. Phil. iii. 12. 
Luther, moreover, appropriately remarks, “non ideo cognos- 
cuntur guia cognoscunt, sed contra guia cogniti sunt, zdeo 
cognoscunt.” — amas] “ interrogatio admirabunda” (Bengel), 
as in i, 12. — wad] does not mean backwards (Flatt, Hof- 
mann), as in Homer (see Duncan, Lex. ed. Rost, p. 886; 
Nagelsbach z. Ilias, p. 34, ed. 3),—-a rendering opposed to the 
usage of the N. T. generally, and here in particular to the 
qaAwv avwev which follows; it means wzerum, and refers to 
the fact that the readers had previously been already in bond- 
age to the oroyeia, namely, most of them as heathen. Now 
they turn indeed (€motpédgere, present tense, as in i. 6) to the 
Jewish ordinances; but the heathen and Jewish elements (on 
the latter, see Heb. vii. 18 f.) are both included in the cate- 
gory of the orovyeia rod xoopov (see on ver. 3), so that Paul 
is logically correct in using the mdduw; and the hypothesis of 
Nosselt (Opuse. I. p. 293 ff.; comp. Mynster in his ki. theol. 
Schr. p. 76; Credner, Finl., and Olshausen), that the greater 
part of the readers had been previously proselytes of the 
gate, is entirely superfluous, and indeed at variance with the 
description ,of the pre-Christian condition of the Galatians 
given in ver. 8; for according to ver. 8, the great mass of 
- them must have been purely heathen before their conversion, 


236 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


because there is no mention of any intermediate condition 
between tére and viv. According to Wieseler (comp. also 
Reithmayr), 7dAy is intended to point back to their conversion 
to Christ, so that the turning to the crotyeia is designated as 
a second renewed conversion (émurtpegere), namely, in pejus. 
This would yield an ironical contrast, but is rendered impos- 
sible by the words ols addy avwbev Sovr. Oédere. Wieseler 
is driven to adopt so artificial an explanation, because he 
understands the orovyeia as referring to the law only; and 
this compels him afterwards to give an incorrect explanation 
of ols. — dobevh x. raya] because they cannot effect and 
bestow, what God by the sending of His Son has effected and 
bestowed (ver. 5). Comp. Rom. viii. 3, x. 12; Heb. vii. 18. 
— mdadw dvwev] for those reverting to Judaism desired to 
begin again from the commencement the slave-service of the 
orotxeia, which they had abandoned; dpyaits mpotépass érro- 
pevot, Pind. Ol. x. 94. Comp. Wisd. xix. 6. Not a pleonasm, 
as mdAw é« Sevrépov (Matt. xxvi. 42), wadduy adris (Hom. JI. 
i. 59), or Sevrepov adOis (Hom. Ji. i. 513); but the repetition 
is represented as a new commencement of the matter, as éx véas 
av0is apyis (Plut. solert. anim. p. 959), and madw 連 apyis 
(Barnab. Hp. 16). It is just the same in the instances in 
Wetstein. The ols is, however, the simple dative as in ver. 8 
and usually with SovAevew; it is not equivalent to é ols 
(Wieseler), with dSovA. used absolutely. — Oérere] ye desire, 
ye have the wish and the longing for, this servitude! Comp. 
ver. 21. | 

Ver. 10. Facts which vouch the émuoctpépere mddw «.7.r. 
just expressed. — The «interrogative view, which Griesbach, 
Koppe, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Hilgenfeld, following Battier 
(Bibl. Brem. VI. p. 104), take, has been again abandoned by 
Usteri, Schott, and Wieseler; and Hofmann prefers the sense 
of sorrowful exclamation. But the continuance of the re- 
proachful interrogative form (ver. 9) corresponds better to 
the increasing pitch of surprise and amazement, and makes 
ver. 11 come in with greater weight. — mraparnpeicGe] Do ye 
already so far realize your Oé\ere? Ye take care, sedulo vobis 
observatis, namely, to neglect nothing which is prescribed in 
the law for certain days and seasons. Comp. Joseph. Anié. 


CHAP. IV. 10. 237 


iil, 5. 5: maparnpety tas éBSopddas; also Dio Cass. liii- 10 
(of the observance of a law). The idea superstitiose (Winer, 
Bretschneider, Olshausen, and others) is not implied in zapa, 
nor the praeter fidem which Bengel finds in it. — jpépas] 
Sabbaths, fast and feast days. Comp. Rom. xiv. 5, 6. — 
pivas] is usually referred to the new moons, But these, the . 
feast-days at the beginning of each month, come under the 
previous category of muépas. In keeping with the other 
points, waparnpetcOar pijvas must be the observance of cer- 
tain months as pre-eminently sacred months. Thus the seventh 
month (Zisri), as the proper sabbatical month, was specially 
sacred (seo Ewald, Alterth. p. 469f.; Keil, Archdol. I. p. 
368 ff.); and ‘the fourth, fifth, seventh, and tenth months 
were distinguished by special fasts. — xazpovs] OID, Lev, 
xxiii. 4. The holy festal seasons, such as those of the Pass- ° 
over, Pentecost, and the Feast of Tabernacles, are meant; 
“ quibus hoc aut illud fas erat aut nefas,” Erasmus. — éveav- 
tous] applies to the sabbatical years (see, as to these, Ewald, 
p. 488 ff.; Keil, p. 371 ff.), which occurred every seventh year, 
but not to the jubilee years, which had, at least after the time 
of Solomon, fallen into abeyance (Ewald, p.501). But that the 
Galatians were at that time in some way actually celebrating 
"a sabbatical year (Wieseler), cannot be certainly inferred from 
éviavt., which has in reality its due warrant as belonging to 
the consistency and completeness of the theory. On the whole 
passage, comp. Col. 1. 16, and Philo, de septenar. p. 286. — 
From our passage, moreover, we see how far, and within what 
limits, the Galatians had already been led astray." They had 
not yet adopted circumcision, but were only in danger of being 
brought to it (v. 2, 3, 12, vi 12, 13). Nothing at all is said - 
in the epistle as to any distinction of meats (comp. Col. L.c), 
except so far as it was implied in the observance of days, 
etc. Usteri (comp. Riickert) is of opinion that Paul did not 
mention circumcision and the distinction of meats, because 
he desired to represent the present religious attitude of his 
readers as analogous to their heathen condition. But, accord- 

1 De Wette very arbitrarily considers that the present tense denotes, not the 


reality then present, but only the necessary consequence of the iwerp. and deva. 
biases, conceived as being already present. 





238 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


ing to the comprehensive idea of the orovyeia Tod Koopou, 
even the mention of circumcision and thé distinctions of meats 
would have been in no way inappropriate to the wdd\uw dvaler, 
Olshausen quite arbitrarily asserts that the usages mentioned 
stand by synecdoche for all. 

Ver. 11. DoBobpac ipas, pres x.7.r.] not attraction (Winer, 
Usteri, Olshausen, Hilgenfeld, Wieseler, Buttmann), because, if 
this had been the case, vets must have been the subject of 
paras «7rd. (Plat. Legg. x. p. 886 A: doBodpmar ye tovs poy- 
Onpovs .. . i} Wws Vuav Katappovycwow. Phaedr. p. 232 C, 
oBovpevor Tors prev ovolay KexTnpévovs, wu} ypnpacw avrods 
vrepBarwvtar. NDiod. Sic. iv. 40; Thue. iv. 1.1; Xen. Anabd. 
iii 5. 18, vii. 1.2; Soph. Trach: 547): see the passages in 
Winer, p. 581 ff. [E. T. 781 f.]; Kriiger, gramm. Unters. ITI. 
p. 162 ff.; Kiihner, II. p. 611. On the contrary, dofoipas 
vpas is to be taken by itself, and prrws «.7.X. a5 & More 
precise definition of it: “I am afraid about you, lest perhaps 
I,” etc. Comp. Plat. Phaedr. p. 239 D: rowdrov cadpa ot 
didrot .. . poRobvras (are apprehensive about it). Soph. O. R. 
767: SéSocux’ éuavrov . .., pr) WOAN aryayv eipnudy’ 7 po. It 
is not without cause that Paul has added vas, but in the con- 
sciousness that his apprehension had reference not to his own 
interests (his possibly fruitless labour, taken by itself), but to 
his readers; they themselves were the object of his anxiety, 
their deliverance, their salvation. The mode of expression is 
analogous also in a hostile sense, e.g. Xen. Hell. 1. 3.18: édpo- 
Botdvro tov Onpapévny, wy cuppvelncay apos abrov ot Todtrat. 
Thue. iv. 8.5: rav Se vacov tavrnv poPovpevot, py €& avbris 
Tov wodepov odioe tovwvrar. — eixn| without saving result 
(iv. 11; 1 Cor. xv. 2), because ye are in the course of falling 
away from the life of Christian faith, which through my labours 
was instituted among you. — «exomlaxa] Perfect indicative ; 
for the thought was before the apostle’s mind, that this case 
had actually occurred. Hermann, ad Eur. Med. 310, Elmsl ; 
Winer, p. 469 [E. T. 631]; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Phaed. p. 84 E. 
— eis tuas] for you; eis denotes the reference of the toilsome 
labour which he had undergone ¢o the Galatians. Comp. Rom. 
xvi. 6. — Luther (1524), moreover, aptly remarks on ver. 11: 
“ Lacrymas Pauli haec verba spirant.” 


CHAP. IV. 12. . 239 


Ver. 12.) After this expression of anxiety, now follows the 
exhortation to return, and with what cordiality of affection ! 
“ Subito .. . 70n xat wan, argumenta conciliantia et moventia 
admovet,” Bengel. — yiverOe as eyo, Ste Kayo ws wei] 
is explained in two ways,—either as a summons to give up 
Judaistic habits, or as a summons to love. The correct inter- 
pretation is: “ Become as J, become free from Judaism as I am, 
for I also have become as you; for I also, when I abandoned 
Judaism, thereby became as a Gentile (ii. 14; Phil iii. 7 f.), 
and placed myself on the same footing with you who were 
then Gentiles, by non-subjection to the Mosaic law. Now 
- render to me the reciprocum, to which love has a claim.” So 
Koppe, Winer, Usteri, Neander, Fritzsche, de Wette, Hilgenfeld. 
This interpretation is not only in the highest degree suitable 
to the thoughtful delicacy of the apostle—who might justly 
(in opposition to Wieseler’s objection) represent his former 
secession from Judaism as a service rendered to his readers (as 
Gentiles), because he had in fact seceded to be a converter of 
the Gentiles—but is the only explanation in harmony with the 
words and the context. *Eryevouny must be supplied in the 
second clause, and to take it from yivecOe is just as allowable 
as in 1 Cor. xi. 1 (in opposition to Hofmann). Comp. Phil 
‘ii 5; and see generally, Kriiger, § lxii. 4.1; Winer, p. 541 f. 
[E. T. 728]; Xen. Anabd. vii. 7.13: apoepav dep ait@. As to 
xaryo, comp. on 1 Cor. xi. 1. Following Chrysostom, Theodoret 
and Theophylact, Erasmus (in his Paraphrase), Vatablus, — 
Semler, and others, also Matthies, interpret: “ Become as J, 
abandon Judaism; for I also was once a zealous adherent of it 
like you, but have undergone a change.” But as éyevouny is 
the only supplement which suggests itself in harmony with the 
context, Paul must have written the junv, which on this view 
requires to be supplied (as Justin. ad Graec. ii. p. 40. ed. Col. 
ylvecOe ws eyo, Ett Kayo Hunv as tpels), and this j7unv would 
in that case have conveyed the main element of the motive 
(fut, nec amplius sum). But as Paul has written, the point 
of the passage lies in his desire that his readers should be- 
come like unto him, as he also had become like to the readers. 
Schott (comp. Rosenmiiller and Flatt) correctly supplies éyevo- 

1 As to vv. 12-20, see C. F. A. Fritzsche, in Fritzschior. Opusc. p. 231 ff. - 


240 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS, 


pny, but he again supplies éyevéoGe with ipets: “siquidem ego 
quoque factus sum, quales vos facti estis, cum Jesu Christo 
nomen daretis, abjeci studia pristina Judaismi pariter atque 
vos olim abjecistis.” Incorrectly, because this would presup- 
pose that Paul was speaking to Jewish Christians, and because 
the motive, thus understood, could only have been of real avail 
as a motive in the event of Paul having been converted later 
than the Galatians. Jerome, Erasmus (in his Annotationes), 
Cornelius a Lapide, Estius, Michaelis, Riickert, interpret : “ Be- 
come as I, lay aside Judaism, for I also have lovingly accom- 
modated myself to you;” comp. Wieseler : “ Because I also, when 
L brought the gospel to you, from a loving regard toward you 
Gentiles put aside Jewish habits” (ii. 14; 1 Cor. ix. 21). So 
also in substance Olshausen, Ellicott, Reithmayr, and others ; 
similarly also Hofmann.’ Against this view it may be urged, 
that, in Paul’s working as an apostle to the Gentiles, his 
non-Judaistic attitude was a matter of principle, and not a 
matter of considerate accommodation, and that long before he 
preached to the Galatians. Besides, the result would be a 
dissimilar relation between the two members; for Paul cannot 
require the putting away of Jewish habits as a matter of affec- 
tionate consideration, but only as a Christian necessity. The 
reciprocity of what is to be done under ¢iis aspect is the point 
of the demand. According to Ewald, Paul says, “ As Chris- 
tians, follow ye entirely my example, because I too am a simple 
Christian and, strictly speaking, not more than you.” But thus 


1 According to Hofmann, Paul says of himself that he places himself on an 
equality with his Gentile readers (inasmuch as, where his vocation requires it, he 


lives among the Gentiles as if he were not a Jew), and, on the other hand, © 


requires of them that they shall place themselves on an equality with him (and 
therefore shall not live after the Jewish manner, but shall share his freedom from 
- the law, after he has accommodated himself to their position aloof from the law). 
Hofmann insists, namely, on the supplying of yiveues (present), which, as well 
as yivseds, he understands in the sense of behaving and conducting themselves. 
This sense, however, is not suitable, since the readers are really to become different, 
and not merely to accommodate themselves to another line of conduct; the yinseéas 
would not therefore retain the same sense in the two halves of the verse. See 
also, in opposition to this view, Moller on de Wette. The use of yivseéas in the 
sense of se praestare is, however, in itself linguistically admissible (see Kiihner, 
ad Xen. Anab. i. 7. 4), but not in conformity with the proofs adduced by 
Hofmann ; as to which Dissen, ad Dem. d. Cor. p. 239f., takes the correct 
view. 


CHAP. IV. 12. 241 


the very idea that was most essential (a simple Christian) 
would not be expressed. Others, including Luther, Beza, 
Calvin, Grotius, Calovius, Wolf, Bengel, Zachariae, and Morus, 
find the sense: “ Love me, as I love you.” But how could the 
reader discover this in the words, since Paul has not yet said 
a word as to any deficiency of love to him? lBeza and Grotius 
wrongly appeal to the mode of designating one who is beloved 
as an alter ego, an idea which @s éyé and os vets do not at all 
convey. — adeAdol, Séopar vay] The language of softened and 
deeply moved love. The words are to be referred not to the 
_ sequel (Luther, Zeger, Koppe, and others), in which there is 
nothing besought, but to the previous summons, with which 
he beseeches them to comply. — ovdéy pe ndvxnoate] suggests 
a motive for granting his entreaty yiveoOe ws éya, by recalling 
their relation to him, as it had stood at the time when he first 
preached the gospel to them: “How should ye not grant me 
this entreaty, since ye have done no injury to me (and certainly 
therefore in this point just asked for, will not vex me by non- 
compliance); but ye know,” etc. According to Chrysostom, 
Theophylact, Augustine, Pelagius, Luther, Calvin, Estius, 
Windischmann, and others, including Winer, the words are 
intended to give an assurance that the previous severe language 
had not flowed from displeasure and irritation against his 
readers. But Paul has in fact already changed, immediately 
before, to the tone of love; hence such an assurance here 
would come in too late and inappropriately. Nor would the 
ovdéy pe NOtKnoate, Which on account of the connection with 
ver. 13 evidently applies to the period of his first visit, neces- 
sarily exclude a subsequent offence; so that the “igitur non 
habut, quod vobis irascerer” (Winer), which has been discovered 
in these words, is not necessarily implied in them. ‘The tem- 
poral reference of the ovdéy pe ndexnoate, which is definitely and 
necessarily given by ver. 13, excludes also the view of Beza, 
Bengel, Riickert, Ewald, and others, that Paul represents the 
vexation occasioned to him by the relapse of his readers as 
having not occurred (“all was forgotten and forgiven,” Ewald), 
in order to encourage them by this meiosis to a compliance 
with the yivecOe ws éyo. Lastly, those interpretations are 
incorrect, which, in spite of the enclitic me, lay an antithetic 
Q 


242 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


emphasis on the latter; as that of Grotius (“me privatim”), 
that of Rettig in the Stud. u. Krit. 1830, p. 109 (not me, but 
God and Christ), and that of Schott (nihil mihi nocuistis, vobis 
tantum). Nor is Hofmann’s view more correct: that Paul, 
taking occasion by a passage in the (alleged) epistle of his 
readers, desired only to say to them that the ovdéy pe ndixqje. 
was not enough ; instead of having merely experienced nothing 
unbecoming from them, he could not but expect more at their 
hands, for which reason they ought to recall what their ‘attitude 
to him had been at his first visit to them. In this view what 
is supposed to form the train of thought is a purely gratuitous 
importation, with the fiction of a letter written by the Galatians 
superadded; and the assumed strong contrast to the sequel must 
have been marked by a péy after ovdéy (as to Plat. Rep. p. 398 
A, Hartung, Partik. I. p. 163, forms a right judgment), or by 
&\Ad instead of 5é, in order to be intelligible. — On ddsnety 
with accusative of the person and of the thing, comp. Acts 
xxv. 10; Philem. 18; Wolf, Lept. p. 343; Kiihner, ad Xen. 
Anab. i. 6. 7. 

Vv. 13, 14. Contrast to the preceding ovdév pe ndux. Comp. 
Chrysostom: “Ye have done nothing to injure me; but ye 
doubtless know, that I on account of weakness of the flesh 
preached the gospel to you the former time, and that ye,” etc. 
— &: aoGéveray tis capKxos] The only correct explanation, 
because the only one agreeable to linguistic usage, is that 
adopted by. Flatt, Fritzsche, Hilgenfeld, Wieseler, and others, 
also by Winer, Gramm. p. 373 [E. T. 499], on accownt of weak- 
ness of the flesh:? so that it is clear, that on Paul’s first 
journey through Galatia (Acts xvi. 6) he was compelled by 


1 Bengel also translates correctly : ‘‘ propter tnfirmitatem,” but erroneously 
explains that the weakness was not indeed ‘‘causa praedicationis ipsius,” but 
*‘adjumentum, cur P. eficacius praedicaret, cum Galatae facilius rejicere posse 
viderentur.” Similarly, but still more incorrectly, Schott, who detects an 
“‘ acumen singulare” in Paul’s saying: ‘‘per ipsam aegritudinem carnis doctri- 
nam divinam vobisgradidi;” for the fact that Paul, although sick, had preached 
very zealously, had been of great influence in making his preaching more suc- 
cessful. In this interpretation everything is mistaken : for 3s¢ must have been 
used with the genitive ; the ‘‘ipsam” and the thought of successful preaching 
are quite gratuitously imported ; and the whole of the alleged ‘‘ acumen” would 
be completely out of place here, where Paul wishes to remind his readers of their 
love then shown to him, and not of the efficacy of his preaching. 








CHAP. IV. 18, 14. 243 


reason of bodily weakness to make a stay there, which pro- 
perly did not form a part of his plan; and that during this 
sojourn, forced on him by necessity, he preached the gospel to 
the Galatians. How he suffered, and from what cause, whether 
from natural sickness (comp. 2 Cor. xii. 7), or from ill-treat- 
ment which he had previously endured on account of the 
gospel (comp. Gal. vi. 17), we do not know. The mention 
of an ¢nvoluntary or rather quite unpremeditated working 
among the Galatians is not opposed to the apostle’s aim (as 
Riickert objects), but favourable to it; because the love which 
received him so heartily and joyfully must have been all the 
greater, the less it depended on the duty of befitting grati- 
tude for a benefit previously destined for the recipients, and 
for exertions made expressly on their account. Many others 
have understood 6a as denoting the apostle’s condition: “amidst 
bodily weakness,” which is then referred by some, and indeed 
most expositors, following Chrysostom and Luther, to persecu- 
tions and sufferings, by others to his insignificant appearance 
(Calvin), by others to sickness (Riickert, Matthies, Olshausen, 
Ewald; comp. also in Jerome), and by others even to embar- 
rassment and perplexity on account of the strange circumstances 
(Baumgarten-Crusius). But in this case 6s¢ must have been 
used with the genitive (see Matthiae, p. 1353; Fritzsche, ad 
Rom. I. p. 138); for expressions such as dia dapa, dia voxta, 
Sia ordpa, 8’ aidépa, «.7.r., in which Sud denotes stretching 
through, are merely poetical (see Schaefer, ad Mosch. 4. 91; 
Bernhardy, p. 236 f.; Kiihner, II. p. 282). We should be 
obliged to think of the occasioning state (as in 61a rodro, dua 
: WoNAG, K.T.A.), Which would just bring us back to our inter- 
pretation. Hence we must reject also the. explanation of 
Grotius: “per varios casus, per mille pericula rerum perrexi, 
ut vos instituerem.” Others still have gone so far as to refer 
0’ ao. rijs capxos to weakness of the Galatians, to which Paul 
accommodated himself. So Jerome, Estius, Hug, and Rettig lc. 
p. 108 ff.: “I have preached to you on account of the weakness of 
your flesh,” which is supposed to mean: “I have in my preach- 

1 In respect to 2 Cor. U.c., Holsten, in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschrift, 1861, p. 250 f., 


conceives it to refer to epileptical disturbances of the circulatory and nervous 
system, such as occur among visionaries. Comp. his Hv. d. Paul. u. Petr. p. 85. 


244 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS, 


ing had respect to the infirmity of your flesh.” Utterly mis-. 
taken: because Paul must necessarily have added a modal 
definition to evnyy. (even if it had only been an o@rws), or 
must have written xat’ ao@. instead of 5: ao@.; moreover, év 
Th capi pov in ver. 14 shows that Paul meant the do0évea 
Ths aapKos to apply to himself. — 71d mporepov] may mean 
either: earlier, at an earlier time, so that it would be said 
from the standpoint of the present (Thuc. i 12. 2: rav viv 
Bowsrtiav, mpotepoy 5 Kaduniéda yi xadoupévny, Isocr. de 
pace, § 121 and Bremi in loc.), which in relation to the past 
is the. later time (John vi. 62, vii. 51, ix. 8; 2 Cor.i.15; 
1 Tim. 1.13; 1 Pet. i 14; Heb. x 32; LXX. Deut. ii 12; 
1 Chron. ix. 2; 1 Macc. xi. 27); or the former time, so that 
the same fact (the preaching) took place twice (Heb. iv. 6, 
vii. 27). It is interpreted in the former sense by Usteri and 
Fritzsche, and in the latter by Koppe, Winer, Riickert, Matthies, 
Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Wieseler, Hilgenfeld, Ewald, 
Hofmann, and others. The latter is the correct view, so that 
TO TpoTepoyv presupposes & second sojourn of the apostle among 
the Galatians. For if he had preached among them only once, 
To Tpotepov would have been quite an idle, superfluous addi- 
tion. But Paul adds it just in order to denote quite distinctly 
his first visit, during which he founded the churches (Aets 
xv1. 6): at his second visit (Acts xviil. 23), the happy expe- 
riences which he had enjoyed 76 mporepov were not repeated 
in such full measure; the churches were already tainted by 
Judaism. Comp. Introd. § 2,3. Fritzsche, indeed, maintains 
that vv. 18, 19 imply that Paul before the composition of 
the epistle had only once visited the Galatians; but see on 
ver. 19. 

Ver. 14. ‘Still dependent on 6re, as is logically required by 
the contrast to obdéy pe 75ix., which is introduced ‘by otdare &é, 
dtu. — Tov Teipacpov vuav év TH capkl pov x.7.A.] As to the 
reading uyz@y, see the critical notes. The sense is: that ye 
were put to the proof as respected my bodily weakness (namely, as 


1 The older expositors, translating it jam pridem (Vulgate), or prius (Erasmus, 
Beza, Calvin), or antea (Castalio), do not for the most part attempt any more 
precise explanation. Luther: ‘‘for the first time.” Chrysostom, Theodoret, 
and Theophylact do not give any explanation of + sper, 


CHAP, IV. 14 245 


to your receiving and accepting my announcements, demands, 
etc., notwithstanding this my suffering and impotent appear- 
ance; see the antithesis, AN ws «.7.r.); this proof ye have not 
rgected with disdain and aversion, but on the contrary have 
submitted yourselves to i so excellently, that ye recewed me as 
an angel of God, as Christ Jesus. The xal is not and yet 
(Koppe, Winer, Matthies), but the simple and, continuing the 
address (oldarte, Ort. x.7..). — ev TH capKi pov] is the more 
precise definition of Tov metpacp. tuay, specifying wherein the 
readers had to undergo a trial,—namely, in the fact of Paul’s 
having then preached to them in such bodily weakness. Comp. 
Plat. Phil. p. 21 A: & col mreipwpeba, upon thee we would 
make the trial. Hom. JJ. xix. 384, aretpj0n ... év &reor. 
Comp. also Bacaviter Oat év, Plat. Pol. vi. p.503 A. Hence ey 
tT capxi did not require the connecting article, as it is in 
reality blended with roy mretpacpov bpuav so as to form one idea. 
See on ili. 26. And the definition of the sense of év TH cape 
pov is derived from ov doGéveavy ris capxos in ver. 13. 
Fritzsche, l.c. p. 245, objects to the sense which is given by 
the reading tuav: 1. sententiam ab h. 1. abhorrere. But how 
aptly does the negative assertion, that the Galatians, when 
they were put to the trial by the apostle’s sickness, did not 
despise and reject this trial, correspond with the positive idea, 
that, on the contrary, they have received him as an angel of 
God! And how suitable are the two ideas together to the 
previous ovdev pe nouenoate! 2. Sententiam verbis parum 
aptis conceptam esse ; expectaras KaX@s Vrepeivatre. But this 
Karas Urepeivare is in fact most exhaustively represented by the 
negative and positive testimony taken together; the negative 
testimony expresses the acceptance, and the positive the stand- 
ing, of the metpacpos. 3. The sense does not suit the following 
arn ... €dé€acGé pe. But even with the adoption of the 
reading vue the rejection of the apostle is in point of fact nega- 
tived; hence tov qeipacudy tuav .. . éEerrvoate cannot be 
inappropriate to the édé£ac0é pe which follows. Lachmann 
(comp. Buttmann in Stud. u. Krit. 1860, p. 379) makes xa 
‘Tov Treipacp, vp. év T. o. . Gependent on oldare (placing a 
colon after év 77 capxi jov), whereby the flow of the discourse 
is quite unnecessarily broken.—¢f£errvcare] expresses the sense 


246 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


of é£ov@. figuratively and by way of climax, adding the idea 
of detestation. Comp. Rev. ii 16, and the Latin despwere, 
respuere. So forcible an expression of the negative serves to 
give the greater prominence to the positive counterpart which 
follows. In the other Greek writers, besides the simple 
arruew (Soph. Ant. 649. 1217), there occur only xatamrveyw 
Twos, aTomruew Twa (4 Mace. iii 18; Eur. Troad. 668, Hee. 
1265; Hes. py. 724), and Svarrvew twa (in Philo also rapa- 
aruvew) in this metaphorical sense (see Kypke, II. p. 280; 
Ruhnk. Ep. crit. p. 149; Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 17); but éx- 
arvevv is always used in the proper sense (Hom. Od. v. 322; 
Aristoph. Vesp. 792; Anthol Theodorid. 2; Apoll Rhod. 478), 
as also cumrvew til (Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 17). Even in the 
passage quoted by Kypke, Plut. de fort. vel virt. Alex. L. p. 
328, it is used in the proper sense, because womep yadivoy 
stands beside it. We are bound to acknowledge this devia- 
tion from the Greek usage, and it must be considered as caused 
by é€ov@., as in fact Paul is fond of repeating, not without 
emphasis, compounds presenting the same preposition (ii 4, 
13 ; Rom. ii 18, xi. 7, e al.). — as Xpiorév "Inoodv] a climax 
added asyndetically in the excitement of feeling, and present- 
ing to a still greater extent than a> ayyeA. Ocod (Heb. i. 4; 
Phil it 10; Col. 1 16) the high reverence and love with 
which he had been received by them, and that as a divine 
messenger. Comp. Matt. x. 40; John xii 20. Observe 
also, that even among the Galatians Paul doubtless preached 
in the first instance to the Jews (whose loving behaviour 
towards the apostle was then shared in by the Gentiles also) ; 
hence the comparison with an angel and with Christ in our 
passage is in keeping with the apostle’s historical recollection, 
and does not render it at all necessary to assume an dorepoy 
aporepov in the representation, which would thus anticipate 
the already Christian view. 


Note.—According to the Recepta rc. reip. pou viv iv +. 6. ., OF, 
as the first «ou has special evidence against it, according to the 
reading riy wep. riv év s. o. w., the explanation must be: “ My 
bodily temptation ye have not despised or disdainfully reected,” 
that is, “Ye have not on account of my sickness, by which I 
have been tried of God, rejected me, as the bodily impotence 


\ 


CHAP, IV. 15. 24.7 


in which it exhibited me to you might have induced you to 

do.” Taken by itself, this sense, and the mode of expressing 
it, would be suitable enough (in opposition to Wieseler), even 
without the hypothesis, based on é%err., of some nauseous sick- ~ 
ness (in opposition to Fritzsche). 


Ver. 15. Of what nature, then, was your self-congratulation ? 
A sorrowful question! for the earnestness with which the 
Galatians had then congratulated themselves on the apostle’s 
account, contrasting so sadly with their present circumstances, 
compelled him to infer that that congratulation was nothing 
but an effervescent, fleeting, and fickle excitement. Hence 
the reading rod ovy (see the critical notes) is a gloss in sub- 
stance correct; comp. Rom. iii. 27. Others explain it: On 
what was your self-congratulation grounded? Why did you 
pronounce yourselves so happy? So Bengel, Koppe, Winer, 
Matthias, and Schott.! In this case qualis would have to be 
taken in the peculiar sense: how caused, which, however, 
would require to be distinctly suggested by the context. 
Others still, as Erasmus, Luther, Beza, Piscator, Calovius, 
Wolf, and including Baumgarten-Crusius, Hilgenfeld, Reiche, 
Wieseler, interpret : “ How great (comp. Eph. 1 14) therefore 
was your congratulation! how very happy you pronounced 
yourselves!” But then the dove in ver. 16 would be deprived 
of its logical reference, which, according to our interpretation, 
is contained in ris ody o paxap. tu. And the words would, in 
fact, contain merely a superfluous and feeble exclamation. — 
The paxapicpds (comp. Rom. iv. 6, 9), with which tpey stands 
as the genitive of the subject (comp. Plat. Rep. p. 590 D), and 
not as the genitive of the olject (Matthias)——for the object is 
obvious of itself,—refers to the circumstance that they had 
congratulated themselves, not that they had been congratulated by 
Paul and others (Jerome, Theodoret, Theophylact, Oecumenius), 
or even that they (the Galatians) had congratulated the apostle 
(Estius, Locke, Michaelis). See the sequel. The word, synony- 
mous with evdaipovcpes, is never equivalent to paxapsorns 
(Erasmus, Luther, Piscator, Homberg, Calovius, comp. Olsh.). 


1 Schott, in opposition to the context, and all the more strangely seeing that 
he does not even read 4», but merely supplies it, lays stress upon this 4»: ‘‘éillo 
tempore, nunc non item ;"’ comp. Occumenius, 


248 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


— paptup® yap opiv «.7.r.] justification of the expression just 
used, 6 paxapiopos tpav. — Tovs opOadpous x.7.r.] A descrip- 
tion of the overwhelming love, which was ready for any sacri- 
fice. Such proverbial modes of expression, based upon the 
high value and indispensableness of the eyes (Prov. vil 2; 
Ps, xvii. 8; Zech. ii. 8; Matt. xviii. 9; and comp. Vulpius and 
Doering, ad Catull. i. 3. 5), are current in all languages. 
Nevertheless, Lomler (in the Annal. d. gesammt.: theol. Int. 
1831, p. 276), Riickert, and Schott have explained the pas- 
sage quite literally: that Paul had some malady of the eyes, 
and here states that, if it had been possible, the Galatians 
would have given him their own sound eyes. But consider- 
ing the currency of the proverbial sense, how arbitrarily is 
this view hazarded, seeing that nowhere else do we find a trace 
of any malady of the eyes in the apostle!! Riickert and 
Schott, indeed, found specially on ef Svvarov, and maintain 
that, to express the meaning of the ordinary view, Paul must. 
have written: “if it had been necessary.” But in any case 
the idea was a purely imaginary one, and as a matter of fact 
practically impossible (a8vvarov); if Paul, therefore, had said: “if 
it had been necessary,” he would at any rate have expressed him- 
self unsuitably. Besides, e¢ Suvarov expresses the self-sacrificing 
love in a yet far stronger degree. And, if Paul had not spoken 
proverbially, the whole assurance would have been so hyper- 
bolical, that he certainly could not have stood sponsor for it 
with the earnest paptupa tpiv. — é£opv£.] the standing word 
for the extirpation of the eyes. See Judg. xvi. 21; 1 Sam. 
xi. 2; Herod. viii 116; Joseph. Anté. vi. 5.1; Wetstein, en 
loc. — édmxaré por] namely, as property, as a love-pledge of 
the most joyful self-sacrificing devotedness, not for wse (Hof- 
mann, following older expositors),—a view which, if we do not 


1Lomler and Schott trace back the alleged disease of the eyes to the 
blindness at Damascus, and identify it with the exsroy (2 Cor. xii. 7). The 
latter idea is just as mistaken as the former. For the oxéaop was, in the 
apostle’s view, an operation of Satan, whereas the blindness at Damascus arose 
from the effulgence of the celestial Christ. And this blindness, as it had arisen 
supernaturally, was also supernaturally removed (Acts ix. 17, 18). That a 
chronic malady of the eyes should have been left behind, would be entirely 
opposed to the analogy of the N. T. miracles of healing, of which a complete cure 
was always the characteristic. 


CHAP. IV. 16. — 249 


explain it of a disease of the eyes in the apostle’s case, leads 
to a monstrous idea. Without dv (see the critical notes) the 
matter is expressed as more indubitable, the condition con- 
tained in the protasis being rhetorically disregarded. See Her- 
mann, ad Soph. El. 902; de part. dv, p. 70 ff; Bremi, ad. 
Lys. Exc. IV. p. 439 f.; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Symp. p. 198 C; 
Buttmann in the Stud. wu. Krit. 1858, p. 490. But Ellendt 
(Lex. Soph. I. p. 125) well remarks, “Sed cavendum, ne in 
discrimine utriusque generis, quod pertenue est, constituendo 
argutemur.” 

Ver. 16.°Qare] Accordingly; the actual state of things which, 
to judge from the cooling down—which that painful question 
(ry ody 6 paxapiopos bev ;) bewails—in the self-sacrificing 
love depicted in vv. 14, 15, must have superseded this love, and 
must now subsist.’ The words contain a profoundly melancholy 
exclamation: “ Accordingly, that is my position ; I am become 
your enemy!” etc. So great a change has the relation, pre- 
viously so rich and happy in confidence and love, experienced 
by the fact that it 1s my business to speak the truth to you (mark 
the present participle aAnGevwv). This conduct which I pursue 
towards you, instead of confirming your inclination towards 
me and confidence in me, has taken them away; I have 
become your enemy! To place (with Matthias) a note of in- 
terrogation after yéyova, and then to take adm. iyiv as an 
exclamation (an enemy, who tells you the truth !), breaks up 
the passage without adequate ground. Utterly groundless, 
illogical, and unprecedented (for the dove of an inferential 
sentence always follows the sentence which governs it) is the 
inversion forced upon the apostle by Hofmann, who makes 
out that @ore «7.r. is dependent on Gyrodow tas: “so that 
Lam now your enemy, if I tell you truth, they court you ;” it 
is the result of these courtings, that, when the apostle agree- 
ably to the truth tells his converts (as ini. 8 f.) what is to 
be thought about the teaching of his opponents (?),’ he thereby 


1 Sore cannot specify a reason, as Wieseler thinks, who, anticipating ver. 17, 
explains: ‘‘ For no other reason than because ye pronounced yourselves so happy 
on my account, am I (according to the representation of the false teachers) bee 
come your enemy,” etc. Wieseler therefore takes aers, as if it had been da 
TOUT, 


250 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


comes to stand as their enemy. In this interpretation the 
special reference of adnOevwy tiv is purely gratuitous. To 
explain the @ore consecutivum with the indicative the simple 
rule is quite sufficient, that it 1s used de re facta; and the ' 
emphasis of the relation which it introduces lies in its betoken- 
ing the quality of the preceding, to which the consecutivum 
refers. Comp. Ellendt, Lex. Soph. IL p. 1012: “Rem qualis 
sit, addita ret consequentis significatione definit.” Hofmann in- 
creases the arbitrary character of his artificial exposition by 
subsequently, in ver. 17, separating ov xada@s from &rodow 
vas, and looking upon these words as an opinion placed 
alongside of dare éyOp. ip. yey., respecting this mode of 
courting. His interpretation thus presents at once a vio- 
lent combination and a violent separation. — éyOpds tpav] 
The context permits either the passive sense: hated by you 
(de Wette, Windischmann, and older expositors), or the active: 
your enemy (Vulgate, Beza, Grotius, and many others; also 
Riickert, Matthies, Schott, Hilgenfeld, Ewald, Hofmann); the 
latter, however, so taken that éyOp. tuav yéyova is said in ac- 
cordance with the (altered) opinion of the readers. This active 
interpretation is to be preferred, because the usage among 
Greek authors (and throughout in the N. T. also) in respect 
to the substantive ¢yOpos with the genitive is decisive in its 
favour (Dem. 439. 19. 1121. 12; Xen. Anab. ii. 2. 5, de 
venat. 13.12; Soph. 47. 554). From the time of Homer, 
éyOpes means hated only with the dative (Xen. Cyrop. v. 4. 
50; Dem. 241. 12. 245. 16; Lucian, Sacrif. 1; Herodian. 
iii. 10. 6), which either stands beside it or is to be mentally 
supplied (Rom. v. 10, xi. 28; Col. i 21). — yéyova] To what 
time does this change (having become), which by the perfect is 
marked as continuing, refer? It did not occur m conse- 
quence of the present epistle (Jerome, Luther, Koppe, Flatt, 
and others), for the Galatians had not as yet read it; nor 
at the first visit, for he had then experienced nothing but 
abundant love. «It must therefore have taken place at the 
second visit (Acts xviii. 23), when Paul found the Galatian 
churches already inclined to Judaism, and in conformity with 
the truth could no longer praise them (for only ézrawvérns rod 
Sixatov adnOevet, Plat. Pol. ix. p. 589 C), but was compelled 








CHAP. IV. 17, | 251 


to blame their aberrations. — dAnJevov tuiv] For “ veritas 
odium parit” (Terent. Andr. i. 1. 40), and opyifovras arrayres 
tos pera trappnolas 7’ adnOF Aéyover (Lucian, Abdic. 7). As 
to ddyOevewn, to speak the truth, see on Eph. iv. 15. 

Ver. 17. The self-seeking conduct of the Judaizing teachers 
(i. 7), so entirely opposed to the dAnOevav tuiv. The fact that 
they are not named is quite in keeping with the emotion and 
irritation of the moment; “nam solemus suppresso nomine de 
iis loqui, quos nominare piget ac taedet,” Calvin. — fjrotow 
vas] that is, they exert themselves urgently to win you over 
to their side; they pay their court to you zealously. So, cor- 
rectly, Erasmus, Castalio, Er. Schmid, Michaelis, and others, 
including Flatt, Winer, Usteri, Schott, Fritzsche, Olshausen, 
Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Ewald, Wieseler, and Hof- 
mann. For the contrast to the behaviour of the apostle har- 
monizes well with this sense; which is also accordant with 
linguistic usage, since {jAew with the accusative means Zo be 
zealous about a person or thing, and obtains in each case the 
more precise definition of its import from the context ; Dem. 
1402. 20. 500. 2; Prov. xxiv. 1; Wisd. 1 12; 1 Cor. xix 
31; and see Wetstein. Next to this interpretation comes 
that of Calvin, Beza, and others, including Riickert (comp. 
Vulgate: aemulantur): they are jealous of you (2 Cor. xi 2; 
Ecclus, ix. 1). Taking it so, it would not be necessary to 
conceive of Paul and his opponents under the figure of wooers 
of the bride (the bridegroom being Christ; see on 2 Cor. 
xi. 2), of which nothing is suggested by the context; but it 
may be urged against this explanation, that iva adrovs Syrobre 
is not appropriate in the same sense. This remark also applies 
to the interpretation of Koppe and Reithmayr, following Am- 
brose, Jerome, and Theodoret: “they envy you (Acts vil. 9), 
are full of an envious jealousy of your freedom;” and to 
that of Chrysostom and Theophylact: they vie with you (comp. 
Borger) ; Gos pév éorw dya0os Grav tis aperny piptrat Twos, 
Gnros Sé ov Karos, Gray tis omevdn exBareiv THs apeTAs Tov 
xatopOobvra (Theophylact). The factitive explanation: they 
make you to be zealous (Matthias), is opposed to linguistic usage, 
which only sanctions srapafmAcdw, and not the simple verb, 
in this sense. — ov xadas] not in a morally fair, honourable 


252 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


way, as would have been the case, if it had been done for your 
real good. — éxxAcioas] To exclude ;' they desire to debar 
you; in this lies the wickedness of their GjAos. The ques- 
tion which arises here, and cannot be set aside (as Hofmann 
thinks): Exclude from what? is answered by the emphatic 
avrovs which follows, namely, from other teachers, who do not 
belong to their clique” These “other teachers” are naturally 
those of anti-Judaizing views, and consequently Paul himself 
and his followers; but the hypothesis that Paul only is referred 
to (“a me meique communione,” Winer; so also Luther, 
Calvin, Grotius, Bengel, Kypke, Michaelis, Riickert, Olshausen, 
Reiche, and others) is the less feasible, as the very idea of 
éxxdeioat in itself most naturally points to a plurality, to 
an association. Since the avrous which follows applies to the 
false teachers as teachers, we must not conceive the exclusion 
(with Borger and Flatt) as from the whole body of Christians, 
nor (with Schott) as from all Christians thinking differently ; 
comp. Hilgenfeld: “from the Pauline church-union.” It is 
arbitrarily taken by Chrysostom, Oecumenius, and Theo- 
phylact, as exclusion from the state of true knowledge; by 
Erasmus and Cornelius a Lapide, from Christian freedom ; 
by Luther (1519), a Christo e& fiducia gus; by Matthies, 
from the kingdom of truth (comp. Ewald: from genuine Chris- 
tianity); by Wieseler and Reithmayr, from the kingdom of 
heaven ; by Matthias, from salvation by faith. All inter- 
pretations of this nature would have needed some more 
precise definition. Koppe falls into a peculiar error: “a 
consuetudine et familiaritate sua arcere vos volunt” (ii 12). 
— iva avtovs Sobre] As iva is used here with the present 


1Syr. translates includere, and consequently read iysxativas, This would 
mean: they desire to include you in their circle, so that ye should not get free 
from them and come to associate with other teachers. Thus, in point of 
fact, the same sense would result as in the case of ixxAsivas, only regarded 
from a different point of view. Fritzsche’s reference of iyxa. to the legis 
Mos. carcerem is not suggested by the context. The reading is altogether 
so weakly attested, that it can only be looked upon as an ancient error of 
transcription. 

* The wish expressed by Erasmus in his Annott.: ‘‘ Utinam hodie nulli sint 
apud Christianos in quos competat haec Pauli querimonia!” is still but too 
applicable to the present day. 


CHAP. IV. 18, 253 


indicative, it cannot mean in order that ;' but must be the 
particle of place, ubi (Valckenaer, ad Herod. ix. 27: tva Soxées 
x.7.r.). This uit may, however, mean either: in which position 
of things ye are zealous for them (my former explanation), as 
in 1 Cor. iv. 6 (see on that passage, and Ellendt, Lew. Soph. 
I. p. 839); or, in its purely local sense: “they wish to debar 
you there, where you are zealous for them,’—namely, in 
the Judaistic circle, in -which it is they themselves who are 
zealously courted by you, whose favour you have to seek, etc. 
The latter view, as the simplest, is to be preferred. On the 
usual explanation of iva as a particle of design, recourse is had 
to the assumption of an abnormal construction of degenerate 
Greek (Winer, Olshausen, Hilgenfeld, Wieseler, Hofmann, 
Reithmayr, and others); or of a mistake on the part of the 
author or of the transcriber (Schott); or, with Fritzsche, to the 
reading &pA@re (which only 113 and 219** have). But all 
these makeshifts are quite as arbitrary as the assumption of a 
faulty formation of mood (Riickert, Matthies). The interpreta- 
tion of wa as ubi is based not on an “exaggerated philological 
precision,” ? but on a linguistic necessity, to which the cus- 
tomary interpretation, yielding certainly a sense appropriate 
enough in itself, must give way, because the latter absolutely 
requires the subjunctive mood. 

Ver. 18. Paul knew that the state of things mentioned in ver. 
17 was but too assuredly based upon reality. So long as he 
had been with them (on the first occasion, and still even during 
his short second visit), the Galatians had shown zeal in that 
which was good, viz. in the actual case: zeal for their apostle 
and his true gospel, as was their duty (consequently what was 


1 Gnaoves is not the Attic future (Jatho). See Winer, p. 72(E. T. 88]; Butt- 
mann, p. 33. In Thue. ii. 8. 3, and iii. 58. 4, tasudspoves and ipnuovrs are presents ; 
see Kriiger in loc. 

2 As Hilgenfeld thinks, who appeals in favour of ive, ut, with the indicative 
to Clem. Hom. xi. 16: iva pendty cay wpocxuroupivay dxnpysy. This is certainly not 
‘* philological precision,” but inattention to linguistic fact; for in this Clemen- 
tine passage the quite customary ive, uz, is used with the indicative of the preterite, 
‘* quod tum fit, quando ponitur aliquid, quod erat futurum, si aliud quid factum 
esset, sed jam non est factum,” Klotz, ad Devar. p. 630f. ; Herm. ad Viger. 
p. 850f.; Kihner, II. § 778. With regard to the respective passages from 
Barnabas and Ignatius, in support of %v« with the present indicative, see on 1 
Cor. iv. 6, 


254 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


morally right and good). But after his departure this zeal 
veered round in favour of the Judaizing teachers and their doc- 
trine. Hence the apostle continues, giving a gentle reproof, 
and for that reason expressing the first half of the sentence 
merely in a general form: “ Good, however, is the becoming 
zealous in a good thing always, and not merely during my presence 
with you ;” that is, “ It is good when zealous endeavours are 
continuously applied in a good cause, and not merely,” ete. 
The chief emphasis rests on this rdvrote with its antithesis. 
The special form, in which Paul has clothed his thought, 
arises from his inclination for deliberately using the same 
word in a modified shade of meaning (Rom. xiv. 13; 1 Cor. 
iii. 17, et al.; comp. Wilke, Rhetor. p. 343 f). But the very 
point of this mode of expression requires that &Aodabar should 
not be taken in a sense essentially different from the correct 
view of it in ver. 17; consequently neither as invidiose trac- 
tart (Koppe), nor as fo endure envy (Riickert), which, besides, 
cannot be conveyed by the simple passive. In Usteri’s view, 
Paul intends to say, “ How much was I not the object of your 
Gros (zeal and interest), when I was with you! But if it 
should cease again so soon after my departure from you, it 
must have lost much of its value.” But the very xai 7) povop | 
év T@ Trapeival pe pos bas plainly shows that Paul did not 
conceive himsely as the object of the GAcdcGat; in order to 
be understood, he must have added this pe to &rAovc Gat, since 
there was no previous mention of himself as the object of the 
Eros. This objection also applies to the view of Reiche, 
although the latter takes it more distinctly and sharply : 
“ Bonum, honestum et salutare (vi. 9; 1 Cor. vii. 1; 1 Thess. 
v. 21), vero est, expeti aliorum studio et amore, modo et consilio 
honesto, év xanr@ (conf. 2 Cor. xi. 2; Ocod Sr), tdque continuo 
ac semper mavtote, nec tantum praesente me inter vos.” But ev 
xad@' cannot mean “modo et consilio honesto” (this is expressed 
by adds in ver. 17); it denotes the object of the %)rodcAan, 
and that conceived of as the sphere in which the {rote Gas takes 
place. Schott interprets, unsuitably to the cal yu provov K.7.X. 


1°Ey xaaw, used adverbially, means either at the fit time (Plat. Pol. ix. p. 
571 B; Xen. Hell. iv. 3. 5) or at the suitable place (Xen. Hell. ii. 1. 25), and 
in general, jitly (see Sturz, Lex, Xen. Il. p. 643), but does not occur in the N. T. 


CHAP. IV. 18. 255 


which follows: “ Laudabile est, guovis tempore appeti vel trahr 
ad partes alicujus, si agitur de bono et honesto colendo.” So also, 
in substance, de Wette, with relation to the passive demeanour 
of the Galatians, and with an extension of the idea of the verb: 
“It 1s, however, beautiful to be the object of zealous attention 
in what is good,” by which are indicated the qualities and 
advantages on account of which people are admired, loved, 
and courted.’ Similarly Ewald: “It is beautiful to be the 
object of zealous love in what is beautiful,” Grotow and 
Eprovre in ver. 17 being understood in a corresponding sense. 
But this interpretation also does not harmonize with the «at 
pe) povov x.7.. which follows; and hence Ewald changes the 
idea of note Gas into that of being worthy of love, and conse- 
quently into the sense of &#Awrov eivat. Hofmann over-refines 
and obscures the correct apprehension of the passage, by 
bringing ver. 18, in consequence of his erroneous reference of 
@ote éyOpos «.7.d. (see on ver. 16), into connection with this: 
sentence, considering the idea to be: “ Just as his person had 
formerly been the object of their affection, it ought to have 
remained so, instead of his now being their enemy in conse- 
quence of the self-seeking solicitude with which his opponents 
take pains about them if he speaks to them the truth. For in 
his case the morally good had been the ground, on account of 
which he had been the object of their loving exertion,” etc. The 
earlier expositors,’ as also Olshausen and Matthias (the latter 
in keeping with his factitive interpretation of the active), 
mostly take yAovcfar as middle, in sense equivalent to 
fnAobv, with very different definitions of the meaning, but 
inconsistently with the wsus loguendi. 


1 Theophylact (comp. also Chrysostom and Theodoret) has evidently under- 
stood the passage substantively, just as de Wette: retro aivirrsras, bs Epa Cnrwroi 
ivay wae ie) oh csAuéenss. Linguistically unobjectionable. Comp. Xen. Mem. 
ii, 1.19: isecsvopeivous x. Unrovgivous dws car Arrwy, Sympos. 4. 45; Hiero, 1.9; 
Eur. Alc. 903; Soph. H7. 1016 ; Aeschy Pers. 698; Plat. Gorg. p. 473 C, Gnrwres 
wy xa) sidaipcorZousves, See generally, Blomf. Gloss. Aesch. Prom. 838 ; Pierson, 
ad Moer. p. 169. 

2 Notall. The learned Grotius has evidently understood it passively: ‘‘Rectum 
erat, ut semper operam daretis, ut ego a vobis amari expeterem ; est enim hoc 
amari honestum.” Also Michaelis (comp. Er. Schmidt) : “‘ It is good when others 
court our favour.” Both interpretations come very near to that of Usteri. 

* Erasmus, Paraphr.: ‘ Vidistis me legis ceremonias negligere, nihil prae- 


256 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


Ver 19. This verse is not to be attached to the preceding 
(Bos, Bengel, Knapp, Lachmann, Riickert, Usteri, Schott, 
Ewald, Hofmann),—a construction which makes this earnest, 
touching address appear awkward and dissimilar in character 
to what is previously said,—but the words are to be sepa- 
rated from what precedes by a full stop, and to be joined 
with what follows, the tender affection of which is quite in 
harmony with this loving address. Difficulty has been felt 
as to 5é in ver. 20 (which therefore is omitted in Chrysostom 
and some min.); but only from inattention to the Greek use 
of 5é after the address, when the writer turns to a new thought, 
and does so with a tacit antithesis, which is to be recognised 
from the context. It is found so not merely with questions 
(Hom. Jl. xv. 244; Plat. Legg. x. p. 890 E; Xen. Mem. 1. 3. 
13, u. 1. 26; Soph O. C. 323. 1459), but also in other 
instances (Herod. i. 115; Xen. Anad. v. 5. 13, vi. 6. 12). 
Here the slight antithetic reference lies, as the very repetition 
of trapeivas mrpos bas indicates, in his glancing back to cai wn 
povoy x«.T.r., namely: “ Although zeal in a good cause ought 
not to be restricted merely to my presence with you, I yet 
would wish to be now present with you,” etc. The 6é of the 
apodosis, which Wieseler here assumes, is not suitable, because 
HOcdov Sé x.7.X. does not stand in any kind of antithesis to 
Texy, pov ods Tad. @divw «.T.X.; and besides, no connected 
construction would result from it; for the idea: “ Because ye 
are my children . . . I would wish,” does not correspond 
dicare praeter Christum, aemulabamini praesentem. Si id rectum erat, cur 
nunc absente me vultis alios aemulare in iis, quae recta non sunt?” Luther, 
1524: ‘“Bonum quidem est aemulari et imitari alios, sed hoc praestate in re 
bona semper, nunquam in mala, non tantum me praesente, sed etiam absente.” 
Comp. Calvin: ‘‘ Imitari vel eniti ad alterius virtutem.” Beza: ‘‘ At noster 
amor longe est alius ; vos enim bonam ob causam non ad tempus, sed semper, 
non solum praesens, sed etiam absens absentes vehementissime complector.” 
Locke (iv xaAg masculine): ‘* Vos amabatis me praesentem tanquam bonum, fas 
itaque est idem facere in absentem.” Bengel: ‘‘ Zelo zelum accendere, zelare 
inter se.” Morus: ‘‘ Laudabile autem est, sectari praeceptorem in re bona 
semper, neque solum,” etc.; substantially, therefore, as Erasmus. Others in- 
terpret in various ways. Olshausen: ‘‘ Paul desires to make known that he finds 
the zeal of the Galatians in itself very praiseworthy, and certainly would not 
damp it; and he therefore says, that the being zealous is good if it takes place 


on account of a good cause, and is maintained not merely in his presence, but 
also in his absence,” So already Calovius and others. 


CHAP. IV. 19, 257 


with the words. According to Hilgenfeld, that which the 
address is intended to introduce (viz. to move the readers to 
return) is wholly suppressed, and is supposed to be thereby the 
more strikingly suggested. Comp. also Reithmayr. But the 
affectionate tenor of the wish which follows in ver. 20 har- 
monizes so fully with the tender address in ver. 19, that that 
hypothesis, which Calvin also entertained (“ hic quasi moerore 
exanimatus in medio sententiae tractu deficit”), does not seem 
warranted. Nevertheless Buttmann also, newt. Gr. p. 331, 
- assumes an anacoluthon. — texvia pov] The word texvia, so 
frequent in John, is not found elsewhere in Paul's writings. 
But Lachmann and Usteri ought not to have adopted (following 
B F Gs*) the reading réxva, since it is just in this passage, - 
where Paul compares himself to a mother in childbirth, that 
the phrase “ my little children” finds a more special motive and 
warrant than in any other passage where he uses téxva (1 Cor. 
iv. 14; 2 Cor. vi. 13: comp. also 1 Tim.i. 18; 2 Tim. u. 1). 
— ots] The well-known constructio xata civeow. Winer, p. 
133 [E. T. 176], — wddw eda] whom I once more travail 
with. Paul represents himself, not, as elsewhere (1 Cor. iv. 15; 
Philem. 10), as a father, but in the special emotion of his love, as 
a mother who is in travail, and whose labour is not brought to 
an end (by the actual final birth) until nothing further is requi- 
site for the full and mature formation of the texviov. So long 
as this object is not attained, according to the figurative repre- 
sentation, the dew still continues” Bengel remarks very 
correctly : “Loquitur ut res fert, nam in partu naturali formatio 
est ante dolores partus.” The point of comparison is the loving 
exertion, which perseveres amidst trouble and pain in the effort 
to bring about the new Christian life. This metaphorical wdivew 
had been on the first occasion easy and joyful, ver. 13 ff. 
(although it had not had the full and lasting result; see after- 
wards, on @ypus ob «.7.r.); but on this second occasion it was 
severe and painful, and on this account the word dive is 


1 Heinsius, Grotius, Koppe, Riickert, and others, erroneously hold that sdiver 
here means to be pregnant, which it never does, not even in the LXX., Isa. 
xxvi. 17; Ps. vii. 15 ; Song of Sol. viii. 5; Philo, quod Deus immut. p. 318 B ; 
Plat. Theaet. p. 148C, 210B. On édivs» with the accusative of the person, 
comp. parturire aliquem, Isa. li. 2; Song of Sol. viii. 5; Eur. ph, A. 1234, 


BR 


258 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


chosen (and not rixrw or yevyd), which, however, is also appro- 
priate to the earlier act of bearing intimated in mau, since the 
idea of pains is essential to the conception of a birth, however 
slight and short they may be. The sense, when stripped of 
Jigure, is: “ My beloved disciples! at whose conversion I am 
labouring for the second time with painful and loving exer- 
tion, until ye shall have become maturely-formed Christians.” 
This continuous obs wdAw wdivw is to be conceived as begun, so 
soon as Paul had learned the apostasy of his readers and had 
commenced to counteract it; so that his operations during his 
second visit (comp. aAnGevwv dpiv, ver. 16) are thus also in- 
cluded : hence we cannot, with Fritzsche (/.c. p. 244) and Ulrich 
(in the Stud. u. Krit. 1836, p. 459), consider vv. 18, 19 as in- 
timating that Paul had only once visited Galatia. According 
to Wieseler, 3d @divw is intended to express the idea of 
the wraduyyeveola, Tit. iii. 5; Paul had regenerated his readers 
already at their conversion, and here says that he is stil con- 
tinuously occupied in their regeneration, until they should 
have attained the goal of perfection on the part of the Chris- 
tian — similarity with Christ. This is incorrect, because 
amaAty must necessarily denote a second act of travail on the 
part of Paul. Paul certainly effected the regeneration of his 
readers on occasion of the first wdivew, which is presupposed 
by wadw; but because they had relapsed (i. 6, iii. 1, iv. 9 f, 
et al.), he must be for the second time in travail with them, 
and not merely séill continuously (an idea which is not ex- 
pressed) their regenerator, so that the idea of the md)», the 
repetition, would be on the part of the readers. Theophylact 
(comp. Chrysostom) aptly defines the sense of wdAw odio 
not as that of a continued dvayévynois, but as that of warev 
étépas davayevynoews. The sense, “whose regeneration I am 
continuing,” would have been expressed by Paul in some such 
form as ods ob Travopat dvayevvar or ods ert Kai vov dvayevva. 
— adxpis ob popdwbi Xpioros dv tpiv]. A shadow is thus 
thrown on the result of the first conversion (birth), which had 
undergone so sudden a change (i. 6). The reiterated labour 
of birth is not to cease until, etc. This meaning, and along 
with it the emphasis of the a@ypis ov «.7.X., has been missed 
by Hofmann, who, instead of referring 3aAwv to dive only, ex- 


CHAP. IV. 20. 259 


tends it also to dypis ob w.7.A. In connection with the general 
scope of the passage, however, the stress is on wopdw6y : “ until 
Christ shall have been formed, shall have attained His due 
conformation, in you,” that is, wntil ye shall have attained. to 
the fully-formed inner life of the Christian. For the state of 
“Christ having been formed in man” is by no means realized 
“$0 soon as a man becomes a Christian” (Hofmann), but, as 
clearly appears from the notion of the dypus od, is the goal of 
development which the process of becoming Christian has to 
yeach. When this goal is attained, the Christian is he in 
whom Christ lives (comp. on ii. 20); as, for instance, on Paul 
himself the specific form of life of his Master was distinctly 
stamped. So long, therefore, as the Galatians were not yet 
developed and morally shaped into this complete inward 
frame, they were still like to an immature embryo, the internal 
parts of which have not yet acquired their normal shape, and 
which cannot therefore as yet come to the birth and so put an 
end to the @divew. In the Christian, Christ is to inhabit the 
heart (Eph. iii. 17): in him there is to be the voids of Christ 
(1 Cor. ii. 16), the wvedya of Christ (Rom. vii. 9), the 
onmhayyva of Christ (Phil i. 8); and the body and its members 
are to be the body and members of Christ (1 Cor. vi. 13, 15). 
All this, which is comprehended in the idea Xprorés ev ipiv, 
is in our passage rendered intelligible by the representation 
that Christ is to be formed in us, or to become present in the 
life-form corresponding to His nature. This view is not dif-_ 
ferent in reality, although it is so in the mode of representation, 
from that of spiritual transformation after the «mage of Christ 
(2 Cor. 1. 18); for, according to our passage, Christ Himself is 
in Christians the subject of the specific development. Bengel 
moreover, well remarks: “Christus, non Paulus, in Galatis for- 
mandus.” —- oppow] occurs here only in the N. T.; but see 
LXX. Isa. xliv. 13 (ed. Breit.); Symmachus, Ps, xxxiv. 1; Arat. 
Phaen. 375 ; Lucian, Prom. 3; Plut. de anim. generat. p. 1013 ; 
Theophr. ¢. pl. v. 6, 7. See also Jacobs, ad Anthol. VI. p. 345. 

Ver. 20. As to the connection of thought of the dé with 
ver. 18, see on ver. 18. — 7@cdov] namely, if the thing were 
possible. Comp. Rom. ix. 3; Acts xxv. 22. See Stallbaum, 
ad Plat. Gorg. p. 235; Kihner, IL p. 68; Fritzsche, ad Rom. 


260 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS, 


II. p. 245. — dpre] just now, presently (see on i. 9), has the 
emphasis. — ddAd£ae tyv dowvyv pov) The emphasis is on 
a@\Adfas. But in harmony with the context (see vv. 16, 18, 
and the foregoing dprtz), this changing can only refer to the 
second visit of the apostle to the Galatians, not to the language 
now employed in his letter,as many expositors think,’ Erro- 
neously, therefore—and how sharply in opposition to the pre- 
vious affectionate address !—-Ambrosius, Pelagius, Wetstein, 
Michaelis, Rosenmiiller, Riickert, Baumgarten-Crusius, take the 
sense to be: to assume a stern language of reproof. Hofmann 
also erroneously holds that Paul means the (in oral ex- 
pression) more chastened tone of a didactic statement—aiming 
at the bringing the readers back from their error—after the 
strongly excited style in which, since the word @avydfw in 
i. 6, he had urged his readers, as one who had already been 
almost deprived of the fruit of his labours. As if Paul had not 
previously,.and especially from iii. 6 to iv. 7, written didac- 
tically enough; and as if he had not also in the sequel (see 
immediately, ver. 21, and chap. v. and vi down to the abrupt 
dismissal at the end) urged his readers with excitement enough! 
The supposition, however, which Hofmann entertains, that 
Paul has hitherto been answering a letter of the Galatians, and 
has just at this point come to the end of 2, 13 nothing but a 
groundless hypothesis, for there is no trace of such a letter to 
be found in the epistle. No; when Paul was for the second time 
in Galatia, he had spoken sharply and sternly, and this had 
made his readers suspect him, as if he had become their enemy 
(ver. 16): hence he wishes to be now with them, and to speak 
to them with a vowe different from what he had then used, that 
is, to speak to them in a soft and gentle tone* By this, of 


1 So also Zachariae (who is followed by Flatt): ‘‘ to lay aside my present 
mournful language, and to adopt that of tenderness and contentment.” In this 
case Paul must have used dvvacbas; for unless his readers had improved in their 
conduct, it would have been émpossible for him to speak contentedly. Bengel, in 
opposition to the idea of éaad%e: : ‘‘ molliter scribit, sed mollius loqui vellet.” 
Jerome explained the passage as referring to the exchange of the voz epistolica 
for the vivus sermo of actual presence, which might have more effect in bring- 
ing them back ad veritatem. 

2 Not exactly weeping, as Chrysostom thinks: westiea: xai Saxpia xa: wdvrn sis 
Opiiver iwsordoncbas, 


CHAP. IV. 20. 261 


course, he means not any deviation in the substance of his teach- 
ing from the ddAnGevew (ver. 16), but a manner of language 
betokening tender, mother-like love. A wish of self-denying 
affection, which is ready and willing, in the service of the cause 
and for the salvation of the persons concerned, to change form 
and tone, although retaining dwvay yrevddwv dyvworov (Pind. Ol. 
vi. 112). The latter was a matter of course in the case ofa Paul, 
willingly though he became all things to all men; comp. on 
1 Cor. ix. 22. Many other expositors, as Theodoret, Theodore 
of Mopsuestia, Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Grotius, Estius, Koppe, 
Borger, Winer, Matthies, Schott, de Wette, understand it as: 
to speak according to the circumstances of each case, with ten- 
derness and affection to one, with severity and censure to another. 
Comp. Corn. a Lapide: “ut scilicet quasi mater nunc blan- 
direr, nunc gemerem, nunc obsecrarem, nunc objurgarem vos.” 
But this cannot be expressed by the mere addAdEat 7. ., which 
without addition means nothing more than to change the 
voice (comp. dAAdrrew yapay, Plat. Parm. p. 139 A; eldos, 
Eur. Bacch. 53; xp@pa, Eur. Phoen. 1252; ovodds, Gen. 
xxxv. 2), that is, to assume another voice, to let oneself be 
heard otherwise, not differently. See Artem. ii. 20, iv. 56; Dio 
Chrysostom, lix. p. 575, in Wetstein. Comp. Rom. i 23; 
Wisd. iv. 11, xii 10; frequently in the LXX. Paul must 
have added either a more precise definition, such as eis 
MTOAXOUS TpoTrous, eis poppas mreclovas (Lucian, Vit. Auct. 5), 
or at least some such expression as mpds tiv ypelay (Acts 
xxviii. 10), zpos ro ocupdépov (1 Cor. xii. 7), wpds Sudxprow 
Kadov Te Kai Kaxod (Heb. v. 14). Fritzsche incorrectly inter- 
prets it: to adopt some other voice, so that ye may believe that 
ye are listening to some other teacher, and not to the hated Paul. 
What a strange, unseemly idea, not at all in keeping with the 
thoughtful manner of the apostle! According to Wieseler, the 
sense intended is: ¢o exchange my speaking with you ; that is, 
to enter into mutual discourse with you, in order most surely . 
to learn and to obviate your counter-arguments. But in this 
view “with you” is a pure interpolation, although it would be 
essentially requisite to the definition of the sense; and adAAdo- 
gew doyous, to say nothing of dAX. dwryjv, is never so used. | 
What Wieseler means is expressed by dpue(BecOal twa royots 


262 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


(Hom. Od. iii. 148, ef al.), rpocdcaréyeoGai tie (Plat. Theaet.. 
p. 161 B), cvfyrety tim, or mpos teva (Acta vi. 9.; Luke xxii. 
23), Noyous avriBadXew apés (Luke xxiv. 17), Sotval te xai 
arrodéEacOas Noyov (Plat. Rep. p. 531 E). — Gre drropotpuar év 
tiv] justifies the wish of 4\AdEae tTHv dav. pov. The usual 
interpretation is the correct one: I am perplexed about you ; 
éy tiv is to be taken as in the phrase Oappa dv tpiv, 2 Cor. 
vil. 16, so that the perplexity is conceived as inherent in the 
readers, dependent on their condition as its cause (comp. also 
i 24). The perplexity consists in this, that he at the time 
knows no certain ways and means by which he shall effect 
their re-conversion (ver. 19); and this instils the wish (ér) 
that he could now be present with them, and, in place of the 
severe tone which at the preceding visit had had no good effect 
(ver. 16), could try the experiment of an altered and milder 
tone. The form dropoduas is, ‘moreover (comp. dzropnGeis, 
Dem. 830. 2, and amopnOncera:, Ecclus. xviii. 7), to be taken 
passively (as a middle form with a passive signification), so that 
the state of the dzropeiv is conceived of as produced on the 
subject, passively (Schoemann, ad Isaewm,p. 192). Fritzsche, 
lc. p. 257, holds the sense to be: “ Nam haeretis, quo me loco 
habeatis, nam sum volis suspectus.” Thus. éy tyiv would be 
among you, and aropodyar: [am an object of perplexity, ac- 
cording to the well-known Greek use of the personal passive 
of intransitive verbs (Bernhardy, p. 341 ; Kiihner, II. p. 34f). 
Comp. Xen. de rep. Lac. xiii. 7: dore trav Seopévov yiyvecOar 
ovdev atropetrat, Plat. Soph. p. 243 B, Legg. vii. p. 799 C. But 
the sense: “sum vobis suspectus” is interpolated, and there is 
no ground for deviating from the use of azropotpat throughout 
the N. T. (2 Cor. iv. 8; Luke xxiv. 4; Acts xxv. 20; John 
xlil, 22); as, indeed, the idea “swum vobis suspectus” cannot 
give any suitable motive for the wish of the addAd£au rHv dovyy, 
unless we adopt Fritzsche’s erroneous interpretation of adXa€au. 
To disconnect (with Hofmann) ey vpiv from aopoimar, and 
attach it to d\Aaé. t. dwvyv pov, would yield an addition en- 
tirely superfluous after mrapeivas mpos buds, and leave aopot- 
pat without any more precise definition of its bearing. And 
the proposal to attach érz dzrop. év buiy as protasis to the fol- 
lowing Aéyeré poor (Matthias) would have the effect of giving 





CHAP, IV. 21. 263 


to the Aéy. ou, which stands forth sternly and peremptorily, 
an enfeebling background. 

Vv. 21-30. Now, at the conclusion of the theoretical por- 
tion of his epistle, Paul adds a quite peculiar antinomistic 
disquisition,—a learned Rabbinico-allegorical argument derived 
from the law ttself,—calculated to annihilate the influence of 
the pseudo-apostles with their own weapons, and to root them 
out on their own ground. | 

Ver. 21, without any connecting link, leads most ener- 
getically (Aéyeré wou: “urget quasi praesens,” Bengel) at once 
in mediam rem. On the réyeré por, so earnestly intensifying 
the question, comp. Bergler, ad Aristoph. Acharn. 318. — ot 
U0 voov «.7.r.] Ye who wish to be under the law. This refers 
to the Judaistically inclined readers, who, partly Gentiles and 
partly Jewish Christians, led astray by the false teachers (i. 7), 
- gupposed that in faith they had not enough for salvation, 
and desired to be subject to the law (ver. 9), towards which 
they had already made a considerable beginning (ver. 10). 
Chrysostom aptly remarks: cada@s elrrev’ ot Gédortes, od yap 
THS TOY TpayuaTwy aKodrovias, aGArAA THs Exelvwy aKaipov 
diroverxias TO Tpayya hv. — Tov vopoy ov« axovere ;| Hear 
ye not the law? Is it not read in your hearing? Comp. John 
xii. 84; 2 Cor. ui 14. The public reading of the venerated 
divine Scriptures of the law and the prophets, after the 
manner of the synagogues (Rom. 1. 15; Acts xv. 21; Luke 
iv. 16), took place in the assemblies for worship of the Chris- 


tian churches both of Jewish and of Gentile origin: they ~ 


contained, in fact, the revelation of God, of which Christianity 
is the fulfilment, and an acquaintance with them was justly 
considered as a source of the Christian knowledge of salva- 
tion; for its articles of faith (1 Cor. xv. 3 f.) and rules of 
life (Rom. xiii. 8-10, xv. 4) were to be xara tas ypadds. 
Now the hearing of the law must necessarily have taught the 
Galatians how much they were in error. Hence this question 
expressive of astonishment,’ which is all the stronger and con- 
sequently all the more appropriate, the more simply we allow 


1 Hofmann (comp. also his Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 57) deals with our passage in 
an unwarrantable and intolerably violent manner by writing ¢? (as relative), but 
makes the summons (tell me, ye who, wishing to be under the law, do not hear the 


264 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


axovere to retain its primary literal signification. Hence we 
must neither explain it (with Winer; comp. Matthies) as 
audisse, t.¢. nosse, notum habere (see Heind. ad Plat. Gorg. p. 
503 C; Ast, ad Plat. Legg. i. p. 9; Spohn, Lectt. Theocr. i. 
p. 25); nor, with Jerome and many others, including Morus, 
Koppe, Rosenmiiller, Borger, Flatt, Schott, Olshausen, as ¢o 
understand (comp. on 1 Cor. xiv. 2), which Paul conceives 
as the hearing of the svetua speaking behind the ypdupa 
(so Holsten, 2. Evang. d. Paul. u. Petr. p. 382); nor, with 
Erasmus, de Wette, Ewald, Wieseler, Hofmann, as dxoveuy 
twos, to give attention, that is, to bestow moral considera- 
tion (rather, to have an ear for,as 1 Cor. xiv. 2; Matt. x. 14; 
John viii. 47). — vouos is used here in a twofold sense 
(comp. Rom. iii. 19): it means, in the first place, the institute 
of the law; and secondly, the Pentatewch, according to the 
' division of the Old Test. into Law, Prophets, and Hagiographa. 
See on Luke xxiv. 44. The repetition of the word gives 
emphasis. 

Ver. 22. I'ap] now gives the explanation of and warrant 
for that question, by citing the history, narrated in the law, 
of Ishmael and Isaac, the two sons of the ancestor of the 
theocratic people. See Gen. xvi. 15f, xxi. 2 f — &« ris 
madionns| by the (well-known) bondswoman, Hagar. See Gen. 
xvi. 3. As to the word itself (which might also denote a /ree 
maiden), see Wetstein, I. p. 526 f.; Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 259 f. 
— é« Tis édevO.] Sarah. 

Ver. 23 presents the relation of diversity between the two, 
in contrast to the previously mentioned relation of similarity, 
according to which they both were sons of Abraham. — «ata 
capxa| according to the flesh, so that the birth was the result 
of a natural carnal mtercourse. Differently in Rom. 1. 3, ix. 
5. —- yeyévyntac] is born; the perfect realizes the historically 
existing relation as present. — Sid ris émaryeAlas] through 
the (well-known) promise, Gen. xvil. 16, 19, xviii 10; Rom. 
ix. 9. This must not, however, be rationalized (with Grotius, 
Rosenmiiller, and others) into “ per eam vim extraordinariam, 


law) to be only prepared for by ver. 22 ff., and that which Paul had in view in 
the Aiysré wos of ver. 21 to follow at length in ver. 30. The address runs on 
simply and appropriately, and affords no occasion for any such intricacy. 


CHAP. IV. 24, 265 


quam Deus promiserat,” which does violence to the history in 
Genesis, as above; nor, with Hofmann, to the effect that the 
promise, with which Abraham had been called, was realized in 
the procreation wself; but it is to be definitely explained in 
accordance with the tenor of the words and with Gen. xxi. 1: 
“ by virtue of the promise he is born,” so that in his procrea- 
tion (Matt. i. 2; Luke iii. 34) the divine promise made to his 
parents, which had assured them of the birth of a son, was the 
procuring cause of the result, which would not. have occurred 
without such an operation of the power of the divine promise 
(Gen. xviii. 14), seeing that the two parents were in them- 
selves incapable of the procreation of Isaac; for Sarah was 
barren, and both were already too old (Gen. xviii. 11; Rom. 
iv. 19). Comp. Chrysostom. 

Ver. 24. “Arwa] quippe quae, quae quidem, taking up the 
recorded facts under the point of view of a special quality. 
— éorw adrAnyopovpeva] are of allegorical import. The word 
adMpyopeiy, not occurring elsewhere in the N. T., means dAdo 
ayopevewv, so to speak (to set forth, to relate), that another sense 
as expressed than the words convey ; which further meaning lies 
concealed behind the immediate meaning of what is said. 
Hesychius: aAAnyopia dAdo TL Tapa TO aKovopevoy brrodeuK- 
yvovoa, Comp. Quinctil. viii. 6; see Plut. Mor. p. 363 D, 
Athen. i. p. 69 C; Philo, de migr. Abr. p. 420 B; Joseph. 
Anti. prooem. 4. In the passive: to have an allegorical mean- 
ing,, Schol. Soph. 47. 186; Porph. Pyth. p. 185; Philo, de 
Cherub. I. p. 143 ; and see generally, Wetstein.?7 The under- 
standing of the O. T. history in an allegoric sense was, as 


1 Not: to be the object of allegorical conception (Hofmann). The allegorical 
sense is @ priort contained and given in the facts which stand recorded ; they 
have, contained in them, the allegorical import which is only exhibited by the 
explanation. If iscsi» eaAany. were to be taken, not in the sense of being 
expressed, but in that of being conceived as such, which is certainly found in 
Plutarch, Synesius, and elsewhere, Paul must have written &arnyopsiras, or the 
verbal adjective aaanyepnries. Moreover, 2raanyopsiv is related to aivirrsebas as 
species to genus ; but Hofmann arbitrarily asserts that the latter requires for its 
interpretation wit, the former understanding. Aivirrsebas includes every obscure 
or veiled discourse (Herod. v. 56; Plat. Rep. p. 332 B, and frequently ; Soph. 
Aj. 1187 ; Eur. Jon. 430; Lucian, V. H. i. 2), whether it be in an allegorical 
form or not, and whether it require wit or not. 

2 In the older Greek, allegory was termed iriver (seo Plut. de aud. poet. p. 
19 E), Plato, de Rep. p. 378 D; Xen. Symp. 3.6; Ruhnk. ad Tim. p. 200 f.). 


266 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS, 


is well known, extremely prevalent among the later Jews. 
Synops. Sohar. p. 25. 1: “ Quicunque dicit narrationes legis 
alium non habere sensum, quam illius tantum historiae, istius 
crepet spiritus.” See generally, Dopke, Hermeneut. I. p. 104 ff.; 
Gfrorer, Gesch. d. Urchristenth. I. 1. p. 68 ff. But on account of 
the Rabbinical training in which Paul had been brought up 
(comp. Tholuck in the Stud. wu. Krit. 1835, p. 369 ff.; Weiss, 
bibl. Theol. p. 295 f.), and on account of his truthful character, 
nothing else can be assumed than that he himself was convinced 
that what he related contained, in addition to its historical 
sense, the allegorical import set forth by him; so that he did 
not intend to give a mere argumentum kat’ dvOpwroyv, but 
ascribed to his allegory the cogency of objective proof. Hence 
he has raised it into the keystone of his whole antinomistic 
reasoning, and has so earnestly introduced (ver. 21) and 
carried it out, that we cannot hold (with Schott) that it was 
intended to be an argumentum secundarium, quod insuper 
accederet. But in the view of a faith not associated with 
Rabbinical training, the argument wholly falls to the ground 
as a real proof (Luther says that it is “ too weak to stand the 
test”) ;} while the thing proved is none the less established 
independent of the allegory, and is merely illustrated by it. 
“Nothing can be more preposterous than the endeavours of 
interpreters to vindicate the argument of the apostle as one 
objectively true.” Baur, Paulus, II. p. 312, ed. 2. — adrae] 
namely, Hagar and Sarah; for see afterwards #rus éotipv 
"Ayap. Hence not equivalent to radra, sc. ta adAAnyopovpeva 

1 We must be on our guard against confounding the idea of the allegory with 
that of the type (1 Cor. x. 6,11; Rom. v. 14; comp. Heb. ix. 24; 1 Pet. iii. 21), 
as Calvin and many others have done: ‘‘a familia Abrahae similitudo ducitur 
ad ecclesiam ; quemadmodum enim Abrahae domus tunc fuit vera ecclesia, ita 
minime dubium est, quin praecipui et prae aliis memorabiles eventus, qui in ea 
nobis contigerunt, nobis totidem sint typi.” Also Tholuck (d. A.7. im N. T. p. 
39, ed. 6) and Wieseler understand 2aanyopodesva as equivalent to rumixaws Asyépsre. 
But even Philo, de opif. m. I. p. 38. 10, puts the type not as equivalent, but only 
as similar to the allegory; and Josephus, Anit. prooem. 4, speaks of Moses as 
speaking in a partly allegorical sense, without intimating that he intended his- 
torical types. The allegory and the type are contrasted on the one hand with that 
which is only rAdepare pvfey, and on the other hand with that which is said i 
siésies (directly, expressly). But neither does a type necessarily rest on allegorical 


interpretation, nor does the allegory necessarily presuppose that what is so in- 
terpreted is a type; the two may be independent one of the other. Thus, ¢.g., 


: CHAP. IV. 24. 267 
(Calovius and others), as is assumed, in order not to admit here 
an elvas onpavrexoy, — eiov] namely, allegorically, and so 
far = signify. Comp. Matt. xiii. 20, 38, e¢ al. — dv0 diabjxat] 
two covenants, not: institutions, declarations of will (Usteri), or 
generally “ arrangements connected with the history of salva- 
tion” (Hofmann), any more than in iii 15. The characteristic 
of a covenant, that there must be two parties, existed actually 
in the case of the S&:a@jxac (God and the men, who were sub- 
ject to the law,—God and the men, who believe in Christ). 
Comp. 1 Cor. xi. 25. — pia pev amd dpovs wa] One pro- 
ceeding from Mount Sinai, which was instituted on Mount 
Sinai, and therefore issues from it. Instead of dzro, the mere 
genitive might have been used (Bernhardy, p. 223), but the. 
former is more definite and descriptive. The pév is without 
any corresponding 6€ (Kiihner, II. p. 430), for in none of 
the cases where 6€ subsequently occurs is it correlative 
to this wé. In point of fact the contrast anticipated in 
pla peév certainly follows in ver. 26, but not in conjunction 
with pev; see what is said on ver. 26. — eis Sovdrclay yer- 
vaca) bringing forth unto bondage, that is, placing those who 
belong to this covenant, by means of their so belonging, in 
a state of bondage, namely, through subjection to the Mosaic 
law. See ver. 1 ff. The notion of a mother has caused the 
retention of the figurative expression yeryrdoa. — Aris éativ 
“Ayap] ‘rts, quippe quae, is neither predicate (Bengel) nor 
attributive definition (as that SvaOnnn, which Hagar is; so 
Hofmann), as if it were written “Ayap ovca; but it is the 
the allegory of the name of Hagar, in Philo, Alleg. II. p. 185. 29, is anything 
but typology. See the passages themselves in Wetstein. At any rate, the 
allegory has a much freer scope, and may be handled very differently by different 
people ; ‘‘ potest alius aliud et argutius fingere et veri cum similitudine suspicari ; 
potest aliud tertius, potest aliud quartus, atque ut se tulerint ingeniorum opin- 
antium qualitates, ita singulae res possunt infinitis interpretationibus explicari.” 
Arnobius. The type is a real divine preformation of a N. T. fact in the O. T. 
history. Comp. on Rom. v. 14; also Tholuck, /.c. p. 47 ff. But one fact 
signifies another allegorically, when the ideal character of the latter is shown 
as figuratively presenting itself in the fermer; in which case the significant 
fact needs not to be derived from the O. T., and the interpretations may be 
very various. Comp. Kleinschmidt in the Mecklenbd. theol. Zeitschr. 1861, p. 
859. Matthias, in the interpretation of our passage, abides by the wider idea of 


** figure ;” but this does not satisfy the strict idea of the allegorical, so far as 
this is the expression of an inner, deeper significance,—of an ivipws voovpsves. 


268 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


sulyect, just as dria and avras, and also #ris in ver. 26. The 
name, not as yet expressed, is now emphatically added. The 
Sinaitic covenant is that which Hagar is in the history 
referred to—is allegorically identical with Hagar. 

Ver. 25. The #ris eotiv “Ayap, just said, has now a reason 
assigned for it, from the identity of the name “ Hagar” with that 
of Mount Sinai. To yap “Ayap . . . ’ApaBia, however, is 
not to be placed in a parenthesis, because neither in the con- 
struction nor in a logical point of view does any interrup- 
tion occur; but with cvorotye? 5é a new sentence is to be 
commenced. “ This covenant is the Hagar of that allegorical 
history—a fact which rs confirmed by the similarity of the name 
of this woman with the Arabian designation of Mount Sinar. 
Not of a different nature, however,—to indicate now the cor- 
responding relation, according to which no characteristic dts- - 
similarity may exist between this woman and the community 
belonging to the Sinaitic covenant, because otherwise that 7ris 
éotiv “Ayap would be destitute of inner truth—not of a dif- 
ferent nature, however, but of a similar nature is Hagar with the 
present Jerusalem, that is, with the Jewish state; because the 
latter 1s, as Hagar once was, in slavery together with those who 
belong to it.” This paraphrase at the same time shows what 
importance belongs to the position of cvororyei at the head of 
the sentence. — 70 yap “Ayap Swa dpos éotw év r. ’Apa8.] 
That the name Hagar (ro “Ayap denotes this; see Eph. iv. 9; 
Kiihner, II. p. 137) accorded with the Arabic name of Sinai, 
could not but be a fact welcome to the allegorizing Paul in 
support of his #rus €oruw”Ayap. Comp. John ix. 6. — He now 
writes wa dpos, and not dpos Suwa as in ver. 24, because 
"Ayap and wa are intended to stand in juxtaposition on 
account of the coincidence of the two names. In Arabic = 
means lapis; and although no further ancient evidence is pre- 
served that the Arabs called Sinai xar’ é£oynpy the stone! yet 
Chrysostom in his day says that in their native tongue the 


1 We may add that ; = occurs elsewhere as a geographical proper name in 
Arabia Petraea. Thus the Chald. Paraphr. always gives the name N13M to 
thé wilderness called in the Hebr. -9y. As to the town yes which is, however, 
to be pronounced Hidschr and not Hadschr, and, on account of its too remote 





CHAP. IV. 25. 269 


name Sinai was thus interpreted; and indeed Biisching, Erdbeschr. 
V. p. 535, quotes the testimony of Harant the traveller that 
the Arabs still give the name Hadschar to Mount Sinai,—a 
statement not supported by the evidence of any other travellers. 
Perhaps it was (and is) merely a provincial name current in 
the vicinity of the mountain, easily explained from the granitic 
nature of the peaks (Robinson, I. p. 170 f.), with which also 
the probable signification of the Hebrew ‘2D, the pointed 
(see Knobel on Ez. p. 190), harmonizes," and which became 
known to the apostle, if not through some other channel pre- 
viously, by means of his sojourn in Arabia (i. 17). Comp. 
also Ewald, p. 495; Reiche, p. 63. It is true that the name 


of Hagar (737) does not properly correspond with the word 
(ran), but with sn fugit ; but the allegorizing interpretation 


of names is too little bound to literal strictness not to find 
the very similarity of the word and the substantial resemblance 
of sound enough for its purpose, of which we have still stronger 
and bolder examples in Matt. i. 23, John ix. 6. Beza, Calvin, 
Castalio, Estius, Wolff, and others, interpret, “ for Hagar is a 
type of Mount Sinai in Arabia ;”? but against this view the 
neuter 1d “Ayap is decisive. — év ’ApaBig] not in Arabia 


site, cannot come into consideration here (in opposition to Grotius and others), 


see Ewald, p. 493 f., and Jahrb. VIII. p. 290. 

1 As to the mineralogical beauty of the mountain, see Fraas, Aus d. Orient 
geolog. Beobacht. 1867. 

2 At the same time Calvin and others remark on iv ’ApeGie: ‘‘ hoc est extra 
limites terrae sanctae, quae symbolum est aeternae haereditatis.” This reference 
is also discovered by Wieseler, who, with Lachmann, reads only ré y. sv% dpos 
legis iv +. ApeB., *‘for the Sinai mountain lies beyond the Holy Land, and indeed 
in Arabia, where also the alien Hagar is at home.” In his view, Paul meant 
to say that, through their alien nature, the Sinaitic 3seéxn and Hagar showed - 
themselves to answer to each other,—namely, as intervenient elements in the 
history of salvation. But this Paul has noé said; the substance of it would 
have to be read between the lines. How very natural it would have been for 
him at least to have written, instead of or in addition to iv +. ’ApaB., tw (or 
praxpay aad) ens yis Xavedy, in order thus at least to give some intimation that 
the alien character was the point! This also applies against the view of Hof- 
mann (comp. also his Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 70 f.), who likewise follows the 
reading omitting “Ayap, and agrees in substance with Wieseler’s explanation, 
taking Mount Sinai as contrast to Sion, and’ Arabia as contrast to the land of 
promise. Comp. also, in opposition to this exposition, which imports elements 
wholly gratuitous, Ewald, Jahrb. X. p. 239. 


270 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


situm (Schott and older expositors)—-for how idle would be 
this topographical remark’ in the case of a mountain so uni- 
versally known!—nor equivalent to apaPtori, so that ’Apaf. 
would be an adjective and dvadéxrp would have to be supplied 
(Matthias); but: in Arabia the name Hagar signifies the Mount 
Sinai? So Chrysostom, Theophylact, Luther (“for Agar means 
an Arabia the Mount Sinai”), Morus, Koppe, Reiche, Reith- 
mayr, and others. — cuvorotyet] The sulject is, as Theodore of 
Mopsuestia rightly has it, Hagar, not Mount Sinai (Vulgate, 
Jerome, Ambrose, Chrysostom and his followers, Thomas, 
Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Estius, Wolf, Bengel, and others ; 
also Hofmann now),—a view which runs entirely counter to 
the context, according to which the two women are the subjects 
of the allegorical interpretation, while to yap "Ayap wa pos 
éorw ev t7 Apa. was merely a collateral remark by way of 
confirmation. Incorrectly also Studer and Usteri, de Wette, 
Baumgarten-Crusius (also Hofmann formerly), Windischmann, 
Reithmayr, hold that the subject is still wia pev amo Spous 
Suwa, the Sinaitic constitution. In this way there would be 
brought out no comparison at all between the subject of 
ovototye: and the present Jerusalem ; and yet such, according 
to the signification of ovorovyeiy (see afterwards), there must 
necessarily be, so that in SovAeves ydp «.7.r. lies the tertium 
comparationis. The Sinaitic da0j«n is not of a similar nature 
with the present Jerusalem, but is itself the constitution of it ; 
on that very account, however, according to the allegorical 
comparison Hagar corresponds to the present Jerusalem. 
cuototyely means fo stand in the same row (see Polyb. x. 
21. 7, and Wetstein); that is, here, to stand in the same 
category (cvorotyla, Aristot. Metaph. i. 5, pp. 986, 1004), to be 
‘ of the same nature and species, cvorotyov elvas (Theophr. c. pi. 


1 Which is not (with Bengel) to be brought into an antithetical relation to 
cveroxsi di (the Mount Sinai is indeed situated in Arabia, but corresponds, etc.), 
as if it were accompanied by a «éy (and with the adoption of Lachmann’s read- 
ing); for in this case the allegorical signification of the Hagar would not be © 
based on any ground. 

2 Observe that the apostle does not at all wish to say that Hagar is in the 
Arabic language generally the name of Sinai; but, on the contrary, by is ri 
*Apafie he characterizes that name as a name used in the country, provincial. 
Hofmann unjustly finds in the words according to our reading ‘‘ absurdity.” 





CHAP. IV. 25, 271 


vi. 4. 2; Arist. Meteor. 1. 3 ; Lucian, g. hist. conser. 43). Conse- 
quently: Hagar belongs to the same category with the present 
Jerusalem, is of a like nature with it (comp. Polyb. xiii. 8. 1: 
Spowa Kal ovorovya), has in common with it the same charac- 
teristic relation, in so far namely that, as Hagar was a bond- 
woman, the present Jerusalem with its children is also in 
bondage. See below. Thus over. expresses the correspondence. 
But it is incorrect to take it as: she confronts as parallel 
(Riickert, Winer). This must have been expressed by dvt- 
ororyet (Ken. Symp. 2. 20, Anad. v. 4.12; comp. avricroryos, © 
Eur. Andr. 746, and avricroyia, Plut. Mor. p. 474 A). 
Many of those who regard Sinai as the subject (see above) 
interpret: “2 extends as far as Jerusalem” (Vulgate, Jerome, 
Ambrose, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Erasmus, Luther, Wolf, 
and others). This would have to be more exactly defined 
with Genebrardus, ad Ps. cxxxiii. 3, following out the literal 
meaning of the word ovorotyet: “ perpetuo dorso sese versus 
Sionis montes exporrigit.” But even granting the geographical 
reality of the description, and setting aside the fact that Sinai 
is not the subject, Paul must have named, instead of rq viv 
‘Iepove., Mount Zion.. Hofmann, in reference to the position 
. of Sinai in Arabia and of Jerusalem in the land of promise, 
interprets the expression locally indeed, but as indicative 
of the non-local relation, that the present Jerusalem belongs 
to the same category. with the mountain although Arabian, 
which has it side by side on the same line in the order of the 
history of salvation. An artificial consequence of the geogra- 
phical contrast introduced as regards ev ’ApaB., as well as of 
the erroneous assumption that Mount Smai is the subject. 
At the same time a turn is given to the interpretation, as if 
Paul had written ovotowye? 5¢ aire 7 viv ‘Iepove. — 1H viv 
‘Iepovoadj] does not stand in contrast to the former Salem 
(Erasmus, Michaelis), but in Paul’s view means the present 
' Jerusalem belonging to the pre-Messianic period, as opposed to 


¥ Comp. also Wieseler : ‘‘ corresponds to it ; not, however, at a like, but at a 
different stage,” whereby the idea of a type is expressed. This view is not to be 
supported by Polyb. x. 21. 7, where evluyoireas zai cveroourras Siawsyssy MEANS 
to remain in rank and file (‘‘ servare ordines secundum rapacréras et iaiBdras,” 
Schweighiuser), so that as well the cvfvyevress as the cverayovvrss always form 
one row with one another. 


272 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


9 avo ‘Iepove. (ver 26), which after the wapovola will take its 
place. See on ver. 26. Moreover, the present Jerusalem and 
its children (“inhabitants ;” see Matt. xxiii. 37, Ps. cxlix. 2) 
represent the Israelitic commonwealth and its members. Comp. 
Isa. xl. 2. — SovAeves yap x.7.X.] namely, to the Mosaic law. 
The bondage to Rome (Pelagius) is not, according to the con- 
text, referred to either alone (Castalio, Ewald) or jointly 
(Bengel). The subject is » viv ‘Iepove., and not” Ayap (Cornelius 
a Lapide, Grotius, and others). Looking at the usage both of 
classical authors and the N. T., there is nothing surprising in 
the change of subject (Stallbaum, ad Plat. Gorg. p. 510 C; 
Winer, p. 586 [E. T. 787 f.]). Lachmann (also Ewald) has in- 
correctly placed the words SovAeves . . . avris in a parenthesis. 


Note—If the reading of Bengel and Lachmann, ri y. Swe 
Gpos éoriy éy ¢. ’ApaB., be adopted, the interpretation would 
simply be: “for the Sinai-Mount is in Arabia ;” so that tv ry 
’ApaB. would serve to support the allegorical relation of Hagar 
to Sinai, seeing that Hagar also was in Arabia and the ances- 
tress of the Arabians. This certainly forms a ground of support 
much too vague, and not befitting the dialectic acuteness of the 
apostle. In the case of the Recepta also, év rj ’Apaf., taken as a 
geographical notice, is so superfluous and aimless, that Schott’s 
uncritical conjecture, treating the words rd y.”Ay. op. 5. &. éy ¢. 
"Apa. as a double gloss, is not surprising. Bentley, who is fol- 
lowed by Mill, Prolcg. § 1306, even wished to retain nothing of 
the passage but ré ds” Ayup oucrorys? rH viv'Iepouc.x.r.A. Against the 
interpretation of év +7’ Apa8. by Wieseler and Hofmann, see above. 

Ver. 26. But altogether different from the position of the 
present Jerusalem is that of the upper Jerusalem, which is free ; 
and this upper Jerusalem is our mother. — 6é] places the advo 
‘Iepove. in contrast with the previous 77 viv ‘Iepove. The 
pla peév of ver. 24 has been left, in consequence of the digres- 
sion occasioned by the remarks made in ver. 25, without any 
correlative to follow it (such as 9 6é érépa)——an omission 
which is quite in harmony with the rapid movement of Pauline 
thought. Comp. Rom. vi 12, e al.; also Rom. v.12. He 
leaves it to the reader to form for himself the second part of 
the allegorical interpretation after the similarity of the first, 
and only adduces so much of it as is directly suggested by 


An 


the contrast of the just characterized r7 viv ‘Iepove. He 


CHAP. IV. 26, 273 


leaves it, therefore, to the reader to supply the following 
thought: “But the other covenant, which is allegorically re- 
presented in this history, is the covenant instituted by Christ, 
which brings forth to freedom: this is Sarah, who is of the 
same nature with the upper Jerusalem; for the latter is, as 
Sarah was, free with its children, and to this upper Jerusalem 
we Christians as children belong.” — 7 Sé dvw ‘Iepovcanrnp] 
is neither the ancient Jerusalem, the Salem of Melchizedek 
(Oeder, Michaelis, Paulus), nor Mount Zion, which is called 
in Josephus 7 dvw rods (see the passages in Ottii Spicil. ex 
Josepho, p. 400 f.), as among the Greeks the Acropolis at Athens 
was also so named (Vitringa, Elsner, Mill, Wolf, Rambach, 
Moldenhauer, Zachariae). Both interpretations are opposed to 
the context, and the former to linguistic usage.’ The contrast 
between heaven and earth elsewhere conveyed by dave, as used 
by Paul (Phil. iii. 14; Col. iii 2), is found here also, since » 
vov ‘Tep, is the earthly Jerusalem. It is true that this con- 
trast would have been more accurately expressed if, instead 
of 79 viv ‘Iepovc., he had written 79 xdrw ‘Tepove. (ow arden 
moo); but in using the viv he thought of the futwre Jerusalem 
as its contrast (Heb. xiii. 14), and afterwards changed his mode 
of representation, by conceiving the future as the upper: for 
it is the heavenly Jerusalem, called by the Rabbins Sw oSynw 
nyo, which, according to Jewish teaching, is the archetype in 
heaven of the earthly Jerusalem, and on the establishment of 
the Messiah’s kingdom is let down to earth, in order to be 
the centre and capital of the Messianic theocracy, just as 
the earthly Jerusalem was the centre and capital of the 
ancient theocracy. Comp. Heb. xi. 10, xii 22, xiii. 14; Rev. 
m1. 12, xxi 2. See generally Schoettgen, de Heros. coelest. in 
his Horae, p. 1205 ff. ; Meuschen, WV. 7’ ex Talm. il. p. 199 ff. ; 
Wetstein, in loc.; Bertholdt, Christol. p. 211 ff.; Ewald, ad 
Apoc. p. 11, 307. And as previously the present Jerusalem 
_represented the Jewish divine commonwealth, so here the upper 
Jerusalem represents the Messianic theocracy, which before the 


1 dye always means above. When .it appears to mean olim, it denotes the 
ascending line of ancestry, as e.g. in Plat. Legg. ix. p. 880 B: 1 wacpi 1 ies 
évaripw. Theact. p. 175 B al. ; the earlier time lying behind being regarded as 
higher (Polyb. v. 6. 1, iv. 2. 8, iv. 50. 8). 


274 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


mapovola is the church, and after the trapovela is the glorious 
kingdom of the Messiah. With justice, accordingly, the church 
on earth (not merely the “ecclesia triwmphans”) has at all 
times been deemed included in the heavenly Jerusalem (see — 
Luther, and especially Calovius, in loc.); for the latter is, in 
relation to the church, its mroX/revya, which is in heaven (Phil. 
iii. 20). The heavenly completion of the church in Christ 
ensues at the wapovola, in which Christ who rules in heaven 
will manifest in glory the life—hitherto hidden with Him 
in God (see on Col. iii. 3 f.)—of the community, which is 
the body and wAnpwpya of Him its Head (Eph.i. 22f.). Thus 
the church on earth is already the theocracy of the heavenly 
Jerusalem, and has its voA/revya in heaven; but this its 
xAnpovoyia is, until the zrapovela, only an ideal and veiled, 
although in hope assured, possession, which at the second 
coming of the Lord at length attains objective and glorious 
realization. It is, however, by no means to be asserted that 
Paul entertained the sensuous Rabbinical conceptions of the 
heavenly Jerusalem (see Eisenmenger, entdeckt. Judenth, II. 
p. 839 ff); for he nowhere presents, or even so much as 
hints, at them, often as he speaks of the zrapovola and the 
consequences connected with it. In his view, the heavenly 
Jerusalem was the national setting for the 1dea—founded on 
the exalted Christ as its central point—of the kingdom of the 
Messiah before and after its glorious realization. — édevbépa 
eotw| that is, independent of the Mosaic law (opposite of the 
SovAeves in ver. 25), in free, moral self-determination, under 
the higher life-principle of the Spirit (Rom. viii, 2; 2 Cor. 
iii. 17). — fres éorl pnrnp Hyer] correlative with the above- 
mentioned pera trav téxv. avrhs; hence, if Paul had wished to 
lay the stress upon yay (Winer, Matthias), he must have 
made this evident by the marked position rus nuav unr. é 
The emphasis lies rather on #res, that is, she who, etc. (comp. 
on ver. 24), quippe quae libera Hierosol. To this Jerusalem 
as our zroA/revya we Christians belong, as children to their 
mother (Phil. 11. 20; Eph u. 19). In bondage, it would 
not be our mother. Hofmann interprets differently: “the 
freedom of this Jerusalem may be seen in her children.” But 
this would be a correlative retrospective conclusion, since Paul 


CHAP, IV. 927. 275 


has neither written dre (but 47s), nor has he expressed him- 
self participially otoa pr. ju. jpntnp without the article is 
qualitative. That spay applies to the Christians generally, 
including also the Gentile Christians, is obvious of itself 
from the context, and does not require the addition of wdvtwy 
in the Zeztus receptus, which is defended by Ewald (in opposi- 
tion to Reiche), to make it evident. 

Ver. 27. Proof from Scripture’ that no other than this, the 
free Jerusalem (Arts), is our mother. This, namely, is accord- 
ing to Paul the subject addressed, the wnfruit/ul one, because 


.. Sarah—who, according to the allegory, answers to the heavenly 


Jerusalem—was, as is well known, barren. The historical 
sense of the prophecy (Isa. liv. 1, exactly according to the 
LXX.) is the joyful: promise of a great increase to the de- 
pressed people of God in zs state of freedom after the Baby- 
lonian exile. The desolate, uninhabited Jerusalem, which 
had become like an unfruitful wife, is summoned to rejoice, 
because it—and in this light, certainly, it is poetically com- 
pared with itself as a second person (in opposition to Hof- 
mann)—is to become more populous, more rich in children, 
than formerly, when it was the husband-possessing spouse 
(of Jehovah). The fulfilment of this Messianic prophecy— 
Messianic because pervaded by the idea of the victorious theo- 
cracy—is discerned by Paul in the great new people of God, 
which belongs to the dyw ‘Iepovoadnp, to this Sarah in the 
, sense of the fulfilment, as its mother. Before the emergence 
of the Christian people of God, this heavenly Jerusalem was 
still unpeopled, childless; it was oreipa, ov tixrovoa, ovx 
wdivovca, Epnuos (solitaria, that is, in conformity with the 
contrast : without conjugal intercourse), consequently quite the 
Sarah of the allegory, before she became the mother of Isaac. 


But in and with the emergence of the Christian people of — 


God, the dvw ‘Iepovoadjp has become a fruitful mother, re- 
joicing over her wealth of children, richer in children than 4 
vov ‘Iepovoadnp, this mother of the ancient people of God, 
which hitherto, like Hagar, had been nya, 9 éyovea tov avépa. 

1 For this Scriptural proof, the particular passage Isa. liv. 1 is selected with 


great skill and true tact, since the dvs ‘Ispevsaan is the allegorical counter- 
part of Sarah, this ersipa 4 ob rixroven x.¢.2. 





276 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


This dyvjp is God (not the law, as Luther interprets), whose 
relation to the theocratical commonwealth of the old covenant 
is conceived as conjugal intercourse. In virtue of this idea, 
the relation of God to the viv ‘Iepovoadnpu—the latter re- 
garded as a woman 7 éyovoa Tov dvdpa—is the counterpart of 
the relation of Abraham to the madioen Hagar, whose descen- 
dants came into life «ata odpxa. On the other hand, the re- 
lation’ of God to the dvw ‘Iepoveadn~—the latter likewise 
regarded as a woman, who, however, had hitherto been oretpa 
«.T.\.—is the counterpart of the relation of Abraham to 
the free Sarah, whose far more numerous descendants were 
children of promise (ver. 28). Comp. Rom. ix. 8. — 9 ow 
tixrovea] not for the past participle (Grotius and others), but 
expressing the state of the case as vt stands: “which does not 
bear,’ the consequence of oretpa, sterilis, unfruitful, as Sara 
was py. In the same way afterwards, 4) ove wdivovca. — 
pi€ov] dovyv is usually supplied. For many instances of 
pryvuyse. hovnv or avdyv (Eur. Suppl. 710), to unchain the 
voice, that is, to speak aloud, see Wetstein, in loc.; Loesner, 
Obss. p. 333 ; Jacobs, ad Anthol. X. p. 385, XI. p. 57, XII. p. 
131. Comp. the Latin rumpere vocem (Drakenborch, ad Sil. 
It, iv. 528). But since the verb alone is never thus used, it 
is safer to derive the supplement from what has preceded ; 
hence Kypke and Schott correctly supply eddppoovvnv (rumpe 
jubilum, begin to rgoice), not because 73) ‘T¥B stands in the He- 
brew (Schott), but because evppoovvny flows from the previous 
evppavOnre; “rejoice, let it break forth.” The opposite is 
pyyvups KravOpov (Plut. Per. 36), pyyv. Saxptwv vdwata (Soph. 
Trach. 919). — oreipa x.7..] applies in the connection of the 
original text to Jerusalem, and is also here necessarily (see 
ver. 26)—according to the Messianic fulfilment of the pro- 
phecy, in the light of which Paul apprehends the Scriptural 
saying—to be referred to Jerusalem, but to the dvw ‘Iepov- 
cadnp, Hris éotl pnrnp yuav, whereas the 1 éyovea rov avdpa 
which is placed in comparison with it is the viv ‘Iepovoadp. 
See above. Chrysostom and his successors, Bengel and others, 
consider that the words ovetpa «.7.r. apply to the Gentile Chris- 
tians (she who had the husband being the Jewish church) ; 
1 The LXX. probably did not read 7135, 


CHAP. IV. 28-30. ~ O77 


but against this view it may be urged that that fries éorl yejrnp 
4.0v, which refers to all Christians, is to be proved by ver. 27. 
— Woda... paAdov H] not used instead of mAeiova 7, which 
would leave the multitude of children entirely undetermined ; 
but it affirms that both had many children —the solitary one, 
however, the greater number: for numerous are the children 
of the. solitary one in a higher degree than those of her who 
possessed the husband. So the LXX. has rightly understood 
the Hebrew ‘33 63", 

Ver. 28. It is not till ver. 29 that a new thought is entered 
on; hence ver. 28 is to be regarded as a remark explaining 
the fulfilment of the prophetic utterance, which has its actual 
realization in the case of Christians, and is to be annexed to ver. 
27 (by a semicolon). So correctly, in opposition to the usual 
separation from ver. 27, Hofmann, Ewald, Wieseler. — But 
the Christians (iets individualizing ; see the critical notes) 
are the many children of that spiritual Sarah, the heavenly Jeru- 
salem ! — xata "Ioudx] After the manner of Isaac; comp. 
1 Pet. 1.15; and see Wetstein and Kypke, also Heindorf, ad 
Plat. Gorg. p. 225 £. — émaryyerlas téxva] émayy. is empha- 
tically prefixed: children of Abraham, who are not so by . 
carnal descent like Ishmael, but by promise. So, namely, as 
Isaac was born to Abraham in virtue of the promise (ver. 23), 
are Christians by means of divine promise also children of 
Abraham, in virtue of the fact that they were promised by 
God to Abraham as réxva; without which promise, having refer- 
ence to them, they would not stand in the relation of sonship 
to Abraham. Comp. Rom. ix. 8. We must not on account 
of ver. 23 explain the expression here, any more than in Rom. 
ix. 8 (see in loc.), as liberi promisst (Winer and others). 

Vv. 29, 30. Nevertheless, notwithstanding this their higher 
state of sonship, these spiritual children of Abraham are per- 
secuted by the bodily children of Abraham, as was formerly 
the case with Isaac and Ishmael; but (ver. 30) how wholly 
without ultimate success is, and, according to the Scripture, 
must be, this persecution! This is not a collateral trait 
(Holsten), but the consolatory practical result in which the 
allegory terminates—its triumphantly joyful conclusion. Comp. 
on ver. 31. — 7ore] then, namely, at that time when the alle- 


278 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


gorically-significant history came to pass. — 6 xaTa odpxa 
yevunOels] see ver. 23. — édlwxe] persecuted. It is true that 
in Gen. xxi. 9 Ishmael is designated only as a mocker (of 
Isaac).! But Paul follows the tradition, which, starting from 
the basis of that statement, went further. See Beresch. R. lui. 
15: “ Dixit Ismael Isaaco: eamus et videamus portionem nos- 
tram in agro; et tulit Ismael arcum et sagittas, et jaculatus 
est Isaacum et prae se tulit ac si luderet.” According to 
Hofmann, Paul in the word S:@xew probably intends a run- 
ning after Isaac wantonly to annoy him (just as the partisans 
of the law followed after the believing Gentiles in order to 
annoy them, v. 10,12). Quite unsupported by any histor- 
cal evidence, and very inappropriate to the rapaocew of the 
Judaists (of which there is no mention here at all); comp. 
i. 7. — tov xara mvedpa] him that is born according to the 
Spirit, that is, him who was born in consequence of the inter- 
vening agency of the Holy Spirit (for the divine mveiyua, as 
the principle of the divine promise, is instrumental in the 
efficacy of the latter). By means of the ws carnis Isaac 
could not have been born, but only by means of the vis 
Spiritus divini, which, operative in the divine promise, fur- 
nished at his procreation (Rom. iv. 17 ff.) the capacity of gene- 
ration and conception. In fact, therefore, rov xata mvedpa 
conveys the same idea as rov 5: tis émaryyedias yevvnberta, 
ver. 23. The explanation: per singularem efficacitatem Der 
(Schott), compares things which are in their nature different 

(Luke i. 35), and is not verbally accurate. And Hilgenfeld — 
unnecessarily assumes (comp. Bengel) that the expression is 
to be explained by a blending together of the ideal reference 
of the allegory to the Christians, and of its historical basis. — 
ovTw kai viv] So also now the children of Abraham accord- 
ing to the flesh (the Jews) persecute those who are Abraham’s 
_ children xara avedpa (Christians, évaryyedias téxva, ver. 28). 
Comp. 1 Thess. ii, 15. This odtw xai viv does not exclude 
any kind of. persecution which the Christians suffered at the 


1 The idea that Paul, in using id/wxs, really intended nothing more than this 
mocking (‘‘nulla enim persecutio tam molesta esse nobis debet, quam dum im- 
piorum ludibriis videmus labefactari nostram vocationem,” Calvin), is not in 
harmony with the comprehensive sense of the word. 





CHAP. IV. 29, 80. ' 279 


hands of the Jews; but that which is intended must have 
been actual persecutions, such as those to which the Christians 
as a body were so generally at that time subjected by the Jews, 
and not the rapdocew on the part of the Judaists (Hofmann ; 
see on édfwxe). — GAda tl Aéyes 1) ypady ;] triumphantly in- 
troduces the divine certainty of the want of success, which 
will attend this dvaxew, to the destruction of the persecutors 
themselves. Observe how the importance of the utterance is 
brought out more vividly by the interrogatwe announcement. 
Comp. Rom. iv. 3, x. 8, xi. 2, 4; Dissen, ad Dem. de cor. 
p. 186, 347; Blomfield, Gloss. ad Aesch. Pers. 1013. The 
quotation is from Gen. xxi. 10, almost exactly following the 
LXX. Instead of pera tod viod pov *Icad« in the LXX. 
(which therefore D* E? F G, codd. of the Itala, and. some 
Fathers read also here), Paul has written peta tod viod Tijs 
érevOépas, not accidentally, but in order to give prominence 
to the contrast, which significantly refers back to the chief point 
of the allegory (comp. ver. 22). — «Pare «.7.r.] The words 
of Sarah to Abraham (which, however, in Gen. xxi 12 are 
expressly approved by God and confirmed with a view to 
fulfilment), requiring the expulsion of Hagar and her son from 
the house. From this, looking to the scope of the allegory, the 
Galatians are to infer the exclusion of the non-free Jews, who 
were now persecuting the free Christians, from the people of 
God. This exclusion already actually exists even in the pre- 
sent aiwy, in so far as the true Israel which is free from the 
law (the Iopa7r tod Oeod, vi. 16) has taken the place of the 
ancient people of God, and will attain its perfect realization 
at the zrapovcla, when none but the free Christian family of 
God will share in the xAnpovoyla of eternal Messianic salva-. 
tion. Comp. iii 18, 29. According to Hofmann (comp. also 
his Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 71), the meaning is, that as Abraham 
separated Ishmael from Isaac, so also the readers are to dismiss 
from among them, as unentitled to share in their inheritance, 
those who desired to force upon them their own legalism; the 
Christian body ought to remain undisturbed by such persons. 
This weakening of the idea is impossible with a correct con- 
ception of dswxew in ver. 29; the sure divine Nemesis against 
the persecutors must be meant—the divine éxdicnows (Luke 


280 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS, 


xviii. 7 f.; comp. 2 Thess. i 6, 8). — od yap ut Kdrnpov.] pre- 
fixed with great emphasis; the son of the bond-woman shall 
assuredly not inherit. Comp. Gen. xxv. 5f. As to the exclu- 
sion, according to the Israelite law, of the children of a concu- 
bine from the right of inheritance, see Selden, de success. ad leg. 
Hebr. p. 28; Saalschiitz, MR. p. 831; Ewald, Alterth. p. 266. 

Ver. 31 is usually looked upon as the keystone, as the final 
result of the previous discourse. “ Applicat historiam et alle- 
goriam, et summam absolvit brevi conclusione,” Luther, 1519. 
But so taken, the purport of ver. 31 appears to express far too 
little, ang to be feeble, because it has been already more than 
once implied in what precedes (see vv. 26, 28). We do not 
get rid of this incongruity, even if with Riickert we prefer 
the reading *eis 5é, also approved by Hofmann (see the crit. 
notes), and assume the tacit inference: “consequently the 
inheritance cannot escape us, expulsion does not affect us.” 
For, after the whole argument previously developed, any such 
express application of ver. 30 to Christians would have been 
entirely superfluous; no reader needed it, in order clearly to 
discern and deeply to feel the certainty ‘of victory conveyed 
in ver. 30; hence ver. 31 would be halting and without 
force. No; ver. 31 begins a new section. Comp. Lachmann, 
de Wette, Ewald, Hofmann. The allegorical instruction, which 
from ver. 22 onwards Paul has given, comes to a close forcibly 
and appropriately with the triumphant language of Scripture 
in ver. 30; and now Paul will follow it up by the exhortation 
to stand fast in their Christian liberty (v. 1). But first of all, 
as a basis for this exhortation, he prefixes to it the proposition 
—resulting from the previous instruction—which forms the 
“ pith of the allegory” (Holsten), and exactly as such is fitted 
to be the theoretical principle placed at the head of the prac- 
tical course of action to be required in the sequel, ver. 31. 
This proposition is then followed by rH édevOepia nuads Xpioros 
nrevbépwoev, Vv. 1, which very forcibly serves as a medium of 
transition to the direct summons otnjxere ovv. “ Therefore, 
brethren,—seeing that our position is such as results from 
this allegory,—we are not children of a bond-woman (like the 
Jews), but of the free woman; for freedom Christ has made us 
Sree: stand therefore fast,” ete. 


CHAP. V. 281 


CHAPTER V. 


Ver. 1. ry ersudepin 1 Huds Xprords HAtvbépwoe, orjxere] So Griesb. 
(reading, however, Xpiorig yuds), Riick., Tisch., Wieseler. But 
Elz., Matth., Winer, Rinck, Reiche, read +7 éAcudepig. ody, 4 Xprorig 
muds HAasudepwos, orgxers. Lachm., followed by Usteri, reads r7 
Asudspig, yuwag Xpioris Harevdépwoev. ornxers ovv, which was also ap- 
‘ proved of by Mill, Bengel, Griesb.; and Winer does not reject 
it. Scholz gives r7 éAcudepig, 7 Xpsords ywas jrcvlepwos, ornxers ovv. 
Schott lastly, following Rinck, joins 7 éAtudepig, 7 nuds Xproris 
HAevdepwosy to iv. 31, and begins the new sentence with orjxsre 
ov. So also Ewald. Lachmann’s reading, which is also followed 
by Hofmann, must be held to be the original one: (1) because 
amidst the numerous variations it has a decided preponderance 
of testimony in its favour, for 7 1s wanting in A B C D* 8 and 
8 min., Dam., and ovy after orjxere is written in A BC D* (in 
the Greek) F G& and some 10 min.; Copt. Goth. Aeth. Boern. 
Vulg. ms. Cyr. Bas. ms. Aug. Ambrosiast.; (2) because from it 
the origin of the rest of the readings can be explained easily, 
naturally, and without prejudice to the witnesses—namely, from 
the endeavour to connect +7 éAevd. mw. X. 7Aevd. Immediately with 
iv..31. Thus in some cases rj was merely changed into h 
(F G, It. Vulg. Goth. and Fathers); in others 4 was inserted 
before 4u%¢ (Griesb.), allowing +7 to remain. The relative thus 
introduced led others, who had in view the right connection 
with orjxsre, either to omit the ody (after orjxere), which the 
presence of the relative rendered awkward (E, Vulg. It. Syr. p. 
Fathers; Griesb., Riick., Tisch.), or to place it immediately after 
érevbepig. (C*¥** K L, min, Fathers; Elz.). Lastly, the transposi- 
tion Xporig yudés was an involuntary expedient to place the 
subject first, but is condemned by the decisive counter-weight 
of the evidence. It is a dubious view which derives the 
different readings of our passage from the accidental omission 
in writing of H before Huas (Tisch., Wieseler), especially since 
very ancient witnesses, in which 7 is wanting, read not juds 
Xpiorés, but Xpiords nuds (as C L x** Marcion, Chrys.).—Ver. 3. 
wéMyv| is wanting in D* FG, 73, 74, 76, It. Chrys. Theophyl. 
Victorin. Jerome, Aug. Ambrosiast. The omission is caused by 
the similarity of the ravri which follows. — Ver. 7. svéxo.pe] The 


282 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


Elz. reading dvéxo}s is opposed to all the uncials and most min., 
and is therefore rightly rejected by Grot., Mill, Bengel, Matth., 
Lachm., Tisch., Reiche, whereas Usteri sought very feebly to 
defend it. — The rj which follows is wanting in A Bs*. But 
the article forms a necessary part of the idea (comp. ii. 5, 14), 
and the omission must be looked upon as a mere error in copying. 
Without just ground, Semler and Koppe consider the whole +7 
dAnd. on weidecdas to be not genuine; and the latter is disposed, 
instead of it, to defend pndsv) wefdecte, which is found in F G, 
codd. Lat. in Jer. and some vss. and Fathers, after wsiéscda:, but 
is manifestly a gloss annexed to the following 4 assouov x... 
Still more arbitrarily, Schott holds the whole of ver. 7 to be an 
inserted gloss. — Ver. 9. Zuuc7] D* E, Vulg. Clar. Germ. codd. 
Lat. in Jer. and Sedul., and several Fathers, read d0A0z Approved 
by Mill. and Valck. Schol. II. p.178. An interpretation, because 
in this passage the leaven represents something corrupting 
(otherwise in Matt. xiii. 33). Comp. on 1 Cor. v. 6. — Ver. 14. 
év ivi Aéyw] Marcion (in Epiph. and Tert.) read ina, and D* 
E F G, It. Ambrosiast. have é iui év vi Adyw. Marcion’s read- 
ing is of antinomistic origin (hence he also omitted the follow- 
ing év +); but the iva introduced by it became ‘subsequently 
blended with the original text. — «Anpotre:] Defended by 
Reiche; but A B C 8, min., Marcion (in Epiph. and Tert.) 
Damasc. Aug. read msrajpwras. Justly; the meaning of the 
perfect (which is also adopted by Lachm., Riick., Schott, Tisch.) 
was not apprehended by mechanical transcribers. — seauréy] 
Elz., Matth., Schott, read iavrév. Certainly in opposition to 
ABC DEKYsS, min, and Greek Fathers; but the pronoun of 
the second person was very likely to occur to the copyists (in 
the LXX. Lev. xix. 18, there is the same variety of readings), 
and indeed the final letter of the foregoing w; might easily lend 
support to the ceaurév: hence éaurév is to be restored, in opposition 
to Griesb., Scholz, Lachm., Tisch., and others. Comp. on Rom. 
xii, 9. — Ver. 17. raira dé] Lachm. and Schott read radra yap, 
following BD* EF G *,17, Copt. Vulg. It. and some Fathers. 
Looking at this preponderance of attestation, and seeing that 
the continuative 6 might easily appear more suitable, ydp is to 
be preferred. — Ver. 19 f. worysia] is wanting before sopy. in 
A BCR*, min., and many vss. and Fathers; 76, 115, Epiph. 
Chrys. Theophyl. have it after ropvefa. In opposition to Reiche, 
but with Griesb., Lachm., Scholz, Schott, Tisch., and others, it 
is to be deleted, since it has been introduced, although at a very 
early date (It. Or.), most probably by the juxtaposition of the 
two words in other passages (Matt. xv. 19; Mark vii. 21; 
comp. Hos. ii. 2), well known to the transcribers. — ¢pess, ZHA0r] 





CHAP, V. 1. 283 


Lachm. and Tisch. have the singular, following weighty evidence; 
the plurals were introduced in conformity to the adjoining. — 
Ver. 21. gévor] is wanting in Bx, 17, 33, 35, 57, 73, and several 
Fathers, but in no version. Rejected by Mill, Seml., and 
Koppe, bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Tisch. On account of 
the similarity of sound with the preceding word it might just as 
easily be omitted, as it might be added from Rom. 1.29. Hence 
the preponderance of witnesses determines the point, and that 
in favour of the retention. 





ConTENTS.—-Exhortation to stedfastness in Christian free- 
dom, and warning against the opposite course. If they allowed 
themselves to be circumcised, Christ would profit them nothing, 
and they would be bound to the law as a whole; by legal 
justification they would be severed from Christ and from 
grace, as is proved by the nature of Christian righteousness 
(vv. 1-6). Complaint and warning on account of the apostasy 
of the readers, respecting whom, however, Paul cherishes 
good confidence; whereas he threatens judgment against the 
seducers, whose teaching as to circumcision is in no sense his 
(vv. 7-12). A warning against the abuse, and an exhortation 
to the right use, of Christian freedom, which consists in a 
demeanour actuated by mutual love (vv. 13-15); whereupon 
he then enters into a detailed explanation to the effect that 
the Holy Spirit, and not the flesh, must be the guiding power 
of their conduct (vv. 16-25). After this, special moral exhor- 
tations begin (ver. 26). 

Ver. 1. TH rcuvbepla judas Xpiotos nrevOépwoev] On this 
reading, see the critical notes. The sentence forms, with iv. 
31, the basis of the exhortation which follows, orjxere ovv 
«7. See oniv. 31. For freedom, in order that we should 
be free and should remain so, that we should not again become 
subject to bondage, Christ has set us free (iv. 1-7), namely, 
from the bondage of the orovyeia tod xoopov (iv. 3). The 
dative r7 éAcv0. is therefore commodi, not instrwmenti. Comp. 
also Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 155; Holsten, Hofmann, Reithmayr. 
By so taking it, and by attending to the emphasis, which lies 
not on Xpiords, but on the rH édevOepia following immediately 
after ris eAevOépas in iv. 31, we obviate entirely the objection 
uf Riickert (comp. Matthies and Olshausen) that Paul must 


284 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS, 


have written: X. huads érevOepia 7revbépwcer, or eis érevG., 
or TH eAevO. ravry, or fy Exouev, or some other addition of the 
kind. — ornxere otv] stand fast therefore, namely, in the free- 
dom, which is to be inferred from what goes before; hence the 
absence of connection with 77 édev8. does not produce any 
obscurity or abruptness (in opposition to Reiche). On the 
absolute or7jxere, which obtains its reference from the context, 
comp. 2 Thess. ii 15. — xat pt) dru «.7.r.] and be not again 
held in a yoke of bondage. Previously they had been (most of 
them) in the yoke of heathenism ; now they were on the point 
of being held in the yoke of Mosaism (only another kind of 
the crotycia Tod Koopov). The yoke is conceived as laid on 
the neck: Acts xv. 10; Ecclus. li 26; Dem. 322. 12; Hom. 
H. Cer. 217. As to mdduv, comp. on iv. 9. Sovrelas denotes 
the characteristic quality belonging to the yoke. Comp. 
Soph. .4j. 924: ampos ola Sovreias Suya yowpotpwev, Eur. Or. 
1330; Plat. Legg. vii p. 770 E: Sovrccov Svyov, Ep. 8, p. 
354 D; Dem. 322. 12; Herod. vii. 8. — évéyeoOar, with the 
dative (Dem. 1231. 15; 2 Macc. v. 18; 3 Macc. vi 10) or 
with év (Dem. 1069. 9), is the proper expression for those who 
are held either in a physical (net or the like) or ethical (aw, 
dogma, emotion, sin, or the like) restriction of liberty, so that 
they cannot get out. See Kypke zm loc. and Markland ad 
Lys. V. p. 37, Reisk. Here, on account of the idea of a yoke, 
the reference is physical, but used as a figurative representation 
for that which is mental, which affects the conscience. 


Note.—If we take the reading of the Recepta, and of Griesbach 
and his followers (see the critical notes), we must explain it: 
“In respect of the freedom, {therefore}, for which Christ has set us 
Sree, stand fast, and become not again, etc.!”—so that +7 érsubepig 
is to be taken like ry wiores in 2 Cor. 1. 24 and Rom. iv. 20, and 
7 as the dative commodi (Morus, Winer, Reiche). 7% might also - 
(with the Vulgate, Luther, Beza, Calvin, Piscator, Riickert, 
Schott, Hilgenfeld, Wieseler, and many others) be taken as 
ablative (instrumentally): “gua nos liberavit,” after the analogy 
of the classical expressions Ziv Biw, toa: Ldars x.7.A. (Bernhardy, 
p. 107; Lobeck, Paral. p. 523 ff.), and of the frequent use both in 
the LXX. and the N. T. (Winer, p. 434 [E. T. 584]) of “ cognate” 
nouns in the dative. But this mode of expression does not 
occur elsewhere with Paul, not even in 1 Thess. iii. 9. According 





CHAP. V. 2, 3 285 


to Schott, Ewald, and Matthias, who join it to iv. 31 (see the 
critical notes), we get the meaning: “ We are not children of a 
bond-maid, but of the free woman through the freedom, with which 
Christ made us free; stand fast therefore.” Thus r7 ércubepig 7 jude 
Xpior. 4Aevd. becomes a self-evident appendage; and Xp:orég receives 
an emphasis, just as in 111. 13, which its position does not warrant. 


Ver. 2. Paul now in a warning tone reveals to them the 
fearful danger to which they are exposed. This he does by 
the address iSe in the singular (comp. Soph. Zrach. 824), 
exciting the special attention of every individual reader, and 
with the energetic, defiant interposition of his personal autho- 
rity: éym IIaidos, on which Theophylact well remarks: ry 
ToD oixeiov tpocw mou akiomictiay ayti macns artrodeiEcws 
ti@nor. Comp. 2 Cor. x. 1; Eph. iii 1; Col. i. 23 — day 
aepttéuvnobe] To be pronounced with special emphasis. The 
readers stood now on the very verge of obeying thus far— 
and therefore to the utmost—the suggestions of the false 
apostles in taking upon them the yoke of the law, after 
having already consented to preliminary isolated acts of legal 
observance (iv. 10). — Xpuords tpas ovdév wperyjoer] comp. 
ii 21. Xpuords is emphatically placed first, and immedi- 
ately after aepvr. Chrysostom, moreover, aptly remarks: o 
Teperepvopevos ws vouwov Sedouxws trepitéuvetat, o Se Sedorxws 
amore 7H Suvduer TIS yaptTos, o Sé amioTav ovdéy Kepdalver 
Tapa THs amtiotroupevyns. On such a footing Christ cannot be 
Christ, the Mediator of salvation. Paul’s judgment presup- 
poses that circumcision is adopted, not as a condition of a 
holy life (Holsten), but as a condition of salvation, which was 
the question raised among the Galatians, 11. 3, 5; Acts xv. 1, 
xvi. 3. Comp. Lechler, apost. Zeitalt. p. 248. The future, 
a@peAjoet, which is explained by others (de Wette, Hofmann, 
and most) as referring to the consequence generally, points to 
the nearness of the Parousia and the decision of the judgment. 
Comp. ver. 5: éAmida Sixatoovvns, just as previously the idea 
of the xAnpovoyla in iv. 30. 

Ver. 3. With regard to the judgment just expressed, Xpuotds 
ovdev ipas a@peryjoce, Paul now, with increasing emotion 
(uaptupoyat, rravri avOp. mepit.), gives an explanation (vv. 
3, 4) which clearly discloses the entire certainty of this 


286 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS, 


negation. — The dé is not potiws (Schott), because it is not 
preceded by any antagonistic assertion, but is the autem which 
leads on to more detailed information (Herm. ad Viger. p. 8435). 
— paprvpoua:] in the sense of paprupa, as in Acts xx. 26; 
Eph. iv. 17; Joseph. Bell. iii. 8. 3; and also Plat. Phil. p. 47 
D, while in classical authors it usually means to summon 
as a witness and obtestor. Paul testifies that which with 
divine certainty he knows. The context does not warrant us 
to supply Geov, with Bretschneider and Hilgenfeld. — wadw] 
not contra (Erasmus, Er. Schmid, Koppe, Wahl; comp. Usteri), 
which is never its meaning (see Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 166 f.), 
but again, not however in the sense that ver. 3 is described 
as a repetition of what was said in ver. 2 (Calvin, Castalio, Calo- 
vius, Wolf, Zachariae, Paulus, and others), which it is not; nor 
in the sense that Paul is thinking merely of the testifying in 
atself, and not of its purport (Hofmann; comp. Fritzsche, Winer, 
de Wette),—an interpretation which cannot but be the less © 
natural, the more necessarily that which is attested mau 
stands in essential inner connection with the axiom which 
had been previously expressed (“probatio est proximae senten- 
tiae sumta ex loco repugnantium,” Calvin); but in the sense 
that Paul calls to the remembrance of his readers his last presence 
among them (the second), when he had already orally assured 
them of what he here expresses (Moldenhauer, Flatt, Riickert, 
Olshausen, Wieseler). Comp. on i. 9, iv. 16. — avri avOp. 
meptt.| stands in a climactic relation to the foregoing vpiv, 
remorselessly embracing all: to every one I testify, so that no 
one may fancy himself excluded from the bearing of the © 
stateraent. According to Chrysostom and Theophylact, with 
whom Schott and others agree, Paul has wished to avoid the 
appearance cat éyOpav Taira réyeoOar; but in this view the 
whole climactic force of the address is misunderstood. — 
é\ov] has the emphasis; comp. Jas. ii. 10. Circumcision 
binds the man who accepts it to obey the whole law, because 
it makes him a full member of the covenant of the law, a pro- 
selyte of righteousness, and the law requires from those who 


‘are bound to it its entire fulfilment (@i.10). Probably the 


pseudo-apostles had sought at least to conceal or to weaken 
this true and — since no one is able wholly to keep the law 





CHAP. V. 4 287 


(Acts xiii. 38, xv. 10; Rom. viii 3)—yet so fearful conse- 
quence of accepting circumcision, as if faith in Christ and 
acceptance of circumcision might be compatible with one 
another. On the contrary, Paul proclaims the decisive aut... 
aut. The state of the man who allows himself to be circum- 
cised stands in a relation contradictory to the state of grace 
(comp. Rom. vi. 14 f,, x1 6). | 

Ver. 4. But whosoever is justified through the law—a way 
of justification which necessarily follows from the already men- 
tioned obligation—is separated from Christ, etc. A complete 
explanation is thus given as to the Xpiotos ipdads ovdev wde- 
Ajoe. Asyndetic (without 5é), and reverting to the second 
person, the language of Paul is the more emphatic and vivid. 
~— xatnpynOnre] In the first clause the stress is laid upon 
the dread separation which has befallen them, in the second 
on the benefit thereby lost,—a striking alternation of emphasis. 
The pregnant expression, catapyetoOas d7ro twos (comp. Rom. - 
ix. 3; 2 Cor. xi 3; see generally, Fritzsche ad Rom. IL p. 
250), is to be resolved into xatapyeioOar Kal ywpiterOas azro 
twos, that is, fo come to nothing in regard to the relation hitherto 
subsisting with any one, so that we are parted from him. Just 
the same in Rom. vi. 2,6. Hence the sense is: your con- 
nection with Christ is annulled, cancelled ; amexomwnre, Ocecu- 
menius,. Justification by the law and justification for Christ’s 
sake are in truth opposita (works—faith), so that the one ex- 
cludes the other. — oftwes év voy Stxarodabe] ye who are being 
justified through the law. The directly assertive and present 
SixatodeGe is said from the mental standpoint of the subjects con- 
cerned, in whose view of the matter the way of salvation is this: 
“ through the law, with which our conduct agrees (comp. iii 11), 
we become just before God.” Hence the concrete statement 
is not to be weakened either by taking d:xawitcOa in the 
sense of {nrety Sixacode Gan, ii. 17 (Riickert, Baumgarten-Crusius, 
and earlier expositors), or by attributing a hypothetical sense 
to ofrtves (Hofmann, who erroneously compares Thuc. v. 16. 1). 
Whomsoever Paul hits with his ofriwes x«.7.X,, he also means. 
— Ths xdpitos é£erécare] that is, ye have forfeited the rela- 
tion of being olyects of divine grace. The opposite: tard ydpuy 
etvat (Rom. vi. 14), to which divine grace faith has led (Rom. 


288 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


v. 2). On the figurative exirrew, comp. 2 Pet. iii. 17; 
Plut. Gracch. 21: éxrecetv nal orepecOas ris mpos tov Shpov 
evvoias, Polyb. xii. 14. 7; Lucian, Cont. 14; Ecclus. xxxi. 4. 
Whoever becomes righteous by obedience to the law, becomes 
so no longer by the grace of God (dwpedy, Rom. iii. 24), but 
by works according to desert (Rom. iv. 11, 16, xi. 6); so that 
thus his relation of grace towards God (which is capable of 
being lost) has ceased. 

Ver.. 5. Ground e contrario for the judgment passed in ver. 
4 on those becoming righteous by the law; derived, not gene- 
rally from what makes up the essence of the Christian state 
(Hofmann), but specially from the specific way in which Paul 
and those like him expect to be justified. The reasoning pre- 
supposes the certainty, of which the apostle was conscious, 
that the sets are those who are not separated from Christ 
and have not fallen from grace. — nets] we, on our part: 
“qui a nobis dissentiunt, habeant sibi,” Bengel. — avevpare 
éx qiotews] is not (with Luther) to be considered as one idea 
(“ Spiritu, qui ex fide est”), since there is no contrast with any 
other spirit, but rather as two points opposed to the év vou 
in ver. 4: “by means of the Spirit, from faith, we expect,” etc.; 
so that the Holy Spirit is the divine agent, and faith in Christ 
is the subjective source of our expectation. On mvevpare, 
comp. Rom. vii 6, vill. 4,15 f, Eph.i 13 f, i. 22, e¢ al.; and 
on é« miorews, comp. ii. 16, iv. 22, Rom. i. 17, iii, 22, ix. 30, 
x. 6, e¢ al. We-must not therefore explain avevpare either as 
the smrit of man simply (with Grotius, Borger, Fritzsche, and 
others), or (comp. on Rom. vii. 4) as the spiritual nature of 
man sanctified by the Holy Spirit (Winer, Paulus, Riickert, and 
others; comp. Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Hofmann) ; but 
similarly to ver. 16, as the objective wrvedua Gytov, which is the 
divine principle of spiritual life in Christians, and which they 
have received €& axofjs miotews (iii. 2, 5, iv. 6). And the 
Holy Spirit is the divine mainspring of Christian hope, as 
being the potential source of all Christian sentiment and 
Christian life in general, and as the earnest and surety of 
eternal life in particular (2 Cor. 1 22,v.5; Eph.i.14; Rom. 
viii, 11, 23). — €arlba Sixatoovvns arrexdey.] arrexdéyeoOat 
(Rom. viii. 19, 23, 25; 1 Cor. i 7; Phil. iii, 20; 1 Pet. iii 


- CHAP. 'V. 8, | 289 


20) does not indeed denote that he who waits ts wholly spent in 
waiting (Hofmann), but rather (comp. generally Winer, de verb. 
compos.1V. p. 14) the persistent awaiting, which does not slacken 
until the time of realization (C. F. A. Fritzsche in Fritzschior. 
Opusc. p. 156). The genitive S:cacoovvns is not, appositionis 
(Wieseler), so that the sense would be: “the righteousness 
hoped for by us,” the genitive with édzis never being used in 
this way; but it is the genitive oljecti: the hope of being 
justified, namely, in the judgment, where we shall be declared 
by Christ as righteous. At variance with the context, since 
justification zself is in question (see ver. 4), others understand 
it as the genitive sybjecti, as that which righteousness has to hope 
for; that is, the hoped for reward of righteousness, namely, 
eternal life. So Pelagius, Beza, Piscator, Hunnius, Calovius, 
Bengel, Rambach, Baumgarten, Zachariae, Koppe, Borger, 
Paulus, Windischmann, Reithmayr, and others; comp. also 
Weiss, bibl. Theol. pp. 333,341. The fact that the dccaroovvn 
itself—that is, the righteousness of faith, and not that of a holy 
life (Holsten)—is presented as something future, need not in 
itself surprise us, because during the temporal life it exists 
indeed through faith, but may nevertheless be lost (see vv. 2, 
4), and is not yet a definitive possession, which it only comes to 
be at the judgment (Rom. viii. 33f). In a corresponding way, 
the vioGecia, although it has been already entered upon through 
faith (iii. 26, iv. 5), is also the object of hope (Rom. viii. 23). 
This at the same time explains why Paul here speaks in par- 
ticular of an é€Amls Sixavocdvns; he thereby indicates the 
difference between the certainty of salvation in the conscious- 
ness (Rom. viii. 24) of the true Christians, and the confidence, 
dependent upon works, felt by the legally righteous, who say: 
év voup Sixavovueba, because in their case the becoming 
righteous is something in a continuous course of growth by 
means of meritorious obedience to the law. Lastly, the ex- 
pression .dmexdéyeoOas édrrida is not to be explained by the 


1 Hofmann, in fact, arrives at the same result, although he rejects the inter- 
pretation of the genitive as the gen. subjecti: ‘‘To wait for the blessing of 
righteousness already prepared for him, which constitutes the substance of his 
hope,” —consequently for the erigaves of his dsxaserdvn, 2 Tim. iv. 8 (see Huther 
in loc. ed. 3). 


T 


290 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS, 


supposition that Paul, when he wrote éAzriéa, had it in his 
mind to make éyopuev follow (Winer, Usteri, Schott)—an inter- 
pretation which is all the more arbitrary, because there is no 
intervening sentence which might divert his thought,— but the 
hope is treated oljectively (comp. on Col. L 5; Rom. viii. 24; 
Heb. vi. 18), so that dzexdéyeofa: édriba belongs to the 
category of the familiar expressions jy Biov, micreve Sofav 
(Lobeck, Paralip. p. 501 ff). Comp. Acts xxiv. 15: édriéa 
. « » Q Kai abrol otro: mpoodexovra, Tit. ii 13; Job ii 9; 
Isa. xxviii. 10; 2 Mace. vii. 14; Eur. Alc. 130: viv &é rir’ 
ére Biov édrrba mpocdéywpat; Dem. 1468.13: erviba .. . 
mpocdoxacGa:r, The Catholic doctrine of the gradual increase 
of righteousness (Trident. vi. 10. 24, Dollinger) is entirely un- 
Pauline, although favoured by Romang, Hengstenberg, and 
others. Justification does not, like sanctification, develope 
itself and increase; but it has, as its moral consequence (iv. 
6), sanctification through the Spirit, which is given to him who 
is justified by faith. Thus Christ is to us dixasocvvy te nat 
dyiacpos, 1 Cor. i 30. 

Ver. 6. Warrant for the é« wiotews: for in Christ Jesus, in 
fellowship with Christ (in the relation of the éy Xpior@ elvav), 
neither circumcision nor wncircumeision is of any avail; the 
fact of a man being or not being circumcised is of no influ- 
ence, but faith, which is operative through love, sc. ioxyver Te. 
The te ioyve: is to be left in the same general and unlimited 
form in which it stands. Circumcision and uncircumcision 
are circumstances of no effect or avail in Christianity. And 
yet they were in Galatia the points on which the disturbance 
turned! On the faith active in love, which is the effective 
saving element in the state of the Christian, comp. 1 Tim. L 
5; 1 Thess.1 3; 1 Cor. xii; also Jas. 1. 22. By means 
of this faith man is xawy xrlows, vi. 15. Bengel well says: 
“Cum fide conjunxit ver. 5, spem, nunc amorem; in his stat 
totus Christianismus.” How very necessary it was for the 
Galatians that prominence should be given to the activity of 
faith in love, may be seen from vv. 15, 20, 26. The passive 
view of évepyouu., which is given by the Fathers and many 
Catholics, such as Bellarmine, Estius, Reithmayr, in whom the 
interest of dogmatic controversy against the Protestants came 


CHAP. V. 7-9. 291 


to a great extent into play, is erroneous, because evepyetobar . 
in the N. T. is always middle (vim suam exserere). See on 2 
Cor. i. 6; Fritzsche, ad Rom. vii. 6, IL p. 18. It does not 
mean, “having been rendered energetic through love” (Reith- 
mayr), but working through love, expressing thereby its vital 
power. Moreover, our passage is not at variance with justifi- 
cation solely by faith: “ opera fiert dicit ex fide per caritatem, | 
non justificart hominem per caritatem,’” Luther. Comp. Calo- 
vius ; “ Formatam' etiam fidem apostolus refellit, cum non per 
caritatem formam suam accipere vel formarz, sed per caritatem 
operosam vel efficacem esse docet. Caritatem ergo et opera non 
fidem '‘constituere, sed consequi et ex eadem fluere certum est.” 
It must, however, be observed that love (the opposite of all 
selfishness) must be, from its nature, the continuous moral 
medium of the operation of faith in those who are thereby 
| justified? 1 Cor. xiii. 1 ff Comp. Lipsius, Rechtfert. p. 192; 
Romang, in Stud. u. Krit. 1867, p. 90 ff., who, however, con- 
cedes too much to the idea of fides formata. 

Vv. 7-9. How naturally—and, in conformity with the 
apostle’s lively emotion, asyndetically—the utterance of this 
axiom of the Christian character and life, which the readers had 
formerly obeyed, is followed by disapproving surprise at the 
fact that they had not remained faithful to it (ver. 7), and then 
by renewed warning against the false teachers, based on the 
ungodly nature (ver. 8) and the destructive influence (ver. 9) 
of their operations ! — érpéyere xadas] that is, your Christian 


'. behaviour—your Christian life and effort—was in course of 


excellent development. A figurative mode of presenting the 
activity of spiritual life very frequently used by the apostle. 
Comp. ii. 2; Phil iii. 11. — rls ipas evéxove] A question of 
surprise (comp. lii. 1): who hindered you? Comp. 1 Thess. ii. 
18; Rom. xv. 22; 1 Pet. iii. 7. In Polyb. xxi. 1.12 it is 
used with the dative. So also Hippocr. pp. 28, 35; for it 
means properly: to make an incision. — 79 dadnOela pu) 
weGecbar| from obeying the truth, that is, the true gospel, 


1 The ‘‘ fides formata” is also found here by Bisping, and especially Reith- 
mayr, following the T'rid. Sess. vi. 7, de justif. See, on the other hand, Apol. 
Conf. Aug. p. 81 f. 

* Comp. also Dorner, Gesch. d. prot. Theol. p. 232 ff. 


292 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


according to which faith alone is that which justifies. 2) is 
employed, as usual, after verbs of hindering. See Hermann, 
ad Viger. p. 810f.; Pflugk, ad Kur. Hee. 867; Winer, p. 
561 [E. T. 755], The infinitive with yu) denotes that which, 
so far as the will of the hinderer is concerned, shall not take 
place. — % zrescpovn «.7.A.] After the surprise comes the warn- 
ing. % weurpovn occurs again only in Apoll. Syné. p. 195. 10, 
in Eustath. (J. «, p. 637. 5, a, pp. 21, 26, e al.; see Wetstein), 
and in the Fathers (Ignat. ad Rom. 3 interpol.; Just. Mart. Ap. 
I. 53, p. 87; Epiph. Haer, xxx. 21; Chrysostom, ad 1 Thess. i. 
4), Whether, however, the word is to be understood actively, 
AS persuasion, or passively, as compliance, is a point which must 
be decided in the several passages by the context. In this 
passage it is understood as persuasion by Mss. of the Itala 
(suasio), Vulgate (persuasio), Erasmus, Castalio, Calvin, Beza, 
Cornelius a Lapide, Wolf, Michaelis, Zachariae, Koppe, Borger, 
Flatt, Paulus, Usteri, Schott, Hilgenfeld, Wieseler, Matthias, 
Holsten, and others; on the other hand, Chrysostom (ov. 
émi rovros exddeoey twas 0 Kadav, doTe oUTW carevecOar), 
Oecumenius. (td reoOyvat Tois Aéyovoew div repitéuverOar), 
Theophylact (76 weiBecOat tots amardovv), Luther (1519 and 
1524; but in 1538, and in his translation: such persuasion), 
and others, including Morus, Winer, Riickert, Matthies, Ols- 
hausen, Reiche, Hofmann, Reithmayr, explain it as compliance,’ 
which, however, does not fit the word used absolutely. The 
latter rather yields the thought: The persuasion is not of your 
caller, is not a thing proceeding from God (see, on the con- 
trary, 2 Cor. xi.15). Paul would have this applied to the 
mode of operation of the pseudo-apostles, who worked upon 
the Galatians by persuasion (talking over), so that they did 
not remain obedient to the truth, but turned awd tod Kane- 
gavros avrovs ev ydpirt Xpiorod to an Erepov evaryédwov (i. 
6). If it were to be taken as compliance, some more precise 
definition must have been appended ;? because compliance is 


1 This view serves to explain the omission of the e#x in D*, min., Cod. lat. 


in Jer. and Sedul. Clar. Germ. Or. (once), Lucifer. Theodoret also appears ~ 


not to have read it, as he gives the explanation: so» @sot ve xaAsiv, +2 03 wsibsobas 
Tuy &LOVOVTHY, 

2 At least ine», which is actually read by Syr. Erp. codd. in Jer. Lucif. 
Aug. Ambrosiast. Sedul. Arm, has aden yap ruses. Vomel and Hofmann 


CHAP. V. 7-9. 293 


ungodly not in itself, but only according to the nature of the 
demand, the motive, and the moral circumstances generally. 
Some have made it .to mean credulitas (Estius, Winer, Baum- 
garten-Crusius, and others), but the sense of the word is thus 
altered. The talking over, however, did not need anything 
added, since it is of dself, in matters of faith at any rate, 
objectionable; hence it was very superfluous in Luther, Grotius, 
and many others, to take the article as demonstrative. More- 
over, the active sense is excellently adapted to the designation 
of God by 6 caddy tas, inasmuch as the talking over is a 
mode of operating on men characteristically different from the 
divine calling: the former not befitting the divine dignity like 
the latter; the former bound up with human premeditation, 
art, and importunity, taking place éy qeBois codlas Aoyous 
(1 Cor. i, 4), counteracting free self-determination, and so 
forth. Comp. Soph. Fragm. 744, Dind.: Setvov ro tas ITevBovs 
mpoowmov, Aesch. Agam. 385: Biatra 8 & rédawa rrebo. 
Bengel, Morus, and de Wette understand it as obstinacy (the 
_ “clinging to prejudices,” de Wette), making it correspond 
. with the foregoing 77 adnOela pn welbecOa. So also Ewald, 
although translating it as self-confidence, and comparing triouvos. 
But the passages cited above from Eustathius do not make 
good this signification; and, in particular, Od. x. p. 785. 22, 
' is quite improperly adduced in its favour (see Reiche, p. 79 f.). 
-Reiche, preferring the signification compliance, takes the sen- 
tence as asking indignantly: “ Annon assensus, obsequium 
veritati praestandum e Deo est, qui vos vocavit?” But why 
should Paul have expressed this by the singular word zrevo- 
povn not used by him elsewhere, and not by the current and 
unambiguous mlomsis or taxon tas wlotews? By employing 
the latter, he would, in fact, have also suited the foregoing 
melBecbar. — The xarov tpas is neither Christ (Theophylact, 
Erasmus, Michaelis, and others) nor the apostle (Locke, Paulus), 
seek to remove the indefiniteness by reading instead of the article the relative #: 
which obedience. But, according to this view, 4 #s:~. must have been corre- 
lative to the foregoing wsiéscda: (comp. Wisd. xvi. 2), and this consequently 
must have been defined not negatively, but positively, somewhat as if Paul, in- 
stead of +7 dant. wn awsibsebas, had written ivipy siayysrAly wsibsobes. But having 


written ¢. 2and. ur wsibsefe:, he must, in correlation with us ws{éseda:, have con- 
tinued relatively with 4 dwsiéssu. 


294 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS, 


but God. See on i6. The present participle is not to be 
understood of a continuing call “ad resipiscentiam” (Beza),— 
& view at variance with the constant use of the absolute «arety 
Gi. 6, v. 13; Rom. vi 30, e al.); nor does it represent the 
calling as lasting up to the time of their yielding compliance 
against the truth (Hofmann), which would be an idea foreign 
to the N. T. @. 6; Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 386 f£.); but it is to 
be taken substantivally, your caller, the definition of the time 
being left out of view. Comp. 1 Thess. v. 24; Winer, p. 331 
[E. T. 444]. God, the caller to everlasting salvation, has as- 
signed to every one, by calling him at his conversion (Phil. 
iii, 14), the “normam totius cursus” (Bengel). — puxpa Copy 
«.t.d.| The meaning of this proverbial warning (see on 1 Cor. 
v. 6) is: “If the false apostles have, by means of their per- 
suasion, succeeded in making even but a small beginning in 
the work of imparting to you erroneous doctrines or false 
principles, this will develope itself to the corruption of your 
whole Christian faith and life.” So, taking the figure with 
reference to doctrine, in substance also Chrysostom, Theo- 
phylact (who, however, explain pixpa fvun too specially of 
circwmcision), Luther, Calvin, Cornelius a Lapide, and many 
others, including Flatt and Matthies. It is true that the 
dogma of his opponents was in itself fundamentally subver- 
sive (as Wieseler. objects); but its influence had not yet so 
far developed itself, that the yun might not have been still 
designated relatively as wixpd. Others interpret it as referring 
to persons: “vel pauci homines perperam docentes possunt 
omnem coetum corrumpere,” Winer (comp. Theodoret, Jerome, 
Augustine, Erasmus, Grotius, Estius, Locke, Bengel, Borger, 
Paulus, Usteri, Schott, de Wette, Hilgenfeld, Wieseler, Hof- 
mann, Windischmann, Reithmayr, and others); but against 
this it may be urged that the number of the false teachers, 
as it is in itself a matter of indifference, and: does not acquire 
greater significance through their having intruded themselves 
from without, remains also unnoticed throughout the epistle, 
and the point in question was solely the influence of their 
teaching (comp. mretopovn), which was the leaven threatening 
to spread destructively. Comp. i. 7 ff., iii 1. 

Ver. 10. After the warning in vv. 8, 9, Paul now assures 





CHAP. V. 10. 295 


his readers how he cherishes confidence in them, that their 
sentiments would be in conformity with this warning; but 
those who led them astray would meet with punishment, — 
' éyo] with emphasis: J on my part, however much my oppo- 
nents may think that they have won over your judgment to 
their side. Groundlessly and arbitrarily Rickert affirms that 
what Paul says is not altogether what he means, namely, “I 
indeed have done all that was possible, so that I may be 
allowed to hope,” ete. — els tuas] towards you. Comp. Wisd. 
xvi. 24. Usually with the dative or éwi.— é& xuplp] In 
Christ, in whom Paul lives and moves, he feels also that his 
confidence rests and is grounded. Comp. Phil. ii. 24; 2 
Thess. iii. 4; Rom. xiv. 14. — ovdév &ddo] is referred by most 
expositors, including Luther, Calvin, Winer, Riickert, Matthies, 
Schott, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Ewald, to 
the previous purport of the epistle generally as directed against: 
Judaism. But what is there to warrant this vague reference ? 
The warning which immediately precedes in vv. 8, 9 (not ver. 
7, to which Wieseler, Hofmann, and others arbitrarily go back) 
has the first claim to have ovdéy dAdo referred to it, and is 
sufficiently important for the reference. The antithesis o S¢ 
tapacowy also suits very appropriately the subjects of that 
warning, 9 metopovn and Svun, both of which terms characterize 
the action of the seducers. Usteri interprets: that ye will 
not allow any other than your hitherto subsisting sentiments.” 
No, a change, that is, a correction of the sentiments previously 
existing, is precisely what Paul hopes for. — ¢povjcere] ye 
will have no other sentiments (the practical determination of 
thought). The future (comp. vi. 16) refers to the time when 
_ the letter would be received. Hitherto, by their submissiveness 
towards those who were troubling them, they seemed to have 
given themselves up to another mode of thinking, which was 
not the right one (a\Xo, comp. Lys. in Hratosth. 48 ; Erepos is. 
more frequently thus used, see on Phil. iii. 15). — o 5é tapdo- 
cow vpas| The singular denotes not, as in 2 Cor. xi. 4, the totum 
genus, but, as is more appropriate to the subsequent doris Av 7, 
the individual who happened to be the troubler in each actual 
case. Comp. Bernhardy, p. 315. The idea that the apostle 
refers to the chief person among his opponents, who was well 


~~ 





296 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


known to him (Erasmus, Luther, Pareus, Estius, Bencel, 





formerly even guessed at by name, and identified with Peter 
himself (Jerome),—has no-warrant in the epistle. See, on the 
contrary, even ver. 12, and compare i. 7, iv. 17. — dots dy 7] 
is to be left entirely general: without distinction of personal 
position, be he, when the case occurs, who he will. The 
reference to high repute (Theodoret, Theophylact, Luther, 
Estius, and many others; including Koppe, Flatt, Riickert, de 
Wette) would only be warranted, if o rapdoc. applied definitely 
to some particular person. — 16 xpiva] the judicial sentence 
xar’ é€oyny, that is, the condemnatory sentence of the (impend- 
ing) last judgment. Comp. Rom. it 3, 11 8; 1 Cor. xi 29. 
Of excommunication (Locke, Borger) the context contains 
nothing.'— Baordcet] the judicial sentence is conceived as 
something heavily laid on (2 Kings xvii. 14), which the con- 
demned one carries away as he leaves the judgment-seat. The 
idea of AapBavew xpipa (Rom. xii 2; Jas. ii. 1; Luke : XX. 
47, ct al.) -is not altogether the same. 

Ver. 11. But Z,on my part. The Judaistic teachers, whom 
the apostle thus confronts, had (see Chrysostom), as is evident 
from our passage—with the view of weakening the hindrance, 
which among Pauline churches they could not but encounter 
in the authority of the apostle opposing them—alleged (per- 
haps making use of Timothy’s circumcision, Acts xvi. 3, for 
this purpose) that Paul himself still (in other churches) 
‘preached circumcision; that is, that, when Gentiles went over to 
Christianity, they should allow themselves to be circumcised. 
This calumny (comp. also Hilgenfeld in his Zeitschr. 1860, p. 
216 ff.) was sufficiently absurd to admit of his dismissing it, as 
he does here, with all brevity, and with what a striking experi- 
mental proof! But if Lam still preaching circumcision, where- 
foream I still persecuted ? For the persecution on the part of 
the Jews was based on the very fact of the antagonism to the 
law, which characterized his preaching of the Crucified One. See 
the sequel. — ed wreperouny Erte knpvoow] Paul might also have 

1 Jatho also explains the word as referring to this and other ecclesiastical 


penalties. But it was not the manner of the apostle to call for the discipline of 
the church in so indirect and veiled a fashion (comp. 1 Cor. v.). 


CHAP. V. 11. 297 


said, ei a. €. exnpvaocoy, T. é. eStoxopny av, for he means what 
objectively is not a real matter of fact. But he transfers him- 
self directly into the thought of his opponents, and just as 
directly shows its absurdity; he assumes the reality of what 
his opponents asserted, and then by the apodosis annuls it as 
preposterous : hence the sense cannot be, as it is defined by 
Holsten, that his persecution on account of no longer preaching 
circumcision had not, possibly, the alleged pretext of making 
the Gentiles complete members of the theocracy, but only the 
one motive of national vanity and selfishness, to annul the 
offence of the cross.!— The emphasis is laid on mepiropjv; but 
ért, still (see Schneider, ad Plat. Rep. p. 449 C), does not. con- 
vey the idea that Paul, as apostle, had formerly preached cir- 
cumcision. For although the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit 
produced in none of the apostles at once and absolutely 
the laying aside of all religious error previously cherished, but 
led them forward by gradual and individual development into 
the whole truth (see Liicke’s apt remarks on John ii. 10, p. 
501); yet in the case of Paul especially, just because he was 
converted in the midst of his zealotry for the law, the assump- 
tion that he had still preached the necessity of circumcision 
for salvation, and had thus done direct homage to the funda- 
mental error opposed to the revelation of God in him (i. 15), 
and to His gospel which had been revealed to him (i. 11 f), 
would be quite wnpsychological. And in a historical point of 
view it would be at variance with the decidedly antinomistic 


’ Holsten has, in a special excursus (z. Evang. d. Paul. u. Petr. p. 337 ff.), 
acutely explained his interpretation, and endeavoured to vindicate it. At the 
close he puts it in this shape: ‘‘ Paul wishes to denounce to the Galatians the 
secret, unexpressed ground of his persecution on the part of his opponents: ‘J, 
dear brethren, am only persecuted because I no longer preach circumcision ; for, 
if I still preach it as the divine will, why am I still persecuted ? — Thus indeed is 
the offence of the cross annulled /’” But still T'aul must have had some special 
inducement for positing, in si x.¢.a., @ notoriously non-real case as a logical 
reality ; and this inducement could only be found in the corresponding accusa- 
tion of his opponents. Otherwise it would be difficult to see why he should not 
have thrown his language into such a form, that the protasis should have begun 
either with si and the imperfect or with s+: (because), and the expression of the 
apodoses should have undergone corresponding modifieation. According to Hol- 
sten’s view, the words have a dialectic enigmatical obscurity, which, looking at 
the simplicity of the underlying idea, would be without motive. 


298 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


character of his whole apostolic labours as known to us (comp. 
Acts xxi. 21), as well as with the circumstance that the 
requirement of circumcision in the case of the Gentile Chris- 
tians, Acts xv., came upon the apostolical church as something 
quite new and unheard of, and therefore produced so much 
excitement, and in fact occasioned the apostolic conference. In a 
purely exegetical point of view, moreover, such an assumption 
is not compatible with tx: érs Sudxopat, because we should 
thereby be led to the inference that, so long as Paul preached 
circumcision, he had not been persecuted ; and yet at the very 
beginning of his Christian labours he was persecuted by the 
Jews (Acts ix. 24 f.; 2 Cor. xii 32 f.). Riickert (comp. 
Baumgarten-Crusius and de Wette) is of opinion that in using 
ért they only mean to say that Paul, although he preached 
Christ, required that, notwithstanding this, they should still allow 
themselves to be circwmcised. Comp. Olshausen, who refers ére 
to the inferiority of the tendency. But in Olshausen’s view, the 
reference to an earlier anpvrrew qepstouny still remains un- 
removed ; and in that of Riickert, the ér: is unwarrantably 
withdrawn from the apostle and passed over to the side of 
those to whom he preached. Even if (with Hofmann’) we 
understand the érz as in contradistinction to the earlier time, 
when the preaching of circumcision had been of general occurrence 
and had been in its due place, the reference of this ére is 
transferred to a general practice of the earlier time, although, 
according to the words of the apostle, it clearly and distinctly 
assumes his own previous xjpvocew mepit. The correct view 
is the usual one, adopted also by Winer, Usteri, Matthies, 
Schott, Hilgenfeld, Ewald, Wieseler, that ér: points back zo 
the period before the conversion of the apostle. Certainly the 
objection is made (see Reithmayr and Hofmann), that Paul at 


1 According to Hofmann, the apostle’s meaning is, ‘‘ that they would have no 
longer any cause for persecuting him, so soon as his preaching of Jesus Christ 
should be that, which it is not—a continuance of the preaching of circumcision at 
the present time.” This is also unsuitable, because would introduce a sumtio 
jicti, and that indeed in the view of Paul himself. Certainly si with the present 
indicative might be so put ; but in the apodosis the optative with @» must have 
been used, as is the case in the passages compared by Hofmann himself (Xen. 
Anab. vii. 6. 15, v. 6.12. See also Memor. ii. 2. 8; Bornemann, ad Sympos. 
4. 10, 5. 7; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 487). 





a 


CHAP. V. 12. 299 


that time, as a Jew among Jews, and coming in contact with 
Jewish Christians only, had no occasion at all to preach cir- 
cumcision. But looking at our slight acquaintance with the 
circumstances of the apostle’s pre-Christian life, this conclusion 
is formed much too rashly. For, as &jAwrns for God and the 
law (Acts xxii. 3; comp. Gal. i 14; Phil 11. 5), Saul, who 
was an energetic and (comp. Acts xxi. 4, 5) esteemed Pharisaic 
Rabbi, might often have had occasion enough to preach and 
to defend circumcision, partly in the interest of proselytizing, 
and partly also in polemic conflict with Christians in and 
beyond Judaea, who maintained that their faith, and not 
their circumcision, was the cause of salvation. — ri érs 
Si@xopat ;| This ére also, which by most (including de Wette 
and Wieseler) is taken as logical, as in Rom. iii. 7, ix. 19, can- 
not without arbitrary procedure be understood otherwise than 
as temporal: “Why am I yet always persecuted?” Why have 
they not yet ceased to persecute me? They could not but in 
fact have seen how groundless this dsoxew was! — dpa 
KaTnpynTat K.T.r.|] dpa is, as always, igitur, rebus sic se habenti- 
bus (if, namely, I still preach circumcision). Paul gives infor- 
mation concerning the foregoing question,—how far, namely, 
there no longer existed any cause, etc. : thus therefore 1s the offence 
of the cross done away, that is, the occasion for the rejection of 
the gospel, which is afforded by the circumstance that the 
death of Christ on the cross is preached as the only ground of 
salvation (1 Cor. 1.23; Phil. ii. 18). If Paul had at the 
same time preached circumcision also as necessary to salvation, 
then would the Jew have seen his law upheld, and the cross 
would have been inoffensive to him; but when, according to 
his decisive principle, i. 21, he preached the death of the 
cross as the end of the law (ii 13; Rom x. 3, é& al.), and 
rejected all legal righteousness—then the Jew took offence at 
the cross, and rejected the faith. Comp. Chrysostom and Theo- 
phylact. To take it as an interrogation (Syr., Bengel on ver. 12, 
Usteri, Ewald, and others)—with which the accentuation might 
have been dpa (comp. on ii. 1'7)—appears logically not inap- 
propriate after rf ére Suoxopas, but yields a less striking con- 
tinuation of the discourse. : 
Ver. 12. The vivid realization of the doings of his opponents, 


300 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


who were not ashamed to resort even to such falsehood (ver. 
11), now wrings from his soul a strong and bitterly sarcastic 
wish! of holy indignation: Would that they, who set you in 
commotion, might mutilate themselves! that they who attach 
so much importance to circumcision, and thereby create com- 
motion among you, might not content themselves with being 
circumcised, but might even have themselves emasculated! On 
Gherov as a particle, see on 1 Cor. iv. 8. “ Omnino autem 
observandum est, @edov (as to the form derop, see Interpr. 
ad Moer. p. 285f.) non nisi tum adhiberi, quum quis optat, 
ut fuerit aliquid, vel sit, vel futurum sit, quod non fuit aut est 
aut futurum est,” Hermann, ad Viger. p. 756. It is but very 
seldom used with the future, as Lucian, Soloece. 1. See Her- 
mann l.c.; Graev. ad Luc. Sol. II. p. 730. — wal] the climactic 
“even,” not that of the corresponding relation of retribution 
(Wieseler), in which sense it would be only superfluous and 
cumbrous. — dzroxoypoyvtat] denotes castration (Arrian, Epict. 
ii, 20. 19), either by incision of the vena seminalis (Deut. 
xxiii. 1) or otherwise. See the passages in Wetstein. Comp. 
atroxotros, castrated, Strabo, xiii. p. 630; darroxexoupéevos, Deut. 
xxiii, 1. Owing to «ai, which, after ver. 11, points to 
something more than the circumcision therein indicated, this 
interpretation is the only one suited to the context: it is 
- followed by Chrysostom and his successors, Jerome, Ambrose, 
Augustine, Cajetanus, Grotius, Estius; Wetstein, Semler, Koppe, 
and many others ; also Winer, Riickert, Usteri, Matthies, Schott, 
Olshausen, de Wette, Hilgenfeld, Hofmann, Reithmayr, Holsten; 
comp. Ewald, who explains it of a still more complete mutila- 
tion, as does Pelagius, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and others. In 
opposition to the context, others, partly influenced by an 
incorrect aesthetical standard (comp. Calovius: “glossa impura”), 
and sacrificing the middle signification.—which is always re- 
flexive in Greek prose writers (Kiihner, II. p. 19), and is also 


1 According to Hofmann, indeed, it is ‘‘quite earnestly meant,” and is supposed 
to contain the thought that ‘‘their perversity, which is now rendered dangerous 
by their being able to appeal to the revealed law, would thereby assume a shape 
in which it would cease to be dangerous.” How arbitrarily the thought is 
imported! And yet the wish, if earnestly meant, would be at all events a silly 
one. For a similar instance of a bitterly pointed saying against the Judaistic 
overvaluing of circumcision, see Phil. iii. 2. 





CHAP. V. 13. 301 


to be maintained throughout in the N. T. (Winer, p. 239, 
[E. T. 316])—have found in it the sense : “ exitvwm imprecatur 
impostoribus” (Calvin, acknowledging, however, the word as 
an allusion to circumcision; Calovius, and others); or have ex- 
plained it of the divine extirpation (Wieseler); or: “ may they be — 
excommunicated” (Erasmus, Beza, Piscator, Cornelius a Lapide, 
Bengel, Michaelis, Zachariae, Morus, Baumgarten-Crusius, 
Windischmann, and others) ;’ or: “ may all opportunity of per- 
verting you be taken from them” (Elsner, Wolf, Baumgarten) ; 
or: “may they cut themselves off from you” (Ellicott). — 
dvactatobyv]| stronger than tapdooew, means here to stir up 
(against true Christianity), to alarm.. Comp. Acts xvii. 6, 
xxi. 38. The word, used instead of the classic dvadorarop 
mouewv, belongs to the later Greek; Sturz, dial. Mac. p. 146. 
Ver. 13. “It is with justice that I speak so indignantly 
against those men; for ye, who are being worked upon by them 
to bring you under the bondage of the law, have received God’s 
call to the Messianic kingdom for an object entirely different, 
—ain order that ye may be free.” Thus the apostle again 
reminds his readers of the great benefit already indicated in 
ver. 1, but now with the view of inculcating its single necessary 
moral limitation. — ém’ édevBepiqg] that ye should be free; éme 
used of the ethical aim of the ‘xadciv. Comp. 1 Thess. iv. 7; 
Eph. ii. 10; Soph. Oecd. C. 1459: rakiwp’ éf’ @ xarets. — 
povoy pn «.7.r.] Limiting exhortation. But the verb, which is 
obvious of itself (rpéete, perhaps, or even éxere), is omitted, 
the omission rendering the address more compact and precise. 
Comp. Matt. xxvi. 5; Buttmann, newt. Gr. 338. This also 
corresponds (in opposition to Hofmann’s groundless doubt) to 
the usage of the Greeks after the prohibitory 47. See Hein- 
dorf, ad Plat. Prot. p. 315 B; Hartung, Partikell. II. p. 153; 
Klotz ad Devar. p. 669; Winer, p. 554 f. [E. T. 745]. — eds 


1 Luther, in his translation, rendered it: to be extirpated (thus like Calvin) ; 
in his Commentary, 1519, he does not explain it specially, but speaks merely of 
a curse which is expressed. In 1524, however, he says characteristically: ‘‘ Si 
omnino volunt circumcidi, opto, ut et abscindantur et sint eunuchi illi amputatis 
testiculis et veretro, i. e. qui docere et gignere filios spirituales nequeunt, extra 
ecclesiam ejiciendi.” On the other hand, in the Commentary of 1538, he says 
quite simply, ‘‘allusit . . . ad circumcisionem, q. d. cogunt vos circumcidi, 
utinam ipsi funditus et radicitus excindantur.” 


302 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


adopuny tH capi] for an occasion to the flesh; do not use 
your liberty so that it may serve as an occasion for the non- 
spiritual, psychico-corporeal part of your nature to assert 
its desires which are contrary to God. Comp. Rom. vii. 8. 
' As to odp€ in the ethical sense, see Rom. iv. 1, vi 19, vii 14; 
John iii. 6. — adda Sia ris dydtrns Sovr. GAAHA.] but let love 
(through which your faith must work, ver. 6) be that by means 
of which ye stand in a relation of mutually rendered service. 
An ingenious juxtaposition of freedom and brotherly serviceable- 
ness in that freedom. Comp. Rom. vi 18, 22; 1 Cor ix. 19; 
1 Pet. i, 16; 2 Pet. ii, 19. The special contrast, however, 
which is here opposed to the general category of the odpé, 
has its grownd in the circumstances of the Galatians, and its 
warrant in what is about to be said of love in ver. 14. 

Ver. 14.' Reason assigned for the &a ris dydins «7dr. 
just said: for the whole law 1s fulfilled in one utterance; that is, 
compliance with the whole Mosaic law has taken place and 
exists, if one single commandment of it is complied with, 
namely, the commandment, “ Love thy neighbour as thyself.” If, 
therefore, ye through love serve one another, the whole point 
in dispute is thereby solved; there can no longer be any 
discussion whether ye are bound to fulfil this or that precept 
of the law,—ye have fulfilled the whole law. “Theologia 
brevissima et longissima; brevissima quod ad verba et senten- 
tias attinet, sed usu et re ipsa latior, longior, profundior et 
sublimior toto mundo,” Luther. 06 mds voywos (comp. 1 Tim. i. 
16; Acts xix. 7, xx. 18; Soph #l. 1244; Phil. 13; Thue. ii. 
7. 2, vill. 93. 3; Kriiger, § 50. 11. 12) places the totality of 
the law in contradistinction to its single utterance. The view 
of Hofmann, that it denotes the law collectively as an unity, the 
fulfilment of which existing in the readers they have in the love 
which they are to show, falls to the ground with the erroneous 
reading, to which it is with arbitrary artifice adapted; and 
in particular, o was vouos means not at all the law as unity, 


1 Hofmann reads the verse: é y. was vépos iv ipiv wirAvpwras dyarionus x.o.A. 
A form of the text so destitute of attestation (Tertullian alone has in vobis in- 
stead of iv iv) Adyy), that it is simply equivalent to a (very strange) conjecture. 
Also the omission of ¢» s» is much too feebly attested. In the text, followed 
above, A BC & agree. . | 


CHAP. V. 14 303 


but the whole law:' comp. also 2 Mace. vi. 5; 3 Mace. vi. 2 
et al.; Herod.i111. In point of fact, the phrase does not 
differ from dAos 6 vouos, Matt. xxii. 40. Without alteration 
in the sense, the apostle might also have written was ydp o 
vowos, Which would only have made the emphasis fall still 
more strongly on mas. — wewAnpwrat| As to the reading, see 
the critical notes. The perfect denotes the fulfilment as com- | 
plete and ready to hand, as in Rom. xiii. 8. Chrysostom, © 
Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Estius, Baumgarten, 
Semler, Morus, Riickert, Matthies, Schott, Baumgarten- 
Crusius, de Wette, Wieseler, and others, have correctly ex- 
plained mAnpotcGar of compliance with the law; for the 
explanation comprehenditur (Erasmus, Castalio, Luther, Calvin, 
Rambach, Michaelis, Zachariae, Koppe, Rosenmiiller, Winer, 
Usteri, Olshausen, Reiche, and others), that is, avaxeharXarodrae 
(which, however, in Rom. xiii. 9 is distinguished from wdn- 
povc Oar), is at variance with the universal usage of wAnpodv 
Tov vouov in the N. T. (comp. éemiprrAavat +. vowov, Herod. i 
199; so also Philo, de Abrah. I. p. 36). See vi. 2; Matt. ii. 
15; Rom. vin 4, xiii. 8; Col iv. 17. The thought is the 
same as in Rom. xiii. 8, 6 d@yamraév Tov Erepov vouov TemANpoKe, 
and xiii 10, wAnjpwpya voyov 4 aydrn. Grotius interprets 
wAnp. in the same way as in Matt. v. 17: “sicuti rudimenta 
implentur per doctrinam perfectiorem.” This interpretation is 
incorrect on account of mds, and because a commandment of 
the Mosaic law itself is adduced. — év t@] that is, in the 
saying of the law ; see Winer, p. 103 [E. T. 135]. —dryamnoes] 
Lev. xix. 18. Respecting the imperative future, see on Matt. ° 
i 21; and as to éavroy used of the second person, see on Rom. 
xllil. 9; Jacobs, ad Anthol. IX. p. 447. On the idea of the 
@s eavt., see on Matt. xxii. 39. Comp. Cic. de Legg. i. 12: 
“Nihilo sese plus quam alterum homo diligat.” The neighbour 
is, for the Christian who justly (Matt. v. 177) applies to himself 
this Mosaic commandment, his fellow-Christian (comp. ver. 13, 
dAAnAots, and see ver. 14), just as for the Jew it is his fellow- - 


1 (This is an approximate rendering of the passage, the meaning of which is 
not, to me at least, very clear. Hofmann seems to have been conscious of this 
want of clearness, for in his revised edition just issued he has considerably altered 
his mode of expression, but still leaves the matter somewhat obscure.—Eb. ] 


304 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS, 


Jew. But how little this is to be taken as excluding any other 
at all, is shown not only by distinct intimations, such as vi. 
10, 1 Thess, iii, 12, 2 Pet. i. 7, but also by the whole spirit 
of Christianity, which, as to this point, finds its most beautiful 
expression in the example of the Samaritan (Luke x.); and 
Paul himself was a Samaritan of this kind towards Jews and 
Gentiles..— The question, how Paul could with justice say of 
the whole law that it was fulfilled by love towards one’s neigh- 
bour, is not to be answered, either by making voyos signify 
the Christian law (Koppe), or by understanding it only of the 
moral law (Estius and many others), or of the second table of 
the Decalogue (Beza and others; also Wieseler; comp. Ewald), 
or of every divinely revealed law in general (Schott) ; for, ac- 
cording to the connection of the whole epistle, o was voyos 
cannot mean anything else than the whole Mosaic law. But 
it is to be answered by placing, ourselves at the lofty spiritual 
standpoint of the apostle, from which he regarded all other 
commandments of the law as so thoroughly subordinate to the 
commandment of love, that whosoever has fulfilled this com- 
mandment stands in the moral scale and the moral estimation 
just as if he had fulfilled the whole law. From this lofty and 
bold standpoint everything, which was not connected with the 
commandment of love (Rom. xiii. 8-10), fell so completely 
into the background,’ that it was-no longer considered as 
aught to be separately and independently fulfilled; on the 
contrary, the whole law appeared already accomplished in love, 
that is, in the state of feeling and action produced by the 
Spirit of God (ver. 22 f.; Rom. xv. 30), in which is contained 
the culminating point, goal, and consummation of all parts of 
the law.? The idea thus amounts to an impletio totius legis 
dilectione formata, by which the claim of the law is satisfied 
(ver. 23). The view of Hofmann, that here the law comes into 
consideration only so far as it is not already fulfilled in faith ; 
that for the believer its requirement consists in the command- 


1 Especially the précepts as to cultus, in the apostle’s view, were included 
among the eraytia rot xicpov, iv. 3. 

2 Therein lies the essence of the so-called tertins usus of the law, the further 
development of which is given in the Epistle to the Romans. Comp. Sieffert, 
in the Jahrb. f. D. Theol. p. 271 f. 





CHAP. V. 15, 16. . 305 


ment of love, and even the realization of this is already existing 
an him, so that he has only to show the love wrought in him 
by God—simply emanates from the erroneous form of the text 
and the wrong interpretation of ver. 14 adopted by him- That 
the apostle, moreover, while adducing only the commandment 
of love towards one’s neighbour, does not exclude the command- 
mént of love towards God (comp. Matt. xxii. 37 f.), was obvious 
of itself to.the Christian consciousness from the necessary con- 
nection between the love of God and the love of our neighbour 
(comp. 1 John iv. 20; 1 Cor. viii. 1, 3). Paul was induced 
by the scope of the context to bring forward the latter only 
(vv. 13, 15). | 

Ver. 15. Adxvere nai xarecOlere] A climactic figurative 
designation of the hateful werking of party enmity, in which 
they endeavoured mutually to hurt and destroy one another. 
Figurative expressions of this nature, derived from ravenous wild 
beasts, are elsewhere in use. See Maji Obss. IL. p. 86 ; Jacobs, 
ad Anthol. VIII. p. 230; Wetstein, in loc. xateoOlew is not, 
however, to be understood (with Schott) as to gnaw, but must 
retain the meaning which it always has, to cat up, to devour. 
See on 2 Cor. xi. 20; Hom. JI. ii, 314, xxi 24, Od. i. 8, e¢ al. ;' 
LXX. Gen. xl 17; Isa.i. 7; Add. ad Esth i 11. Observe 
the climax of the three verbs, to which the passive turn of the 
final result to be dreaded also contributes: jz) dvd GAANAwY 
avarwbyre| lest ye be consumed one of another—consumamint ; 
that is (for Paul keeps by his figure), lest through these mutual 
party hostilities your life of Christian fellowship be utterly 
ruined and destroyed. What is meant is not the ceasing of their 
status as Christians (Hofmann), in other words, their apostasy ; 
but, by means of such hostile behaviour in the very bosom of 
the churches, there is at length an utter end to what constitutes 
the Christian community, the organic life of which is mutually 
destroyed by its own members. 

Ver. 16. With the words “ But I mean” (iii. 17, iv. 1) the 
apostle introduces, not something new, but a deeper and more 
comprehensive exhibition and discussion of that which, in vv. | 
13-15, he had brought home to his readers by way of admoni- 
tion and of warning—down to ver. 26. Hofmann is wrong in 
restricting the illustration merely to what fellows after dAna, 

0 





306 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS, 


—a view which is in itself arbitrary, and is opposed to the 
manifest correlation existing between the contrast of flesh and 
spirit and the agopu7, which the free Christian is not to afford 
to the flesh (ver. 13), -— avevpare mwepurateite] dative of the 
norma (cata tvedpa, Rom. viii. 4). Comp. vi 16; Phil 
iii. 16; Rom. iv. 12; Hom. Z1. xv. 194: ore Atos Béopas 
gdpéow. The subsequent avevpate dyeobe in ver. 18 is more 
favourable to this view than to that of Fritzsche, ad Rom. I. p. 
225, who makes it the dative commodi (spiritut divino vitam 
consecrare), or to that of Wieseler, who makes it instrumental, 
so that the Spirit is conceived as path (the idea is different in 
the case of dca in 2 Cor. v. 7), or of Hofmann, who renders : “ by 
virtue of the Spirit.” Calovius well remarks: “suata instinc- 
tum et impulsum.” The spirit is not, however, the moral 
nature of man (that is, 6 gow dvOpwiros, o vods, Rom. vii. 22, 
23), which is sanctified by the Divine Spirit (Beza, Gomarus, 
Riickert, de Wette, and others; comp. Michaelis, Morus, Flatt, 
Schott, Olshausen, Windischmann, Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 389), 
in behalf of which appeal is erroneously (see also Rom. viii. 9) 
made to the contrast of cap, since the divine rvebma is in fact 
the power which overcomes the odp£ (Rom. vii. 23 ff, Rom. 
viii. 1 ff.); but it is the Holy Spirit. This Spirit is given to 
believers as the divine principle of the Christian life Gu. 2, 5, 
iv. 6), and they are to obey it, and not the ungodly desires 
of their odp£ Comp. Neander, and Miiller, v. d. Sinde, I. p. 
453, ed. 5. The absence of the article is not (in opposition to 


Harless on Eph. p. 268) at variance with this view, but itis not — 


to be explained in a qualitative sense (Hofmann), any more than 
in the case of Ocds, xvptos, and the like ; on the contrary, wvebua 
has the nature of a proper noun, and, even when dwelling 
‘and ruling in the human spirit, remains always objective, as the 
Divine Spirit, specifically different from the human (Rom. vii 
16). Comp. on vv. 3, 5, and on Rom. viii. 4; also Buttmann, 
neut. Gr. p. '78.— Kat ériOupiavy capKos ov py TEedonTe] is 


taken as consequence by the Vulgate, Jerome, Theodoret, Eras- — 


mus, Luther, Calvin, Grotius, Estius, Bengel, and most exposi- 
tors, including Winer, Paulus, Riickert, Matthies, Schott, de 
Wette, Hilgenfeld, Wieseler, Hofmann, Reithmayr; but by 
others, as Castalio, Beza, Koppe, Usteri, Baumgarten-Crusius, 


a 











CHAP, V. 17. | 307. 


Ewald, in the sense of the ¢mperative. Either view is well 
adapted to the context, since afterwards, for the illustration of 
what is said in ver. 16, the relation between odp£ and arvedpua 
is set forth. But the view which takes it as consequence is the 
only one which corresponds with the usage in other passages of" 
the N. T., in which ov «7 with the aorist subjunctive is always 
used in the sense of confident assurance, and not imperatively, 
like od with the future, although in classical authors od py 
is so employed. “Ye will certainly not fulfil the lust of the 
jlesh,—this is the moral blessed consequence, which is promised 
to them, if they walk according to the Spirit.” On redeiv, 
used of the actual carrying out of a desire, passion, or the 
like, comp. Soph. 0. 2. 1330, Hl. 769; Hesiod, Scut. 36. 
Ver. 17. ‘H yap ocdp& ériOupet xara tod mvevpartos, To Se 
mvedua Kata tT. cdpxos] The foregoing exhortation, with its 
promise, is elucidated by the remark that the flesh and the Spirit 
are contrary to one another in their desires, so that the two cannot 
together influence the conduct. — As here also 70 mrvedua is not 
the moral nature of man (see on ver. 16), but the Holy Spirit, 
a comparison has to some extent incorrectly been made with 
the variance between the vods and the cap£ (Rom. vii. 18 ff.) 
in the still unregenerate man, in whom the moral will is subject 
to the flesh, along with its parallels in Greek and Roman 
authors (Xen. Cyr. vi. 1. 21; Arrian. Hpict. i. 26; Porphyr. 
de abst. 1. 56; Cic. Tuse. i. 21, e al.), and Rabbins (see 
Schoettgen, Hor. p. 1178 ff). Here the subject spoken of is 
the conflict between the fleshly and the divine principle in the 


2 De Wette wrongly makes the objection, that in the state of the regenerate 
this relation of conflict does not find a place, seeing that the Spirit has the pre- 
ponderance (vv. 18, 24). Certainly so, if the regeneration were complete, and 
not such as it was in the case of the Galatians (iv. 19), and if the concu- 
piscentia carnis did not remain at all in the regenerate. That assiue here de- 
notes the Holy Spirit, is confirmed by ver. 22. The difference of the conflict in 
the unconverted and in the regenerate consists in this,—that in the case of 
the former the c¢p§ strives with the better moral will (vos), and the cp is vic- 
torious (Rom.. vii. 7 ff.); but in the case of the regenerate, the ep strives with 
the Holy Spirit, and man may obey the latter (ver. 18). In the former case, 
the creaturely power of the c¢p% is in conflict with the likewise creaturely vovs, 
but in the latter with the divine uncreated «via. De Wette was erroneously 
of opinion that here Paul says briefly and indistinctly what in Rom. vii. 15 ff, 
he sets forth clearly ; the view of Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 389, is similar. 


308 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


regenerate. The relation is therefore different, although the 
conflict in itself has some similarity. Bengel in the com- 
parison cautiously adds, “quodammodo.” — ratra yap adAnrous 
ayrixecrat] As to the reading ydp, see the critical notes. It 
introduces a pertinent further illustration of what has just been 
said. In order to obviate an alleged tautology, Riickert and 
Schott have placed ratra y. aX. avrix. in a parenthesis (see 
also Grotius), and taken it in the sense: “for they are in their 
nature opposed to one another.” <A gratuitous insertion ; in 
that case Paul must have written: g¢ice: yap tadta dAX. 
avrix., for the bare avrixe:ras after what precedes can only 
be understood as referring to the actually existing conflict. 
— iva pn «.7.r.] is not (with Grotius, Semler, Moldenhauer, 
Riickert, and Schott) to be joined to the first half of the verse, 
—a connection which is forbidden by the right view of the 
TavrTa yap GAX. avtix. as not parenthetical—but to the latter. 
iva expresses the purpose, and that not the purpose of God in the 
conflict mentioned—which, when the will is directed towards 
that which is good, would amount to an ungodly (immoral) 
purpose—but the purpose of those powers contending with one 
another in this conflict, in their mutual relation to the moral 
attitude of man’s will, which even in the regenerate may receive 
a twofold determination (comp. Weiss, b:b/. Theol. p. 361 f.). 
In this conflict both have the purpose that the man should not 
do that very thing (radra with emphasis) which in the respec- 
tive cases (av) he would. If he would do what is good, the 
jiesh,’ striving against the Spirit, is opposed to this; of he 
would do what is evil, the Spirit, striving against the flesh, is 
opposed to that. All the one-sided explanations of & av Oérnrte, 
whether the words be referred to the moral will which is hin- 
dered by the flesh (Luther, Erasmus, Calvin, Estius, Morus, 
Rosenmiiller, Flatt, Usteri, Riickert, Schott, de Wette; also 
Baumgarten-Crusius, Holsten, and others), or to the sensual 
will, which is hindered by the Spirit (Chrysostom, Theodoret, - 
Beza, Grotius, Neander),’ are set aside by the fact that tva yy 
x.T.A, is connected with the preceding tadra ydp aAX. avtix., 


1 Comp. also Ewald, ‘‘in order that ye, according to the divine will expressed 
on the point, may not do that which ye possibly might wish, but that of which ye 
may know that God desires and approves it.” 


CHAP. V. 18 309 


and this comprehends the mutual conflict of two powers.’ 
Winer has what is, on the whole, the correct interpretation : “ rd. 
mvedua impedit vos (rather impedire vos cupit), quo minus perfi- 
ciatis Ta Tis capKos (ea, quae 4 oadp£ perficere cupit), contra 7 
capé adversatur vobis, ubi ra Tod wvevparos peragere studetis ;” 
and so in substance Ambrose, Oecumenius, Bengel, Zachariae, 
Koppe, Matthies, Reithmayr, and others; Wieseler most accu- 
rately. This more precise statement of the conflict (raira... 
tavta Tote) might indeed in itself be dispensed with, since 
it’ was in substance already contained in the first half of the 
verse ; but it bears the stamp of an emphatic and indeed 
solemn exposition, that it might be more carefully considered 
and laid to heart. In Hofmann’s view, iva pu) «.7.X. is intended 
to express, as the aim of the conflict, that the action of the 
Christian is not to be self-willed (“ springing from himself in 
virtue of his own self-determination”); and this, because he 
cannot attain to rest otherwise than by allowing his conduct to 
be determined by the Spirit. But setting aside the fact that 
the latter idea is not to be found in the text, the conception 
of, and emphasis upon, the self-willed, which with the whole 
stress laid on the being sejf-determined would form the point 
of the thought, are arbitrarily introduced, just. as if Paul had 
written: iva pn & Av avtol (or avtol tpets, Rom. vii. 25, or 
avOalpérot, or adtoyvapoves, adTovopot, avToBovaot, or the like). 

Ver. 18. If, however, of these two conflicting powers, the 
Spirit is that which rules you, in what blessed freedom ye 
are then! Comp. 2 Cor. iii. 17; Rom. viii. 2 ff. — avevpare 
' @yecOe] See on Rom. viii. 14. Comp. also 2 Tim. ii. 6, — 
ovx éoré t1rd vopov] namely, because then the law can have no 
_ power over you; through the ruling power of the Spirit ye find 
yourselves in such a condition of moral life (in such a xaworns - 
Cwis, Rom. vi. 4, and avevparos, vii. 6), that the law has no 
power to censure, to condemn, or to punish anything in you. 
Comp. on Rom. vi. 4. In accordance with ver. 23, this explana- 
tion is the only correct one; and this freedom is the true moral 
freedom from the law, to which the apostle here, in accordance 
with ver. 13, attaches importance. Comp. 1 Tim.i.9. There 
is less accuracy in the usual interpretation (adopted by Winer, 

¥ Comp. Ernesti Urspr. der Stinde, I. p. 89. 


310 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


Riickert, Matthies, Schott, Baumgarten-Crusius; comp. de 
Wette): ye no longer need the law; as Chrysostom: ris ypeia 
popov ; T@ yap olxobey xaropOobvre ta peilw trod ypela trada- 
yexyoo ; or: you are free from the outward constraint of the 
law (Usteri, Ewald); comp. also Hofmann, who, in connection 
with his mistaken interpretation of ver. 14, understands a 
subjection to the law as a requirement coming from without, 
which does not exist in the case of the Christian, because in 
him the law collectively as an unity is fulfilled. 

_ Vv. 19-23. The assertion just made by Paul, that the 
readers as led by the Spirit would not be under the law, he 
now illustrates more particularly (5é), by setting forth the en- 
tirely opposite moral states, which are produced by the flesh and 
by the Spirit respectively (vv. 22 f.): the former exclude from 
the Messiah’s kingdom (are therefore abandoned to the curse 
of the law), while against the latter there is no law. 

Ver. 19. Davepa 6é x.7.r.] Manifest, however (now to explain 
myself more precisely as to this ov« éoré iro vopov), open 
to the eyes of all, evidently recognisable as such by every 
one, are the works of the flesh, that is, those concrete actual 
phenomena which are produced when the flesh, the sinful 
nature of man (and not the Holy Spirit), is the active prin- 
ciple. The 6é (in opposition to Hofmann’s objection) is the 
dé explicativum, frequently used by Greek authors and in the 
N. T. (Winer, p. 421 [E. T. 553]; Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 1. 
1). That one who is led by the Spint will abstain from the 
pya which follow, is obvious of itself; but Paul does not 
state this, and therefore does not by 5é make the transition to 
it, as Hofmann thinks, who gratuitously defines the sense of 
gavepa as: “ well known to the Christian without law.” On 
davepos, lying open to cognition, manifestus, see van Hengel, 
ad Rom. I. p.111. The list which follows of the épya rijs 
capxos contains four approximate divisions: (1) lust: sropveia, 
dxabapo., acédy.; (2) idolatry: eidwdoraTp., gapyax.; (3) . 
enmity: &Opar .. . govor; (4) intemperance: pear, Kapor. 
— axabapoia] lustful impurity (lewdness) generally, after the 
special zropveta. Comp. Rom. i. 24; 2 Cor. xii. 21. — acéd- 
yeta| lustful immodesty and wantonness, See on Rom. xii. 13. 
Comp. 2 Cor. xii. 21; Eph. iv. 19; 1 Pet. iv. 3; 2 Pet. ii 7. 





CHAP, V. 20, 21. 311 


Ver. 20. EiSwAoXarpela] is not.to bé considered as a species 
of the sins of lust (Olshausen); a view against which may be 
urged the literal sense of the word, and also the circumstance 
that unchastity was only practised in the case of some of the 
heathen rites. It is to be taken in its proper sense as idolatry. 
Living among Gentiles, Gentile Christians were not unfre- 
quently seduced to idolatry, to which the sacrificial feasts 
readily gave occasion. Comp. on 1 Cor. v. 11. — dappaxeia] 
may here mean either poison-mingling (Plat. Legg. viii. p. 845 
E; Polyb. vi. 13. 4, xl 3.7; comp. dappaxos, Dem. 794. 4) 
or sorcery (ix. vi.’ 11, 22, vi 3; Isa. xlvi. 9,12; Rev. ix. 
21, xviii. 23, xxi. 8; Wisd. xii. 4, xviii 13; comp. ddppaxa, 
Herod. iii, 85; gappaxeverv, Herod. vii. 114). The latter 
- interpretation is to be preferred (with Luther, Grotius, Estius, 
Koppe, Winer, Usteri, Schott, de Wette, Ewald, Wieseler, 
Hofmann, and others), partly on account of the combination 
with eidwAodatpe/a (comp. Deut. xviii. 10 ff; Ex. xxii. 18), . 
. partly because qovoe occurs subsequently. Sorcery was very 
prevalent, especially in Asia (Acts xix. 19).. To understand 
it, with Olshausen, specially of love-incantations, 1s arbitrary 
and groundless, since the series of sins of lust is closed with 
aoéNyeva, — The particulars which follow as far as @ovoe stand 
related as special manifestations to the more general éy@pau. 
On the plural, comp. Herod. vii. 145; Xen. Mem. i. 2. 10. — 
Gros, Rom. xui. 13; yealousy, 1 Cor. iii. 3, 2 Cor. xii 20, 
Jas, iii. 16. — The distinction between @uycs and dpry7 is, that 
épyn denotes the wrath in <tself, and Oupos, the effervescence of 
it, exasperation. Hence in Rev. xvi. 19, xix. 15, we have. 
Oupos tis opyjs. See on Rom. ti. 8. — épiOetar] self-seeking 
party-cabals. See on Rom. ii. 8; 2 Cor. xii. 20. — dyoortacian, 
aipéces| divisions, factions (comp. 1 Cor. xi. 18f.). On 
aipeots in this signification, which occurs only: in later writers 
(1 Cor. xi. 19; Acts xxiv. 5, 14), see Wetstein, IT. p. 147 f. 
Comp. aipetiorns, partisan, Polyb. i. 79. 9, ii. 38.7. Observe 
how Paul, having the circumstances of the Galatians in view, 
has multiplied especially the designations of dispeace. Comp. 
Soph. 0. C.1234f. According to 1 Cor. iii 3 also, these 
phenomena are works of the flesh. 

Ver. 21. SOover, dovor] paronomasia, as in Rom. i. 29; 





312 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS, 


Eur. Troad. 736. — x&por] revellings, comissationes, especially - 


at night; Herm. Privatalterth. § 17. 29. Comp. Rom. xiii. 
13; 1 Pet. iv. 3; Plat. Zheaet. p. 173 D: Setrva nal ov 
atrAntplor xdyor. Symp. p. 212C; Isaeus, p. 39. 21: xdpoe 
kat acényea. Herod. i, 21: wlvew x. nop ypéecbar és 
G@AAjAous. Jacobs, Del. epigr. iv. 43: xadpou x. wdons Koipave 
mavvuy dos. — Kat Ta Suova tovros] and the things which are 
similar to these (the whole matters mentioned in vv. 20, 21). 
“ Addit e¢ ws similia, quia quis omnem lernam carnalis vitae 
recenseat?” Luther, 1519. — The mpo in wpoAéyw and mpo- 
ctzrov is the beforehand in reference to the future realization 
(Herod. i. 53, vii. 116; Lucian. Jov. Trag. 30; Polyb. vi. 3. 
2) at the wrapovola ; and the past mrpoetzroy reminds the readers 
of the instructions and warnings orally given to them, the 
tenor of which justifies us in thinking that he is referring to 
the first and second sojourn in Galatia. — wpdooortes] those 
who practise such things; but in ver. 17 qoejre: ye do. See 
on Rom. i. 32; John iii. 20. — Bacwrclay Ocod od «rnpovoy. | 
Comp. 1 Cor.:vi. 9 f., xv. 50; Eph. v. 5; Jas. ii 5; and 
generally, Rom. vi. 8 ff. Sins of this kind, therefore, exclude 
the Christian from the kingdom of the Messiah, and cause him 
to incur condemnation, unless by perdvova he again enters 
into the life of faith, and so by renewed faith appropriates 
forgiveness (2 Cor. vi. 9,10; Rom. vii. 34; 1 Johnii 1f; 
observe the present participle). For the having been recon- 
ciled by faith is the preliminary condition of the new holy 
life (Rom. vi), and therefore does not cancel responsibility in 
the judgment (2 Cor. v. 10; Rom. xiv. 10). 


Ver. 22. 6 5& xapiros tod avevparos] essentially the same ~ 


idea, as would be expressed by ra S€ épya rod wrvevpatos—the 
moral result which the Holy Spirit brings about as its fruit. 
Comp. Pind. Ol. vii. 8: Kxapzros pevos, Nem. x. 12, Pyth. 
ii 74; Wisd. iit 13, 15. But Paul is fond of variety of 
expression. Comp. Eph. ii.9,11. A special intention’ in the 

1 Chrysostom thought that Paul had used xaps%ts, because good works were 
not, like evil works, brought about by ourselves alone, but also by the divine 
Piravbpwwrie., Comp. also Holsten, who, however, makes the distinction sharper. 
Luther and many others, including Winer, Usteri, Schott: because it is beneji- 
cent and praiseworthy works which are spoken of. Matthies: because that 
whereby the Spirit proves His presence, is, in and by itself, directly fruit and 


CHAP. V. 29, 313 


choice cannot be made good, since both épya and xapzros! are in 
_ themselves voces mediae (see on xaprros especially, Rom. vi. 21 f.; 
Matt. vii. 20; Plat. Zp. 7, p. 336 B), and according to the 
context, nothing at all hinged on the indication of organic 
development (to which Olshausen refers xapzros),—a meaning 
which, moreover, would have been conveyed even by épya, and 
without a figure—or of the proceeding from an inner impulse 
(de Wette). The collective (Hom. Od. i. 156, and frequently) 
singular kapros has sprung, as in Eph. v. 9, from the idea of 
internal unity and moral homogeneity; for which, however, 
the singular Epyov (see on vi. 4) would also have been suitable 
(in opposition to the view of. Wieseler).—That das and rvedpa 
are not to be considered as identical on account of Eph. v. 9, 
see on Eph. lc. — a@yd7rn] as the main element (1 Cor. xiii. ; 
Rom. xii. 9), and at the same time the practical principle of 
the rest, is placed at the head, corresponding to the contrast 
in ver. 13. The selection of these virtues, and the order in 
_ which they are placed, are such as necessarily to unfold and 
to present to the readers the specific character of the life of 
Christian fellowship (which had been so sadly disturbed 
among the Galatians, ver. 15). . Love itself, because it is 
a fruit of the Spirit, is called in Rom. xv. 30, dydan tod 
mvevpatos. —— xapad] is the holy joy of the soul, which is 
' produced by the Spirit (see on Rom. xiv. 17; 1 Thess. i. 6; 
comp. also 2 Cor. vi. 10), through whom we carry in our 
hearts the consciousness of the divine love (Rom. v. 5), 
and thereby the certainty of blessedness, the triumph over 
all sufferings, etc. The interpretations: participation in the 
joy of others (Grotius, Zachariae, Koppe, Borger, Winer, 
Usteri), and a@ cheerful nature towards others (Calvin, Michaelis), 
introduce ideas which are not in the text (Rom. xii 15). — 
eipnvn| Peace with others. Rom. xiv. 17; Eph. iv. 3. The 
word has been understood to mean also peace with God (Rom. 
v. 1), and peace with oneself (de Wette and others); but against 
enjoyment. Reithmayr mixes up various reasons, including the very groundless | 
suggestion that in xapwés there is implied the acknowledgment of man’s joint 
part in the production. 

1 Comp. the clear passage in the LXX. Prov. x. 16, where ipya and xapwoi 


alternate in exactly the opposite sense: ipya dixaiar Cory weiss, xapwo) Bi dosBav 
cpuprias, 


314 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS., 


this interpretation it may be urged, that this peace (the peace 
of reconciliation) is antecedent to the further fruits of the Spirit, 
and that etpyvn «.t.d. is evidently correlative with éy@pa «.7.X. 
in ver. 20, so that the etpyvn @eov (see on Phil. iv. 7) does 
not belong to this connection. — paxpofuyla] long-suffering, by 
which, withholding the assertion of our own rights, we are 
patient under injuries (Bpadds eis opynv, Jas. i. 19), in order 
to bring him who injures us to reflection and amendment. 
Comp. Rom. ii. 4; 2 Cor. vii 6. The opposite: o€v@upiéa, 
Eur. Andr. 728. — xypnororns] benignity. 2 Cor. vi. 6; 
Col iii 12. See Tittmann, Synon. p. 140 f§ — dyabwown | 
goodness, probity of disposition and of action. It thus admir- 
ably suits the zloris which follows. Usually interpreted 
(also by Ewald and Wieseler): kindness; but see on Rom. xv. 
14. — lors] fidelity’ Matt. xxiii 23; Rom. iii. 3; and 
see on Philem. 5. — apairngs (see on 1 Cor. iv. 21): meekness. 
The opposite: aypsorns, Plat. Conv. p. 197 D, in Greek authors 
often combined with ¢iAavOpwria. — éyxpdreta] self-control, 
that is, here continence, as opposed to sins of lust and intem- 
perance. Ecclus. xviii 30; Acts xxiv. 25; 2 Pet. 1 6; 
Xen. Mem. i 2.1: adpodioiwy x. yaorpos éyxparéotaros. 

Ver. 23. Just as ra rovadra in ver. 21 (haec talia: see 
Engelhardt, ad Plat. Lach. p. 14; Kihner, ad Yen. Mem. 1. 
5. 2), rv tovovrwv in this passage is also neuter, applying 
to the virtues previously mentioned among the fruits of the 
Spirit (Irenaeus, Jerome, Augustine, Pelagius, Calvin, Beza, yet 
doubtfully, Castalio, Cornelius a Lapide, and most expositors), 
and not masculine, as it 1s understood by. Chrysostom, Theo- 
doret, Theophylact, Oecumenius, Erasmus, Luther, Grotius, 
Bengel, and many of the older expositors; also by Koppe, 
Rosenmiiller, Riickert, Hofmann.” It is, moreover, quite un- 
suitable to assume (with Beza, Estius, Rosenmiiller, Flatt, and 
others) a peiwous (non adversatur, sed commendat, and the like; 
so also de Wette); for Paul wishes only to illustrate the ovx 

1 De Wette, Wieseler, Reithmayr, take it as confidence, the opposite to dis- 
trust, 1 Cor. xiii. 7. But the substantive does not occur in this general sense in 
any other passage of the N. T. | 

3 So also Baumlein, in the Stud. u. Krit. 1862, p. 551f. The objection that 


the singular é xapwés in ver. 22 forbids the neuter interpretation (Hofmann), is 
quite groundless both in itself and because xapaés is collective. 





: CHAP, V. 24, _ | 315 


etvat bro vowov, which he has said in ver. 18 respecting those: 
who are led by the Spirit. This he does by first exhibiting, for 
the sake of the contrast, the works of the flesh, and expressing 
a judgment upon the doers of them; and then by exhibiting 
the fruit of the Spirit, and saying: “ against virtues and states 
of this kind there 1s no law.” Saying this, however, is by no 
means “more than superfluous” (Hofmann), but is intended 
to make evident how it is that, by virtue of this their moral 
frame, those who are led by the Spirit are not subject to the 
Mosaic law.! For whosoever is so constituted that a law is not 
against him, over such a one the law has no power. Comp. 
1 Tim. i. 9 f. | 

Ver. 24, After Paul has in ver. 17 explained his exhorta- 
tion given in ver. 16, and recommended compliance with it 
on account of its blessed results (vv. 18-23), he now shows 
(continuing his discourse by the transitional 6é) how this 
_compliance—the walking in the Spirit—has its ground and 
motive in the specific nature of the Christian; if the Christian 
has crucified his flesh, and consequently lives through the 
Spirit, his walk also must follow the Spirit. — ryv cdpexa 
éotavpwoay] not: they crucify their flesh (Luther and others ; 
also Matthies); but: they have crucified it, namely, when they 
became believers and received baptism, whereby they entered 
into moral fellowship with the death of Jesus (see on ii, 19, 
vi. 14; Rom. vi. 3, vii. 4) by becoming vexpot 7H auaprtia 
(Rom. vi. 11).' The symbolical idea: “to have crucified the 
jiesh,” expresses, therefore, the having renounced all fellowship 
of life with sin, the seat of which is the flesh (cdp£) ; so that, 
just as Christ has been objectively crucified, by means of 
entering into the fellowship of this death on the cross the 
Christian has subjectively—in the moral consciousness of faith 
—crucified the cdp£, that is, has rendered it entirely void of 
life and efficacy, by means of faith as the new element of life 
to which he has been transferred. To the Christians ideally 
viewed, as here, this ethical crucifixion of the flesh is something 
which has taken place (comp. Rom. vi. 2 ff.), but in reality it is 

1 The fundamental idea of the whole epistle—the freedom of the Christian 


from the Mosaic law—is thus fully displayed in its moral nature and truth. 
Comp. Sieffert, in the Jahrb. f. D. Theol. 1869, p. 264. 


316 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


also something now taking place and continuous (Rom. viii. 13 ; 
Col. iii. 5). The latter circumstance, however, in this passage, 
where Paul looks upon the matter as completed at conversion 
and the life thenceforth led as {jv mvevpare (ver. 25; comp. 
li. 20), is not to be conceived (with Bengel and Schott) as 
standing alongside of that ideal relation—an interpretation 
which the historical aorist unconditionally forbids. — ovy tots 
manu. x. tais ériOup.] together with the affections (see on Rom. 
vii. 5) and lusts, which, brought about by the power of sin 
instigated by the prohibitions of the law (Rom. vii. 8), have 
their seat in and take their rise from the odp£, the corporeo- 
psychical nature of man, which is antagonistic to God; hence 
they must, if the odp£ is crucified through fellowship with 
the death of the Lord, be necessarily crucified with it, and 
could not remain alive. Comp. on ver. 17; Rom. vii. 14 ff. 
The émi6upiae are the more special sinful lusts and desires, 
in which the wa@ypara display their activity and take their 
definite shapes. Rom. vii 5, 8. The affections excite the 
feelings, and hence arise érrBupiat, in which their definite 
expressions manifest themselves ; 7H yap él rov Oupov iovon 
Suvaper Sjrov Gre rodro exAHOn To dvopa, Plat. Crat. p. 419 D. 
Comp. 1 Thess. iv. 5. 

Ver. 25. If the Christian has crucified his flesh, it is no 
longer the ruling power of his life, which, on the contrary, 
proceeds now from the Holy Spirit, the power opposed to the 
flesh ; and the obligation thence arising is, that the conduct also 
of the Christian should correspond to this principle of life (for 
otherwise what a self-contradiction would he exhibit!) — e 
CGpev avevpats] introduced asyndetically (without ody), so as 
to be more vivid. The emphasis is on mvevpartt, as the con- 
trast to the cap£: If after the crucifying of the flesh we owe 
our life to the Holy Spirit, by which is meant the life which 
sets in with conversion, through the madvyyeveoia (Tit. iii. 5) 
—the life of the new creature, vi. 15. Comp. Rom. vi 4 ff, 
vii. 5 f, viii. 9; 2 Cor. iii. 6 ; Gal. ii 20. — The first wrvevpare 
is ablative ; the second, emphatically placed at the commence- 
ment of the apodosis, is the expression of the norma (ver. 
16). Comp. vil6; Phil iii 16; Rom. iv. 12. ocrocyew 
(comp. also Acts xxi 24) is distinguished from mepuraret in 








CHAP, V. 26. 317 


ver. 16 only as to the figure; the latter is ambulare, the former 
is ordine procedere (to march). But both represent the same 
idea, the moral conduct of life, the jirm regulation of which is 
symbolized in orouyeiv. 

Ver. 26. Special exhortations now begin, flowing from the 
general obligation mentioned above (vv. 16, 25); first negative 
(ver. 26), and then positive (vi. 1 ff.). Hence ver. 26 ought 
to begin a new chapter. The address, adeAdor (vi. 1), and 
the transition to the second person, which Riickert, Schott, 
Wieseler, make use of to defend the division of the chapters, 
and the consideration added by de Wette, that the vices 
mentioned in ver. 26 belong to the works of the flesh in 
ver. 20, and to the dissension in ver. 15 (this would also 
admit of application to vi. 1 ff.), cannot outweigh the connec- 
tion which binds the special exhortations together. — xevd- 
Sofou] vanam gloriam captantes. Phil. ii. 3; Polyb. xxvii. 6. 
12, xxxix. 1.1. Comp. xevodofeiv, 4 Macc. v. 9, and xevo- 
Sofia, Lucian. V. H. 4, M.D. 8. See Servius, ad Virg. Aen. 
xi. 854. In these warnings, Paul refers neither merely to those 
who had remained faithful to him (Olshausen), nor merely to 
those of Judaistic sentiments (Theophylact and many others), 
for these partial references are not grounded on the context ; 
but to the circumstances of the Galatians generally at that 
time, when boasting and strife (comp. ver. 15) were practised 
on both sides. — Both the ywepeOa in itself, and the use of 
the first person, imply a forbearing mildness of expression. — 
GAHAOVS TpoKaXr., GAANAoLS POovoivres] contains the modus of 
the xevodokia: challenging one another (to the conflict, in order 
to triumph over the challenged), envying one another (namely, 
those superior, with whom they do not venture to stand a con- 

' Fiamus. The matter is conceived as already in course of taking place ; 
hence the present, and not the aorist, as is read in G*, min., ysvepste. The 
Vulgate and Erasmus also correctly render it eficiamur. On the other hand, 
Castalio, Beza, Calvin, and most expositors, incorrectly give simus. Against 
eficiamur Beza brings forward the irrelevant dogmatic objection’ ‘‘ atqué 
natura ipsa tales nos genuit,”” which does not hold good, because Christians are 
regenerate (ver. 24). Hofmann dogmatically affirms that forbearing mildness is 
out of the question. It is, in fact, implied in the very expression. Comp. 
Rom. xii. 16; 2 Cor. vi. 14; Eph. v. 17. And passages such as iv. 12 are in 


no way opposed to this view, for they are without negation ; comp. Eph. v. 1, 
Phil. iii. 17. 


318 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


test). On mporaneta bas, to provoke, see Hom. J]. iii. 432, vii 
50. 218. 285; Od. viiL 142; Polyb. i 46.11; Bast. ep. crvz. 
p. 56, and the passages in Wetstein. — $@oveiy governs only 
the dative of the person (Kiihner, II. p. 247), or the accusa- 
tive with the infinitive (Hom. Od. i. 346, xviii. 16, xi. 381; 
Herod. viii. 109), not the mere accusative (not even in Soph. 
O. R. 310); hence the reading adopted by Lachmann, dAA7- 
Nous Gov. (following B G*, and several min., Chrysostom, 
Theodoret, ms., Oecumenius), must be considered as an error 
of transcription, caused by the mechanical repetition of the fore- 
going dAAnAous — The fact that adrAnA. in both cases precedes 
the verb, makes the contrariety to fellowship more apparent, 
ver. 13. 


CHAP, VI. | 319 


CHAPTER VI. 


Ver. 2. dvarAnpdcare] Lachm. and Schott read dvaganpwoere, 
following B F G, 33, 35, and several vss. and Fathers. Looking 
at this amount of attestation, to which the vss. give special 
weight (including Vulg. It.), and considering that the impera- 
tive might readily have been occasioned by the preceding 
imperatives, the aorist form being involuntarily suggested by 
the similar future form, the future is to be preferred.—Ver. 10. 
épyalwueba|] A BL, min., Goth. Oec. read épyuféueda. Approved 
by Winer, but too feebly attested, especially as hardly any ver- 
sion is in favour of it. A mere error in transcribing, after the 
preceding indicatives Jéepioouev and gyouev, Looking at the fre- 
quent confusion of w and o, we must also regard as a copyist’s 
error the reading in ver. 12 of d:wxovras, adopted by Tisch., and 
attested by A C, etc., instead of dsdixwvres (B D, etc.). — Ver. 12. 
#4] is, with Lachm. and Tisch., following decisive testimony, to 
be placed after Xpsorod. — Ver. 13. wrepireuvouevos] BL, many min., 
also vss. and Latin Fathers, read sepirerunuévor.' Recommended 
by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. and Scholz, and approved by 
Rinck and Reiche. And justly; the preterite is absolutely 
necessary, as the Judaistic teachers are meant. The present has 
crept in as a mere mechanical error of the transcribers, who had 
just previously written epiréwveodos, and perhaps also recollected 
v. 3.—Ver. 14. rp before xécu is omitted by Lachm. on weighty 
evidence ; but it might be readily suppressed, owing to the 
preceding syllable yw, especially as the article might be dis- 
pensed with, and xéouo¢ just before was anarthrous.—Ver. 15. év yap 
XpiorG “Inood odre] B, 17, Arm. Aeth. Goth. Chrys. Georg. Syncell. 
Jer. Aug. Ambrosiast., have merely ors yap (Syr. Sahid., od 
yep). Approved by Mill, Seml., Griesb., Rinck, Reiche ; adopted 
by Bengel, Schott, Tisch. Justly; the Recepta is manifestly an 
amplifying gloss, derived from v. 6. — éor] Elz. and Matth. 
read isyve, against decisive evidence. Derived from v. 6. — 
Ver. 16. croryjoovow] AC* DE FG, 4, 71, Syr. utr. Sahid. It. 
Cyr. Victorin. Jer. Aug. Ambrosiast., read croyotow. Approved 

1In favour.of this may probably be reckoned also F with wspirspyiyo, and 


G with wsprseynpivo, which betray through the wrongly written » perfect 
forms, | 


320 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


by Griesb., placed in the margin by Lachm., adopted by Tisch. 
But the present suggested itself most readily to the unskilled 
transcribers , and what ground could these have had for the 
alteration into the future ?— Ver. 17. xvpiov is omitted before 
"Ino in A BOC*, 8, 17, 109, Arr. Aeth. Arm. Vulg. ms. Petr. 
Alex. Suspected by Griesb., omitted by Lachm. and Tisch. 
A frequent addition, in this case specially derived from ver. 18; 
hence several witnesses add judy. 





CoNnTENTS.—Continuation of the special admonitions begun 
in v. 26 (vv. 1-5); then an exhortation to Christian morality 
in general, with allusion to its future recompense (vv. 6-10). 
A concluding summary, in the apostle’s own handwriting, of the 
chief polemical points of the epistle (vv. 11-16); after which 
Paul deprecates renewed annoyance, and adds the benediction 
(vv. 17, 18). 

Ver. 1. Loving (adeA¢o/) exhortation to a course of conduct 
opposed to xevodofia. — dav xal mporndby «.7.r.] Correctly 
rendered in substance by the Vulgate: “etsi praeoccupatus 
fuerit homo in aliquo delicto.”. The meaning is: “7¢f even any 
one (dvOpeyros, as in ver. 7, and 1 Cor. xi 28, iv. 1, e al.) 
shall have been overtaken by any fault,—so, namely, that the sin 
has reached him more rapidly than he could flee from it (1 
Cor. vi. 18, x. 14; 1 Tim. vi. 11; 2 Tim. it 22). So Chry- 
sostom, Theophylact, Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Beza, and most 
expositors, including Riickert and de Wette; and in substance 
also Wieseler, who, however, explains pod. figuratively of a 
snare, in which (év) one is unexpectedly (apo) caught. There 
is, however, no intimation of this figure in the context (carap- 
ritere) ; and to explain ev the quite common instrumental use 
amply suffices, according to which the expression is not dif- 
ferent from the mere dative. Ina mild and trustful tone Paul 
conceives the sin, which might occur among his Galatians, 
only as “peccatum praccipitantiae ;” for this is, at any rate, 
intimated by mpoAnd67. On mpodrapBavew, to overtake, comp. 
Xen. Cyn. 5,19; 7,'7; Theophr. pl. viii. 1.3; Polyb. xxxi. 
23.8; Diod. Sic. xvii. 75; Strabo, xvi. p. 1120. In édy xat 
the emphasis is laid on e (zf even, ¢f nevertheless); see Klotz, 
ad Devar. p. 519; Baeuml. Partik. p. 151. Others (Grotius, 

1Comp. Goth. ‘‘ gafahdiddu,” that is, caught. 


CHAP, VI. 1. 821 


Winer, Olshausen, Hilgenfeld, Ewald, Hofmann) have explained 
apornpo7 as deprehensus fuerit, is seized; but against this view 
it may be urged that, as the word cannot be used as merely 
equivalent to the simple verb, or to xaradnf0y (John viii. 
4), or éyxaradnpO7 (Aeschin. Ctes. p. 62. 17), no reference 
for the po can be got from the context.' Even in Wisd. 
xvii. 17, rpornpOels means overtaken, surprised by destruction. 
And the «aé does not require that interpretation, because, while 
it might belong to mpodnp6y (Klotz, p. 521; Kiihner, § 824, 
note 1), so as to mean also actually caught (comp. 1 Cor. vii. 
17), or, by way of climax, even caught, it does not necessarily 
belong to it. — dpels of wrvevpatixol] Paul thus puts it to the 
consciousness of every reader to regard himself as included or 
not: ye, the spiritual, that is, who are led by the mvedpa ayov. 
The opposite: yvuytxol, capxcxol (1 Cor. ii. 13 f, ii 1). In 
the case of duvarol, Rom. xv. 1, the circumstances presupposed 
and the contrast are of a different character. Those very avev- 
patixol might readily be guilty of an unbrotherly exaltation 
and severity, if they did not sufficiently attend to and obey 
the leading of the Spirit towards meekness. — xatapritere] 
bring him right, into the proper, normal condition ; d:opGodre, 
Chrysostom. Comp. on 1 Cor.i.10. <A jigurative reference 
to the setting of dislocated limbs (Beza, Hammond, Bengel, 
and others) is not suggested by the context. — év mvevpare 
mpaotntos] through the Spirit of meekness, that is, through the 
avedia arywv producing meekness, .For mvedpa should be 
understood, not with Luther, Calvin, and many others, of the 
human spirit (1 Pet. ui. 4), of the tendency of feeling or tone 
of mind (Riickert, de Wette, Wieseler, and others), but of the 
Holy Spirit, as is required by the very correlation with mvev- 
paticol. See on 1 Cor. iv. 21. But among the manifold xapzros 


1 Grotius strangely interprets: ‘‘ deprehensus anteguam haec epistola ad--vos 
veniat.”” Winer introduces more than the text warrants: ‘‘ etiamsi quis antea 
deprehensus fuerit in peccato, eam tamen (iterum peccantem) corrigite.” Paul 
must have expressed this by idy xai xdéasv Angéy. Olshausen affirms that by wpe 
the AapBdérsvdas is indicated as taking place before the xarapri{uy, But this 
relation of time was so obvious of itself, that it would have been strange thus to 
express it. Hofmann interprets not more aptly: ‘‘ ere he repents of the sin ;” 
as if this idea could only be thus mentally supplied! Luther appropriately 
remarks, ‘‘ if a man should somehow be overtaken by a fault.” 


x - 


322 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


Tov mvevparos (v. 22), wrpavrnros brings prominently forward 
the very quality which was to be applied in the xaraprifew. 
In that view it is the “ character palmarius hominis spiritu- 
alis,” Bengel. — oxorav ceavrov «.7.d.| looking (taking heed) 
to thyself lest, etc. Comp. Soph. Phil. 506. In Plat. Theaet. 
p. 160 E, Luke xi. 35, it is differently used. Comp. Butt- 
mann, neut. Gr. p. 209. There is here a transition to the 
singular, giving a more individual character to the address ; 
just as we frequently find in classical authors that, after the . 
plural of the verb, the singular of the participle makes the 
transition from the aggregate to the individual. See Bern- 
hardy, p. 421; Lobeck, ad Soph. Aj. 191. Erasmus aptly 
remarks that the singular is “ magis idoneus ad compellandam 
uniuscujusque conscientiam.” There is therefore the less ground 
for considering these words as an apostolical marginal note 
(Laurent). — ye) kat ov aep.| lest thow also (like that fallen 
one) become tempted, enticed to sin,—wherein the apostle has 
in view the danger of the enticement being successful. Comp. 
1 Cor. vii. 5. Lachmann places a full stop after wpavrnros, 
and connects oxordy ... mreipacOns with the words which fol- 
low; a course by which the construction gains nothing, and the 
connection actually suffers, for the reference of cal av to tov 
To.ourov is far more natural and conformable to the sense than 
the reference to dAAnAwv. | 

Ver. 2. ddAnAwv] emphatically prefixed (comp. v. 26), 
opposed to the habit of selfishness: “ mutually, one of the other 
bear ye the burdens.” ta Sdpn, however, figuratively denotes 
the moral faults (comp. ver. 5) pressing on men with the sense 
of guilt,.not everything that is oppressive and burdensome 
generally, whether in the domain of mind or of body (Matthies, 
Windischmann, Wieseler, Hofmann),—a view which, according 
to the context, is much too vague and general (vv. 1, 3, 5). 
The mutual bearing of moral burdens is the mutual, loving 
participation in another's feeling of guilt, a weeping with those 
that weep in a moral point of view, by means of which moral — 
sympathy the pressure of, the feeling of guilt is reciprocally 
lightened.” As to this fellowship in suffering, comp. the 


1 Theodore of Mopsuestia, in Cramer’s Cat. (and in Fritzsche, p. 129), well 
remarks that the bearing of one another’s burdens takes place, dray dit wapasviosws 


CHAP. VI. 2. 323 


example of the apostle himself, 2 Cor. xi 29. It is usually 
taken merely to mean, Have patience with one another's faults 
(Rom. xv. 1); along with which several, such as Rosenmiiller, 
Flatt, Winer, quite improperly (in opposition to dAAnAowr, 
according to which the burdened ones are the very persons 
affected by sin) look upon Sap as applying to faults by which 
a person becomes burdensome to others. But the command, 
thus understood, would not even come up to what was required 
in ver. 1, and would not seem important and high enough to 
enable it to be justly said: «al ofrws advamAnpwcete TOV VOpOV 
7. Xp.—and in this way (if ye do this) ye will entirely fulfil the 
law of Christ, the law which Christ has given, that is; the sum 
of all that He desires and has commanded by His word and 
Spirit, and which is, in fact, comprehended in the love (v. 13 f.) 
which leads us to serve one another. What Paul here requires, 
is conceived by him as the culminating point of such a service. 
He speaks of the vdyos of Christ in relation to the Mosaic law 
(comp. v. 14), which had in the case of the Galatians—and 
how much to the detriment of the sympathy of love—attained 
an estimation which, on the part of Christians, was not at all 
due to it; they desired to be &7rd voyov, and thereby lost the 
EvvojLov Xporod elvat (1 Cor. ix. 21). A reference at the 
same time to the example of Christ, who through love gave © 
Himself up to death (Rom. xv. 3; Eph. v. 2) (as contended 
for by Oecumenius and Usteri), is gratuitously introduced 
into the idea of vouos. The compound dvaraAnp. is, as already 
pointed out by Chrysostom (who, however, wrongly explains 
it of a common fulfilment jointly and severally), not equivalent | 
to the simple verb (Riickert, Schott, and many others), but 
more forcible: ¢o jill up, to make entirely full (the law looked 
upon as a measure which, by compliance, is made full; comp. 
v. 14), so that nothing more is wanting. Comp. Dem. 1466. 
20: dy av éxrelarnte vpels, ody etpnoere Tos avaTrAnpwcor- 
tas. 1 Thess. i. 16; Matt. xiii 14. See Tittmann, Synon. 
p. 228f:; Winer, de verbor. cum praepos. compos. in N. T. usu, 
III. p.11£ The thought therefore is, that without this moral 
bearing of one another's burdens, the fulfilment of the law of 


wal ypnorornres inixoupitns aura ray puriy, bwe wig TOU &maprhuaros curse 
Siosas BsPapngetyay, 


324 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


Christ is not complete; through that bearing is introduced 
what otherwise would be wanting in the dvamrAnpwors of this 
law. And how true this is! Such self-denial and self-devotion 
to the brethren in the ethical sphere renders, in fact, the very 
measure of love full (1 Cor. xiii, 4 ff.), so far as it may be filled 
up at all (Rom. xiii. 8). 

Ver. 3. Argumentum e contrario for the preceding xal otras 
avatdnp. T. v. T. Xp.; in so far as the fulfilment to be given in 
such measure to this law is impossible to moral conceit.—For 
of any one thinks himself to be something, imagines himself pos- 
sessed of peculiar moral worth, so that he conceives himself 
exalted above such a mutual bearing of burdens, while he is 
nothing, although he is in reality of no moral importance, he 
«s, so far from fulfilling the law of Christ, involved in self- 
deception. — On eivai tt, and the opposite undev elvac, naudlius 
momenti esse (comp. Arrian. Epict. ii. 24: Sondyv pév te elvat, 
dv §& ovdeis), comp. ii. 6, and see on Acts v. 36; 2 Cor. xii. 
11; Locella, ad Xen. Eph. p. 143. As to uy with the parti- 
ciple, see Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 301. If undév dy be attached 
to the apodosis (Michaelis, Baumgarten, Morus, Jatho, Hof- 
mann), the effect is only to weaken the judgment which is ex- 
pressed in it, because if would contain the fundamental state- 
ment (since he 1s nothing), in which the éavr. ppevarr. is already 
obviously involved, and consequently, as the first portion of 
the affirmation in the apodosis, would anticipate the latter 
portion of it and take away its energetic emphasis. This is 
not the case, if the “ being nothing” belongs to the antithetical 
delineation of conceited pretension in the protasis, where it is 
appropriate for the completeness of the case supposed. More- 
over, ndév wy is really applicable in the case of every one, Luke 
xvii. 10; Rom. iii. 23; 1 Cor. iv. 7, & al. — dpevarrara] de- 
notes deception in the judgment, here in the moral judgment ; . 
the word is not preserved in any other Greek author. But 
comp. dpevarrarns, Tit. i 10; Ignat. Trall. interpol. 6 ; Etym. 
M. 811. 3. 

Ver. 4. But men ought to act in a way entirely different 
from what is indicated by this Soxe? efvai re. “ His own work 
let every man prove, and then” etc. — The emphasis lies on 
To &pyov (which is collective, and denotes the totality of the 








CHAP, VL. 4. | 325 


actions, as in Rom. ii. 7,15; 1 Pet. i. 17; Rev. xxii. 12), 
opposing the oljective works to the subjective conceit. — Soxt- 
palérw] not: probatum reddat (Beza, Piscator, Rambach, Semler, 
Michaelis, Riickert, Matthies), a meaning which it never has 
(comp. on 1 Cor. xi. 28), but: let him try, investigate of what 
nature it is. — «al tore] and then, when he shall have done 
this (1 Cor. iv. 5), not: when he shall have found himself 
approved (Erasmus, Estius, Borger, and others). — eis éavrov 
povoy To Kavynua €&e, x.7.r.] does not mean, he will keep his 
glorying for himself (comp. Hilgenfeld), that is, abstinebit a 
gloriando (Koppe) ; for although éyew may, from the context, 
obtain the sense of keeping back (Hom. JI. v. 271, xxiv. 115; 
Eur. Cycl. 270), it is in this very passage restricted by «at 
oux eis Tov Erepoy to its simple meaning, to have; and xav- 
xnpa is not equivalent to cavynous, but must retain its proper 
signification, materies gloriand: (Rom. iv. 2; 1 Cor. v. 6, and 
always). Nearest to the view of Koppe in sense come those of 
Winer: “non tantas in se ipso reperiet laudes, quibus apud 
alios quoque glorietur;” of Usteri: “then will he have to glory 
towards himself alone, and not towards others,’—-a delicate 
way of turning the thought: “ then he will discover in himself 
faults and weaknesses sufficient to make him think of himself 
modestly ;” and of Wieseler, “ he will be silent toward others 
as to his cavynya.” But in accordance with the context, 
after the requirement of self-examination, the most natural 
sense for eis (on account of the antithesis, eis éavréy—eis 
tov €repov) is: in respect to, as regards; moreover, in the 
above-named interpretations, neither the singular nor the article 
in tov érepov obtains its due weight. The sentence must be 
explained : then will he have cause to glory merely as regards 
himself, and not as regards the other; that is, then will he have 
cause to boast merely in respect of good of his own, which he 
may possibly find on this self-examination, and not in reference 
to the other, with whom otherwise he would advantageously 
compare himself. Castalio aptly remarks: “ probitas in re, 
non in collatione ;” and Grotius: “gaudebit recto sui examine, 
- non deteriorum comparatione,’—as, for instance, was done by 
the Pharisee, who compared himself with robbers, adulterers, 
etc., instead of simply trying his own action, and not boasting 





326 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


as he looked to others, whom he brought into comparison. 
Comp. Calvin and others; also Reithmayr. «cavynua with 
the article denotes, not absolute glory (Matthies), which no one 
has (Rom. iii. 23), but the relevant cause for the xcavydobar 
which he finds in himself, so far as he does so, on that trial of 
his own work. It is therefore the xavynua, supposed or con- 
ceived by Paul, as the result of the examination in the several 
cases; Bernhardy, p. 15. This relative character of the idea 
removes the seeming inconsistency with vv. 3 and 5 (in oppo- 
sition to de Wette), and excludes all untrue and impious 
boasting ; but the taking xavynua eyew ironically (against 
which Calvin justly pronounces), or as mimesis (Bengel and 
others; also Olshausen: “a thorough self-examination reveals . 
so much in one’s own heart, that there can be no question of 
glory at all”), is forbidden even by wal ovdx eis rov éErepov. 
Hofmann interprets, although similarly in the main, yet with- 
out irony, and with a more exact unfolding of the purport: 
“ while otherwise he found that he might glory as he contrasted his 
own person with others, he will now in respect to the good which 
he finds in himself, seeing that he also discovers certain things in 
himself which are not good, have cause to glory only towards him- 
self—himself,namely,who has done the good, as against himself,who 
has done what 1s not good.” But in this interpretation the ideas, 
which are to form the key to the meaning, are gratuitously 
imported ; a paraphrase so subtle, and yet so clumsy, especially 
of the words eis éaurdy povoy, could not be expected to occur 
to the reader. More simply, but introducing a different kind 
of extraneous matter, de Wette interprets: “and then he will 
for himself alone (to his own joy) have the glory (if he has any 
such thing, which is evidently called in question) not for others 
(in order thereby to provoke and challenge them).” But how 
arbitrary it is to assign to e’¢ two references so entirely diffe- 
rent, and with regard to xavyna to foist in the idea: “if he 
has aught such”! A most excellent example of the eis éaurov | 


1 So in substance Chrysostom and Theophylact hold, that Paul has spoken 
vvyxaraBacines, in order to wean his readers gradually from the habit of glory- 
ing ; 6 yap Wiebsls uh vod wancion ws b Sapenios, xaraxavzyacta, crazing nai rev 
nal \aurir lvaBpivielas dworrietra:, Theophylact. Comp. Oecumenius, according 
to whom the substantial sense is : iavred naeayrictra:, sal edz) icipar. 


CHAP. VI. 5, 6. 327 
povoy Td Kavynua exew is afforded by Paul himself, 2 Cor. x. 
12. Comp. 2 Cor. i. 12 ff. 

Ver. 5. Reason assigned, not for the summons to such a self- 
examination, but for the negative result of it, that no one will 
have to glory els rov Erepov: for every one will have to bear his 
own burden. No one will be, in his own consciousness, free 
from the moral burden of his own sinful nature, which he has 
to bear. The future does not apply to the last judgment, in 
which every one will render account for his own sins (Augus- 
tine, c. li¢. Petil. iii. 5 ; Luther), and receive retribution (Jerome, 
Theodoret, Erasmus, Calvin, Grotius, Calovius, Estius, Bengel, 
Michaelis, Borger, Riickert, and others ; comp. also Hofmann),— 
a view which, without any ground in the context, departs from 
the sense of the same figure in ver. 2, and also from the relation 
of time conveyed in ¢&es in ver. 4; but it denotes that which 
will take place in every man after the self-examination referred 
to in ver. 4: he will, in the moral consciousness, namely, pro- 
duced by this exammation, bear his own burden ; and that will 
preclude in him the desire of glorying e’s roy trepov.—The 
distinction between Bdpos and goprtiov (which is not diminu- 
tive) consists in this, that the latter denotes the burden in so far 
as it is carried (by men, beasts, ships, waggons; hence freight, 
baggage, and the like), while the former denotes the burden as 
heavy and oppressive ; in itself the gopriov may be light or 
heavy ; hence: goptrla Bapéa (Matt. xxiii. 4; Ecclus, xxi. 16), 
and édadpa (Matt. xi 30); whereas the Bdpos is always 
burdensome. The expression is purposely chosen here from 
its relative character. . 

Ver. 6. In contrast to the referring of every one fo himself 
(vv. 4, 5), there is now, by the xowwveirw dé, which is there- 
fore placed emphatically (in opposition to Hofmann) at the 
beginning, presented a fellowship of special importance to a 
man’s own perfection, which he must maintain: Fellowship, on 
the other hand, let him who is being instructed in the doctrine 
(xav’ éfoynv, in the gospel; comp. 1 Thess. i. 6; Phil. i. 14) 
have with the instructor’ in all good (ver. 10), that is, let the 

1 The question, whether the persons here meant were permanent teachers of 


the church, or itinerant evangelists, is to be answered by saying that neither of 
these two kinds of teachers is excluded. For although at that time there were 


328 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


disciple make common cause (endeavour and action) with his 
teacher in everything that is morally good. So, following 
Marcion (?) (in Jerome) and Lyra, in modern times Aug. 
Herm. Franke (in Wolf), who, however, improperly connects 
éy macw ayabois with xarnyodyvrt, Hennicke, de nexw loct 
Gal. vi. 1-10, Lips. 1788; Mynster, kl. theol. Schr. p. 70, 
Matthies, Schott, Keerl, Diss. de Gal. vi. 1-10, Heidelb. 
1834, Trana, Jatho, Vomel, Matthias; also not disapproved 
by Winer. Usually, however (as by Winer, Riickert, Usteri, 
Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Hilgenfeld, Ewald, 
Wieseler, Hofmann, Reithmayr, and others), there is found in 
the words a summons to liberality towards the teachers, so that 
év maowv ayaGois is taken as referring to the communication of 
everything good (Ewald), or more definitely, of all earthly good 
things (“in omni facultatum genere, ut usu venit,” Bengel), or 
of good things of every kind (Ellicott, Hofmann); and xowwveirw 
is taken either transitively (so usually, also by Ewald), as if the 
word were equivalent to xowovy (as to the:distinction between 
the two, see especially Thuc. i 39. 3): communicet (which, 
however, cannot be conclusively established in the N. T., not 
even in Rom. xii. 13; and in the passages from Greek authors 
in Fritzsche, ad Rom. III. p. 81, and Bremi, ad Aeschin. p. 
317, Goth. it is to be referred to the idea: “to share with 
any one”), or intransitively (so Usteri, de Wette, Wieseler) : 
“let him stand in fellowship,” namely by communication, or 
in the sense of the participation in the teacher, which is 
perfected €y maow ay. (Hofmann, comparing Rom. xv. 27). 
But against the whole of this interpretation may be urged: 
(1) the singular want of connection of such a summons, 
not merely with what goes before? but also with what fol- 
no 3dé¢xar: specially instituted except the presbyters (see on Eph. iv. 11), 


there were nevertheless members of the church endowed with the yvépopea 
ddacxerAias, who devoted themselves to the function of continuous instruction 


in their churches. Rom. xii. 7. 


1 The connection with what goes before might be dispensed with, for Paul 
might (through 3%) have passed on to a fresh subject. Winer, indeed, conceives 
the connection to be: ‘‘cum vv. 4, 5 ea tetigisset, quae priva sibi quisque habere 
debeat, nunc ad haec descendere, quae cum aliis communicanda sunt” (comp. 
Erasmus, Paraphr.). But, with the precept of liberality towards teachers, so 
entirely alien to what goes before, this connection appears forced ; and it would 
be better to forego any connecting link with what precedes (Riickert) than to- 











CHAP. VL 6. 329 


i) 


lows wherein Paul inculcates Christian morality generally. 
(2) Since in vv. 1-5 moral faultiness was the point in ques- 
tion, the reference which most naturally suggests itself for é 
maow ayabois is a reference to moral good. (3) At the con- 
clusion of this whole section in ver. 10, épyafwpeOa 76 dyabov 
«.7.r., To aya0oy is nothing else than the morally good. (4) 
The requirement itself, to communicate with the teacher iz 
all good things, would, without more precise definition (Luther, 
1538: Paul desires simply, “ wt liberaliter cos alant, quantum 
satis est ad vitam commode tuendam,’—an idea which is 
not suggested in the passage), be so indeterminate and, even 
under the point of view of the possession as common property, 
Acts iv. 32 (de Wette), which we do not meet with in Paul's 
writings, so little to be justified, that we cannot venture to 
attribute it—thus thrown out without any defining limitation 
—to the apostle, least of all in a letter addressed to churches 
in which misinterpretations and misuse on the part of anta- 


bring out an illogical relation of the contrast. De Wette discovers a satisfactory 
connection with vv. 1-5 in the circumstance that there, as here, the apostle has in 
view defects of Christian social life. This, however, is to specify not a connec- 
tion, but merely a logical category. According to Ewald, the previous counsels 
are to be conceived as for the most part addressed to the Pauline teachers of the 
Galatians, and Paul therefore now adds a word as to the correct behaviour of the 
non-teachers also. But the former idea is assumed without ground in the text, 
which speaks quite generally. According to Wieseler the conception is, that 
the care for worldly maintenance was a species of the Bépn (ver. 2), which the 
readers were to relieve them of in return for their being instructed in the word. 
But those Bdépn are necessarily of a moral nature, burdens of guilt. According to 
Hofmann, Paul has previously exhorted every one to serve his neighbour with 
that which he is, and now exhorts every one to employ that which he possesses, 
as his Christian position requires. A scheme of thought purely artificial, and 
gratuitously introduced. : 

1 The sequel down to ver. 10 is indeed referred by Luther (most consistently 
in 1538) and others, including Olshausen and de Wette, with more or with 
less (Koppe, de Wette, Hilgenfeld) consistency, to the behaviour towards the 
teachers, by the despising of whom God is mocked, the support of whom is a 
sowing of seed for spiritual objects, etc. But looking at the general nature of 
the following instructions, which there is not a word to limit, how arbitrary and 
forced is this view! Not less far-fetched and forced is the explanation of Hof- 
mann, who considers that, because by means of the xomwavtiy x.7.a. the teacher 
is enabled to attend to his own business, Paul in vv. 7 ff. warns against the 
erroneous opinion that people might, without danger to the soul, deal lightly 
with that xeversiy x.¢.4.; that by means of this xevwrsi» people devote that 
which they possess to the Spirit, etc. 





330. THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


gonistic teachers were to be apprehended. Through the stress 
laid by Wieseler on the spiritual counter-service of the teacher 
(comp. also Hofmann), the expression éy waow ayaSot, seeing 
that it must always involve that which is to be given by the 
disciples to their teacher, is by no means reduced to its just 
measure (the bodily maintenance as recompense for the avev- 
patixa received, 1 Cor. ix. 11; Phil iv. 15); whilst Ewald’s 
interpretation, “ communication in all good things;’' cannot 
be linguistically vindicated either for xowowv. or for év (= 3, 
according to Sprachl. p. 484f). Paul would have said per- 
haps: cowd roeltw oO .7.A. TO &. TavTa ayaGd, or something 
similar in correct Greek. The objection raised against our 
interpretation (see Riickert, Usteri, Hilgenfeld, Wieseler), that 
it is difficult to see why this particular relation of disciple 
. and teacher should be brought into prominence, is obviated by 
the consideration that this very relation had been much dis- 
turbed among the Galatians by the influence of the pseudo- 
apostles (iv. 17), and this disturbance could not but be in the 
highest degree an obstacle to the success of their common moral 
effort and life. But in reference to de Wette’s objection that 
xoweveiv, instead of pipetoOat, is a strange expression, it must 
be observed that Paul wished to express not at all the idea 
of pipetcOas, but only that of the Christian xowwvia between 
disciple and teacher. The disciple is not to leave the sphere 
of the morally good to the teacher alone, and on his own part 
to busy himself in other interests and follow other ways; but 
he is to strive and work in common with his teacher in the 
same sphere. In this view, the expression is (in opposition to 
Hofmann’s objection) neither too wide nor too narrow. Not 
too wide, because the sphere of moral good is one and the 
same for teachers and learners, and it is only the concrete 
application which is different. Not too narrow, because moral 
fellowship in Christian church-life finds its most effective lever 
- in the fact that learner and teacher go hand in hand im all 
that is good. — 6 carnyovpevos Tov Aoyov] Comp. Acts xviii. 25. 
It is self-evident that Paul means only the relation to true, 
Pauline teachers. — év macw ayaGois] the sphere, in which 


1 Comp. Grotius : ‘‘ per omnes res bonas, i.e. non per alimenta tantum, sed 
et alia obsequia et officia.” 


CHAP. VI. 7, 331 


common cause is made. Comp. Matt. xxiii. 30. A classical 
writer would say, rdvrwv dyabev (Heb. ii. 14; Plat. Rep. p. 
464A; Soph. Zrach. 543), or eis advta ayabd (Plat. Rep. p. 
453 A), or even wep! awdvrev ay. (Polyb. xxxi. 26. 6). On 
the plural 7d dyad, as applied to moral good, comp. John v. 
29; Matt. xii. 35; Ecclus. xi. 31, xvii. 7, xxxix. 4, xiii. 25; 
and frequently in Greek authors. Paul might also have 
written év wavtl épym ayabe (Col. i 10); but ey waow 
aya0ots is more comprehensive. The dative t@® Kxatny. 18 
the dativus communionis everywhere common (Dem. 142, wit. 
789, 2). 

Ver. 7. A warning to the readers, in respect to this necessary 
moral fellowship, not to allow themselves to be led astray (by 
the teachers of error or otherwise), with very earnest reference 
to the divine retribution. This nearest and easy connection 
makes it unnecessary to refer back to the whole of the section 
from ver. 1 onward (Wieseler). — pu) 4AavacGe}] See on 1 Cor. 
vi. 9. — Qeos ov puernplferar] God is not sneered at, that is, 
mocked ; He does not submit to it. See the sequel. This 
mocking of God (a more forcible expression of the idea mrevpaew 
@edv) takes place on the part of him who, by immoral conduct, 
practically shows that he despises God and accounts nothing 
of His judgment. On puvetnpiferv, properly, to turn up the 
nose (comp. Horat. 1. 6.5; Hp. i. 19. 45), and then to deride, 
comp. Sueton. Claud. 4: oxwmrrew nat puxrnpifev. Sext. Emp. 
adv. math. i. 217; Job xxii. 19; Prov. i 30, xii. 8; 3 Ezr. 
i. 51. Comp. also puernp, Diog. L. ii. 19; Lucian. Prom. 1; 
puKrnptcpos, 2 Macc. vii. 39; and puxtnpiotys, Athen. iv. p. 
182 A, v. p. 187 C. — 5 yap dav oveipy x.7.d.] Proof for @eds 
ov zuxrnplteras. The identity between the kind of seed sown 
and the kind of fruit to be reaped from it (rodro, this, and 
nothing else ; for instance, from the sowing of weeds no wheat) 
is a figurative expression for the equivalent relation between 
moral action in the temporal life and the recompense at the 
judgment. Comp. 2 Cor.ix.6. The same figure is frequently 
used as to recompense, Hos. viii. 7; Job iv. 8; Prov. xxii. 8; 
Ecclus. vii. 2; Plat. Phaedr. p. 260 D; Arist. Rhet. iii. 4; 
Plut. Mor. p. 394 D; Cic. de orat. ib 65: “ut sementem 
feceris, ita metes.” 


332 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


Ver. 8. Ground assigned for the foregoing proposition. * “ So 
it is, since in fact the two opposite sorts of ground which receive 
the seed will also yield two opposite kinds of harvest.” Inthe 
words & édy ozelpn dvOp. robro «. Oepices Paul, as was required. 
by the matter which he would figuratively present (evt1—good), 
has conceived two different classes of seed, with two sorts of 
recipient soil likewise essentially different ; one class comprises 
all the kinds of seed which are sown to a man’s own flesh, the 
other class includes all those which are sown to the Holy Spirit. 
He who scatters the former class of seeds, and therefore sows 
to his own flesh, will from this soil, which he has furnished 
with the corresponding seed, reap corruption, etc. Therefore 
we have not here any alteration in the figure, by which Paul 
leaves the description of the seed, and passes over to that of 
the soi (Riickert, Hofmann, according to whom it is only this 
alteration which explains the connection with ver. 6), but a 
proof that the state of the case, in accordance with the two kinds 
of soil which come into view, will not be other than is said in 
ver. 7. Observe the dr, for the most part neglected by 
expositors, which is not explanatory, but causative (“quoniam,” 
Vulgate). — 0 o7relpwv eis Tt. odpxa éavrod) that is, he who is 
minded and acts so that his own flesh—his sinfully-determined 
corporeo-psychical nature (comp. v. 16 f.)—is the element 
conditioning and prompting his thoughts and actions. éavrob 
is added, because afterwards an objective principle, ro mvebdyua, is 
opposed to this selfish sulyective principle.’ The idea that eis 
T. capKa éavtod applies to circumcision (Pelagius, Schoettgen ; 
comp. Riickert and also Usteri) is entirely foreign to the con- 
text. — P@opdv| corruption, destruction (Rom. viii. 21; Col. 
ii, 22; 2 Pet. 1.12; LXX. Ps. ci. 4; Wisd. xiv. 12; Thuc. 
ii 47; Plat. Pol. viii. p. 546 A; and frequently), that is, here, 


1 Luther (1519 and 1524), with strange arbitrariness, holds that Paul desires 
to obviate the thought ‘‘de seminatione masculi in carnem feminae.”” But in 
1533 he consistently abides by the reference to the attitude towards the teachers, 
and explains: ‘‘ qui nihil communicat ministris verbi, sed se solum bene pascit 
et curat, id quod caro suadet,” etc. Comp. Calovius and others; also Hofmann: 
he who applies that which he possesses to his own flesh, in order to gratify its 
desires. We may addethat the Encratites made use of our passage (see Jerome) 
as a ground for rejecting sexual intercourse and marriage; holding that he who 
takes a wife sows to the flesh, etc. 


CHAP, VI. 9. 333 


in accordance with the contrast of {w7 aiwmvios, the eternal 
atrwvea.' But the suggestion that Popdy is used in reference 
to the corruptibility of the flesh (Winer, Schott, Reithmayr, 
and others; comp. also Chrysostom and Theodoret) cannot be 
entertained, because the true Christians who die before the 
mapovola partake the lot of corruption, and the point of time 
for the harvest is conceived as not earlier than the nearly 
approaching zapovola (ver. 9), in which either ¢0opd or Sw 
aiwvis will be the result of the judgment. According to de 
Wette, Paul has chosen this expression in order to denote the 
perishableness of carnal aims, and at the same time their 
destructive consequences for the soul. This is arbitrary. The 
general idea of Oopdy obtains its more precise definition 
simply from fw7v aidv. Comp. 1 Cor. iii. 17; 2 Pet. ii. 12. 
— 0 &é orelpwy eis to mrvedtpa| No more than in chap. v. does 
To mrvedpa here mean the higher nature of man (Riickert, Schott, 
and most expositors; also Ernesti Urspr. d. Siinde, I. p. 60, II. 
p. 90 f.), but (so also Wieseler and Hofmann) it denotes the 
Holy Spirit. Jerome aptly remarks, that for this very reason 
Paul did not again add éavrod (which Ernesti would arbitrarily 
again supply). The less, therefore, the ground for misapplying 
the passage in favour of the meritoriousness of good works. 
The sense, when divested of figure, is: “ he who is minded and 
acts so that the Holy Spirit is the element which determines 
and prompts him.” — é« tod mvevparos Oepice: x.7.r.| At the 
mapovola. See also Rom. viii. 11,15-17; 2 Cor. v. 5; Eph. 
114. q6opa and fw7 aiwvos are conceived as the two kinds 
of produce which shall have sprung up from the two different 
sorts of recent soul. 

Ver. 9. Encouragement, not to become weary in that which 
is meant by this second kind of sowing ; To xanddov trotobvres is 
the same as would be figuratively expressed by eis ro mvetua 
atrelpovres. The autem (dé), which simply marks the transition 
_ to this summons, cannot be attached to the exhortation in ver. 
6, as appending to it another (Hofmann). — éxxaxdpev] As to 
this form, and the form éyxax«. (Lachmann, Tischendorf), see on 
2 Cor. iv. 1. On the “levis paronomasia” (Winer) in «adov 


1 The same thought is expressed in Rom. viii. 18: si xara edpum Vries, pidases 
éwobvicxsey, Comp. ver. 23, 


334 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


and éxxax., comp. 2 Thess. iii 13. He who loses moral 
courage (éxxaxet) loses also moral strength (éndverat). — xatpo 
yap ism] at the time expressly destined for the reaping 
(Matt. xiii. 30), by which is meant the time of the rapovoia, 
which man must await with perseverance in what is good. 
Comp. 1 Tim. vi 15; Tit. i 3. — wa exAvdpevor] not becoming 
weary (Matt. xv. 32; Mark viii. 3; Heb. xii. 3; 1 Mace i 
17; Wetstein, I. p. 426; Loesner, p. 336), which is not to 
be understood of the not becoming fatigued in the reaping,’ 
a-contrast being therein discovered either with the toils of the 
harvest proper (Theodoret, Theophylact, Oecumenius), or with 
the labour of sowing (Usteri; the two ideas are combined by 
Chrysostom, Clarius, and others). Either form of the con- 
trast would yield a description of the eternal harvest, which 
would be feeble, superfluous, and almost trifling, little in 
harmony with the thoughtful manner of the apostle elsewhere. 
We may add, that it is not the nature of the harvest (which 
was obvious of itself from ver. 8), but the time of the harvest, 
which constitutes the point on which the y7) éxxax. is grounded; 
and therefore on xatp@ idtp Calvin aptly remarks, “Spe igitur 
et patientia suum desiderium sustineant fideles et refrenent.” 
Hence pm éxAvop. is rather to be taken as: if we do not become 
weary in doing good. See Photius in Oecumenius, p. 766 D, 
and Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Bengel, and nearly all modern 
expositors. This denotes the present state, by which the 
future harvest is conditioned. It involves not a clumsy 
repetition (Usteri), but a reiterated setting forth of the con- 
dition, urgently emphasizing its importance, by means of a 
correlate word which closes the sentence with emphatic earnest- 
ness. Comp. Fritzsche, ad Rom. I. p. 336. Nor would p7 
éxAvOévres have been more correct (Riickert, Hofmann), but ° 
on the contrary: “videndum, quod quoque loco tempus vel 
ferri possit,’ Herm. ad Viger. p. 773. Ewald’s explanation: 
undeniably, that is, necessarily, is without support from lin- | 
guistic usage. Hofmann incorrectly makes ps) éxAvopevos 
begin a new sentence; for Paul always places dpa ovv at the 


1 Thus expressing the idea: ‘‘ Nulla erit satietas vitae aeternae,” Calovius. 
This is the meaning also of Luther’s translation; ‘‘ without ceasing” (Vulgate, 
non deficientes); comp. Estius. 








CHAP. VI. 10. 335 


— commencement, but here he would have fully preserved the 
emphasis of uy éxr., if instead of dpa ovv he had written 
merely ovv, or merely dpa. 

Ver. 10. Concluding exhortation of the section of the epistle 
which began at ver. 6, inferred from the preceding xaip@ yap 
die Oepicomey py a. (dpa ovv). The specialty of this ex- 
hortation lies in @s xatpov. éyowev, which is therefore em- 
phatically prefixed: as we have a season suitable thereto (for 
instances of xaipov éyew, opportunum tempus habere, see Wet- - 
stein). This seasonable time will have elapsed, when the 
mwapovoia sets in; we must therefore utilize it as ours by the 
épyateo Oat To ayabov, The same idea as the é£ayopdfecOai r. 
xatpov in Eph. v.16; Col. iv. 5. Hofmann introduces the 
idea, that there will come for the Christians, even before the 
Tapovoia, an “hour of temptation,’ in which they can only (?) 
withstand evil, but not bestow good one on another. This idea 
is In opposition to the context in ver. 9, and is nowhere else 
expressed ; and its introduction rests on the incorrect expla- 
nation of épydt. +d dyaGov as referring to beneficence, and on 
the wrong idea that the deing good will become impossible. — 
ws is the usual as, that is, as corresponds with and is suitable 
to this cirewmstance, that we Kxatpov éyouev. Comp. Luke xii. 
58; John xii. 35; Clement, 2 Cor. 9: ws éyouey xatpov 
tod tabnvat, ériddpev éavtovs T@ Oepatrevovtt Oe@. Others, 
likewise retaining the signification “as,” interpret: prout 
habemus opportunitatem, that is, when and how we have 
opportunity. Thus Knatchbull, Homberg, Wolf, Zachariae, 
Hilgenfeld. For this, indeed,-no conditional adv would be 
necessary ; but how weak and lax would be the injunction! 
Besides, xarpov has obtained, by means of ver. 9, its quite de- 
. finite reference. Others take ws as causal (Heindorf, ad Gorg. 
p. 113; Matthiae, p.1511). So Koppe, Paulus, Usteri (because 
we have time and opportunity), de Wette ; also Winer, who, 
however, does not decide between guoniam and prout. But 
@s, in the sense of because, is nowhere to be found in Paul’s 
writings (not even in 2 Tim.i. 3). Most expositors explain it 
as so long as (so Flatt, Riickert, Matthies, Schott, Olshausen), 
which, however, it never means, not even in Luke xii. 58. — 
to a@yabov] the morally good, not the useful (Olshausen). Not 


336 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS, 


merely the article, but also the use of the expression by Paul, 
in definite connection with épyafeoGar, as applying to morality 
active in works (Rom. 11.10; Eph. iv. 28), ought to have 
prevented the interpretation of ro d@yaOov, at variance with 
the context, as benefits (Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, Estius, and 
many others, including Schott, de Wette, and Wieseler). 
Hofmann’s interpretation (“do good towards others”), in more 
general terms evading the definite idea, amounts to the same 
thing. The dayafov in this passage is the same as TO Kandov 
in ver. 9. That which is good is also that which is morally 
beautiful. Comp. especially Rom. vii. 18 f. — zpos] in relation 
to, in intercourse with . see Winer, p. 378 f. [E. T. 505]; Sturz, 
Lex, Xen. III. p.698 ; Bernhardy, p. 265. — rods oixelous ris 
miotews| the associates in the faith, believers. oixetos, primarily 
_. inmate of the house, comes to be used generally in the sense of 
special appertaining to (comp. LXX. Isa. lviii. 7), without fur- 
ther reference to the idea of a house. So with the genitive 
of an abstract noun, as oixetor durocodias (Strabo, I. p. 13 B), 
yearypadias (Strabo, I. p. 25 A.), odvyapyias (Diod. Sic. xiii. 91), 
and the like in Wetstein, p. 236 ; Schweigh. Lex Polyd. p. 401. 
Comp. Ta THs aperhs oixeta, 2 Macc. xv. 12; ra tis picews 
oixeia, Dem. 1117.25. The wiéotis is the Christian faith ; those 
who belong to it are the worevovres. The opposite would be: 
Tovs aAXoTplous THs mot. The idea that the church is the 
otxos Oeod (1 Tim. iii 15; Heb. iii 2, v. 6, x. 21; 1 Pet. iv. 
17) is improperly introduced here, in order to obtain the sense: 
“qui per fidem sunt in eadem atque nos familia Domini” (Beza ; 
comp. Estius, Michaelis, and others, also Schott and Olshausen, 
Wieseler, and Ewald, who limits the idea to the same church). 
For tis wiotews conveys the complete definition of ovs 
oixelous ; and the sense mentioned above must have been ex- — 
pressed by some such form as Tovds qpav oixeious THs TicTEws 
(comp. Phil. ii. 30, e¢ al. ; Winer, p. 180, rem. 3 [E, T. 239)). 
Paul might also simply have written mpds tods miorevovtas ; 
but the expression oixelovs 7. a. suggests a stronger mote. 
Among the zrécz, in relation to whom we have to put into 
operation the morally good, those who belong to the faith have 
' the chief claims—because these claims are based on the special 
sacred duty of fellowship which it involves—in preference tO 


CHAP. VI. 11, 337 


those who are strangers to the faith, although in respect even 
to the latter that conduct is to be observed which is required 
in Col. iv. 5, 1 Thess, iv. 12. 


Note. —If the reading épyaZéueba (see the critical notes), 
which is followed by Ewald, were the original one, the indica- 
tive would not (with Winer in his Commentary, but not in his 
Gramm. p. 267 [E. T. 355]) have to be taken as a stronger and 
more definite expression instead of the hortative subjunctive (do 
we therefore the good), since this use of the present indicative 
(Jacobs, ad Ach. Tat. p. 559, ad Delect. epigr. p. 228 ; Heindorf, 
‘ad Gorg. p. 109; Bernhardy, p. 396) in non-interrogative lan- 
guage (John xi. 47) is foreign to the N. T., although opportuni- 
ties for it often presented themselves. The interpretation of 
the whole sentence as an interrogation has been rightly given 
up by Lachmann (also at Rom. xiv. 19), because so complete an 
interruption by a question does not occur elsewhere in Paul’s 
writings, and the addition pwarsmwra 3d: apis rode oixeioug rig 
aicrews indicates that the passage is of the nature of an asser- 
tion, and not of a question. épydéZouela rd &yadsv would rather 
represent the matter as actually taking place (we do 2t, we hold 
at so, it is our maxim), and would thus belong to the ideal deli- 
neation of Christian life common with the apostle; which might 
indeed be highly appropriate in its place at the conclusion of 
a discourse as a note of triumph, but here, in immediate con- 
nection with mere exhortations and injunctions, would be some- 
what out of place. 


Vv. 11-18. Final section of the epistle in the apostle’s own 
handwriting. The main points of controversy are here briefly 
summed up: then in ver. 17 a repetition of molestations is 
deprecated, and ver. 18 concludes with the farewell blessing. 

Ver. 11. Not “an odd verse,” the purport of which is “a 
singular whim” (Usteri): on the contrary, in accordance with 
his well-known manner in other passages (1 Cor. xvi. 21; 
Col. iv. 18; 2 Thess. ii. 17), Paul adds to the letter, which up 
to this point he had dictated (comp. Rom. xvi. 22), the conelusion 
from ver. 11 onward in his own handwriting." By means of 
these autograph endings the epistles indicated their authentic 
character. See 2 Thess. ii. 2, iii 17. But this close of our 
epistle, as stringently comprehending all its main points once 

1 From 2 Thess. iii. 17 it is to be assumed that Paul closed all his epistles 
with his own hand, even when he does not expressly say 80, 

4 





338 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


more, was intended to catch the eyes of the readers as some- 
thing so specially wmportant, that from ver. 12 to the end the 
apostle wrote it with very large letters, just as we, in writing 
and printing, distinguish by letters of a larger size anything 
that we wish to be considered as peculiarly significant. To 
this point, and consequently to the quite special importance 
of the addition now made at the end, not by the hand of the 
amanuensis, but by his own hand in large writing, Paul calls 
the attention of his readers, and says: “See with how great 
letters I have written (the sequel, from ver. 12) to you with my 
own hand!” Neither tere (in opposition to Riickert and 
Schott) nor éypaya (in opposition to Usteri) is at variance 
with the reference to what follows; for Paul, following the 
custom of letter-writers, has in his mind not the present 
point of time, when he is just about to write, but the point of 
time, when his readers have received the letter and conse- 
quently sce what and how he has written (Philem. 19, 21; 1 
John ii. 14,21; Acts xv. 27, xxiii 30, Rom. xvi. 22; Thue. 
1. 1 in.; Isocr. ad Demonic. in.). Just in the same way in 
’ Philem. 19, éypayra 77H éuH yeipi points to what follows. In 
keeping with this is the similarly common use of éreuwa, 
“respectu habito temporis, quo alter donum accipiebat ;” 
Kiihner, ad Xen. Anab. i. 9. 25; comp. Kriiger, § 53. 10. 1. 
Holsten, Voemel, Matthias, Windischmann, Reithmayr, agree 
with our view. Grotius also (“sua manu scripsit omnia, quae 
jam sequuntur”’), Studer, and Laurent refer the words to what 
follows. Grotius, however, contrary to the wsus loguendt, ex- 
plains mnAlcors as how much, thus making Paul call attention 
to the length of his autograph conclusion ;-and Studer under- 
stands it as referring to the wnshapeliness of the letters (in 
opposition to this, see below); whilst Laurent (in the Stud. wu. 
Krit. 1864, p. 644 ff, and in his newt. Stud. p. 125. 5), 


1 The principal emphasis is on the word wnAixos, which is therefore placed 
apart; the secondary stress lies on +7 iH spi. It may, however, be doubtful 
whether Paul wrote merely ver. 12 with larger letters, and the sequel with his 
own hand but in his ordinary mode of writing, or whether he continued the 
large characters down to ver. 16 or to ver. 18. The internal connection of vv. 
12-16, the uniform solemn tone of these verses down to their solemn conclusion, 
and the abrupt character of ver. 17, all unite in inducing us to adopt the second 
view. 








CHAP. VI. 11. 339 


against the signification of the word, adheres to the qualibus 
of the Vulgate, and is of opinion that Paul wrote this conclu- 
sion of the letter in the cursive character. Usually, however 
(as also by Ewald, Wieseler, Hofmann), ver. 11 is referred 
to the whole epistle, which Paul -had written with his own 
hand,’ wnAlkots being explained (with Chrysostom, Theodoret, 
Theophylact, Oecumenius, Cajetanus, Estius, Winer, Riickert, 
Usteri, Hilgenfeld) as referring to the unshapeliness of the letters,’ 
arising from want of practice in writing Greek; or mnvik. 
ypaup. being explained as: what a large letter I have written 
to you. So most expositors, including de Wette and Hofmann. 
But against this latter view—although the epistle, notwith- 
standing 1 Pet. v. 12, Heb. xiii. 22, would no doubt be long 
enough for an autograph one—may be urged the very use 


1 In adopting this view various grounds have been guessed for its autograph 
composition. Pelagius: ‘‘ that Paul desired to show that he was not afraid!” 
Ambrosiaster, comp. Augustine and Michaelis: ‘‘that-he desired to prove the 
genuineness of the epistle.”” Chrysostom (who, moreover, assumes in addition the 
cause assigned by Pelagius), Luther, Calvin, Calovius, and many others: ‘‘ that 
his intention was to show the Galatians his earnest care for them, to make them 
attentive in reading, and the like.” MHilgenfeld: ‘“‘that he attached so much 
importance to the epistle.”” Ewald: ‘‘that Timothy had not been with him just 
at the time when he composed the epistle; and he thus wished, in the postscript 
written at a somewhat later period, to make excuse for the large inelegant letters 
in which the epistle had been written.” Hofmann: ‘‘ that the autograph writing 
was intended éo bring the apostle as it were vividly before the eyes of his readers.” 
Hofmann is also of opinion that Paul hed not elsewhere written with his own 
hand, that he might not needlessly curtail the time for proctring his bodily 
maintenance. As if the dictating to the pen of another would not have involved 
just as much loss of time! Tertius and Timothy were hardly shorthand writers. 
Or is Paul supposed to have been occupied in tent-making during the time when 
he was dictating his letters, which presuppose so much abstraction and concen- 
tration of mental labour ? 

* This is not, as is often stated, the view of Jerome, who, on the contrary, 
specifies this view only to reject it, and assumes that down to ver. 11 the 
epistle was written by the amanuensis, but after ver. 11 by Paul himself in very 
large characters, in order that his readers should recognise his genuine hand- 
writing and at the same time his solicitous care for them. Jerome there- 
fore comes nearest to our view, but introduces into the x#Aixos purposes which 
have no natural connection with the largeness of the characters, and could not, 
without further intimation, have been understood by the reader. Theodore of 
Mopsuestia explains it better, likewise understanding wnAixess ype mpaosy correctly 
(usiZonr ixpicare ypdupaciy), and specifying as Paul’s object that he, «iares 
nabiwriclas rey isevriwy, Wished to intimate that he neither ipubpsg otes apyira: re 
Asyopesree. 


340 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


which it assumes of ypdupuata for émiorods}, since Paul else- 
where always calls an epistle émioroAy (1 Cor. v. 9, xvi 3; 
2 Cor. iii. 1 f., x. 10; 2 Thess. ii. 2, iii. 14, 17); and, on the 
other hand, he just as constantly uses the word ypaypa, in 
the singular (Rom. ii. 27, 29, vii. 6; 2 Cor iii. 6) and plural 
(2 Cor. iii. 7), to express the idea of a letter of the alphabet ; 
and also the decisive consideration that the employment of the 
dative (instrum.) instead of the accusative (Acts xxiii. 25 ; Rom. 
xvi. 22; 2 Pet. iii, 1) would be quite in opposition to all 
usage.” The dative would only be suitable if, instead of éyparra, 
mapexadeca perhaps, or some suitable word, followed. Against 
the former interpretation, which refers the word to the wnshape- 
liness of the letters, it may be urged that the idea of apuopdia 
is arbitrarily introduced into wnAixots, as this quality is by no 
means an essential characteristic of /arge letters ; secondly, that 
the charge of want of practice in writing Greek cannot be 
proved. The native of Tarsus and Roman citizen, who from 
his youth had enjoyed a learned training in Jerusalem, where 
the Greek language was very current among the Jews (see 
Hug, Finl. II. § 10)—the man who handled with so much 
delicacy and skill the Greek literary language, who was fami- 
liar with the works of the Greek poets (see on Acts xvii. 28), 
and who was in constant intercourse with Greek Jews and 
Gentiles,—is it to be thought that such an one should not 
have possessed even the humble attainment of writing Greek 
without making the letters of an unshapely size? In Wieseler’s 

1 Taking the word by itself, there can be no doubt that ypéppue (scriptum, 
2 Tim. iii. 15, John v. 47) may, according to the context, mean epistle, so that in 
the plural it would denote epistolae (Acts xxviii. 21, and often in Greek authors), 
but may also apply to a single epistle. Thus, for instance, Thuc. vii. 8. 3, where 
issoroaH is used shortly before; Xen. Cyr. iv. 5. 26, where éw:eroas occurs im- 
mediately after; Xen. Eph. ii. 5 and Locella in loc. Comp. also Luke xvi. 6; 
1 Mace. iv. 10, 14; Ignat. Rom. 8, ad Polyc. 7. 

* Quite irrelevantly Hofmann compares the usage of combining a verb with 
the abstract noun derived from it in the dative (Buttmann, newt. Gr. p. 159) ; 
and just as irrelevantly the expresssion siwsis Aéye, Matt. viii. 8 (see on this 
passage), Luke vii. 7. Not even that use of siwsiv Aéyw, in which it may denote 
to deliver as an orator (Kriiger on Thuc. i. 22. 1), would here be analogous. Only 
such phrases as, €.g., xpurois ypdupacs ypaguy, to write with golden letters, Lucian. 
Alex. 48; psytaos ypdup. &vaypégss, to write down in large letters, Gymn. 22; 
ypeppaci ‘EAAnwxoss, Luke xxiii. 88, Elz.; Qesxiois ypdup., Soph. Fragm. 
460 D, really correspond. 


CHAP, VI.12  - 341 


view, the large letters were very legible (for the public reading of 
the epistle); and in calling attention to this circumstance, Paul 
desires to bring into prominence his great love for his readers, 
which shuns no trouble on their account. But even thus the 
matter would amount only to a trifle. The Galatians were in 
possession of far greater proofs of his love than the size of the 
characters in his own handwriting, which, besides, might be 
something very. different from legibility. | 

Ver. 12.’ All those whose wish and will are directed to making 
a fair show in the flesh, that is, to the having a specious 
appearance, while they are involved in fleshly habits,—+this 
class of men force circumcision upon you, and they do so solely 
for the reason that they may not bring on themselves persecution 
on account of the cross of Christ. This persecution they would 
incur on the part of the Jews, if they preached the cross of 
Christ and at the same time reected circumcision ; whereas, 
by insisting on circumcision, they disarmed the zeal of the Jews 
for the law (comp. on v. 11), and removed from the cross of 
Christ all occasion of their experiencing persecution for it 
(note the critically correct position of the y). In order to 
understand the passage rightly, we must note that the emphasis 
is on evrpocwrnoat (not on év capxi): they desire to combine 
a pleasing extertor with an unspiritual, carnal state of life, in 
which they really are. Thus is characterized the hypocritical 
conduct of these people, whose jesuitry makes them resemble 
the radous xexoviapévors (Matt. xxiii. 27; comp. Acts xxiii. 3). 
Comp. 2 Cor. v.12. So many as belong to this dissembling 
class, they constrain you to be circumcised ! — edmrpoowmos] 
speciosus facie, sometimes applied to actual beauty of person 
(as Xen. Mem. 1. 3. 10), and sometimes to a mere specious 
appearance (as Herod. vii. 168 ; Dem. 277.4; Lucian. Herm. 
51), is very commonly used among Greek authors (comp. Gen. 
xii. 11); but evpoowrrety is not preserved elsewhere in the 
literary language. In Dion. Hal. iii. 11 we find evwrpocwzia ; 
in Symmachus, Ps. cxli. 6, esrpoowricbncav. Comp. pawormpo- 
corey, Cic. Att. vil. 21, xiv. 21; ceuvomrpocwrreiv, Arist. Nub. 
363. — év capxr] is the element of the sinful nature of man 


1 As to vv. 12-16, see the excursus of Holsten, z. Evang. d. Paul u. Petr. 
343 ff. 





342 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


(ver. 8, iii, 3, v. 17), in which, instead of being renewed and 
refined by the Holy Spirit, those hypocrites are found living, 
and at the same time endeavour to give to themselves a good 
colouring which would prepossess the opinion of others in their 
favour. The juxtaposition of the words, “to look fair in the 
flesh,” reveals the moral contradiction in their nature, and 
delineates their whole portraiture, as if with one sharp touch, 
indignantly, vigorously, and appropriately. The words are 
usually explained: “those who desire to be well-pleasing by 
means of outward carnal things, such as circumcision and the 
observance of the ceremonial law generally,” Riickert; comp. 
Beza, Gomarus, Koppe, Rosenmiiller, Winer, Usteri, Matthies, 
Schott, Olshausen, and others. Of course ev capxi might, ex 
adjuncto, obtain the sense, by means of circumcision and observ- 
ance of the law (comp. Rom. ii. 28); but in this passage the 
context suggests no ground for thinking of anything else than 
that which was just shortly before meant by odp€, in the contrast 
drawn between odp£ and mvedua. Comp. Wieseler. And how 
feeble and inexpressive, when placed at the commencement of 
so energetic a passage, would be the description of.the mis- 
leaders which this interpretation would yield! Holsten in- 
terprets in a similar way, but developes the sense more 
accurately, and takes éy capxi as the sphere in which the 
evmrp. manifests itself, “all who desire a fair show in the fleshly 
domain ;” this applies in the concrete to circumcision, which 
could have true significance only as a sign of inward right- 
eousness (Rom. i. 25 f.), but to which these persons adhered 
“for us fair show of righteousness.” But it is not until ver. 
13 that capé& obtains its reference in harmony with the text 
to circumcision ; in respect to which, moreover, the idea, that 
circumcision is the seal of righteousness, is not at all intimated 
in the connection of our passage. Lastly, Chrysostom and 
his successors, Erasmus, Calvin, Estius, Grotius, and others, 
have assigned to év capx/ the unmeaning sense rap’ avOpwrrois; 
and Hofmann has arrived at the trifling interpretation, that 
the idea meant was “a pleasing cheerfulness of outward 
appearance, springing from and testifying to a natural amia- 
bility, to which the opponents of the apostle aspired: they 
would fain appear with the expression of natural amiability.” 


OHAP, VI. 13. 343 


Thus the description of the opponents placed at the head of 
this final outburst, so full of holy severity and indignation, 
would simply amount to the assertion of an amiable bonhommie 
by which ‘they were impelled. Holsten justly designates this 
view as inconceivable. — avayxafovow] they are occupied with, 
busy themselves in, forcing circumcision upon you. See Bern- 
hardy, p. 370. As to the idea of dvayxaf see on Matt. xiv. 


"22. Comp. ii 3, 14. — povov iva] merely from the (self- 


interested) motive, that they, etc. — tT@ oravp@ tod Xpictov] 
that is, on accownt of the cross of Christ, because they preach 
Christ as crucified. The instrumental dative denotes the cause 
of the persecution. See Rom. xi 20; 2 Cor. ii. 12; Bernhardy, 
p. 101 f.; Winer, p. 202 f. [E. T. 270}. So most expositors, 
including Riickert, Matthies, Usteri, Schott, Olshausen, Baum- 
garten-Crusius, Hilgenfeld, Wieseler, Hofmann. But. others 
explain the words according to the idea of the wa@npara 
Xpiorod (see on 2 Cor. i. 5; Col. i 24): “ne participes fiant 
suppliciorum Christi,’ Winer; comp. Jerome, Luther, Grotius, 
Semler, Michaelis, Koppe, Morus, de Wette, Ewald. The 
evident reference to v. 11° is decidedly opposed to this inter- 
pretation, even apart from the singular nature of the idea r@ 
ctaup@ Swxec8a (Paul would have written tats OrApeoe or 
the like). | 

Ver. 13. They have no other design than merely that pea 
in ver, 12 (wa 76 ctavp@ «.7.r.). For so far from its being 
their aim, by the enforcement of circumcision, to re-establish 
the observance of the law among you, not even the circumcised 
(who ate in question) themselves, for their own part, keep the 
law, but Se avOpwrivny dirotipiay tadta mavra yiveras irrép 
apeckeias THY atiotwyv, Chrysostom. — ot mepiretpnpévot] is 
said contemptuously, and with indignation, of the fraternity 


of the false apostles, of whom it might at least have been 


1 Holsten holds the peculiar view, that what is in v. 11 expressed objectively, 


"receives here a subjective turn: ‘‘in order that they (those who are offended) should 


no more be persecuted through (the offence at) the cross.” The eraupes x. X. had, 
in his view, been to the Jewish Christians an obscure point, and in presence of 
the Pauline churches a painful wound, by the recollection of which they were, in 
a metaphorical sense, persecuted. But what plain reader would have been able 
to unriddle a sense so enigmatically wrapped up—a sense which Paul might 
easily have expressed in clear words ? 


344 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


expected that they themselves would combine obedience to 
the law with their being circumcised.’ Comp. Stallbaum, ad 
Euthyphr. p. 12; Fritzsche, ad Mare. p.613. But the ground 
for their non-observance of the Mosaic law is conceived by 
Paul to be, neither their distance from Jerusalem (Theodoret 
and others; also Schott), nor the general impossibility of a 
complete fulfilment of the law (Jerome, Estius ; comp. Uster1), 
—-both of which would be exculpatory, and wholly unsuited 
to the idea of the worthlessness of the persons concerned,— 
but the hypocritical badness of these people (comp. ver. 12). It 


1 As at any rate the false teachers are meant, and these were Jewish Christians, 
the reading wsp:rspevéusves is plainly absurd. They were, in fact, not subjected to 
circumcision (Reithmayr), but circumcised, and could not therefore be desig- 
nated, ‘‘ according to their quality as Jews” (Moeller on de Wette), as wsps- 
esprvopsves (present). See especially Reiche, p. 93. The idea that these people 
were formerly Gentiles, part of whom were still on the point of accepting circum- 
cision, and that their adherents are included (de Wette), is quite as unhistorical 
(see Acts xv. 1,5; 2 Cor. xi. 22; Acts xi. 20-22) as the makeshift of Hilgenfeld 
is groundless : that among those false teachers (‘‘ the circumcision-people”) the 
act of circumcision had still continued, not merely outwardly in the reception 
of the newly-born and proselytes (in that case Paul must have said of waprip- 
vevrts), but also inwardly, by virtue of the significance ascribed to it. In his 
Zeitachr. 1860, p. 220, Hilgenfeld appeals to of xspsrsuveusves in the Act. Petr. et 
Pauli, 63; but wrongly, because there (see the sequel) the subject is moral 
circumcision. The view of Neander is also mistaken, p. 366. According to 
Wieseler and Matthias, who likewise read wsprsuvipsyo:, the wsprspvopsvos Were 
those among the Galatian Gentile Christians, who, led away by the pseudo- 
apostles, allowed themselves to be circumcised. In that case we must with these 
expositors make the seducers themselves, the pseudo-apostles, the subject of 
Gireverr. But this view is intolerable ; how could Paul enable the reader to 
guess this change of subject? The subject of gvadee. must also be the subject 
of ¢éaovesv, or else Paul must have written as awkwardly as possible. Conse- 
quently the subject of both the verbs can only be the false apostles, who, how- 
ever, Were wsprarynpivos, and not wtprsyeveesve:. — Hofmann and Holsten are of 
opinion that the present participle is intended to denote the Jews generally, 
inasmuch as circumcision was in use among them. Against this view it may 
be decisively urged, that the subjects of the following éiacve can be no other 
than of xspsrspreusve, and thus likewise the Israelites generally (as Hofmann 
consistently explains it); nevertheless these éirevess (ver. 13) must necessarily 
be the very same as those to whom the éiaevew in ver. 12 applies, and therefore 
not the Jews generally, but the Judaistic adversaries. Moreover, to these only 
is the ot3i, not even, suitable, which presupposes in those concerned a higher 
degree of obligation than in the case of others who were bound to obey the 
law. The forced expedient of Holsten is highly arbitrary : that Paul included 
the false teachers (consequently, according to our reading and interpretation, 
the wsprsryneives) in the category of those circumcising themselves (and there- 
fore the aspsrsgevopesves). 


CHAP. VI. 14. 345 


is true that, amongst the Jews generally, notwithstanding their 
self-conceit, there was a deficiency in their obedience to the 
law (Rom. ii. 17-23); but an observance of the law might 
have been expected at all events from these mrepurerunpévot, 
who were such champions for circumcision and insisted on it 
so much (ver. 12). Yet not even they themselves, etc. — va év 
TH tper. capxi kavy,] The odp£ is not to be here taken again 
in an ethical sense, as in ver. 12 (Wieseler, comp. Ewald) ; but, 
according to the close and- definite connection with mepitépu- 
veoOat, it must be taken as referring to the corporeal nature, 
so far as it is in it that circumcision takes place (Eph. ii 11; 
Col. ii. 13). The emphasis is, however, on dperépa ;* hence 
Olshausen is the more wrong in finding a contrast—which is 
quite out of place here—to the souls, which those false teachers 
ought to have sought after. The antithetic element of 77 
vue. lies in the conceit of the mepurerunpévos as to their own 
circumcision, as the correlate of ‘which the circumcision of the 
Galatian Gentile Christians, to be effected by them, was to be 
the subject of their boasting. But this sentence of purpose 
is parallel to the tva t@ otavp@ x.t.X. contained in ver. 12, 
seeing that the pseudo-apostles in fact by this intended boast- 


ing—of their diffusion of theocratic Judaism by the circum- 


cision of Gentile Christians which they procured—thought to 
avert the persecutions of the Jews; .Theophylact: iva év te 
KaTaKkoTTew tiv opetépay cdpxa KavynowvtTat as SiddoKados 
Yuov Kal palnras bpds éxovres. It is a xavyaoOat, in the 
face not of heathenism (Holsten), but of the non-Christian 
Judaism, from whose side the persecution on account of the 
cross of Christ (ver. 12) was threatened. 

Ver. 14. By way of contrast, not to the national vanity of 
the Jews (Hofmann, in accordance with his interpretation of 
ver. 13), but to the xavyacGas which the pseudo-apostles had 
in view, Paul now presents his own principle: “ from me, on the 
other hand, far be it to glory, except only in the cross of Christ.” 
— €uoi pi yévouro Kavy.] mihi ne accidat, ut glorier. On this 
deprecating expression with the ‘infinitive, comp. LXX. Gen. 

1 Not on eapxi (Matthias, Holsten), as if Paul had written +# capx) ipar. 


Comp. 2 Cor. viii. 8, Rom. xi. 31, 1 Cor. xv. 31, where the pronoun, rarely 
used by Paul, is likewise emphatic. 


346 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


xliv. 7,17; Josh. xxii. 29, xxiv. 16; 1 Macc. xiii 5, 9, 10; 
Ignat. Eph. 12; Xen. Cyr. vi. 3.11: & Zed péyiore, \aBeiv 
pot yévouto avrov, Anab. i. 9..18; Dem. xxxiii 25 ; Ellendt, 
Lex. Soph. I. p. 366. — In the words «¢ pa) &y re cravp@ 
down to «dcp, observe the defiant enthusiasm, which mani- 
fests itself even in the fulness of the expression. How very 
different the conduct of the opponents, according to ver. 12! 
Nothing but the cross of Christ 1s to be the subject of Azs 
xavyaoOa ; nothing, namely, but the redemption accomplished 
on the cross by Christ constituted the basis, the sum, and the 
divine certainty of his faith, life, hope, action, etc. Comp. Phil. 
iii. 7 ff; 2 Cor. v.15 ff; 1 Cor. i 23, ii 2, ef al. Thus it is 
a truly apostolic oxymoron: xavyacOa: ev t@ otavp@. The 
cross is “70 xavynya Tov Kavynpdtwr,” Cyril — S0 ob enol 
Koapos eoTavp. Kvy® T@ Koop] reveals the cause why he may 
not glory in anything else: “through whom the world is crucified 
to me, and I (sc. éotavpwyar) unto the world,” that is, “ by 
whose crucifixion is produced the result, that no internal fel- 
lowship of life longer exists between me and the world : it is 
dead for me, and I for it.” By Calvin, Bengel, Winer, Usteri, 
Hofmann, Holsten, Matthias, Reithmayr, and others, dv od is 
referred to the cross. But it is more pertinent to refer it to 
the fully and triumphantly expressed subject immediately 
preceding, tod xupiov juav Incod Xpioctod (Vulgate, Erasmus, 
Beza, Luther, and many others, including de Wette, Ewald, 
Wieseler): through whom, that is, according to the context, by 
means of whose crucifixion. This effect is dependent on the 
inward fellowship with the death of Christ (u. 19 f.; Rom. vi) 
commenced by faith, and maintained by the Holy Spirit. By 
this fellowship Paul is transplanted into an entirely new rela- 
tion of life, and feels that all the previous interests of his life 
are now stripped of their influence over him, and that he is | 
now completely independent of them. “Comp. Phil. iii. 7 ff — 
éuot| for me, denotes the ethical reference of the relation. See 
Bernhardy, p. 84.——xdopos (without the article; see Winer, 
p. 117 [E. T. 153]) finds its explanation from ver. 15 (otre 
mepitopn, ovTe axpoBvotia), namely, the organic totality of all 
relations aloof from Christianity, looked upon, indeed, as a 
living power, which exercises authority and sway over the 


CHAP. VI. 15. 347 


unconverted, but in the case of the converted has become dead | 


through his admission into the fellowship of faith and. life with 
the crucified Lord; that is, has ceased to influence and deter- 
mine his thoughts, feelings, and actions. Thus the world is 
crucified to him by means of the crucifixion of Christ. Comp. 
Col. ii, 20; Eph. ii. 2f.; 1 Cor. vii. 31, 33, 34; Jas. iv. 


4; 1 John i 15 f. — cane T® Koope] for the cessation of 


the mutual fellowship of life is meant to be expressed, and the 
matter to be thus wholly exhausted. Comp. 1 Cor. vi. 13; 
2 Thess. i. 12; “nec malis illius territor, nec commodis titillor, 
nec odium metuo, nec plausum moror, nec ignominiam formido, 
nec gloriam affecto,” Erasmus, Paraphr. 

Ver. 15. I'ép] introduces an explanatory reason assigned, not 
for the xavyao Gat év T@ otavp@ (Hofmann, Matthias, Reithmayr, 
and others), which has already received its full explanation in 
the relative sentence &v of «.7.X., but for the just expressed dv’ 
ov é“ol Koopos «.7.A. This relation of his to the world cannot 
indeed, according to the axiom otre mepetouy «.7.Xr., be other 
than that so expressed. In justification of this reference of 
yap, observe that reptrouyn and dxpoBvoria comprehend the two 
categories of worldly relations apart from Christianity, which had 
go prominently re-asserted themselves in those very Galatian 
disturbances (comp. v. 6). or neither circumcision availeth, 
nor uncircumcision, but a new creature:' that is, “ for it is a 
matter of indifference whether one is circumcised or uncir- 
cumcised; and the only matter of importance is, that one 
should be created anew, transferred into a new, spiritual con- 
dition of life.” As to the form and idea of xaw7 xriows, see 
on 2 Cor. v.17. As characteristics of the xawn kriots, we 
find, according to ii. 20, the & && éy duol Xpioros; accord- 
ing to iii. 27, the “having put on Christ ;” according to v. 6, 
. wioris Sv aydtns évepyoupévn ; according to Eph. 1. 10, the 
mepitrately év Epos ayabois ; and according to 1 Cor. vii. 19, 
thpnots éevtrodwv Geod. In the new man (Col. ii. 10), Christ 


1 It is stated by Syncell. Chron. p. 27 (ed. Bonn, p. 48), and Phot. Amphil. 
183, that Paul derived this utterance from the apocryphal Apocalypsis Mosis. 
It is possible that the same thought occurred in that book ; but it is certain 
that Paul: derived it from his own inmost consciousness. It may have passed 
from our passage into the avoxdavyis Mwiotws. Comp. Liicke, Hint. in d. Offend. 
Joh. I. p. 232 f. 





348 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


determines all things; the new man is ovpduros tis ava- 
oraoews of Christ (Rom. vi. 5), set free by the Spirit from the 
law of sin and of death (Rom. viii 2), a child and heir of God 
(Rom. viii. 16 f.). That this principle, moreover, was that of 
the Christian point of view, was self-evident to the reader ; 
without again adding ey Xpior@ ’Incod, as in v. 6 (see the 
critical remarks), Paul has rendered this Christian axiom the 
more striking by setting it down in an absolute form. It stands 
here as his concluding signal .of triumph. 

Ver. 16. The heart, full of the great truth in ver. 15, has 
now a wish of blessing for all who follow it in their conduct. 
The simple and, carrying on the train of thought and linking 
it with ver. 15, serves to express this wish. A reference to 
ver. 14, so as to connect our verse with the wish therein con- 
tained (Hofmann), is not required by «a/, and is forbidden by 
the importance of ver. 15, which would in that case have to 
be reduced to a mere parenthetical insertion. —- The em- 
phasis lies not on rovr@, but on t& xavove (comp. on 1 Cor. 
xv. 19); for it is the very canonical character of the saying in 
ver. 15 which has to be brought out: “ who shall walk accord- 
ing to the guiding line, which is herein given.” We are pro- 
hibited from assigning to caver the non-literal meaning rule, 
maxim (as is usually done; see Schott in loc.), by the figurative 
orovynoovow, which requires the literal meaning guiding line 
(2 Cor. x. 13 ff), that is, in this passage, a line defining, the 
direction of the way; as such, the maxim expressed in ver. 15 
is placed before them. As to orovyeiv, comp. on v. 25. The 
anacoluthic nominative 600. «.7.A. has rhetorical emphasis, 
directing the whole attention of the readers first to the sub- 
ject in itself which is under discussion. Comp. on Matt. vii. . 
24, x. 14; John i 12; Acts vii. 40. The future otoryne. 
(comp. v. 10) applies to the time of receiving the letter (comp. 
tov dowtrov, ver. 17). Paul hopes that the letter will have a 
converting and strengthening effect upon many readers, but 
makes the question, who should be warranted in applying to 
himself the concluding blessing, depend on the result. — 
cipfun em’ abrods Kab-&deos] se. ln} welfare (mde; see on 


1 Taken as a wish of blessing, the thought harmonizes more naturally with 
the conclusion of the epistle, than if it is taken as an afirmation (de Wette, tera: 


CHAP. VI. 16, 349 


Eph. vi. 23; John xiv. 27) on them, and mercy (Tittm. Synon. 
p. 69f). Comp. 1 Tim.i. 2; 2 Tim. i 2; Jude 2; 2 John 
3, in which passages éAcos stands first.’ Here it follows after, 
not because Paul intended at first to write eip#vn only (so, 
arbitrarily, Olshausen), nor because in éAcos he had specially 
in view the day of judgment (Hofmann), which indeed is ex- 
pressly added in 2 Tim. i, 18, but because he has thought of 
the effect produced before the producing cause. What wel- 
fare it is that Paul wishes—namely, all Messianic welfare— 
is obvious of itself. The peace of reconciliation forms a part 
of it. eos is, moreover, to be considered as neuter, because | 
Paul throughout so uses it (even in Tit. iii. 5 it is neuter, 
according to decisive testimony); although the neuter form, 
which very often occurs in the LXX., is but very rarely found 
in classical authors, See Dindorf, ad Diod. iii. 18; Kiihner, 
I. p. 396, c. ed. 2. — In én’ adrovs is implied the idea that 
-welfare and mercy come down upon them from heaven. 
Comp. Luke ii. 25, 40, iv. 18; 2 Cor. xii. 9; Mark i 10; 
Acts xix. 6, e¢ al. — nat éri tov ‘Iopanr tod Ocot] That this 
is @ reminiscence of Ps. cxxv. 5, cxxviii. 6 (Theophylact, 
Erasmus, and others; also Riickert, Schott, de Wette, Reiche), 
could only be assumed without dealing arbitrarily, if, instead | 
of xat émt tov ’Iop. rod Ocod, Paul had written: elpjvn émi 
tov ’IopanX! which, after the instruction given by him in 
iv. 21 ff, he might have written without any danger of misun- 
derstanding. Still less can the expression be referred to Ps. 
lxxu. 1; for which purpose Hofmann employs an impossible 
interpretation of the Hebrew text of the passage. The Israel 
of God, that is, as contrasted with Jacob’s bodily descendants 
as such (comp. Rom. ix. 6; 1 Cor. x. 18; Phil. iii.-3), the 
Israelites who belong to God as His own, and therefore form the 
real people of God ideally viewed (comp. also John i. 48), are 
at any rate the true Christians: But according as xaé is taken 


or isviy), Chrysostom and Theophylact appear to have supplied isra:; but 
Theodoret takes it as wish: iwnvSaco viv tAsov x. rhv sipnyny. 

1 Not the Jews (Morus), nor even the pious Jews,—those, namely, who have 
not rejected the gospel out of stubbornness, and permit the hope of their coming 
to recognise the rule expressed in ver. 15 (Reiche, p. 97 f.). The apostle, 
according to his whole system, could not understand under the ideal Israel of 
God any others than believers (iii. 7, 29, iv. 26; Rom. ix. 6-8). To him the zas% 


350 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


either as explanatory or as conjunctive, we may understand 
either the true Christians in general, Jewish and Gentile Chris- 
tians (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Luther, Calvin, Pareus, Cornelius 
a Lapide, Calovius, Baumgarten, Koppe, Rosenmiiller, Borger, 
Winer, Paulus, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, Wieseler, and 
others), or the truly converted Jews (Ambrosiaster, Beza, 
Grotius, Estius, Schoettgen, Bengel, Riickert, Matthies, Schott, 
de Wette, Ewald, Reithmayr, and others; Usteri does not de- 
cide). If we adopt the latter interpretation, we must either 
(with Grotius, Schott, Bengel, Ewald) refer the foregoing dco 
and avtovs to the Gentile Christians—a view which is, how- 
ever, decisively at variance with the universal dco, and with the 
description excluding any national reference, t@ xavdve rovT@ 
orovy.—or (with Riickert, Matthies, de Wette, Reithmayr, 
. and others) we must explain the train of thought as follows: 
“ Salvation be upon all true Christians, and more especially (to 
mention these in particular; see on Mark i. 5, xvi. 7) on all 
true Jewish Christians!” But however near Paul’s fellow- 
countrymen were to his heart (Rom. ix. 1), he not only had 
no ground in the context for bringing them forward here so 
specially ; but any such distinction would even be quite im- 
properly introduced — especially in the deeply-impassioned 
close of the letter—in presence of churches which consisted 
principally of Gentile Christians and had been involved by 
Jewish interference in violent controversies, And even apart 
from this, no reader to whom the teaching of the apostle as 
to the true Israelites was familiar (and see iii 7, iv. 21 ff.) 
could think that tov ’Icp. rob Ocod referred to Jewish Chris- 
tians only ; this would be opposed to the specific conception of 
Paul on this point. We must adhere, therefore, to the expli- 
cative view of xai as the correct one (1 Cor. iii. 5, viii. 12, xv. 
38; John i 16), and indeed, namely, so that it introduces 
an appropriate, more precise description (Hartung, Partvkell. I. 
p. 145 f.; Winer, p. 407 [E. T. 545f.]) of the subjects previ- 
ously characterized. Hofmann is wrong in objecting that the 


xviois in ver. 15 was not conceivable otherwise than as necessarily conditioned 
by faith (iii. 28 ; Eph. ii. 10); hence he could not expect of any Jew not yet 
converted, however pious he might be as an observer of the law, that he would 
walk according to the canon of ver. 15. 


CHAP. VI. 17. . 351 


epexegetical kat is always climactic; see Hermann ad Viger. 
p. 838. Moreover, the designation of all those, who shall walk 
according to that entirely anti-Jewish rule of conduct, as the 
Israelites of God, forms as it were the final triumph of the 
whole epistle over the Judaistic practices, the very aim of 
which was to assert the title of the Iopand kata odpxa to 
the heritage of salvation. Hofmann is entirely mistaken in his 
view that xa/ is even, and that the Israel of God are the Jew- 
Christians, so that Paul expresses the idea that he desired to 
include even these in his wish. It was, indeed, obvious that in 
én’ avrous they could not be, and were not intended to be, ex- 


_ cluded ; but Paul was neither so unwise nor so devoid of tact 


as expressly to state that self-evident point, as if there could 
possibly be any doubt about it. By adding this last word, he 
would only have offended the theocratical point of honour (Rom. 
i. 16). Lastly, Matthias also is wrong in supposing that «al 
émt tov "Icp. tod Oeod begins the new sentence (ver. 17): 
“ And concerning the Israel of God henceforth le no man,” 
etc. This interpretation ought to have been prevented by 
the solemn repetition of the preposition, which indeed on 
the second occasion would acquire quite a different sense 
(concerning). 

Ver. 17. Tod dourrod| occurring only here in the N. T., very 
frequent in other authors; not ceterwm, so that it would bé 
a formula abrumpends (Bengel, Zachariae, and others), equiva- 
lent to ro Aovroyv (2 Cor. xiii. 11; Eph. vi 10; Phil. iii 1, 
et al.), but the genitive of time (Kiihner, II. p. 189): posthac, 
henceforward (Xen. Anab. v. 7. 34, vi. 4.11; Plat. Legg. vii. 
p. 816 D, Demos. p. 385 B; Herod. 1. 109; and the passages 
in Wetstein) ; and that as denoting “ repetitionem ejusdem facti 
reliquo tempore” (Hermann ad Viger. p. 706). The sense 
posthac might also have been expressed by the accusative (ro 
Nowrrov, Matt. xxvi. 41; Mark xiv. 41; 1 Cor. vii. 29; Xen. 
Anab, ii. 2. 5, iii. 2. 8; Soph. Trach. 907, 917); but in this 
case a repetitio perpetua would be meant (Hermann, /.c.). Comp. 
Kiihner, ad Xen. Anab. ii. 2. 5. Calvin explains: “as for the 
rest, 1.e. practer novam creaturam. Comp. Wieseler: “ quod 
restat.” In this case, either the genitive would stand absolutely: © 
“as concerns what remains” (8 6€ rowdy, 1 Cor. iv. 2), see 


352 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


Heind. ad Charm. p. 89; Matthiae, p. 815; or it would be 
dependent on xorovs. But, looking at the frequent use of rod 
Nourrov as a particle of time, both these explanations would be 
very unnecessarily far-fetched. This remark also applies to 
the view of Hofmann, who strangely attaches rod Aozzrod, not- 
withstanding the want of an antithetical particle, as genitive 
of the object to «ézrovs, and conceives ’Icpayd as again sup- 
plied: on account of the Israel, which is not the Israel of God. 
Respecting that Israel, in the apostle’s view, he has not to 
inquire whether it will be injured through the labour to which 
he is called. As if any such cold, remorseless renunciation 
could be justly attributed to the apostle who held his ovy- 
yeveis Kata odpxa so painfully dear (Rom. ix. 1 ff., x. 1), and 
strove in every possible way to gain them (1 Cor. ix. 20). But 
from the hostile annoyances and vexations, which the reader 
would readily understand to be referred to in these words, the 
apostle desires to remain henceforward exempt ; and this he de- 
mands with apostolic sternness. — éy@ yap «.t.X.] the emphasis 
is on é¢yw: it is not the teachers who are hostile to me, these 
men afraid to suffer (ver. 12), but Z who bear, etc. otiy- 
pata (oriypa is paroxytone; see Lobeck, Paralip. p. 406) 
signifies marks branded or etched in, which, usually consisting 
of letters (Lev. xix. 28), were put on the body (especially on 
the forehead and hands) in the case of slaves, as the device 
of their masters ;’ of soldiers, as the badge of their general ; 
of criminals, as a sign of their offence ; and among some oriental 
nations also, as a token of the divinity which they worshipped 
(3 Mace. ii 29; and Grimm zn loc.). See Wetstein, p. 237f.; 
Lipsius, lect. 11.15; Deyling, Obss. IIT. p. 423 ff. ; Spencer, 
Legg. rit. 1.14.1; Ewald, in Apocal. p.151f. Here Paul has 
had in view the marks borne by slaves :* for, according td the 


1JIn the Hast ; but among the Romans only in the case of slaves who were 
suspected or had run away (as a sign of the latter offence, they were by way of 
punishment branded with @ or F.U.G.). 

* Not of soldiers, as Grotius (comp. Calvin), .and Potter, Arch. II. p. 7, 
think; for this must have been suggested by the context. Wetstein understands 

sacras notas (Herod. ii. 113: eriynare ipé), 80 that Paul represents Christ ‘‘ ut 
— Deum, quem rév xvpiov xar’ ox» vocat.” But these sacrae notae are only 
found among particular nations, such as the Persians and Assyrians (Plut. 
Lucull, p. 507 E; Lucian, de Dea Syra, 59; comp. also what is related in 


CHAP, VI. 17, 353 


immediate context (vv. 14, 18), Christ is present to his mind 
as the Lord; and also in 2 Cor. xi. 23 he discerns, in the ill 
treatment which he has suffered, the proof that he is Sudxovos 
Xpictov, Comp. also Rev. vil. 3. The genitive ’Incod denotes 
therefore the Ruler, whose servant Paul is indicated to be by 
his oriyuara; and because in this case the feeling of fellowship 
with the concrete person of his Master has thoroughly pervaded 
him, he does not write Xpiorov, but ’"Incod (comp. on 2 Cor. 
iv. 10). Others have explained: “ notae corporis tales, quales 
apse Christus gestavit” (Morus, comp. Borger) ; but against this 
it may be urged that Paul has not made use of a word which 
of itself conveys a complete idea (such as tHv véxpwow, 2 Cor. 
iv. 10), but has used the significant oriyyara, which neces- 
sarily prompts the reader to ask to whom the person marked 
(oruypatias, also otvypatopdopos, Polyaen. Strat. i. 24) is de- 
scribed as belonging. Therefore ‘Incod is not (with Gomarus 
and Riickert) to be considered as genitive auctoris, — But what 
was it that Paul bore in his body as the otiypara ’Inood ? 
The scars and other traces of the wounds and mal-treatment, 
which he had received on account of his apostolic labours: For 
in the service of Christ he had been maltreated (2 Cor. xi. 23), 
and that so that he must have retained scars or similar indi- 
cations (see 2 Cor. xi 24, 25). Some expositors have, how- 
ever, believed that Paul adduces these oriypara by way of 
contrast to the scar of circumcision (Erasmus in his Annot., 
Beza, Schoettgen, Grotius ; comp. Bengel and Michaelis); but 
this idea is arbitrarily introduced, and im its paltriness alien 
to the lofty self-consciousness which these words breathe.— 
Lastly, as regards the sense in which the reference of yap is to be 
taken, many expositors explain it, with Grotius: “ satis alvwnde 
habeo, quod feram.” So, in substance, Vatablus, Bengel (“ afflicto 


Herod. ii. 113 about a temple of Hercules in Egypt, and in the Asiatic 
Researches, vii. p. 281 f., about the Indians) ; hence so foreign a custom would 
not be likely to suggest itself to the apostle, nor could it be understood by his 
readers without some more special indication. 

1 Not as Luther, 1519 and 1524, following Augustine, thought: the taming 
of the flesh and the ‘fruits of the Spirit ; against which the iv cy capaci pov is 
itself decisive. In the Commentary of 1538, he understands ‘‘ plagas corporis 
suo impressas et passiones, deinde ignita tela diaboli, tristitiam et pavores animi,” 
which thus throws together very different elements outward and inward. 

Z 


354 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE GALATIANS. 


non est addenda afflictio”), Morus, Winer. But what a feeble 
reason to assign would this be, either as fretful or as even 
bespeaking compassion, and wholly repugnant at all events 
to the proud feeling of being marked as the dotdAos of Christ! 
(comp. 2 Cor. xi. 23 ff.) And the éyo, so full of self-con- 
sciousness in opposition to the false teachers, is inconsistent 
with this view. No; Paul means (“ veluti trophaea quaedam 
ostentans,” Erasmus, Paraphr.) to say: for J am one who, by 
being marked as the servant of Christ, is in possession of a 
dignity, which may justly exempt him from any repetition of 
molestations (such as had vexed him on the part of the Galatian 
churches).—On fSacrdfw, comp. Chrysostom: ov« eirev Exo, 
Gra Bacrakw, dorep ris él rpotraiow péya povav. 

Ver. 18. ‘H yapis rod xvupiov «.7.d.] See on i 6. — pera 
Tov mvevpatos buev] sc. ein. A special design, on account of 
which Paul did not write merely pe? tudy (1 Cor. xvi. 23; 
Col. iv. 18; 1 Thess. v. 28), or peta wavrav ipav (2 Cor. 
xii 13; Phil. iv. 23; 2 Thess. 11.18; Tit. iii 15), is indeed 
assumed by many expositors (that Paul desired once more to 
indicate that salvation does not come from the odp£; Chry- 
sostom, Theophylact, Beza, and others ; also Riickert, Usteri, 
Schott, Olshausen), but cannot. be made good ; especially as also 
in Philem. 25 (and 2 Tim. iv. 22), instead of the persons 
simply, we find that with greater significance and fervour the 
spirit of the persons (so also at the close of the Epistle of Bar- 
nabas) is named, because it is on the mvedua of man (the 
higher principle of life with the voids ; see on Luke i. 46; Rom. 
i 4, vii10; 2 Cor. it 13, e¢ al.) that the grace of Christ 
works (Rom. viii. 10, 16), when the Spirit of Christ takes 
up His abode in the human spirit and so confers His yapic- 
para, Paul might also have written pera trav vruyay dp. 
(comp. 2 Cor. xii. 15; 1 Pet. 1 9, 22, i. 11, 25); but even 
in that case the gracious operation of Christ would have to be 
conceived as issuing from the seat of self-consciousness (the 
avedua of man). — dderdoi | The epistle, in great part so severe, 
ends with a mode of address which still breathes unaltered 
love (1 Cor. xvi. 24). 











Z. and T. Clark's Publications. 


LANGE’S 
COMMENTARIES ON THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS. 


Messrs. CLARK have now pleasure in intimating their arrangements, under 
the Editorship of Dr. Partie Scuarr, for the Publication of Translations of 
the Commentaries of Dr. LANGE and his Collaborateurs on the Old and New 
Testaments. 

There are now ready ‘(in imperial 8vo, double columns), price 21s. per 
Volume, 


OLD TESTAMENT, Six Volumes: 


COMMENTARY ON THE BOOK OF GENESIS, in One Volume. 
COMMENTARY ON JOSHUA, JUDGES, AND RUTH, in One 
olume 
COMMENTARY ON THE BOOKS OF KINGS, in One Volume. 
COMMENTARY ON THE PSALMS, in One ‘Volume. 
Steer TARY ON PROVERBS, ECCLESIASTES, AND 
HE SONG OF SOLOMON, in One Volume. 
COMMENTARY ON JEREMIAH AND LAMENTATIONS, 
in One Volume. 

The other Books of the Old Testament are in active preparation, and will b® 

announced as soon as ready. 


NEW TESTAMENT, Ten Volumes: 
COMMENTARY. ON THE GOSPEL OF ST. MATTHEW, in 


One Vol 
COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPELS OF ST. MARK and ST. 
LUKE, in One Volum 
COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN, in One 


COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES, in 
ne Vo 
Se TATA te On beta THE EPISTLE OF ST. PAUL TO THE 
ne Vo 
COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLES OF ST. PAUL TO THE 
CORINTHIANS, in One Volume. 
COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLES OF ST. PAUL TO THE 
GALATIANS, EPHESIANS, PHILIPPIANS, and COLOSSIANS, in One Vol. 
COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLES TO THE THESSA- 
LONIANS, TIMOTHY, TITUS, PHILEMON, and HEBREWS, in One Volume. 
COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLES OF JAMES, PETER, 
and JUDE, in One Volum 
COMMENTARY ON THE BOOK OF REVELATION, in One 
Volume (in the press). 

The price to Subscribers to the Foreign Theological Library, St. Augustine’s 
Works, and Ante-Nicene Library, or to Purchasers of Complete Seta of the 
Commentary (so far as published), will.be 

FIFTEEN SHILLINGS PER VOLUME. 


Dr. Lancz’s Commentary on the Gospels and Acts (without Dr. Scuarr’s 
Notes) is also ee in the ForEIGN THEOLOGICAL LisrRaRy, in Nine Volumes 
demy 8vo, and may be had in that form if desired. (For particulars; see List 
of Foreign Theological Library.) 











T. and T. Clark's Publications. 


NEW AND CHEAPER EDITION 


OF 


LANGE’S LIFE OF CHRIST. 


Now complete, in Four Volumes demy 8vo, price 28s. 
(Subscription Price), 


THE LIFE OF THE LORD 
JESUS CHRIST: 


A COMPLETE CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF THE ORIGIN, CONTENTS, 
AND CONNECTION OF THE GOSPELS. 


@ranslated from the German of 
JI. P. LANGE, D.D., 


PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF BONN. 


EDITED, WITH ADDITIONAL NOTES, 
BY THE REV. MARCUS DODS, M.A. 


*,” This valuable Work has been out of print for some time, but has been much 
in demand. The Six Volumes now occupy Four; and whilst the whole matter is 
retained, it ia published at a little cheaper price. 


EXTRACT FROM EDITOR’S PREFACE. 


‘The work of Dr. Lange, translated in the accompanying volumes, holds among 
books the honourable position of being the most complete Life of our Lord. 
There are other works which mere thoroughly investigate the authenticity of 
the Gospel records, some which more satisfactorily discuss the chronological 
difficulties involved in this most important of histories, and some which present 
a more formal and elaborate exegetical treatment of the sources; but there is 
no single work in which all these branches are so fully attended to, or in which 
so much matter bearing on the main subject is brought together, or in which so 
many points are elucidated. The immediate object of this comprehensive and 
masterly work was to refute those views of the life of our Lord which had been 
propagated by Negative Criticism, and to substitute that authentic and consistent 
history which a truly scientific and enlightened criticism educes from the Gospels.’ 








CLARK’S 
FOREIGN THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY. 


NPL 





ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTION: 


One Guinea (payable in advance) for Four Volumes, Demy 8vo. . 
When not paid in advance, the Retail Bookseller is entitled to charge 24s. 


N.B.—Any two Years in this Series can be had at Subscription Price. A single Year's 
Books (except in the case of the current Year) cannot be supplied separately. Non- 
subscribers, price 10s. 6d. each volume, with exceptions marked. 


18 6 4— 
Lange on the Acts of the Apostles. Two Volumes. 


186 Keil and Delitzach on the Pentateuch. Vols. I. and II. 
5— 

Keil and Delitzsch on the Pentateuch. Vol. III. 
Hengstenberg on the Gospel of John. Two Volumes. 

1 6 6 Keil and Delitzsch on Joshua, Judges, and Ruth. One Volume. 

8 aoe 

Keil and Delitzsch on Samuel. One Volume. 
Keil and Delitzsch on Job. Two Volumes. 
Martensen’s System of Christian Doctrine. One Volume. 

1867—. 

Delitzach on Isaiah. Vol. I. 
Delitzsch on Biblical Psychology. 12s. 
Delitzsch on Isaiah, Vol. II. 

1868 Auberlen on Divine Revelation. 

Keil’s Commentary on the Minor Prophets. Two Volumes. 
Delitzsch’s Commentary on Epistle to the Hebrews. Vol. I. 

1869 Harless’ System of Christian Ethics. One Volume. 
Hengstenberg on Ezekiel. One Volume. 

Stier on the Words of the Apostles. One Volume. 
Keil’s Introduction to the Old Testament. Vol. I. 

1870 Bleek’s Introduction to the New Testament. Vol. I. 
Keil’s Introduction to the Old Testament. Vol. II. 
Bleek’s Introduction to the New Testament. Vol. II. 
Schmid’s New Testament Theology. One Volume. 

1871 Delitzsch’s Commentary on Epistle to the Hebrews. Vol. II. 
Delitzsch’s Commentary on the Psalms. Three Volumes. 
Hengstenberg’s History of the Kingdom of God under the Old 

Testament, Vol. I. 

187 2— 


Keil’s Commentary on the Books of Kings. One Volume. 

Keil’s Commentary on the Book of Daniel. One Volume. 

Keil’s Commentary on the Books of Chronicles. One Volume. 

Hengstenberg’s History of the Kingdom of God under the Old 
Testament. Vol. II. : 


187 3— 
= § | Keil’s Commentary on Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther. One Volume. 
8 ( Winer’s Collection of the Confessions of Christendom. One Volume. 


MESSRS. CLARK allow a SELECTION of Twenty Vo.umes (or more at the same 
ratio) from the various Series previous to the Volumes issued in 1870 (see next page), 
At the Subscription Price of Five Guineas. 
They trust that this will still more largely extend the usefulness of the Forricn 
THEOLOGICAL LisRARyY, which has so long been recognised as holding an important 
place in modern Theological literature. 





ZT. and T. Clark's Publications. 





CLARK’S FOREIGN THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY—Continued. 


The following are the works from which a Selection may be made (non-subscription 
prices within brackets) :— 

Dr. Hengstenberg. Commentary on the Psalms. By E. W. HENGsTENBERG, D.D., 
Professor of Theology in Berlin. In Three Vola 8vo. (83s.) 

Dr. Gieseler.—Compendium of Ecclesiastical History. By J. C. L. GrESELER, 
D.D., Professor of Theology in Géttingen. Five Vols. 8vo. (£2, 12s, 6d.) 

Dr. Olshausen.—Biblical Commentary on the Gospels and Acta, adapted especially 
for Preachers and Students. By Hermann OsHausen, D.D., Protest of Theolugy 
in the University of Erlangen. In Four Vols. 8vo. (£2, 2a.) 

Biblical Commentary on the Romans, adapted especially for Preachers and Stu- 
dents. By Hermann OLsHAusEN, D.D. In One Vol. 8vo. (10s. 6d.) 

Biblical Commentary on St. Panl’s First and Second Epistles to the Corinthians. 

By HERMANN OLSHAUSEN, D.D. In One Vol. 8vo. (98.) 

Biblical Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistles to the Galatians, Ephesians, Oolos- 
TR a Thessalonians, By HERMANN OLSHAUSEN, D.D. One Vol. 8vo. 
10s. 6 

Biblical Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians, to Titus, and the 
First to Timothy; in continuation of the Work of Olshausen. By Lic. 
AvGust WIESINGER. ‘In One Vol. 8vo. (10s. 6d.) 

Biblical Commentary on the Hebrews. By Dr. Esrarp. In continuation of the 
Work of Olshausen. In One Vol. 8vo. (10s. 6d.) 

Dr. Neander.—General History of the Ohristian Religion and Church. By 
Avuoustrus Neanper, D.D. Translated from the Second and Improved Edition. 
Nine Vols. 8vo. 2 118. 6d.) 

This ts the only Edition in a Library size. 

Prof. H. A. Ch. Havernick.—General Introduction to the Old Testament. By 
Professor HAVERNICK. One Vol. 8vo. (10s. 6d.) 

Dr. Muller.—The Christian Doctrine of Sin. By Dr. Jutivs Miuer. Two 
Vols. 8vo. (21s.) New Edition. 

Dr. Hengstenberg.—Christology of the Old Testament, and a Commentary on the 
Messianic Predictions. By E. W. Henestenserc, D.D. Four Vols. (£2, 2s.) 

Dr. M. Baumgarten.—The Acts of the Apostles; or the History of the Church 
in the Apostolic Age. By M. BaumGartTen, Ph.D., and Professor in the 
University of Rostock. Three Vols. (£1, 7s.) 

Dr. Stier.—The Words of the Lord Jesus. By RupoirH Stier, D.D., Chief 
Pastor and Superintendent of Schkeuditz. In Eight Vols. 8vo. (£4, 48.) 

Dr. Carl Ulimann.—Reformers before the Reformation, principally in Germany 
and the Netherlands. Two Vols. 8vo. (£1, 1s.) 

Professor Kurtz.—History of the Old Covenant; or, Old Testament Dispensation. 
By Professor Kurtz of Dorpat. In Three Vols. (£1, 11s. 6d.) 

Dr. Stier.—The Words of the Risen Saviour, and Commentary on the Epistle of 
, St. James. By Rupowpu Stier, D.D. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) 

Professor Tholuck.—Commentary on the Gospel of St. John. By Professor 
THOoLUCK of Halle. In One Vol. (9s.) 

Professor Tholuck.—Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount. By Professor 
THotuck. In One Vol. (10s. 6d.) 

Dr. Hengstenberg.—Commentary on the Book of Ecclesiastes. To which are 
appended: Treatises on the Song of Solomon; on the Book of Job; on the 
Prophet Isaiah; on the Sacrifices of Holy Scripture; and on the Jews and the 
Christian Church. By E. W. HenesTEnBERG, D.D. In One Vol. 8vo. (9s.) 

Dr. Ebrard.—Commentary on the Epistles of St. John. By Dr. Jonn H. A. 
EBRARD, Professor of Theology. In One Vol. (10s. 6d.) 

Dr. Lange.—Theological and Homiletical Commentary on the Gospel of St. 
Matthew and Mark. Specially Designed and Adapted for the Use of Ministers 
and Students. By J. P. Lanes, D.D. Three Vols. (10s. 6d. each.) 














ZT. and T. Clark's Publications. 







CLARK’S FOREIGN THEOLOGIOAL LIBRARY—Continued. 


Dr. Dorner.—History of the Development of the Doctrine of the Person of Christ. 
By Dr. J. A. Dorner, Professor of Theology in the University of Berlin. 
Five Vols. (£2, 12s. 6d.) 

Lange and Dr. J. J. Van Oosterzee.—Theological and Homiletical Commentary on 
the Gospel of St. Luke. Specially Designed and nee for the Use of 
Ministers and Students. Edited by J. P. Lanex, D.D. Two Vols. (18s.) 


Dr. Ebrard.—The Gospel History: A Compendium of Oritical Investigations in 
support of the Historical Character of the Four Gospels, One Vol. (10s. 6d.) 


Lange, Lechler, and Gerok.—Theological and Homiletical Commentary on the 
Acts of the Apostles, Edited by Dr. Lancer. Two Vols. (21s.) 


Dr. Hengstenberg.— Commentary on the Gospel of St. John. Two Vols. (21s.) 

Professor Keil.—Biblical Commentary on the Pentateuch. Three Vols. (31s. 6d.) 
Professor Keil.—Commentary on Joshua, Judges, and Ruth. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) | 
Professor Delitzach.—A System of Biblical Psychology. One Vol. (12s.) 


















Professor Delitzsch.—Commentary on the Prophecies of Isaiah. Two Vols. (21s.) 
Professor Keil.—OCommentary on the Books of Samuel. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) 
‘ Professor Delitzsch.—Commentary on the Book of Job. Two Vols. (21s.) 
Bishop Martensen.—Christian Dogmatics. A Compendium of the Doctrines of 
Christianity. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) 
Dr. J. P. Lange.—Oritical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical Commentary on the Gospel 
of St. John. Two Vols. (21s.) | 
Professor Keil.—Commentary on the Minor Prophets. Two Vols. (21s.) 
Professor Delitzsch._Commentary on Epistle to the Hebrews. Vol. 1. (10s. 6d.) 
Dr. Harless.—A System of Christian Ethics, One Vol. (10s. 6d.) 
Dr. Hengstenberg.—Commentary on Ezekiel. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) 
Dr. Stier.—The Words of the Apostles Expounded. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) 
Professor Keil.—Introduction to the Old Testament. Vol. 1. (10s 6d.) 
Professor Bleek.—Introduction to the New Testament. Vol. 1. (10s. 6d.) 
And, in connection with the Series— — 
Alexander’s Commentary on Isaiah. Two Volumes, (17s.) 
Ritter’s (Carl) Comparative Geography of Palestine. Four Volumes. (82s.) 
Shedd’s History of Christian Doctrine. Two Volumes. (21s.) 
Macdonald’s Introduction to the Pentateuch. Two Volumes. (21s.) 
Ackerman on the Christian Element.in Plato. (7s. 6d.) 
Robinson’s Greek Lexicon of the New Testament. 8vo. (9s.) 
Gerlach’s Commentary on the Pentateuch. 8vo. (10s. 6d.) 
The series, in 120 Volumes (including 1873), price £31, 10s., forms an Apparatus, 
without which it may be truly said no Theological Labrary can be complete; and the Pub- 


‘lishers take the liberty of suggesting that no more appropriate gift could be presented to 
a Clergyman than the Series, in whole or in part. 












" .* In reference to the above, it must be noted that No DUPLICATES can be included tn the 
Selection of Twenty Volumes; and it will save trouble and correspondence tf tt be 
distinctly understood that No LEss number than Twenty can be supplied, unless at 
non-subscription price. 






Subscribers’ Names received by all Retail Booksellers. 
Lonpon: (For Works at Non-subscription price only) Hamitton, ADaMs, & Co. 






dee a i ges x 





7. and T. Clark's Publuations. 





WORKS OF. PATRICK FAIRBAIRN, 0.D., 


PRINCIPAL AND PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY IN THE FREE CHURCH OOLLEGE, GLASGOW. 


In Two Volumes, demy 8vo, price 21s., Fifth Edition, 
THE TYPOLOGY OF SCRIPTURE, Viewed in connection 


with the whole Series of the Divine Dispensations. 


‘As the product of the labours of an original thinker and of a sound theologian, who 
has at the same time scarcely left unexamined one previous writer on the subject, ancient 
or modern, this work will be a most valuable accession to the library of the theological 
student. Asa whole, we believe it may, with the strictest truth, be pronounced the best 
work on the subject that has yet been published.'—Record. 

‘ A work fresh and comprehensive, learned and sensible, and full of practical religious 
feeling.’—British and Foreign Evangelical Review. 


In demy 8vo, price 10s. 6d., Third Edition, 
EZEKIEL, AND THE BOOK OF HIS PROPHECY: An 
Exposition ; With a New Translation. 


‘A work which was greatly wanted, and which will give the author no mean place 
among the Biblical expositors of his country and language, for in it he has cast con- 
pace light on one of the obscurest portions of God’s Word.’—Journal of Sacred 

sterature. 





In demy 8vo, price 10s. 6d., Second Edition, 


PROPHECY, Viewed in its Distinctive Nature, its Special 
Functions, and Proper Interpretation. 


‘We would express our conviction that if ever this state of things is to end, and the 
Church is blest with the dawn of a purer and brighter day, it will be through the sober 
and well-considered efforts of such a man as Dr. Fairbairn, and through the general 
acceptance of some such principles as are laid down for our guidance in this book.’— 
Christian Advocate. 





In demy 8vo, price 10s. 6d., 


HERMENEUTICAL MANUAL; or, Introduction to the 
Exegetical Study of the Scriptures of the New Testament. 


‘Dr. Fairbairn has precisely the training which would enable him to give a fresh and 
suggestive book on Hermeneutics. Without going into auy tedious detail, it presents the 
points that are important to a student. There is a breadth of view, a clearness and 
manliness of thought, and a ripeness of learning, which make the work one of uliar 
freshness and interest. I consider it a very valuable addition to every student's library.’ 
—Rev. Dr. Moore, Author of the able Commentary on ‘ The Prophets of the Restoration.’ 





In demy 8vo, price 10s. 6d., 
THE REVELATION OF LAW IN SCRIPTURE, considered 


with respect both to its own Nature, and to its relative Place in Succes- 
sive Dispensations. (The Third Series of the ‘Cunningham Lectures.’) 


‘Dr. Fairbairn is well known as a learned and painstaking writer, and these lectures 
will bear out his reputation. . . . They are the writing of a man who is a laborious 
student of the Bible, and patient readers will find that they can learn something from 
him.’— Guardian. 

‘The tone and spirit of this volume are admirable. The lectures are carefully elabo- 
rated, the arguments and scriptural illustrations seem to have passed each one under the 
author’s scrutiny; so that, besides unity of purpose in the lectures as a whole, we mark 
the conscientiousness that has sought to verify each separate statement. . . . Itisan 
excellent book.’—Noncon formist. 





T. and T. Clark's Publications. 





WORKS BY THE LATE WILLIAM CUNNINGHAM, D.D,, 


PRINCIPAL AND PROFESSOR OF CHURCH HISTORY, NEW COLLEGE, EDINBURGH. 
CoMPLETE IN FouR VOLUMES 8vo, PRICE £2, 2s. 


In Two Volumes, demy 8vo, price 21s., Second Edition, 


HISTORICAL THEOLOGY: 
A REVIEW OF THE PRINCIPAL DOCTRINAL DISCUSSIONS IN THE 
CHRISTIAN CHURCH SINCE THE APOSTOLIO AGE. 


Chapter 1. The Church; 2. The Council of Jerusalem; 8. The Apostles’ Creed; 4. The 
Apostolical Fathers; 5. Heresies of the Apostolical Age; 6. The Fathers of the 
Second and Third Centuries; 7. The Church of the Second and Third Centuries ; 
8. The Constitution of the Church; 9. The Doctrine of the Trinity; 10. The Person 
of Christ; 11. The Pelagian Cbntroversy; 12. Worship of Saints and Images; 
13 The Civil and Ecclesiastical Authorities ; 14. The Scholastic Theology; 15. The 
Canon Law; 16. Witnesses for the Truth during Middle Ages; 17. Pho Church 
at the Reformation; 18. The Council of Trent; 19. The Doctrine of the Fall; 
20. Doctrine of the Will; 21. Justification ; 22. The Sacramental Principle; 23. The 
Socinian Controversy; 24. Doctrine of the Atonement; 25. The Arminian Con- 
troversy ; 26. Church Government; 27. The Erastian Controversy. 


In demy 8vo (624 pages), price 10s. 6d., Second Edition, 
THE REFORMERS AND THE THEOLOGY 


OF THE REFORMATION. 


Chapter 1. Leaders of the Reformation; 2. Luther; 8. The Reformers and the Doctrine 
of Assurance ; 4. Melancthon and the Theology of the Church of England; 5. Zwingle 
and the Doctrine of the Sacraments; 6. John Calvin; 7. Calvin and Beza; 8. Calvin- 
ism and Arminianism; 9. Calvinism and the Doctrine of Philosophical Necessity ; 
10. Calvinism and ita Practical Application; 11. The Reformers and the Lessons 
from their History. 

‘This volume is a most magnificent vindication of the Reformation, in both its men 
sa ita doctrines, suited to the present time and to the present state of the controversy.’ 

— Witness. 








In One Volume, demy 8vo, price 10s. 6d., 


DISCUSSIONS ON CHURCH PRINCIPLES: 
POPISH, ERASTIAN, AND PRESBYTERIAN. 


Chapter 1. The Errors of Romanism; 2. Romanist Theory of Development; 8. The 
Temporal Be Rain of the Pope; 4. The Temporal oa siping | of the Pope; 5. The 
Liberties of the ican Ohurch; 6. Royal Supremacy in Church of England; 
7. Relation between Church and State; 8 The Westminster Confession on Relation 
between Church and State; 9. Church Power; 10. Principles of the Free Church ; 
11. The Rights of the Christian People; 12. The Principle of Non-Intrusion ; 
18. Patronage and Popular Election. 


In Demy 8vo, price 9s., 


SERMONS, FROM 1828 TO 1860. 
BY THE LATE WILLIAM CUNNINGHAM, D.D., 
PRINCIPAL AND PROFESSOR OF CHURCH HISTORY, NEW COLLEGE, EDINBURGIL. 

With Photograph. 
Edited, with a Preface, by Rev. J. J. Bonar, Greenock. 


‘We can honestly recommend these sermons of the late gifted Professor as well worthy 
of thoughtful perusal by students and preachers. They will be found highly suggestive ; 
and if not remarkable for elaborate polish, yet they will furnish many examples of vigor- 
ous and forceful expression of the truth. — Vatchman, 














T. and T. Clark's Publications. 


Just Published, in Crown 8vo, Price 4s. 6d., 


THE. WORDS OF THE NEW 
TESTAMENT, 


AS ALTERED BY TRANSMISSION, AND ASCERTAINED BY 
MODERN CRITICISM. 


FOR POPULAR USE. 


BY REV. WILLIAM MILLIGAN, D.D., 


PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY AND BIBLICAL CRITICISM, ABERDEEN, 


AND 


REV. ALEXANDER ROBERTS, D.D., 


PROFESSOR OF HUMANITY, ST. ANDREWS. 


In Two Handsome Volumes, Demy 8vo, Price 17s., 


COMMENTARY ON THE PROPHECIES 
OF ISAIAH. 


BY JOSEPH ADDISON ALEXANDER, D.D., PRINCETON, 


AUTHOR OF COMMENTARIES ON THE PSALMS, MARK, ACTS, ETC. ° 
New and Revised Edition. 


EDITED, WITH A PREFACE, BY JOHN EADIE, D.D., LL.D. 


‘I regard Dr. Joseph Addison Alexander as incomparably the greatest man I ever 
knew,—as mCP AES DY the greatest man our Church has ever produced.’-—Dr. Hodge. 


T. and T. Clark's Publications. 





This day, in Two Volumes crown 8vo, price 12s. 6d., 


Christian Ethics. Translated from the 


German of Dr. ADOLF WUTTKE, late Professor of Theology in Halle. 
Vol. I. History of Ethics ; Vol. II. Pure Ethics. 


This work, so well known in Germany, has been translated at the recommendation of 
Dr. Tholuck; and all critics accord in testifying that the author was a man singularly 
endowed with keenness of philosophic insight and with devoutness of Christian faith. 


‘Wuttke’s Ethics should have a place in every pastor’s library.’—Dr. Hengstenberg. 


WORKS BY DR. C. E. LUTHARDT. 


In One Volume crown 8vo (in the Press), 


Apologetic Lectures on the Morality of 


Christianity. 
CONTENTS. 
CuapTerR I. The Nature of Christian | Caarrer V. Christian Marriage. 

Morality. VI. The Christian Home. 

II. Man. VII. The State and Christianity. 

III. The Christian and _ the VIII. The Life of the Christians - 
Christian Virtues. in the State. 

IV. The Devotional Life of the IX. Culture and Christianity. 
Christian and his Attitude X. Humanity and Christianity. 


towards the Church. 


In One Volume crown 8vo, price 6s., 


Apologetic Lectures on the Saving Truths 
of Christianity. Second English, from Third German Edition. 


‘An eloquent and powerful exposition of the truth. ... Whilst the author walks 
in the old trodden paths, there is, along with a remarkable clearness of apprehension and 
accuracy of judgment, a freshness and originality of thought and a singular beauty of 
language, under the spell of which we read these lectures with unflagging interest. .. . 


anet traverse a wide field of theological inquiry.’"—British and Foreign Evangelical 
eview. : 


‘We commend his lectures as very able. His scholarship is adequate, his spirit evan- 


solic and devout, and he speaks lucidly, pointedly, and tersely.'—British Quarterly 
view. 


In One Volume crown 8vo, Third Edition (in the Press), 


Apologetic Lectures on the Fundamental 
Truths of Christianity. 


‘We have never met with a volume better adapted to set forth the evidences of 
Christianity in a form suited to the wants of our day. The whole of the vast argument 
is illustrated by various and profound learning ; there is no obscurity in the thoughts or 
in the style; the language is simple, the ideas clear, and the argument logical, and 
generally, to our mind, conclusive.’—Guardian. 

‘ Luthardt is the very man to help those entangled in thé thickets of modern rationalism : 
we do not know just such another book as this; it is devout, scholarly, clear, forcible, 
penetrating, comprehensive, satisfactory, admirable.’—Evangelical Magazine. i