Skip to main content

Full text of "A critical and exegetical commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians"

See other formats

• ^;S 






The International Critical Commentary 












First Edition 1921 

Latest Reprint 1962 

MAY IS ^964 

Tht; Rights of Translaiion and Reproduction are Reserved 




WHEN in 1896 I began work upon the Epistle to the 
Galatians with definite reference to the preparation 
of this Commentary, it was with a clear conviction 
that if I was to make any appreciable contribution to the 
understanding of the epistle, it would be by confining myself 
to a few of the several lines of study which an interpreter might 
properly and profitably undertake. I decided not to attempt 
an exhaustive study of the history of the interpretation of the 
epistle, or of the rabbinic writings and method of exegesis. 
Convinced that, despite all that had been done in the study of 
the vocabulary of the New Testament, much remained still to 
be done, and strongly inclined to expect that such study would 
aid materially in the recovery of the primary elements of the 
thought of the apostle Paul, persuaded also that such lexico- 
graphical work would prepare the way for a clearer perception 
of the course of thought of the epistle, I determined, while not 
wholly neglecting other lines of study, to give my chief atten- 
tion, first, to a fresh historical study of the vocabulary of the 
letter, and then to an endeavour to trace its course of thought 
with exactness and to state it with clearness. 

When the study of the religions of the Roman empire, com- 
monly known as the mystery religions, came into prominence, I 
gave some study to them, with the result that I became con- 
vinced that the contribution which a thorough investigation of 
them would make to the interpretation of this epistle, would 
not justify the postponement of the publication of this work 
for the period of years which such investigation would require. 

Meantime, a growing sense of the close relationship between 
the experiences of the early Christian church, as these are dis- 
closed in the letter, and those through which Christianity of 
our own day is passing, had greatly increased my sense of the 
practical value of the letter to the church of to-day, and be- 
gotten a strong desire to make this clear to my readers. 


Whether I have been justified in thus emphasising these 
three things, meanings of words, course of thought, relation of 
the problems discussed by the apostle to those of our own day, 
others must judge. The choice at any rate was deliberately 
made and has been persistently followed. 

Of the lexicographical studies which were made in pursuance 
of this plan, one, which consumed many months and was ex- 
tended over years, proved in character and bulk unsuited to be 
included in this volume, and was published separately under 
the title. Spirit, Sotd and Flesh: The Usage of Hvevixa^ ^^X^ ^^^ 
'^dp^ in Greek Writings and Translated Works from the Earliest 
Period to i^o A. D.; and of their Equivalents . . . in the Hebrew 
Old Testament. Chicago, 191 8. The other studies of this 
character the publishers have graciously consented to include in 
this volume, the longer ones in an appendix at the end of the 
volume, the shorter ones scattered through it. 

In the quarter of a century in which I have made this Com- 
mentary the chief centre of my work as a student of the New 
Testament, I have called to my assistance in the collection of 
material and to a certain extent in the study of it, a goodly 
number of those who have been studying in my classes, chiefly 
Fellows of the University of Chicago. To all such I wish to 
express my appreciation of their services. But I desire espe- 
cially to mention Professor Arthur Wakefield Slaten, Ph.D., of 
the Young Men's Christian Association College in Chicago, 
who for a period of nearly five years worked with me in almost 
daily fellowship, and to whom I am deeply indebted for his 
patient and skilful assistance, and Professor Benjamin Willard 
Robinson, Ph.D., of the Chicago Theological Seminary, who 
has generously read the proofs of the book, and made me many 
valuable suggestions. The list of others, authors whose books 
I have used, and colleagues whom I have consulted, is far too 

long to be printed here. _ ,r. ^ 

Ernest D. Burton. 

July I, 1920. 





I. Galatia and the Galatians xvii 

II. Where Were the Galatian Churches? xxi 

A. The Alternative Opinions xxi 

B. The History of Opinion xxiv 

C. Paul's Use of the Term FaXaxfa xxv 

D. Did Paul Found Churches in Northern Galatia? . xxix 

1. Paul's Illness in Galatia xxix 

2. The Evidence of Acts i6« and iS^^ xxx 

3. Some Minor Considerations Derived from Paul's 

Epistles xli 

HI. The Time and Place of Writing xliv 

IV. Occasion and Purpose of the Letter liii 

V. The Questions at Issue Ivii 

VI. Genuineness and Integrity Ixv 

VII. Analysis of the Letter Ixxii 

VIII. The Text Ixxiv 

IX. Bibliography Ixxxii 




I. English Words, Subjects, and Authors 523 

II. Greek Words and Phrases 53^ 

III. Biblical Passages, Not in Galatians, Discussed in 

This Commentary 54o 


It is assumed that references to the books of the Bible and the O. T. 
Apocrypha, and to the classical and Jewish-Greek authors will be self- 
explanatory. The notation is that of the standard editions. In the refer- 
ences to Aristotle the figures first following the author's name refer to the 
Paris edition of his works, those in parenthesis to page, column, and line 
of the Editio Borussica (Berlin). In the case of Josephus the figures pre- 
ceding the parenthesis refer to the books and sections of the edition 
of B. Niese, 7 vols., Berlin, 1887-95, those in parenthesis to the chapter and 
sections indicated in Whiston's Enghsh translation. In the case of Philo 
the figures before the parenthesis denote the sections of the edition of 
Cohn and Wendland, 6 vols., BerHn, 1896-1915, those in parenthesis the 
sections of the edition of Richter, to which also the notation of Yonge's 
Enghsh translation correspond. For explanation of the abbreviations 
employed in the text critical notes and not found in this list the reader is 
referred to the section on the Text, pp. Ixxivff., and to the works on Textual 
Criticism there Hsted. References to authors, both ancient and modern, 
supposed to be easily interpreted by reference to the Bibliography are not 
included in this hst. The titles of works infrequently referred to are in 
general not included in the following list but are printed fully enough for 
identification when the works are mentioned. 

AJT. = The American Journal of 

Ambrst. = Ambrosiaster. Ca. 305 
A. D. See Ltft., p. 232; 

ARV. = The Holy Bible, Revised, 
American Standard Edi- 
tion. New York, 1901. 

Aug. = Aurelius Augustinus. Ca. 
394. See Ltft., p. 232; 

AV. = The Holy Bible. Authorised 
Version of 161 1. 

BDB. = Brown, Driver, and Briggs, 
Hebrew and English Lexi- 
con. Boston, 1906. 

Beng. = Bengel. See Bibliography 

p. Ixxxiii. 

Agyptische Urkunden aus 
den koniglichen Museen zu 
Berlin : Griechische Urkun- 
den I-IV. Berlin, 1895. 

Boeckh, C. /. G. = Corpus Inscrip- 
tionum Grcecarum edidit 
Augustus Boeckius, Berhn, 

Bl.-D. = Blass, F., Grammatik des 
neutestamentlichen Griech- 
isch. Gottingen, 1896. 
Vierte volhg neugearbeitete 
Auflage, besorgt von Albert 
De Brunner, 1913. 



BMT = Burton, Ernest De Witt, 
Syntax of the Moods and 
Tenses in New Testament 
Greek. Third edition. 
Chicago, 1898. 

BSSF. = Burton, Ernest De Witt, 
Spirit, Soul, and Flesh. 
Chicago, 19 1 8. 

Butt. = Buttmann, A., A Grammar 
of the New Testament Greek. 
E. T. by J. H. Thayer. 
Andover, 1873. 

Bous. = Bousset, Wilhelm. See Bib- 
liography, p. Ixxxvi. 

Bous. Rel. d. Jud. = Bousset, W., 
Religion des Judenlums im 
neutestamentlichen Zeitalter. 
Zweite Aufi. Berlin, 1906, 

BW. = The Biblical World. 

BZ. = Biblische Zeitschrift. 

Cal. = Calov. See Bibliography, 
p. Ixxxiii. 

Calv. = Calvin. See Bibliography, 
p. Ixxxiii, and S. and H., 
p. ciii. 

Cf. = Confer, compare. 

Ch.^P. = ChsLv\es,R.U., Apocrypha 
and Pseudepigrapha of the 
Old Testament. 2 vols. Ox- 
ford, 1913. 

Chrys. = Joannes Chrysostomus. 
t 407- See Ltft., p. 228. 

Cremer = Cremer, H., BiUisch-theo- 
logisches Worterbuch der 
neutestamentlichen Grdcitdt. 
Zehnte vollig durchgear- 
beitete Auflage herausge- 
geben von Julius Kogel. 
Gotha, 1911-15. 

Cyr. = Cyril of Alexandria, f 444. 
See DCB. 

Cyr^ = Cyril of Jerusalem, f 386. 
See DCB. 

Dal. IF/. * Dalman, The Words of 
Jesus. Edinburgh, 1902. 

Dam. = Joannes Damascenus. f ca. 
756. See S. and H., p. c; 

DCB. = Dictionary of Christian Biog- 
raphy, Literature, Sects, and 
Doctrines. Edited by Wm. 
Smith and Henry Wace. 
4 vols. London 187 7-87. 

De.55'.= Deissmann, Bible Studies. 
Edinburgh, 1901. 

de W. = de Wette, M. L. See Bib- 
liography, p. Ixxxiv. 

Dih.Gwt. = Dibelius, Die Geister- 
welt im Glauben des Paulus. 
Gottingen, 1909. 

Did. = AtSaxi?) Toiv SwSexa 'Axourd- 
Xtov. Various editions. 

Ell. = Ellicott, C. J. See Bibliog- 
raphy, p. Ixxxiv. 

Encyc. Bib. = Encyclopedia Biblica. 
Edited by T. K. Cheyne 
and J. S. Black. 4 vols. 
London, 1899-1903. 

Epiph. = Epiphanius. f 404. See 

Erasm. = Erasmus. See Bibliogra- 
phy, p. Ixxxiii. 

Est. = Estius. See Bibliography, 
p. Ixxxiii. 

E. T. = English translation. 

Euthal. = Euthalius. 459. See Ltft., 
p. 230, and DCB. 

Frit. = Fritzsche, K. F. A. See Bib- 
liography, p. Ixxxiv. 

Gild. Syn. = Gildersleeve, Basil L., 
Syntax of Classical Greek 
from Homer to Demosthenes. 
2 vols. New York, 1900, 


GMT = Gildersleeve, Basil L., Syn- 
tax of the Moods and Tenses 
of the Greek Verb. Revised 
and enlarged. Boston, 

Grimm = Grimm, C. L. W., Lexicon 
Grceco-Latinum in Libros 
Novi Testamenti. (B ased on 
the Clams Novi Testamenti 
Philologica of C. G. Wilke.) 
Editio secunda, emendata 
et aucta. Leipzig, 1879. 

Grot. = Grotius, Hugo. See Bibli- 
ography, p. Ixxxiii. 

WDB. = Dictionary of the Bible. Ed- 
ited by James Hastings. 
5 vols. Edinburgh and 
New York, 1898-1905. 

Hier. = Eusebius Hieronymus (Je- 
rome). 1 420. See Ltft., 
p. 232, and DCS. 

Hilg. = Hilgenfeld, Adolf. See Bib- 
liography, p. Ixxxiv. 

Introd. = Introduction. 

Iren. = Irenseus. t iQO- See DCB. 

JBL. = The Journal of Biblical Lit- 

Jelf = Jelf, W. E., yl Grammar of the 
Greek Language. Fifth edi- 
tion. Oxford, 1881. 

JfpT. = Jahrbuch fiir protestantise ne 

Just. Mart. = Justin Martyr. Ca. 

Ka.^P. = Kautzsch, Emil, Apocry- 
phen und Pseudepigraphen 
des Alten Testaments. 2 
vols. Tubingen, 1900. 

Kiihner-Gerth = Kuhner, Raphael, 
Ausfiihrliche Grammatik der 
griechischenSprache. Dritte 
Auflage in neuer Bearbeit- 
ung, besorgt von Bernhard 
Gerth. 2 vols. Leipzig, 
1898, 1904. 

L. & S. = Liddell, H. G., and Scott, 
R., Greek English Lexicon. 
Seventh edition revised. 
New York, 1882. 
Ln. = Lachmann, C., Novum Testa- 
m^ntum Greece et Latine. 
(Ed. major) 2 vols. Ber- 
lin, 1842, 1850. 
Ltft. = Lightfoot, J. B. See Bibli- 
ography, p. Ixxxv. 
Luth. = Luther, M. See Bibliogra- 
phy, p. Ixxxiii, and S. 
and H., p. ciii. 
Lxx = The Old Testament in Greek 
according to the Septuagint. 
Quotations are from the 
edition of H. B. Swete. 
3 vols. Cambridge, 1887- 

M. and M. Voc. = Moulton, J. H., 
and Milligan, G., Vocabu- 
lary of the Greek New Testa- 
ment. 1914". 

Mcion. = Marcion. See DCB. 

MGNTG. = Moulton, J. H., A 
Grammar of New Testament 
Greek. Vol. I. Prolego- 
mena. Edinburgh, 1906. 

Mey. = Meyer, H. A. W. See Bib- 
liography, p. Ixxxiv. 

Mofif. = Moffatt, Jas., Introduction 
to the Literature of the New 
Testament. Edinburgh and 
New York, 191 1. 



ms., mss. = manuscript, manu- 

Oecum. = Oecumenius. Tenth cen- 
tury. See Ltft., p. 234; 
S. and H., p. c. 

OIs. = Olshausen, H. See Bibliog- 
raphy, p. Ixxxiv. 

Or. = Origenes. fsss- See Ltft., p. 
227, and DCB. 

Pap. Amh. = The Amherst Papyri. 
2 vols. Edited by B. P. 
Grenfell and A. S. Hunt. 
London 1 900-1. 

Pap. Gd. Cairo = Greek Papyri froyn 
the Cairo Musetim. Edited 
by E. J. Goodspeed. Chi- 
cago, 1902. 

Pap. Kar. = Papyri from Karanis. 
Edited by E. J. Goodspeed, 
in University of Chicago 
Studies in Classical Philol- 
ogy. Chicago, 1900. 

Pap. Lond. = Greek Papyri in the 
British Museum. Vols. I, 
II, edited by F. G. Kenyon; 
vol. Ill, by F. G. Kenyon 
and H. I. Bell; vol. IV, by 
H. I. Bell. London, 1893- 

Pap. Oxyr. = The Oxyrhynchns Pa- 
pyri. Vols.I-VI,X-XIII, 
edited by B. P. Grenfell 
and A. S. Hunt; vols. VII- 
IX by A. S. Hunt. London 

Pap. Tebt. = The Tebtunis Papyri. 
Vol. I edited by B. P. 
Grenfell, A. S. Hunt, and 
J. G. Smyly; vol. II by 
B. P. Grenfell, A. S. Hunt, 
and E. J. Goodspeed. 
London, 1902-7. 

Patr. Ap. = Apostolic Fathers. 

Pelag. = Pelagius. Ca. 410. See 
Ltft., p. 233; S. and H., 
p. ci; DCB. 

Pollux, Onow. = Pollux, Julius, Ono- 
masticon, various editions. 

PRE. = Real-Encyclopadie fiir pro- 
testantise he Theologie und 
Kirche. Dritte Auflage, 
herausgegeben von A. 
Hauck, 1896-1913. 

Preusch. = Preuschen, Erwin, Voll- 
stdndtgcs - Griechisch- 
Deutsches Handworterbiich 
zu den Schriften des Neuen 
Testaments und der iihrigen 
urchristlichen Literatur. 
Giessen, 1910. 

PThR. = Princeton Theological Re- 

q. V. = quod vide, which see. 

Rad. = Radcrmacher, L., Neutesta- 
meniliche Grammatik. Tu- 
bingen, 191 1. 

Ram. = Ramsay, W. M. See Bib- 
liography, p. Ixxxvi. Also 
Introd., p. xxiv. 

Rob. = Robertson, Archibald T., 
Grammar of the Greek New 
Testament. New York, 

Ruck. = Ruckert, Leopold Imman- 
uel. See Bibliography, p. 

RV. = The Holy Bible, Revised. Ox- 
ford, N.T., 188 1, O.T. 1884. 

S. and H. = Sanday, Wm., and 
Headlam, A. C, A Critical 
and Exegetical Commentary 
on the Epistle to tJie Romans. 
Edinburgh and New York, 



Schm. = Schmiedel, P. W. 

Schr. == Schiirer, Geschichte des Jiidi- 
schen Volkes im Zeitalter 
Jesu Christi. Vierte Auf- 
lage, 1901-9. 

Sd. = Soden, Hermann Freiherr 
von, Die Schriften des 
Neuen Testaments. Got- 
tingen, 1902-13. Handaus- 
gabe (Griechisches Neues 
Testament), 19 13. 

Semi. = Semler. See Bibliography, 
p. Ixxxiii. 

Sief. = Sieffert, F. See Bibliogra- 
phy, p. Ixxxv. 

Sl.QiV. = Slaten, Arthur Wakefield, 
Qualitative Nouns in the 
Pauline Epistles. Chicago, 

Smith, DB = William Smith's Dic- 
tionary of the Bible. Re- 
vised and edited by H. B. 
Hackett and Ezra Abbot. 
Boston, 1867, 

SNT. = Die Schriften des Neuen 
Testaments, herausgegeben 
von J. Weiss, Zweite Auf- 
lage. Gottingen, 1907-8. 

Th.St.u.Krit. = Theologische Studieji 

und Kritiken. 
Tdf. ^ Tischendorf, Constantin, 

Novum Testamentum Greece. 

Editio octava crit. maj. 

Leipzig, 1869-72. 
Tert. = Tertullian. tea. 223. See 

Th. = Thayer, Joseph Henry, A 

Greek English Lexicon of the 

New Testament. New York, 

1886. Rev. edition, 1889. 
Thdrt. = Theodoretus. f ca. 458. 

See Ltft., p. 230; DCB. 

Thphyl. = Theophylactus. Ca. 1077. 

TR. => Textus Receptus, the Greek 
text of the New Testament 
as commonly accepted from 
1 5 16 till the modem critical 

Tr, = Tregelles, Greek Neiv Testa- 
ment. London, 1857-79. 

u. s. = lit supra, as above. 

Vg. = Vulgate, text of the Latin 

Victorin. = C. Marius Victorinus. 

Ca. 360 A. D. See Ltft., 

p. 231; DCB. 

W. = Winer, G. B., Grammatik des 
neutestamentlichen Sprach- 
idioms. Various editions 
and translations. 

WM. — Eng. translation of the sixth 
edition of the preceding 
(1867) by W. F. Moulton. 
Third edition revised. Ed- 
inburgh, 1882. 

WSchm. = Winer, G. B. , Gramma- 
tik, etc., u.s. AchteAuflage 
neu bearbeitet von P. 
Schmiedel. Theil I. Got- 
tingen, 1894. 

Weizs. = Weizsacker, C., Das apos- 
iolische Zeitalter. Zweite 
Aufl. Freiburg, i. B. 1892. 
Das Neue Testament, iiber- 
setzt von C. Weizsacker. 

Wetst. = Wetstein. See Bibliogra- 
phy, p. Ixxxiii. 

WH. = Westcott, B. F., and Hort, 
F. J. A., The New Testa- 
ment in the original Greek. 
London, 1881. Vol. I, Text; 
vol. II, Introduction and 



Wies. = Wieseler, Karl. See Bibli- 
ography, p. Ixxxv. 

Ws. = Weiss, Bernhard. See Bib- 
liography, p. Ixxxviii. 

ZhTh.= Zeitschrift fiir historische 

ZntW. = Zeitschrift fiir die neutesta- 

mentliche Wissenschaft. 
ZwTh. = Zeitschrift fur wissenschaft- 

liche Theologie. 
ZkWkL. = Zeitschrift fiir kircJdiche 

Wissenschaft und kirchliches 




Greek authors use the terms Ke-Xrot, KeXrat, and TaXarat, 
Latin authors the similar terms Celtse, Galatae, and Galli, with- 
out clear discrimination * In Polybius and Pausanias KeXrot 
and FaXarat are used synonymously, as in Greek writers gen- 
erally KeXrat and TaKdrac arej Thus Polybius though com- 
monly using the name KeXroL (see 3. 40, 41, 60, 67-74; cf. 3. 59) 
of the people whom he describes in 3. 37 as occupying the coun- 
try from Narbo to the Pyrenees, yet occasionally calls them 
TaXarat (3. 40; cf. 3. 3), and their country TaXaTta (3. 59). 
In 3. 62, 65, he uses the adjective raXaruo?. Similarly Pau- 
sanias lo^^^- uses KeXrot and FaXarat interchangeably of the 
Gauls who invaded Greece. Diodorus Siculus, 5. 32^, however, 
distinguishes between the TaXaTai of the north and the 
KeXrat of the south.J 

On the question whether the names KeXrot, KeXrat and 
FaXarai were etymologically variant forms of the same name 
or of diverse origin, scholars have been divided, Niese, for 
example, identifying them,§ Contzen,ll Tarn,1f and apparently 
most other modern philologists regarding them as of diverse 
origin. D'Arbois de Jubainville** apparently regards the words 

• KeAToi: Hdt. 2"; Xen. Hell. 7. 1" ; Pausan. i< ; Polyb. 3- 60, etc. KeArai: Strabo, 4- 1'- 
Takdraa: Pausan. !«■ *; Polyb. 2. 15. Celtse: Caesar B. G. i». Galatss: Cic. ad Alt., VI s'; Tacit. 
Ann. is». Galli: Caesar B. G. i'. Various compounds occur both in Greek and Latin. Thus 
KeAToAi7v«s: Strabo, 4. 6'. KeAroo-Kveai: Strabo, 1.2"; '^kKr,voya\6.Ta.i: Diod. Sic. S- 32*- 
TaXXoYpaiKoi, VaKKoypaiKia.: Strabo, 2. 5"; 12. 51 (cited by Woodhouse, Encyc. Bib.). Gal- 
lograecia: Livy 38"; Gallogrseci; Livy 38". 

tTarn, Antigonos Gonatas, p. 141, f. n. 11. 

J Niese, art. "Galli" in Pauly-Wissowa, discounts this passage in Diodorus as late evi- 
dence. Tarn, op. cit. ibid., takes issue with Niese on this point, holding that Diodorus is 
here quoting Posidonius. Even so, however, the evidence would be later than Polybius. 

S Art. "Galli" in Pauly-Wissowa, init. 

II Die Wandemng der Kelten, Leipzig, 1861, p. 3- ^ Op. cit., p. 141- 

** "Les Celtes, les Galates, les Gaulois," in Revue Archlologique, xxx 2 (1875), p. 4/. 



as etymologically distinct, but the people as ethnographically 

Related to this hnguistic question, but not identical with it, 
is that of the nature of the tie uniting the various tribes which 
were grouped together under the terms KeXrat or FaXarat, or 
both. Was the basis of this grouping racial, the tribes being 
of ultimately common origin; or linguistic, tribes of perhaps 
different origin having come to speak related languages; or cul- 
tural, different races sharing in a common civihsation; or eco- 
nomic and military, the several tribes participating in a com- 
mon migratory movement?* Related to this in turn is the 
question, whence and when these Celtic or Gallic peoples came 
into western Europe. All these questions pertain to a period 
long previous to that with which we are concerned, and lie 
outside the scope of an introduction to Paul's Epistle to the 

Of more immediate interest, however, are the eastward move- 
ments of the Gauls, which led to the ultimate settlement of a 
portion of the race in Asia Minor and the establishment of an 
eastern Gaul in which, or in an extension of which bearing its 
name, Paul was in process of time to preach the gospel and 
found churches. The stages of the process seem to have been 
as follows: 

1. Under a chieftain whose name or title was Brennus the 
Gauls invaded Italy in b. c. 390 and captured Rome, although 
the capitol itself resisted the siege successfully (Polyb. 2. 18). 
The attack upon Rome seems to have been a punitive expedi- 
tion, and when it was completed and indemnity extorted from 
the Romans the invaders retired (Livy s^^^"} Polyb. 2. 19-21). 
Polybius calls these Gauls raXarat and KeXrot {cf. 2. 22/.), 
their country FaXartfa. 

2. A second Brennus, about 281 B. c, led another east- 
ward movement which had as its object the finding of a new 
home for the overcrowded Gauls. Routed by the ^Etolians 
at Delphi, the Gauls withdrew from Greece and, joining an- 

* Ripley, Races of Europe, pp. 124-128; 470-475; 490-492; McCulloch, art. "Celts" in 
Hastings. Diet. Rel. and Eth. 


Other detachment of the same general stream of eastward mov- 
ing Celts, invaded Asia Minor (Livy 38^®). 

Tarn, op. cit. pp. 439 f. holds that the common treatment of the 
Gallic attack upon Delphi as constituting the invasion of Greece is 
incorrect. He regards th3 latter as part of a general home-seeking 
movement of the Gauls, of which the former was an incident. He 
bases his opinion upon the Koan decree of b. c. 278, which distinguishes 
between two divisions of the Gauls who invaded Greece, one of which 
attacked Delphi. Tarn admits, however, that the events were very 
early confused. The source for our knowledge of the details of these 
events is Pausanias, Bk. 10 passim, esp. lo^sff-, 

3. At first ov^errunning the whole peninsula, they were later, 
about 239 B, c, defeated by Attalus I, king of Pergamum. 
As a result of this defeat they v;ere confined to a territory 
somewhat north and east of the centre, bounded on the north 
by Bithynia and Paphlagonia, on the east by Pontus, on the 
south by Cappadocia and Lycaonia, and on the west by Phrygia, 
and traversed by the rivers Halys and Sangarius, In 189 b, c, 
this eastern Gaul, called by the Greeks Galatia, or Gallograecia, 
shared the fate of the rest of Asia Minor and came under the 
power of the Romans, its status being that of a dependent 
kingdom (Strabo, 12.5^). 

4, In the latter half of the first century b. c. Galatia was 
materially increased in extent. On the death of Deiotarus, 
king of Galatia, about b. c, 40, Antony conferred the kingdom 
of Galatia with the eastern part of Paphlagonia, on Kastor, 
son-in-law of Deiotarus, and to Amyntas, secretary of the late 
Deiotarus, gave a new kingdom, comprising portions of Pisidia 
and Phrygia, A few years later, b, c. 36, Kastor died, and his 
Paphlagonian dominion was given to his brother, but his Gala- 
tian realm to Amyntas, who also retained his Phrygio-Pisidian 
dominion. In the same year he also received a part of Pam- 
phylia. To unite these two separated territories, Galatia and 
Phrygio-Pisidia, Amyntas was given, also, Lycaonia, or a con- 
siderable portion of it. After the battle of Actium Augustus 
gave to Amyntas the country of Cilicia Tracheia.* 

* Ramsay, Com. on Calatians, po. loi, 109 J'.; Perrot, De Galatia Provincia Rotnana, cap. 
II, esp. pp. 42 /. 


5. When in b. c. 25 Amyntas was killed in the war with 
the Homonades, his kingdom was converted into a Roman 
province, but the part of Pamphylia which had belonged to 
him was restored to that province, and Cilicia Tracheia was 
given to Archelaus. In b. c. 5 a large part of Paphlagonia was 
added to Galatia, and at some time before, or in, the reign of 
Claudius (41-54 A. d.), the territory of the Homonades.* 

This situation gave rise to a double use of the term raXari'tt 
as applied to a territory in Asia Minor, the newer, official sense, 
not at once or wholly displacing the older, ethnographic sense. 
The former is found in the following passages from Pliny, Taci- 
tus, and Ptolemy: 

Pliny, Hist. Nat. 5. 146, 147 (42): Simul dicendum videtur et de 
Galatia, quae superposita agros maiori ex parte Phrygiae tenet caputque 
quondam eius Gordium. Qui partem earn insidere Gallorum Tolisto- 
bogi et Voturi et Ambitouti vocantur, qui Maeoniae et Paphlagoniae 
regionem Trogmi. Praetenditur Cappadocia a septentrione et solis 
ortu, cujus uberrimani partem occupavere Tectosages ac Touto- 
bodiaci, Et gentes quidem hae. Populi vero ac tetrarchiae omnes 
numero CXCV. Oppida Tectosagum Ancyra, Trogmorum Tavium, 
Tolistobogiorum Pisinuus. Praeter hos celebres Actalcnses, Alassenses, 
Comenses, Didienses, Hierorenses, Lystreni, Neapolitani, (Eandenses, 
Seleucenses, Sebasteni, Timoniacenses, Thebaseni. Attingit Galatia et 
Pamphyliae Cabaliam et Milyas qui circa Barim sunt et Cyllanicum et 
Oroandicum Pisidia2 tractum, item Lycaoniae partem Obizenen. 

Tacitus, Hist. 2^: Galatiam ac Pamphyliam provincias Calpurnio 
Asprenati regendas Galba permiserat. 

Tacitus, Ann. 133*: Igitur dimissis quibus senectus aut valetudo 
adversa erat, supplementum petivit. Et habiti per Galatiam Cappa- 
dociamque dilectus. 

Ptolemy 5^: 'H ra>.aT{a xeptoptXsTat dxb \ih Suastoq BiOuAcf 

Ila[L(fuXiq: (kizh xoO elpT,[ii\>ou xpbq -tq 'Aalq: izipazoq lax; tou xaxd xapdtX- 
XtjXov 'ixoyroq ^a 8' X^'yi'^ dxb bl i.^ocToikdy KaxxaSoxtai; [lApzi T(p ixb 
TOU eJpY][JLevou xeparoq ;ji%pc tou n6vTOU. 

It appears also in Boeckh, C. I. G. 3991: 

'Ex^Tpoxov Tt^ept'ou KXauBfou Kaiaapoq Se^aaToiJ Fepixavixou xal Nipio- 
voq KXauSfou Kaiaapoq Se^aaxou Feptxavcxou PaXaTixfii; exapxetaq Tbv eau- 
ToCi euepYiTTjv xal xxtaTTjv. 

* Encyc. Bib. vol. II, col. isgi. 


On the other hand, Memnon, a resident of Asia Minor, writ- 
ing in the second century, refers to the land inhabited by the 
Celtic tribes as "the now so-called Galatia." 

auToIq dTzexi^iyovxo rfjv vuv FaXaTtav xa>.ou[J.evTr5V, elq xpsXq [lolpocq tkutt^v 
^i<xvel[iavzeq. Fragg. Hist. Grcec. Ed. Didot. Ill 536. 

Other inscriptions (C. /. G. 4016, 4017, 4031^ 4039, P- 102), bear no 
decisive testimony, being capable of interpretation in either sense. 
See Perrot, op. cit., p. 102. Cf. Sief. Kom. p. ii; contra Zahn, Introd. 
pp. 184/., and Ram. in Stud. Bib. et Eccl. IV 26-38. 


A. The Alternative Opinions. 

The facts narrated in the preceding paragraphs respecting 
the gradual extension of the term FaXarta over larger areas, 
show that in the period when Paul was writing his letters the 
term was used in more than one sense of an eastern territory, 
denoting, on the one hand, the district of which the people of 
Gallic blood who came from the West had gained control before 
the incoming of the Roman power, and, on the other hand, the 
whole of the territory which constituted the Roman province 
of Galatia, including both the district just named and the 
adjacent portions of Lycaonia, Pisidia, and Phrygia. These 
two usages being both in existence in Paul's day, he may have 
used it in either sense. In itself the answer to the question in 
which sense he employed the word would not of necessity 
determine the location of the churches of Galatia to which our 
epistle was addressed, since churches in either part of Galatia, 
or a group partly in one and partly in the other, would be in 
the province. But it happens that the statements of the Book 
of Acts concerning the apostle's missionary journeys in Asia 
Minor and the relation of these statements to the evidence of 
the epistle are such that, if we assume the historicity of the 
former, the determination of Paul's use of the word Galatia 
will determine also the location of the churches. 


In Acts, chaps. 13, 14, it is related that Paul visited Pam- 
phylia, Pisidia, and Lycaonia, and founded churches in Derbe, 
Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch (13^^- ^* 14^- ^* '^^-'^*). This journey 
and these churches were evidently in the province of Galatia, 
but in its southern portion, not in the part of the province 
which was known as Galatia before the days of Amyntas. 
There is no intimation that at this time Paul entered the north- 
ern portion of the province, and such an extension of his jour- 
ney northward is practically excluded by Acts 1423-26. if at 
any time he founded churches in this latter region, it was 
doubtless neither at this time, nor on w^hat is commonly called 
his third missionary journey (Acts 18^^), but on the second, in 
the period referred to in Acts 16^. Whether it is probable that 
churches were founded at this time will be considered later. 
What is important to point out here is that if there were Chris- 
tian churches founded by Paul in the northern, more strictly 
Gallic portion of the province of Galatia, the letter to the 
Galatians can not have been addressed both to this group 
and to the churches of the southern, non-Gallic part of the 
province. For the letter itself, especially 3^-^ ^isfi.^ clearly 
implies that the churches addressed were all founded in the 
same period, on one general occasion; whereas the two groups 
of churches, if such there were, were founded one group on 
one journey, and the other on another, some years later. This 
being the case, if when Paul wrote his epistle there were churches 
in northern Galatia founded by him, these churches, being 
in Galatia in whatever sense the term was used, must have 
been included in the term "the churches of Galatia," and 
the churches of southern Galatia excluded. But in that event, 
since these southern churches were located in Galatia in the 
larger, Roman, sense, Paul could not have been using the 
term in that sense, but in its older, narrower, ethnographic 
sense. In short, if there were any churches in northern Gala- 
tia when the letter was written, Paul's letter was addressed to 
them only, and he used the term in the ethnographic sense. 

On the other hand, if Paul used the term Galatia in the 
Roman sense as designating the province, then since it is cer- 


tain that there were churches in the southern, non-Gallic por- 
tion of the province, these must have been included in the 
apostle's phrase, "the churches of Galatia," and, for the same 
reason that excluded these churches on the former hypothesis, 
the northern churches are now themselves excluded. Indeed, 
the latter could not on this hypothesis have existed when the 
letter was written; for, had they been in existence, they must 
have been included in the phrase, "the churches of Galatia," 
but, on the other hand, could not have been included along 
with the churches of southern Galatia, because they were not 
founded on the same journey as the latter. 

On the basis, therefore, of the Acts narrative, and the evi- 
dence of the letter that "the churches of Galatia" to which it 
was addressed constituted one group founded on the same gen- 
eral occasion, we must exclude any hypothesis that the letter 
was addressed to churches in both parts of the province, and 
make our choice between the two hypotheses: (a) that Paul 
founded churches in northern Galatia on his second missionary 
journey, and addressed the letter to them and them only, using 
the term Galatia in its older, ethnographic sense; and (b) that 
he founded no churches in northern Galatia, and that he ad- 
dressed his letter to the churches of Derbe, Lystra, Iconium, 
and (Pisidian) Antioch, using the term Galatia in the political 

There is indeed a third possibility, viz., that he founded churches in 
northern Galatia on his second missionary journey, but that he wrote 
his letter before founding these churches, and addressed it to the 
only churches then existing in Galatia, those of the southern part of 
the province. But this hypothesis will not, in fact, require separate 
consideration, for the examination of the evidence for the other two 
will incidentally suffice to show its improbability. 

It is incumbent upon us, therefore, to consider these two 
crucial questions, viz., what was Paul's use of the term Galatia, 
and whether he founded churches in northern Galatia. 


jB. The History of Opinion. 

Before considering these questions, however, it will be well 
to sketch briefly the history of opinion on the matter of the 
location of the churches. 

Ancient interpreters took it for granted without discussion that the 
churches were in the northern, Gallic, part of the province {cf. Zahn, 
Kom. p. 12), and this view has been adopted in modern times by 
Neander, Pflanzung u. Leitung, 1838; Conybeare and Howson, St. 
Paul, 1851, and various later editions; Hilgenfeld, Einleitung, 1875; 
Farrar, St. Paul, 1880; Holsten, Evangelium des Paulus, 1880; H. J. 
Holtzraann, Einleitung, 1886; Schurer, Jahrb. ftir prot. Theol. vol. 
XVIII, 1892; Godet, Introduction, 1894; Julicher, Einleitung, 1894S 
i9o6«; Chase in Expositor, Ser. IV, vols. VIII, IX; Mommsen, "Die 
Rechtsverhaltnisse des Apostels Paulus," in ZntW. 1901, p. 86; Schmie- 
del in Encyc. Bib. vol. II, cols. 1596-1616; Steinmann, Die Ahfassungs- 
zeii des Galaterbriefs, 1906; Der Leserkrcis des Galaterhriefs , 1908; Mof- 
fatt, Introduction, 191 1; and by the following commentators on the 
epistle: Hilgenfeld, 1852; Wieseler, 1859; Meyer, 1841 and various 
later editions; Lightfoot, 1865 and various later editions; Ellicott, 
1865; Alford, 1849S 1871'; Sieffert, 1899"; Yindlsiy, in Exp. Grk. Test. 

The South-Galatian view was first proposed by J. J. Schmidt, rector 
of Ilfeld, whom J. D. Michaelis combated in his Einleitung*, 1788. 
(See Zahn, Einleit.^ I 130, E. T. p. 183, but for 1199 read 1788); then 
advocated more at length by Mynster in Einleitung in den Brief an 
die Galater in his Kleinere Schriften, 1825; by Bottger, Beitrdge, 1837; 
and Thiersch, Die Kirche im apostolischen Zeitalter, 185 2S 1879'. It 
received fresh attention when Perrot advocated it in his De Galatia 
Provincia Romana, 1867, and since his day has been defended by 
Kenan, St. Paul, 1869, and various later editions; Hausrath, Neutcs- 
tamentliche Zeitgeschichte ; by Ramsay, who has written voluminously 
in its defence {Church in the Roman Empire, 1893^ 1895*; Studia Biblia 
et Ecclesiastica, vol. IV, 1896; Historical Commentary on Galatians, 
1900, and various essays, especially in The Expositor); Kendall, in The 
Expositor, Ser. IV, vol. IX; Gifford, in The Expositor, Ser. IV, vol. X; 
Clemen, "Die Adressaten des Galaterbriefs," in ZivTh. XXXVII 
396-423; also Paulus, vol. I, 1904; McGiffert, Apostolic Age, 1897; 
Askwith, The Epistle to the Galatians: Its Destination and Date, 1899; 
Bartlet, Apostolic Age, 1899; J. Weiss, art. " Kleinasien," in PKE. 
vol. X; Bacon, Introd. to N. T. 1900; Woodhouse in Encyc. Bib. vol. II, 
col. 1592/.; Zahn, Einleitung"^, 1900, E. T., 19091, 1917'; Kommentar, 
1905; Lake, The Earlier Epistles of St. Paul, 191 1; Emmet, in The 
Readers^ Commentary, 191 2. 


Of the above discussions those of Lightfoot, Chase, Schmiedel, and 
Moflfatt on the North-Galatian side, and those of Ramsay, Woodhouse, 
Zahn, Clemen, and Lake on the South-Galatian side, are most worthy 
of consultation. 

From this sketch of the history of opinion, we return to con- 
sider the evidence on which a decision of the question must be 
based, and under the two heads named above. 

C. PauVs Use of the Term ToKaTia 

I. The letter is addressed rat? eKKX-qaiaL'; Ttjs FaXar/a?. 
It is apparently the habit of the apostle, in speaking of churches, 
either to name the individual church by the city in which it 
was located or by the person in whose house it met, or grouping 
them together, to follow the Roman political divisions, and to 
designate each group by the name of the Roman province in 
which it belonged. See, on the one hand, i Thes. i^ 2 Thes. i^ 
I Cor. i2 2 Cor. i^^ Rom. 16^- ^ i Cor. 16"^ Col. 4^^ Phm. 2, 
the four latter being cases of a church in a house, the rest 
churches in a city; and, on the other hand, 2 Cor. 8^ (eV rats 
iKKXyjaiais tt}? MaKedovLas) i Cor. 16^^^ 2 Cor. i^''. 

Indeed, it seems to be Paul's habit not simply in the designa- 
tion of churches, but in general, to use the geographical terms 
that were officially recognised by the Roman Government. 
Thus he uses names of cities, Antioch, Ephesus, Troas, Thes- 
salonica, Philippi, Athens, Corinth, Jerusalem, Rome, and of 
Roman provinces, Judasa, Syria, Cihcia, Asia, Macedonia, 
Achaia, but never Lycaonia, Pisidia, Mysia or Lydia. 

It is indeed contended by Schm. (Encyc. Bib. vol. II, col. 1604), and 
by Sief. that some of these terms may be used by Paul in their popular 
ethnographic sense rather than in their strictly political sense. This 
is doubtless to be admitted, but the absence of any terms that are 
unambiguously ethnographic and non-political, and of any clear case 
of the employment of a term of double meaning in the non-political 
sense leaves little ground for this hypothesis. 

To this uniform employment of Roman terms Judaea can not be cited 
as an exception. For throughout the period in which those letters of 
Paul were written in which he mentions Judaea (see i Thes. 2" Gal. i" 


2 Cor. I" Rom. i5")> Judaea was a Roman province under procurators, 
and though it sustained in this period as in the years 6-41 A. d. a kind 
of dependence on the province of Syria (Schiirer, Gesch. d. Jiid. Vj, 
vol. I, p. 564, E. T. I ii 165) it was clearly recognised as a province 
under its own governor. See more fully in detached note on Judaea, 
PP' 435 f- Nor is it probable that Illyricum in Rom. 15'' is an excep- 
tion. For in Paul's day this term was the name of a Roman province, 
extending northwest along the Adriatic from the river Drilon to the 
Arsia (^Mommsen, Provinces of the Roman Eynpire, I 24/.; art. "Illyri- 
cum," in Encyc. Bib. and IIDB 1 vol. ed.) and to its border Paul may 
quite possibly have penetrated. The argument of Woodhouse in 
Encyc. Bib. vol. II, col. 2161, that ^dx?t in Rom. i5»' must mean 
"into," and that because we have no other evidence that Paul ever 
went into the province of Illyricum, we must assume that by Illyricum 
he meant lUyris Grc-eca, that portion of Macedonia which adjoins 
Illyricum on the southeast, is, to say the least, inconclusive. For 
neither does [x^xP' naturally mean "into," nor is it explained why, if 
Paul meant Illyris, he should have written 'IXXuptx<5v; nor have we 
any more evidence that Paul went into or to Illyris Graeca, than we 
have respecting Illyricum, this passage furnishing all that we possess 
in either case. 

In I Cor. i6», which is of peculiar interest because of its use of the 
very name with whose usage we are concerned, there is a reference to 
the collection of money for the Christians of Jerusalem, which is also 
spoken of in 2 Cor., chaps. 8, 9, and in Rom. 1$-^. From these pas- 
sages it is clear that during the two years or so next preceding the 
writing of the Epistle to the Romans and Paul's last visit to Jerusalem, 
he gave much attention to the gathering of gifts for the poor Christians 
of Jerusalem from among his Gentile churches. The Corinthian pas- 
sages show that in the gathering of the funds he engaged the services 
of his fellow-missionaries, and Acts 20* suggests that in the transmis- 
sion of the gifts to Jerusalem he associated with himself representatives 
of the churches from which the gifts came. Now it is significant that 
whenever in his epistles he speaks of this enterprise he uses the names 
of the provinces (see 2 Cor. 8' g'- •« Rom. 15=^ and in such way as to 
imply that he made the province the unit and pitted the churches of 
one province against those of another in friendly rivalry. This sug- 
gests that Galatia in i Cor. 16' is itself a province-name. It does not, 
indeed, exclude the possibility that in Galatia there were two groups cf 
churches, those of southern Galatia and those of northern Galatia. 
But independently of that question, it has a bearing on the apostle's 
usage of geographical terms, and in connection with 2 Cor. d>^^--\ esp. -, 
and Acts 20* it also favours the opinion that there was but one group 
of Galatian churches, viz., those of southern Galatia. And this in turn 


confirms the view that Paul's use of terms is exclusively Roman. For 
the names mentioned in Acts 20*, compared with i Cor. 16', suggest 
that as he had gathered the money by provinces, so he selected the 
representatives of the churches who were to accompany him to Jeru- 
salem on the same basis. In that case Sopater, Aristarchus, Secundus, 
and probably Luke himself, represented Macedonia. The absence of 
representatives from Achaia is strange, especially in view of 16'; it has 
been suggested and is not improbable that the Corinthians, modifying 
the suggestion of Paul in i Cor. i6'' *, or possibly taking it in the sense 
which they had the discernment to recognise to be his real thought, 
designated Paul as their representative. Tychicus and Trophimus 
are the delegates from Asia, and Gains and Timothy from Galatia. 
But as both these latter are from southern Galatia, northern Galatia 
is unrepresented, a situation not, indeed, impossible if the churches of 
Galatia in i Cor. 161 means those of northern Galatia, or those cf 
both northern and southern Galatia, but in either case improbable. 
Of the three hypotheses, then, (a) that "the churches of Galatia," in 
I Cor. i6' are the churches of northern Galatia, the name being used 
ethnographically; (b) that the term is used provincially, but the 
churches were of two groups, those ot northern Galatia and those of 
southern Galatia, and (c) that the term is used provincially and the 
churches are those of southern Galatia, there being none in northern 
Galatia, the third is most consistent with the evidence. The first not 
only makes the use of the term different from that which is usual with 
Paul, but is at variance with the natural implication of Acts 2o< by 
putting the churches in one region and the delegates in another. The 
second is open to the second of these objections and also finds in Corin- 
thians a different use of the phrase and term from that which occurs 
in Galatians. The third is consistent with all the evidence. 

The evidence of the Pauline epistles is, therefore, decidedly 
more favourable to a uniformly Roman use of geographical 
terms by the apostle and the view that by Galatia he means 
both in I Cor. 16^ and Gal. i^, the Roman province, than to a 
mixed usage such as is found, for example, in Acts. 

This judgment is somewhat confirmed by i Pet. i^ Galatia being 
there grouped along with Pontus, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, all 
of which are provinces, is itself presumably the name of a province, 
and there is a certain measure of probability that the author of this 
letter, who gives evidence of acquaintance with the ideas of the apostle 
Paul and probably knew of his letters, knew also what he meant by 
Galatia. But this argum.ent is not very weighty. 


It is still further somewhat confirmed by the facts respecting the 
usage of geographical terms in general. The extension of a name to 
cover a larger territory and to include territories formerly bearing other 
names is a common historical phenomenon. It occurs as the result 
of conquest, bestowal of territory by a superior power, or in the case 
of cities by growth and incorporation. Now the general proceeding 
in such cases is that it is precisely the name that is spread over a larger 
territory that loses its original narrower significance. The names of 
the absorbed territories remain as official or unofficial designations of 
subdivisions of the larger territory because they have received no new 
significance, while the territory whose name has been extended over 
the larger area either retains no distinctive name or acquires a new 
one. Thus, when the name France, which formerly designated a 
comparatively small area around Paris, was gradually extended over 
the whole kingdom of the Capetian kings, the original France came 
to be known as lie de France. When Brandenburg and Prussia 
(Borussia) came inder the rule of a single king, and, the intervening 
territory being added, the name Prussia was extended to cover the 
whole kingdom, the original Prussia came to be known as East Prus- 
sia, and the intervening territory as West Prussia. As the names of 
cities, London, New York, Boston, Chicago, have been extended to 
include the suburbs, the latter have retained their names as official 
or unofficial designations, but the original territory has either had no 
distinctive name, or has acquired some new name. It can not, indeed, 
be affirmed that this is the invariable practice. Where changes in the 
extent of territory designated by a certain name are frequent and in 
both directions, involving now increase and now decrease, there is a 
natural tendency on the part of a later writer to continue to use the 
term in its original sense or to waver between the different senses 
without always conforming his usage exactly to that of the time of 
which he is at the moment speaking. See detached note on 'louBac'c: 
with its discussion of the usage of Josephus, pp. 435 /. 

In respect to Galatia there was, from 189 b. c. to the time of Paul, 
for the most part, only extension of the term. For fuller details sec 
pp. xlxff., and literature there referred to. From the year 25 b. c. to the 
time when Paul wrote, that is to say, for seventy-five years covering 
the whole period of his life, TaXoczia had been the official designation 
of a Roman province; that province had been in large part of unchanged 
extent, including both the territory within which the Gauls had been 
confined by Attalus, king of Pergamum, about 240 b. c. and the terri- 
tory south of this, viz., Lycaonia, Pisidia, and part of Phrygia. Dur- 
ing practically his whole lifetime, viz., from 5 b. c, it had included a 
part of Paphlagonia, also. 

Yet these general considerations are obviously not decisive, and, in 


view of the evidence cited above on pages xx /., showing that in the 
case of the term VaXaxia the more extended, poHtical usage did not 
wholly supersede the older, narrower, ethnographic usage, they are of 
value only as somewhat confirming the probability that the wider and 
later usage was the common one. 

It has been urged, indeed, and the contention has been sup- 
ported by the weighty authority of Mommsen {op. cit. p. xxiv), 
that Paul could not have addressed the inhabitants of the cities 
of southern Galatia as Galatians, as he does the recipients of the 
letter in 3\ but that the term necessarily designates inhabitants 
of Galhc Galatia. The argument perhaps assumes a greater 
difference between the populations of northern and southern 
Galatia respectively than actually existed. Both were doubt- 
less of very much mixed blood, with Gallic elements in both 
regions. (See Rendall, "The Galatians of St. Paul," in Exposi- 
tor, Ser. IV, vol. DC, pp. 254/., esp. 256/.) Nor does it 
seem possible to name any other term which would be inclu- 
sive enough for his purpose. If the churches addressed were 
those of Derbe, Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch, which he founded 
on his first missionary journey, he could not well address their 
members by any single term except Galatians. 

D. Did Paul Found Churches in Northern Galatia? 

For the discussion of this question there is, unfortunately, 
but little evidence in the epistles of Paul independent of his use 
of the term Galatia, and even such as there is, is of significance 
only in connection with the evidence of the Book of Acts. 

I. Paul's illness in Galatia. 

In Gal. 4^2 Paul says that he preached the gospel to the Gala- 
tians on the first occasion {ro irporepov) because of a weakness 
of the flesh. Whatever the meaning of to irporepov (see more 
fully on 4^^), it is clear that the passage refers to the original 
evangelisation of the Galatians. That this occurred 5t' 
cLdQeveiav signifies either that Paul was detained by illness in 
a country which he had intended merely to pass through, or 


that he was obliged for his health's sake to visit a country 
which otherwise he would not have visited at that time, and 
that in either case he availed himself of the opportunity to 
deliver his Christian message to the inhabitants of the region. 
The latter part of the same verse with its reference to that in 
his flesh which was a trial to them implies that the illness was 
of a more or less repellent nature, and that, even if it occurred 
before he entered Galatia and was the occasion of his going 
there, it continued while he was there. If the churches to 
which he was writing were those of southern Galatia, the illness 
here referred to must have occurred in Pamphylia or at Pisidian 
Antioch on his first missionary journey (Acts 13^^' ^*). Ram. 
has made the suggestion that Paul contracted malarial fever 
in the coast lands of Pamphylia, and for this reason sought the 
highlands of southern Galatia instead of either continuing his 
work in Pamphylia or pushing on into Asia, as he had intended 
to do. It is perhaps equally possible that having gone to 
Pisidian Antioch with the intention of going to Asia and being 
detained there by illness, he abandoned for the time his plan 
of entering Asia, and turned eastward into the cities of Lycaonia, 
If the churches were in northern Galatia he must have fallen 
ill at Pisidian Antioch on his second missionary journey or 'at 
some place in that vicinity, and been led to betake himself to 
northern Galatia; or having already, for some other reason, gone 
into northern Galatia from Antioch or Iconium, with the inten- 
tion of passing through, he must have become ill there, and in 
either case must have used the period of his detention in preach- 
ing to the Galatians. The relation of his illness to the evidence 
of Acts will be discussed more fully below. Taken by itself it 
furnishes no ground of decision for either North-Galatian or 
South-Galatian view. 

2. The evidence of Acts 16^ and Acts 18^. 

Incidental use has been made of Acts above to show that 
the churches addressed by Paul were either in southern Galatia 
or northern Galatia, not both. The Acts evidence must now 
be examined m.ore fully. 


In Acts i6^ we read: ^i^rfKdov he rrjv c^pvytav kov TaKariKrjv 
^mpaVy KioKvBevres virb tov dyiov Tr^eujuaros XaX^crat tou Xd- 
yoj^ ev rrj 'kaia^ iXOovres be Kara Trjv Mvaiav eirelpa^ov els 
Trjp ^idwLav TvopevSrjvai kol ovk etaaev avrovs to Trvevixa. 
'It; croO.* 

In v.^* it is related that the travellers had visited Derbe and 
Lystra; w.^^-^ having related the story of the circumcision of 
Timothy, v.'* states that they went on their way through the 
cities, V.5 adding that the churches were strengthened in their 
faith and increased in number. Inasmuch as Paul's plan, as 
set forth in 15^^, was to visit the brethren in the cities wherein 
he and Barnabas had previously preached, and as in 16^ they 
were moving westward through the southern part of the prov- 
ince of Galatia, it is natural to suppose that "the cities" of v.'» 
are Iconium and Antioch, and that "the churches" of v.^ are 
the churches of those cities. A visit to Iconium is, indeed, 
almost implied in v.^.f 

The most obvious and, indeed, only natural explanation of 
the phrase tt^v ^pvylav Kal TaXaTiKrjp %ft)paz^ in v.^ is that 
^pvyiap and TakarLKrjp are both adjectives and both limit 
'Xoipo.v. Geographical names ending in -ta were originally em- 
ployed as adjectives, and their customary use as nouns with 
an article preceding is a reminiscence of their use as adjectives 
with x^pa. The presence of such an adjective with an article 

* The above is the text adopted by Tdf. WH. al. fit^A^ov is the reading of NABCD 
81, 440, 614, al."" Syr. (psh. hard.) Sah. Boh. Aeth. Epiph. al. 5i6A9dvTes is the reading 
of HLP al. longe plu. Chr. Thdrt. Ltft. adopts the latter reading on the ground that the 
indicative is open to suspicion as an attempt to simplify the grammar of a sentence which 
is rendered awkward by the accumulation of participles. But it is not certain that the 
scribal mind did not work in the reverse way, and against this doubtful probability the 
strong preponderance of external evidence leaves no room for reasonable doubt. Ramsay's 
adoption of SieA.floi'Tes in Si. Paul, p. 195, after rejecting it in Church in the Rom. Emp.* 
p. 484, looks suspiciously like controlling evidence by theory. 

t Professor Chase, in Expositor, Ser. IV, vol. VIII, p. 408, contends that laei/ oiiv of v. 8 
is correlative with Se of v.*, and that the paragraph properly begins with v.^, or at least that 
there is a close connection between these two verses. But this contention can not be main- 
tained, fiev oCv may introduce the concluding clause of a paragraph without reference to 
any Si in the following sentence. See Th. under /aeV, II 4. The instances which Chase 
himself cites, taken together, make against his view. Nothing, therefore, can be deduced 
from this either way. V.« may begin a new paragraph, as in RV., indeed, probably does so, 
and this v. may, so far as ft.ev ovv is concerned, be a repetition of preceding verses. But that 
the paragraph begins here does not prove that it is a repetition. 


before it and the word %ft)pa after it almost of necessity marks 
the intervening word ending in -tct as an adjective and the 
joining of the words ^pvylav and VaKaTLKriv by /cat, with the 
article before the first one only, implies that the region desig- 
nated by %<»pa is one, Phrygian and Galatian. In what sense 
it is one, whether in that it was inhabited throughout by a 
mixed Phrygian- Galatian population, or that it was in one 
sense (e. g. ethnographically) Phrygian, and in another (e. g. 
politically) Galatian, or that it constituted one physiographic 
region, composed of two parts politically or ethnographically, 
Phrygian and Galatian respectively, is not decisively indicated. 
The unity which is implied may even be only that of the jour- 
ney referred to, the two districts constituting one in the mind 
of the writer because they were traversed in a single journey. 

The contention of Moff. Introd. p. 93, following Chase, op. cit. 
pp. 404 f., that <l>puYfav is a noun and ^wpav is limited by Vaka.xiy.-ip 
only, can not be supported by Acts 2^°, where 4>puYta is indeed sub- 
stantively used, but is shown to be so used by the absence of X"pa; 
nor by Acts iS^^; for, though the words are the same as in i6«, it is 
not certain that ^puytav is a noun, nor if it is, can it be inferred that 
it is so also in 16*, since it is the order of words alone that in 18" tends 
to estabHsh the substantive character of ^puytav, and that order is 
not found in 16^; nor by Acts ig'^i, SteX6(jv tt)v MaxeSovfav xal 'Axafav, 
nor by 2 7 5, t'^jv KcXcxfav xal Xlap-^uXfav; for, though these passages 
both illustrate the familiar fact that words in -ta may be used sub- 
stantively, and show that, when two geographical terms are joined 
by xa{ and the article precedes the first only, the unity thus implied 
is not necessarily political or geographical, but may be only that of 
the itinerary, they carry no implication respecting the grammatical 
construction of such a phrase as that of 16 ^ On the other hand, while 
Ltft. and Ram. are right in claiming a presumption in favour of the 
view that the country referred to is in some sense one, it is not of 
necessity the case that this one country is in one sense Phrygian and 
in another Galatian. See, e. g., Acts ly^^, xwv 'Extxoupfov xal IlToixoiv 
(ptXoao(pd)v.* Such a meaning is indeed possible, but neither Ltft. 

• Ram.'s contention 'that the fact that these words are in the plural makes the example 
irrelevant and his demand for an instance with *tAc)o-o<^09 in the singular are not convincing. 
A philosopher can not, indeed, be one half Epicurean and one half Stoic, but a group of 
philosophers'may be so, and so, also, may a country be one half Phrygian and one half Galatian. 
An example of a collective singular noun with two adjectives would, indeed, be more perti- 
nent, but a plural of persons is more like a singular geographical term than the singular of 
a personal name, which Ram. demands. 


nor Ram. have cited any examples of such a use of words. Chase, op. 
cit., states the grammatical principle quite correctly: "From the point 
of view of the writer they are invested with a kind of unity sufficiently 
defined by the context." It is, indeed, surprisingly difficult to cite 
examples of phrases similar in structure to the phrases which Acts 
employs here and in iS^^. An examination of all the passages in which 
Josephus uses the words 'louBata, 'ISoufxata, Saixapfa, Sa^iiapfTtq, 
VaXCkoLla, or Ilepata, fails to discover a single example. The ex- 
pression r(]q 'iToupafa? xal Tpax«v(T'.Soc; ^wpaq in Lk. 31 [has been 
appealed to on both sides, but apparently can not, for lack of exact 
knowledge of the political status of the region in Luke's day, be counted 
as furnishing decisive evidence on either side. See Geo. Adam Smith 
in Expositor, Ser. IV, vol. IX, p. 231. 

It remains then to ask what region in the vicinity of Antioch 
or Iconium capable of being described as in any sense Phrygian 
and Galatian also meets the further requirements of the con- 
text. The possible hypotheses may be conveniently presented 
by considering the various views of modern scholars. 

The following writers suppose that the phrase refers to, or 
includes, northern Galatia, and that on the journey churches 
were founded in northern Galatia. 

Ltft. takes ^puyfav and PaXaTcxTQv as adjectives both limiting x&gav 
and both used ethnographically. First translating the phrase, "the 
Phrygian and Galatian country" and interpreting it as designating 
"some region which might be said to belong either to Phrygia or 
Galatia, or the parts of each continuous to the other" {Com. p. 20), 
he presently translates it "the region of Phrygia and Galatia," adding: 
"The country which was now evangelised might be called indifferently 
Phrygia or Galatia. It was, in fact, the land originally inhabited by 
Phrygians but subsequently occupied by Gauls" {Com. p. 22). The 
actual journey Ltft. supposes to have extended to Pessinus, Ancyra, 
and Tavium. The grammatical exegesis is sound, but neither the 
inference that the country referred to is in one sense Phrygian and 
in another sense Galatian, nor the specific contention that it was 
Phrygian in its original population and Galatian in its later, follows 
from the grammatical premise or from any other evidence. To estab- 
lish Ltft.'s opinion it would be necessary to show from the context 
that the only Phrygian and Galatian country that meets the conditions 
of Acts i6« ff- is that to which he refers the phrase; or at least that no 
other so well meets the conditions. This is not the case, but on the 
contrary, his interpretation encounters a serious difficulty in v.^, 


e>.66vxeq Be xardt rJ)v Mua(av eTusfpa^ov dq t-?)v Bi0uv{av xopeuOiivat. 
Taken together, the two verses represent the missionaries as turning 
back from Asia to pass through the Phrygian and Galatian countrv, 
and in the course of that journey reaching a point at which they were 
over against Mysia with Bithynia as an alternative destination. But 
a journey from Pisidian Antioch to Pessinus, Ancyra, and Tavium 
would at no point have brought the travellers "over against Mysia," 
in the most probable sense of that phrase, viz., at a point where Mysia 
lay on a line at right angles with the direction in which they were trav- 
elling, nor in the possible sense of "opposite," i. e., facing it. Even if 
"passed through the Phrygian and Galatian country" be supposed, 
as is very improbable, to refer to a journey into the Phrygian and 
Galatian country and out again in approximately the reverse direc- 
tion, say from Antioch northeast to Tavium or Ancyra, and westward 
to Dorylaion or Nakoleia, they could not be said at any time to have 
come xaxdc Muai'av, since in the whole of the return journey they 
would have been facing Mysia, and at no point over against it. At 
Nakoleia, Dorylaion, or Kotiaion, e. g., they would have been xard: 
Bt6uv{av, not xard: Muat'av. Nor can xaT(4* be taken in its occasional 
sense of "near," since they would have been near Mysia only when 
they had practically passed Bithynia. Nor is it easy to adjust this 
interpretation to the statement of Gal. 4" considered above. Was 
northern Galatia a place to which a sick man would go from Pisidian 
Antioch for his health? Or if Paul is supposed to have been passing 
through northern Galatia and to have been detained there by illness, 
what was his destination? Is it likely that with Paul's predilection 
for work in the centres of population he would have planned to pass 
through northern Galatia without preaching for the sake of reaching 
Paphlagonia or Pontus? 

Chase ("The Galatia of the Acts" in Expositor, Ser. IV, vol. VIII, 
pp. 401-419), with whom, also, Wendt substantially agrees in the 
later editions of his Apostclgeschichte, interprets tt)v <tgu^iay xal 
FaXaTtx'Jjv xwpav as meaning "Phrygia and the Galatian region," 
and finds the two districts thus referred to in the country between 
the cities of Lycaonia and Pisidia, which Paul was leaving behind, 
and Bithynia on the north. Between these cities of the south 
and Bithynia, Chase says "districts known as Phrygia and Galatia 
lie," "Forbidden to turn westward, the travellers . . . bent their 
steps northward, passing along the road, it seems likely, which led 
through Phrygia to Nakoleia. At this point they turned aside and 

* On the use of Ko-ra see L. & S. Kar6. B. I 3, and cf. Hdt. i'«; Thuc. 6»."<; Acts 27', but 
also Blass on Acts 16' (cited by Ram., art. "Mysia" in HDB). On /cara, meaning "oppo- 
site," "facing," see .(Esch. Theb. 505; Xen. Bell. 4*. For the meaning "at" or "near" see 
Hdt. 3"; ^sch. Theh. 528. 


jntered the Galatian district on the east. We may conjecture that 
they halted at Pessinus." This interpretation again fails to do justice 
to xaxd Mujc'av. By shortening the journey eastward as compared 
with that proposed by Ltft., the difficulty is made somewhat less glar- 
ing, but not removed. To express the idea of Chase the author should 
have omitted the reference to the Galatian region in v.^ and after v.^ 
have inserted a statement to the effect that they_^entered Galatia and 
again returning passed by Mysia, etc. The view also encounters the 
difficulty that it finds no probable place for the illness which became 
the occasion of the preaching in Pessinus. 

Sief. (Kom.^, pp. 9-17, esp. 15) interprets t'^jv 4>puYcav xal FaXa- 
TtxV xoypa^ of Acts 16 « as designating the country northeast of 
Pisidian Antioch and supposes that the journey here spoken of prob- 
ably passed to the west of the Sultan Dagh and brought the apostle 
to Pessinus via Kinnaborion and Ammorion. The churches of Galatia 
he would locate in Pessinus, Germa, and neighbouring places. Schm. 
(Encyc. Bib. vol. II, col. 1600, 1606/.) and Moff. {Introd. pp. 92-95) 
adopt substantially the same view though with less specific definition 
of the route and location of the churches. 

The following writers, differing in their interpretation of the 
geographical phrase, are agreed in the opinion that the passage 
does not refer to the founding of churches: 

Ram. holds that the reference is to the western half of the southern 
portion of the province of Galatia, the region of Iconium and Antioch, 
being called Phrygian because ethnographically so, and Galatian be- 
cause politically so. Church in the Roman Empire'^, p. 77; St, Paul, 
pp. 180/.; Stud. Bib. et Eccl. IV 56; on the diversity of interpretations 
advocated by Ram., see Schm. in Encyc. Bib. vol. II, col. 1598, 1601 /. 

Apparently, indeed, the author of Acts has already narrated the 
passage through this country in v.*. But Ram. explains vv.'*- ^ not 
as a continuation of the narrative, but as a (parenthetical) description 
of Paul's procedure in the churches, the narrative being continued in 
v.«, VV.1-' covering Derbe and Lystra, v.« Iconium and Antioch. The 
further objection to his view that the remainder of v.^, "having been 
forbidden by the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia," naturally 
implies that at the beginning of their journey the travellers were already 
on the borders of Asia, Ram. seeks to obviate by supposing xwXuGsvTsq 
to be a participle of subsequent action, referring to an event which 
took place after the journey through the Phrygian and Galatian 
country. Later Greek, in particular the second half of Acts, seems 
to furnish examples of an aorist participle standing after the principal 


verb and denoting an action subsequent to that of the verb.* But 
xtoXuGivreq does not seem, to be an example of this rather rare usage. 
The most probable occurrences of it, in Acts at least, are of two classes: 
(a) Instances in which the participle follows closely upon the verb 
and expresses an action in close relation to the verb, approximating 
in force a participle of identical action. So, e. g., Acts 251', where 
dca-jcaaaixsvot, while not denoting an action identical with that of 
xaTTjvTTQaav, is intimately associated with it as its purpose. Simi- 
larly, in Test. XII Pair. Reub. 3, li--?) d^J^atxsvoq is not identical with 
exsvOst, but is its immediate consequence. A probable, though 
perhaps not certain, case of similar character is found in Jos. Contra 
Ap. I" (7), auYypd:(];avTsq. (b) Instances in which the participle is 
far removed from the verb, and, the complications of the sentence 
obscuring the relation of the different parts of the sentence to one 
another, an additional fact is loosely added at the end by an aorist 
participle. Examples of this form are found in Acts 23" 24". In 
Acts i6«, on the other hand, we have neither form. The sentence is 
short and uninvolved, but the action denoted by the participle, if sub- 
sequent to that of the verb, is not involved in it as purpose or result, 
but marks a distinctly new and important stage of the narrative. 

When to these considerations it is added that the interpretation of 
xtoXu6^vTs<; as a participle of subsequent action involves taking 
vv.*- ' as parenthetical, and the first part of v.« as in effect a repetition 
of these vv., the weight of objection to the view as a whole compels 
its rejection. Taking vv.^- ' in their obvious sense as referring to a 
journey beyond Lystra, v.« as an addition to what has already been 
said, and the participle in what is in this connection its equally obvious 
force, viz., as expressing the cause of the action denoted by the verb, 
the whole passage is self-consistent and simple. Ram.'s view breaks 
down under an accumulation of improbabilities. The opinion ex- 
pressed by Gifford (op. cit. p. 18) is that previously reached by the 
present writer, viz., that while the supposed grammatical usage is 
itself possible, and Ram.'s view can not be said to have "shipwrecked 
on the rock of Greek grammar" (as Chase affirms), the present passage 
can not be regarded as an example of that usage. 

Gifford interpreting xaTa T-f)v Muat'av in v.' as meaning "over against 
Mysia," i. c, at a point where the road to Mysia lay at right angles to 

*BMT 14s; cf. Gifford in Expositor, Ser. IV, vol. X (1894), pp. 17/.; and contra Rob. 
p. 861. For exx. of this usage additional to those cited in BMT, see Find. Pytk. IV 189, 
firaivrjaa^; Test. XII Patr. Reub. 3, 15, ai/za/nevo? (cited by Gifford from Sanday); Clem. 
Alex. Protrept. {Cohorlatio ad gentes), chap. 2: /liyvvrat hpaKiav yevoixevo^, os rjv eKeyxOeii 
(Migne. col. 76): "He makes his approach as a dragon, his identity being afterwards discov- 
ered"; Chronicon Paschale, pref. quoted by Routh, Reliquics Sacrce, I 161, en-ire^eVToj. 
That the exx. of this usage are scattered over several centuries of time, some being earlier, 
some later than N. T., does not, perhaps, diminish their value. 


the course which the travellers were up to that point pursuing, sup- 
poses the phrase x'fjv <S>puYtav Val raXaTtx.-?)v x'^ga^ to designate the 
frontier of Phrygia and Galatia (apparently taking the latter term as 
the name of the province), and to refer to the country between Pisidian 
Antioch and the point at which the road to Troas branches from the 
road to Bithynia, probably Nakoleia. This view is similar to that of 
Chase as respects the route followed, differing, however, in that it 
does not assume a journey eastward to Pessinus and the founding of 
churches. The principal difficulty with Gifford's suggestion is that 
a line drawn from Antioch to Nakoleia apparently lies so far from the 
Galatian border that the country through which one would pass would 
be much more naturally called simply ^puytav. Yet it is, perhaps, 
possible that the road actually taken, for reasons unknown to us, 
passed so far to the east as to make this expression wholly natural. 

Zahn prefers to take the article with 4>puyi'av only and to interpret 
the lack of the article with FaXaxcxV x^pav as indicating that Paul 
and his companions only touched upon a part of the region so desig- 
nated. This interpretation is manifestly untenable on grammatical 
grounds. The suggestion supposed to be conveyed could not be indi- 
cated by the omission of the article. As his second choice Zahn pro- 
poses the view that the article belongs to both nouns, and the whole 
phrase refers to territory which was partly in Phrygia and partly in 
Galatia, both terms being ethnographically understood. Such a jour- 
ney starting from Antioch would, perhaps, include Amorion, Pessinus, 
Germa, and Nakoleia or Dorylaion. Einleitung, I 136; E. T. I 187/., 
esp. x^g fin.; Com., p. 16. See also Moff. Introd. pp. 92/. Such an 
interpretation is grammatically sound and otherwise entirely unobjec- 
tionable. Rather better than Gifford's, it accounts for the use of 
PaXaT'.x-Jjv xi^gca in preference to Vakaxiav, or FaXartx^jv exapxs^av, 
which would naturally have been chosen if, as Gifford apparently sup- 
poses, the Acts writer was speaking of the province of Galatia. 

As concerns the purpose and result of the journey, the evi- 
dence of Acts at least seems clearly on the side of the writers of 
this second group. The Acts narrative says nothing about 
founding churches in the region named in 16®. Indeed the 
impression which the whole passage makes is that the writer 
knew of no evangehsing, or at least of no prolonged or success- 
ful work, from the time when the missionaries left "the cities" 
(v.^) till they arrived at Philippi in obedience to the vision re- 
ceived at Troas (v.^). Forbidden to speak the word in Asia, 
turned back from Bithynia, passing by Mysia, only when they 


reach Troas do they find a way open to them. Certainly the 
author would scarcely have described the journey through the 
Phrygian and Galatian country in the brief language of vv.^- ^* 
if he had known that at this time Paul founded a group of 
churches. This does not prove that no churches were founded, 
but it raises the question whether Zahn is not right in locating 
the journey much as Moflf. Sief. and Schm. do, but in holding 
that no churches were founded. Before deciding this question, 
however, the evidence of Acts iS^^ must be considered. 

This sentence reads: diep'^ofxevos Kade^rjs ri^v VoKariKrjv 
X^P^^ '^cil ^pvytaVj ar-qpi^wv ivdvTas rovs jJLadrjrds. 

Advocates of the North-Galatian theory generally interpret 
the phrase rrju VoKariKr^v %ft)pai^ koI (^pvyiaf as referring to 
the same territory called in i6« t^i' ^pvyCav Kal TaKaTLKrjp 
Xoipoiv, ascribing the difference in order to the different direc- 
tion of approach, and looking upon the confirmation of the dis- 
ciples as evidence that on the journey mentioned in i6^ the 
apostle founded churches. It must be questioned whether 
either of these assumptions is sound. There is, indeed, a pre- 
sumption in favour of the view that two phrases employing 
exactly the same terms (though in different order) and stand- 
ing in the same author, use the individual terms in the same 
sense. But there is distinctly less probability that the two 
phrases as a whole mean the same thing, for the change of 
order may itself be significant. Nor is it probable that the 
difference in order is due simply to the difference in the direc- 
tion of journey. For if, as we have maintained above, both 
^pvjLav and TaKaTLKtjj^ are adjectives limiting x^P^^ '^^ i6^, 
we should expect here rrjv TaKaTiKrji' Kal ^pvyCav ^copai^ if 
the two expressions were intended to denote the same territory 
traversed in opposite directions.* The probability is therefore 

* Mt. 24" shows, indeed, that ^pvyiav may be an adjective limiting X'"P*»'. despite 
its position. But such an order is apparently poetic or rhetorical and not likely to be found 
in a plain geographical statement. The examples cited by Ram. St. Paul, p. 211, are not 
really parallel cases. The first one is a case of distributive apposition, the general term pre- 
ceding the noun and specific terms following it. The other passages are not examples of 
two adjectives limiting the same noun, one preceding the noun with the article, the other 
following it without the article, but of a series of proper adjectives, each preceded by an 
article and each denoting a different object, the noun being expressed with the first and 
supplied with the others. 


that ^pvylav is a noun. VaKariKrjv is, of course, clearly here, 
as in 1 6^, an adjective. The unity indicated by the single 
article is presumably that of the journey only. 

Where, then, are these two regions which were traversed in this one 
journey? V." names Antioch of Syria as the point of departure. 
Chap. 191 names Ephesus as the point of arrival. Between these two 
extremes, Paul has passed through the Galatian country and Phrygia. 
Whether "the upper country" (dtvoxsptxa f-ipr]) referred to in 19^ is 
the same as the Galatian region and Phrygia, being referred to here 
resumptively, or the territory between Phrygia and Ephesus, is not 
wholly certain, nor particularly important for our present purpose. 
It is generally and probably rightly understood of the highlands of 
Asia in contrast with the coast plain. It is evident that the writer 
has not given a complete itinerary, but has only mentioned some 
points in which he was specially interested. If, as on his previous 
journey, Paul went entirely by land, he must have passed through the 
Syrian Gates and northern Syria. Thence he might, indeed, as Schm. 
suggests, have gone north through Cappadocia. But Schm.'s reason 
for this route, that if he had gone through Cilicia the narrative would 
have spoken of confirming the churches in that region, is not convinc- 
ing. It is certainly as probable, if not more so, that his route lay 
through Cilicia as far as Tarsus, thence through the Cilician Gates to 
the point at which the roads branch, one arm going westward to 
Lycaonia, and the other northward through Cappadocia. 

From this point three routes are possible. He may have taken the 
northern road to Tavium, and thence westward through Ancyra. This 
is the route for which Ltft.'s theory that he had on the previous journey 
founded churches in these cities would naturally call. Emerging from 
the Galatian country he would come into Phrygia and so through the 
mountains of the eastern part of the province of Asia to Ephesus. 

On the other hand, he might have left the great western road soon 
after passing through the Cilician Gates and travelling via Tyana and 
the road south of Eake Tatta (or possibly via Iconium) have come to 
Pessinus in the western part of old Galatia and so on through Phrygia 
to Ephesus. Such a route could hardly have been dictated solely by 
a desire to reach Ephesus, since it was far from being the shortest or 
easiest. In this case we may with Moff. suppose that "the disciples" 
are those in the churches founded on the previous journey, or with 
Zahn that he had founded no church and "all the disciples" are the 
scattered Christians in these regions. In either case ty)v PaXaTtx-Jjv 
Xtopav is old Galatia, but the part passed through is the extreme western 
part only. 4)puyia is the eastern part of Asia. 

But still again, he may have taken the route westward through 


Derbe, Lystra, Iconium, and Pisidian Antioch, and thence on directly- 
westward to Ephesus. The last explanation makes the language cover 
a larger part of the country actually passed through than either of the 
others. It is, however, an objection to it that it supposes rakaziy.T]v 
to be used in a different sense from any that can reasonably be attached 
to it in i6«, taking FaXaTcx-fiv ^wpav in a political sense, which is con- 
trary to the usual practice of the Acts author and to the use of ^gu-^iav 
which he immediately joined with it. 

It is against any view that finds in Acts iS^^ a second visit 
to the Galatian churches supposed to have been founded on 
the second journey (Acts i6*^) that while the Acts author defi- 
nitely speaks of the churches founded in southern Galatia and 
elsewhere (14^3 15*1 16^) here he speaks only of disciples (but 
cf. also 14^2). This, together with the absence of any mention 
of the founding of churches in i6^^-, favours the view of Zahn 
that while there were scattered disciples in this region (found 
or made on his previous journey) there were no churches. This 
evidence could, indeed, be set aside if there were strong oppos- 
ing reasons. But the contrary is the case. All forms of the 
North-Galatian view with its hypothesis of churches in old 
Galatia labour under the disadvantage that its sole evidence 
for the existence of any churches in northern Galatia is found 
in two passages, both somewhat obscure, in a writer v/ho, 
though doubtless in general trustworthy, is not always accu- 
rate. To create on the basis of such evidence a group of 
churches of Galatia, when we already have perfectly clear evi- 
dence of another group of churches which could be properly 
so called, and which fulfil all the conditions necessary to be 
met by the term as used by Paul, is of more than doubtful 

It may be objected to Zahn's view that it is strange that the term 
FaXaxixYjv in Acts should refer to an entirely different region from 
that to which Paul refers in his term TaXaxia. But it is to be answered 
that Luke has apparently taken no pains to conform his use of geo- 
graphical terms to that of Paul, and that in particular he gives no 
evidence of intending to furnish the background of the Epistle to the 
Galatians, never using the word " church " in connection with PaXaTtxTj. 
On the other hand, the analogy of similar cases suggests the possibility 
if not the probability that when the name Fcxkaxia was extended to 


cover the Lycaonian, Pisidian, and Phrygian territory a new name, 
FaXaxtxTj x"pa should have been coined to describe old Galatia. See 
above, p. xxviii. 

It may also be said against Zahn's view that it is incredible that 
Paul on his way to visit scattered disciples in western ethnographic 
Galatia should pass by southern Galatia without visiting the churches 
of that region; to which it may be answered that a motive similar to 
that ascribed to Paul in Acts 20I8, together with a desire to foster the 
Christian movement represented by scattered disciples in the Gala- 
tian country, may have led him to avoid the cities of southern Galatia. 
Of course it is also possible that the cities of southern Galatia were 
visited at this time, but that, as the Acts writer says nothing about 
the churches of Syria and Cilicia, though Paul must have passed 
through these regions, he for some unknown reason ignores the cities 
of southern Galatia though this journey included them. The omis- 
sion of the second group is no more strange than that of the first. 

We conclude, therefore, that so far as concerns Acts i6^^- 
and 1 823 ^^g interpretation which best satisfies all the evidence 
is that which supposes that the journey of Acts 16® ran a little 
east of north from Antioch, possibly passing around the Sul- 
tan Dagh and through Amorion and Pessinus, and that it was 
undertaken not for evangelisation but as a means of reaching 
some other territory in which the apostle expected to work, 
perhaps Bithynia. The point at which they were Kara rrjv 
MvcxLav would be not Nakoleia or Kotiaion, but some point 
further east, perhaps Pessinus itself. Why this route was 
chosen rather than the apparently more direct route through 
Nakoleia and Dorylaion must be a matter wholly of conjec- 
ture. At Pessinus, of course, might have occurred the preach- 
ing because of sickness (Gal. 4^^), and the consequent founding 
of the Galatian churches. But there is no suggestion of this 
in the Acts narrative, and no presumption in favour of it. For 
the journey of Acts iS^^ there is no more probable route than 
that through the Cicilian Gates and via Tyana and Lake Tatta. 

3. Some minor considerations derived from Paul's Epistles. 

It remains to consider certain items of evidence that have in 
themselves little weight, but which have filled a more or less 
prominent place in previous discussions of the problem. 


a. The epistle represents the people addressed as warmhearted, im- 
pulsive, and fickle. These characteristics have been pointed to as 
indicating their Gallic blood, and hence as tending to show that the 
churches were in northern Galatia. But warmheartedness and fickle- 
ness seem to have been equally characteristic of the Lycaonian people 
(\nth'Acts i4»-'« cj. Acts i4i»' ")j and the evidence of the letter is too 
general in character to enable us to draw any conclusion whatever 
from this evidence. 

b. It has been said to be improbable that the scene between Peter 
and Paul depicted in Gal. 2"--' occurred before the second missionary 
journey, since in that case Paul must have proposed to Barnabas to 
accompany him on another journey after he had found him unstable 
on an important point. But if this incident of Gal. 2"-" is put after 
the second missionary journey, then Galatians, since it narrates the 
incident, must also itself be later than the second missionary journey. 
But if it was written on the third journey, since Gal. 4" implies that 
Paul had visited the Galatians but twice, these Galatians can not be 
those of southern Galatia, because on his third missionary journe}^ 
he visited them for the third time. Hence, it is inferred, we must 
place this incident after the second journey, the letter on the third 
journey, and the churches in northern Galatia. In reply it is to be 
said that, aside from the indecisive character of the evidence cf 
•cb xpdxepov (see on 4»'), this argument overlooks three possibilities 
that can not be ignored: (a) that the incident of Gal. 2"-" may have 
deterred Barnabas from accepting Paul's proposal rather than Paul 
from making it; (b) that even if the incident occurred after the second 
journey, the letter may still have been written before the third journey^ 
viz., at Antioch between the second and third journeys, and just after 
the Antioch incident; (c) that the third journey may not have included 
a visit to the churches of southern Galatia, and hence the letter, even 
if written on the latter part of that journey, may have been preceded 
by only two visits to the churches of southern Galatia. 

c. Inasmuch as Barnabas was with Paul on his first missionary 
journey when the churches of southern Galatia were founded, but did 
not accompany him on his second journey, and, hence, would not be 
known personally to the North-Galatian churches, if there were such, 
the fact that the letter mentions him without explanation or identifica- 
tion is somewhat in favour of the South-Galatian theory. But the 
fact can not be regarded as strong evidence. The letter does not 
imply that the readers knew him in person, and they might know him 
by name if he had never been among them. 

d. The statement of Gal. 2^ that Paul refused to yield to the pressure 
brought upon him in Jerusalem "that the truth of the gospel might 
continue with you" is understood by some to imply that at the time 


of the conference in Jerusalem he had already preached the gospel to 
the Galatians, hence that they were South-Galatians. But the "you" 
of this passage may mean the Gentiles in general, not the Galatians 
in particular. 

e. The people of Lystra took Paul and Barnabas for gods (Acts 14"). 
Paul says the Galatians received him as an angel of God (Gal. 4"). 
But the parallel is not close enough to prove anything more than that 
the Galatians and Lycaonians were both warmhearted, impulsive 

f. The allusion in Gal. 5" to the charge that Paul stUl preached cir- 
cumcision seems an echo of the use made among the Galatians of his 
circumcision of Timothy. Now, as Timothy was a South-Galatian, 
it is particularly probable that the judaisers would use this fact against 
him in southern Galatia. True, but the story might easily be told in 
northern Galatia, though the event occurred in southern Galatia. 

g. The "marks of the Lord Jesus," Gal. 6", have been interpreted 
to refer to the scourging at Philippi, and the inference has been drawn 
that the letter was written on the second missionary journey, and that 
accordingly the churches were in southern Galatia, since at this time 
he had not yet been twice (4»») in northern Galatia. But it is equally 
plausible (and equally inconclusive; cf. b above) to refer these marks 
to the experience referred to in i Cor. 15" or 2 Cor. i«, and to argue 
that the letter must belong to the third missionary journey and that the 
churches could not be in southern Galatia, since when Paul was at 
Ephesus he had on the South-Galatian theory been in southern Galatia 
three times. 

h. It is said that Paul would not have gone into northern Galatia, 
where Greek was comparatively unknown. Jerome does, indeed, 
testify that the Gallic language was still spoken in this region three 
hundred years after Paul wrote. But the same passage characterises 
Greek as the common language of the Orient, and the use of Greek in 
inscriptions of Ancyra belonging to the time of Tiberius (Boeckh, 
C. I. G. 401 1, 4039, cited by Mommsen, Provinces of the Roman Em- 
pire, I 369) indicates that the country was bilingual in Paul's day 

i. It is said that Paul would certainly have kept to the main high- 
ways, hence would not have passed through northern Galatia. This 
argument can apply only to the second missionary journey; for if on 
that journey he had founded churches in Pessinus, Ancyra, and Tavium 
these churches would themselves have furnished a sufficient reason 
for a subsequent journey into that region. The question, therefore, 
reduces itself to the inquiry whether under the circumstances indicated 
in Acts i6« and Gal. 4" Paul would have gone northeast into northern 
Galatia. This question has already been discussed at length. 


In view of all the extant evidence we conclude that the bal- 
ance of probability is in favour of the South-Galatian view. 
The North-Galatian theory in the form advocated by Sief. 
Schm. and Moff. is not impossible. If in place of the incom- 
plete and obscure, possibly inaccurate, language of Acts i6^ 
and 1 823 -^g ha,d clear and definite evidence, this evidence might 
prove the existence of North-Galatian churches founded by 
Paul before the writing of this letter. If so, this would, as 
indicated above, in turn prove that Paul's letter was written 
to them. But the evidence as it stands is not sufficient to 
bear the weight of theory which this hypothesis involves, in- 
cluding, as it does, the very existence of churches of whose 
existence we have no direct or definite evidence. On the basis 
of the existing evidence the most probable view is that of 
Zahn, viz., that on his second missionary journey Paul passed 
through the western edge of old Galatia, there finding or mak- 
ing a few disciples, but founding no churches; and that his 
letter to the churches of Galatia was written not to the Gala- 
tians of this region, but to the churches of Derbe, Lystra, 
Iconium, and Pisidian Antioch. 


There is no evidence by which to determine with accuracy 
the time in Paul's life at which he wrote his letter to the Gala- 
tians. All that can be done is to fix certain limits of time 
within which it was written. 

1. It must obviously have been written after the events 
narrated in chaps, i and 2. Of these the conference at Jeru- 
salem (2^-^°) is expressly said to have taken place fourteen years 
after the conversion of Paul, or more probably fourteen years 
after his previous visit to Jerusalem, which itself took place 
three years after his conversion. 

2. The points of coincidence between this narrative and that 
of Acts, chap, 15, are so many and of such character as practi- 
cally to establish the identity of the two events.* The Acts 

*See detached note, p. 117; Weizs. Apost. Ze{t.\ p. 168; E. T. I iQQjf.; McGiffert, 
Apostolic Age. p. 208; Ltft. Com. on Gal. pp. 123 jff., and other commentaries on Gal.; 
Wcndt, Apostelgeschichte, cap. 15, in Meyer's Kommentar, and other commentaries on Acts. 


narrative places the conference "no little time" after the 
return of Paul and Barnabas to Antioch from their first mis- 
sionary journey. We thus have a double dating of the event, 
that of Gal. 2^, which locates it from fourteen to seventeen 
years after the conversion of Paul and that of the Acts narra- 
tive, which places it between the apostle's first and second 
missionary journeys. 

3. The visit of Peter to Antioch narrated in 2"-^'' presumably 
followed the conference in Jerusalem, and is naturally assigned 
to the period of Paul's stay in Antioch referred to in Acts 15^^ 
Thus the earhest possible date for the writing of the letter is 
the latter portion of that period. 

4. The phrase rb irporepov in Gal. 4" has often been appealed 
to as decisive evidence that before writing this letter Paul had 
made two evangelistic journeys into Galatia. Taken alone the 
words do not seem with certainty to prove this (see note on 
rb TTporepoVj pp. 239^.). But when the evidence of 4^^' ^o {g. v.; 
cf. i^ also) that Paul had communicated with the Galatians 
between the original preaching of the gospel to them (4^^ and 
the writing of the letter is taken into account, the simplest 
explanation of all the data is that Paul had made two visits to 
Galatia before writing the letter. On this supposition the let- 
ter must have been written not only after the visit of Peter to 
Antioch (Acts 15^5) but after the journey of Acts 16^-5. Time 
must also be allowed for the apostle to have gone some dis- 
tance from Galatia, for the visit of the judaising missionaries, 
for such success as they had achieved in their effort to win the 
Galatians to their conception of the way of salvation, and for 
the carrying of the news to Paul. See Gal.i^- ^ 5^-^^^ and dis- 
cussion under "Occasion and Purpose" below. As these con- 
ditions could scarcely have been fulfilled before the arrival of 
the apostle in Corinth as narrated in Acts 18^, we may regard 
it as improbable that the letter was written before that event. 
On the North-Galatian view and the supposition that Paul 
had visited the churches twice before writing the letter, it must 
have been written after Acts iS^^. 

' 5. The phrase ovtoos Ta;)^ecos in i^ shows that the letter was 


written at no long time after the conversion of the Galatians, 
but furnishes no ground of choice among dates which are on 
other grounds possible. See on i^ 

6. If within the period of the apostle's life after Acts i8^ we 
seek to determine a more definite date, some weight must be 
given to such evidence as the relation between Galatians and 
Romans. The latter, presenting calmly and deliberately views 
similar in substance to those which the former expresses with 
the heat of controversy, was probably written after Galatians. 
Of somewhat similar character is the relation between Galatians 
and I and 2 Corinthians. The situation reflected in the latter, 
showing the representatives of the judaistic tendency opposing 
Paul's work in Achaia, probably arose after the situation de- 
scribed in Galatians was created in Galatia, the judaisers pre- 
sumably moving westward in their attack upon Paul's work. 
But inasmuch as the letter was manifestly written while the 
situation that arose in Galatia was still acute, and not long 
after the visit of the judaisers, it is most probably to be assigned 
to a period before the coming of the judaisers to Corinth; in 
other words, not later than the early part of the apostle's two 
years and three months in Ephesus (Acts 19^-22). Yet this 
argument can not be strongly pressed. The missionaries to 
Galatia and Achaia were not at all certainly the same persons, 
and the delegation to Corinth may have gone there before the 
other group arrived in Galatia. 

7. Some consideration is also due to the fact that the letters 
of the apostle taken together show that his controversy with 
his legalistic opponents made a deep impression on his think- 
ing and, for some years at least, filled a large place in his 
thoughts. From i Corinthians to Colossians every letter shows 
at least some marks of this controversy, while of several of 
them it is the central theme. But in i and 2 Thessalonians we 
find no reference whatever to this matter. This fact creates a 
certain probability that Galatians was not written till after 
I and 2 Thessalonians. But the force of this argument is 
largely destroyed by the fact that the letters to the Thessalo- 
nians must have been written in any case after the conference 


at Jerusalem, and, therefore, after the judaistic controversy had 
come to fill a large place in the apostle's thought. 

But if, as is on the whole probable, Galatians was written 
after the arrival at Corinth on his second missionary journey, 
and before Romans on his third missionary journey, there are 
several places and times at which it may have been written, of 
which four are perhaps most worthy of consideration. If it 
was written to the churches of southern Galatia it may date 
from (i) Corinth in the period of Acts i8^-^^, and either before 
or after the writing of i Thessalonians, (2) Antioch in the 
period of Acts iS^^. 23a^ (^2) Ephesus in the period covered by 
Acts, chap. 19, or (4) Macedonia or Achaia in the period cov- 
ered by Acts 20^-3. 

Mynster {Einleitung in den Brief an die Galater, in Kleinere Schriften^ 
1825), Zahn (Einleitung in d. N. TJ, pp. 139-142, E. T. pp. 193 /., 
esp. 196-199), Bacon (Introduction to the N. T., p. 58), and Kendall 
(Expositor, Ser. IV, vol. IX; Exp. Grk. Test., vol. Ill, p. 146) as- 
sign it to Corinth before the writing of i Thessalonians, thus making 
it the first of all the apostle's letters. Renan (St. Paul, p. 313) and 
Ramsay (St. Paul the Traveller, pp. 189 _^.; Commentary, pp. 242 ff.) 
date it from Antioch in the period of Acts 18"^, while Askwith (Epistle 
to the Galatians, chaps. VII, VIII) dates it from Macedonia after 
2 Corinthians. 

In favour of Antioch in the period of Acts iS^^ as against Cor- 
inth on the second missionary journey, it is to be said that 
information concerning affairs in Galatia (the efforts of the 
judaisers and their success with the Galatians) would more 
easily reach the apostle in Antioch of Syria than in Macedonia 
or Achaia. It has also been suggested by Ram. (Traveller, 
pp. 189 ff.) that the letter gives evidence that the apostle had 
full information of the state of affairs such as would not easily 
have been obtained by a letter, and impHes, therefore, that he 
had received knowledge by a personal messenger. As such 
messenger no one would be more probable than Timothy, him- 
self a Galatian. But Timothy was with Paul at Corinth for 
some time, as i and 2 Thessalonians show. Only then, towards 
the latter part of the Corinthian residence, could he have left 


Paul for Galatia, and in that case could have joined Paul at 
no more probable place than Antioch. Indeed, it is a very- 
natural hypothesis that at or about the time when Paul left 
Corinth to go to Syria by water, he sent Timothy to go as far 
as Ephesus by water and thence through Asia Minor overland 
for the double purpose of visiting his home once more and of 
gathering information concerning the churches. In that case, 
whether originally expecting to go through to Antioch or to 
await Paul in Galatia, it would be natural for Timothy, when 
he learned the state of affairs in Galatia, to hasten forward to 
Antioch to inform Paul. The prominence of the incident at 
Antioch (2^^-21) would also be easily explained if the apostle 
wrote from Antioch, as also the fact that though writing to 
several churches, one of which was at Pisidian Antioch, he 
nevertheless speaks of Antioch in Syria simply as Antioch. 
To the possible objection that Paul would hardly have written 
to the Galatians from Syrian Antioch between his second and 
third missionary journeys, since he must have been on the 
point of going to Galatia himself, it is sufficient to answer that 
we have no means of knowing how long he was still to tarry at 
Antioch when he wrote, and that his conduct in relation to 
the church at Corinth (see esp. 2 Cor. i^^ 2^) shows that he had 
a preference for dealing with such troubles as that which existed 
in Galatia by correspondence and messenger rather than by 
a personal visit. 

But none of these reasons is very weighty. It must be con- 
fessed, moreover, that the supposition that the letter was 
written at Antioch to the churches of southern Galatia between 
the second and third missionary journeys does not comport 
well with what seems to be the most probable interpretation 
of Acts 18^^ viz., that the apostle passed by these churches on 
the third journey; cf. p. xl. If his effort to retain the loyalty 
of the churches to his gospel was successful he would certainly 
wish to confirm this result by a visit; if it was unsuccessful 
(unless, indeed, utterly and hopelessly so, in which case the 
letter would probably not have been preserved), he would cer- 
tainly wish to attempt to accomplish by a visit what he had 


failed to achieve by his letter. If, indeed, Acts iS^^ can be so 
interpreted as to imply a journey through southern Galatia, then 
the expression "confirming all the disciples" would appropri- 
ately describe the purpose and effect of a visit following the 
letter, assumed to be successful, but in itself furnishes no strong 
evidence that the letter had been written. 

The case for Antioch is, therefore, not very strong, and as 
against Ephesus on the third missionary journey, it is even 
less so than against Corinth on the second. Nor can 
TO TTporepov (4^3) ^g urged against Ephesus on the ground 
that at that time Paul would have been in Galatia three times, 
for, as shown above, it is not certain or even probable that the 
journey of Acts 18^^ included the churches of Galatia. If there 
is any weight in Ram.'s argument respecting the probability of 
Timothy bringing the apostle personal information, this applies 
almost equally well to Ephesus as the place of writing. For if 
Paul did not visit the churches of southern Galatia in the jour- 
ney of Acts 18^3 he may very well have sent Timothy by that 
route, and have received Timothy's report at Ephesus. 

The arguments by which Askwith supports his contention 
in favour of Macedonia on the third missionary journey are 
not all equally forcible, but there is no strong counter argu- 
ment, and this location of the letter very interestingly accounts 
for the language of Gal. 6^- ^ and its parallelism with 2 Cor. 9^. 
Yet neither is this a decisive or strong argument for his view. 

Apparently, therefore, we must remain contented without 
any strong reason for deciding whether the letter, if destined 
for the churches of southern Galatia, was written in the latter 
part of the apostle's stay at Corinth on his second missionary 
journey, or at Antioch between the second and third journeys, 
or at Ephesus on the third journey, or still later on this jour- 
ney, in Macedonia or Achaia. If there is any balance of prob- 
abihty it seems to be in fav^our of Ephesus. 

On the supposition that the letter was written to churches in northern 
Galatia founded on the second missionary journey (Acts i6»), and 
that the evidence of the epistle indicates that he had visited them a 
second time, the letter, as already pointed out, must have been writ- 


ten after Acts i8". On the other hand, his journeys after leaving 
Corinth at the end of his third missionary journey (Acts so^) are such 
as to make the writing of the letter after this latter time improbable, as 
is also the relation of Galatians to Romans. As between Ephesus and 
Macedonia, or between either of these and Achaia, there is little ground 
for choice. The argument of Ltft. that it must be placed after the 
Corinthian letters because of its close affinity to Romans is of little 
weight, especially in view of the fact that Romans was probably a 
circular letter and may have been composed some months before the 
Roman copy was sent from Corinth. 

Continental scholars who hold the North-Galatian view generally 
place the letter at Ephesus. So Mey. Ws. Sief. Godet, Stein. Simi- 
larly Holtzmann places it on the journey to Ephesus, or soon after 
the arrival there, and Jiilicher during the Ephesus ministry, but while 
on a missionary journey out from that city. Conybeare and Howson, 
and after them Ltft., argue for Corinth on the same journey; so also 
Salmon. On the whole, there is no more probable date for the letter 
than Ephesus on the third missionary journey, whether it was written 
to northern or southern Galatia. 

Lake. Earlier Epistles of Si. Paid, pp. 279 ^/T., identifying the visit 
to Jerusalem of Gal. 2110 with that of Acts, chaps. 11 and 12, and 
denying that the xb xpoxepov of 4" implies two visits to Galatia, places 
the writing of the letter before the Council at Jerusalem recorded in 
Acts, chap. 15. In this he agrees substantially with Emmet {Galatians, 
pp. XIV ^.), and Round {The Date of . . . Galatians), and, as concerns 
the identification of the visit of Gal. 21-1" with that of Acts ii^", with 
Ram. and Weber. But against this identification the meaning 
and tense of laxouSaaa in 210 are strong if not decisive evidence (see 
ad loc), while the many points of agreement between Gal. 2»-i'' and Acts, 
chap. 15, constitute on the whole decisive evidence for the reference 
of these two passages to the same event. See detached note, p. 117. 
It is indeed true that it is impossible to suppose that the account in 
Acts, chap. 15, is in all respects accurate if it refers to the incident of 
Gal. 2>-i<'; but it is more probable that this narrative is inaccurate in 
its statement of the terms of the agreement, or in assigning them to 
this occasion, than that, if the incident of Acts 21-" occurred on the 
occasion of the visit of Acts ii^", and the agreement stated in Gal. 2'' '" 
was reached at that time, the whole question was reopened, and an 
event so like the former one occurred some two years later. 

Turner, art. "Chronology" in HDB, vol. I, p. 424, col. a {cf. also 
Zahn, Kom. pp. iio^.), holds that the visit of Peter to Antioch (Gal. 
211-14) preceded the events of Gal. 2^-'^°. Identifying the conference 
of 2J-"' with that of Acts, chap. 15, Turner also identifies the Ttve<; dxb 
'laxtopou of Gal. 2^^ with the rcveq xaxeXOovxei; d%h -zriq 'louBotfat; 


of Acts 151. Ram. Traveller, pp. 158/.; Com. pp. 304/., making 
Gal. 2^-^° refer to the visit narrated in Acts ii'", leaves Gal. 2"-" in 
the position in relation to 2^-^" in which it stands in Galatians. As indi- 
cated above he dates the letter in the period of Acts 18". The result in 
both cases is, without affecting the date of the letter, to place the An- 
tioch incident at a longer interval before the writing of it than the more 
common view, which identifies Gal. 2^ with Acts 153 and leaves the 
order of Gal. chap. 2 undisturbed. Zahn, agreeing with Ram. in 
identifying Gal. 2^ with Acts n'" and with Turner in placing Gal. 2"-" 
before 21-", puts the Antioch incident still further back, even before 
Paul's first missionary Journey, but still puts the writing of the letter 
as Ram. does, after Acts, chap. 15, viz., at Corinth, in the period of 
Acts 18". There is little or nothing to be said against the date to 
which these writers assign the letter, but quite as little to be said in 
favour of the position to which they assign the Antioch incident. 
The transposition of the parts of Gal. chap. 2, to which Turner and 
Zahn resort, is indeed not explicitly excluded by an exetra at the 
beginning of 2", but neither is there anything to support it in the 
language of the passage, while it does distinct violence to the psycho- 
logical probabilities of the situation. As is pointed out in detail in 
the exegesis of the passage, the question which arose at Antioch is 
distinctly different from that which was discussed at Jerusalem, but 
one to which the ignoring of ultimate issues which characterised the 
Jerusalem conference, and the compromise in which it issued, was 
almost certain to give rise. The position, moreover, which Paul was 
driven to take at Antioch was definitely in advance of that which 
he took at Jerusalem, involving a virtual repudiation not of one statute 
of the law, but of all, and this not only for the Gentiles, but in principle 
for the Jews. The reversal of the order in which he has narrated the 
events is, therefore, an unwarranted violence to the record. It may, 
indeed, not unreasonably be said that the Antioch incident could 
scarcely have happened after the events of Acts, chap. 15, as narrated 
in that passage; for the question that apparently arose as a new issue 
at Antioch is already settled in decisions recorded in Acts, chap. 15. 
But in view of all the evidence, the solution of this difficulty lies neither 
in denying the general identity of the event of Gal. 21-1° with that of 
Acts, chap. IS, nor in putting Acts, chap. 15 after Gal. 2»-", but in 
recognising that the Acts narrative is inaccurate in its statement of the 
outcome of the conference, either colouring the decision actually 
reached, or ascribing to this time a decision reached on some other and, 
presumably, later occasion. 

The view of McGiffert and Bartlet, adopted also by Emmet, that 
the two visits to Galatia implied in zh xpoxspov of Gal. 4" are the out- 
ward and return parts of the journey through southern Galatia on the 


first missionary journey, on which is based the conclusion that the 
letter was written before the second missionary journey, is discussed 
on p. 241, McGiffert's argument that if Paul had visited the Galatian 
churches since the conference of Acts, chap. 15, he would have had 
no occasion to give them the full account of it in Gal. 2^-^°, as of some- 
thing of which they had not heard before, ignores the hint of the letter 
(i''4>8) that he had already discussed the matter with them, and 
the possibility, not to say probability, that the acute situation which 
existed when he wrote the letter called for a fresh statement of the 
matter, and probably a fuller one than he had previously felt to be 

The reduction of the above statements, which are expressed 
in terms of periods of the apostle's life, to calendar dates in- 
volves the whole problem of the chronology of the apostle's 
life. Without entering at length into this question, which lies 
outside the scope of this Introduction, it may suffice to point 
out that if, as seems to be proved by an inscription found at 
Delphi (see Report of the Palestine Exploration Fund, April, 
1908; Deissmann, St. Paul, Appendix II; American Journal of 
Theology, XXI 299), Gallio became proconsul of Achaia in the 
summer of 51 a. d., we arrive at 50 or 51 as the date for the 
writing of Galatians in case it was written at Corinth on the 
second missionary journey. If it was written at Antioch be- 
tween his first and second journeys, it falls into 51 or 52; if at 
Ephesus, on the third journey, in all probability into 52; if in 
Macedonia or at Corinth, on the third missionary journey, 
at some time in 54 or 55. If we identify the conference of 
Gal. 2^-10 with that of Acts, chap. 15, assume, as is generally 
held, that Herod Agrippa I died in 44 a. d., and, on the 
ground of the position of the narrative of this event in Acts, 
assign the visit of Acts ii^o 1225 to a date not later than about 
46 a. d., it will follow that the first visit to Galatia (Acts, 
chaps. 13, 14) occurred not far from 46, and the second visit 
of Paul to Jerusalem (Gal. 21-10) not far from 48. This date is 
consistent with the apostle's location of the event as occurring 
seventeen years after his conversion (see on 2^), the resultant 
date of his conversion being about 31 a. d. 


The argument for the later date (34 or 35) based on i Cor. 11"* falls 
to the ground with the recognition of the fact that the presence of the 
ethnarch of Aretas in Damascus does not imply that Damascus was in 
the dominion of Aretas. See on i". 


It is fortunate for the interpreter of the letter to the Gala- 
tians that while the location of the churches is in dispute and 
the time and place of writing can be determined, if at all, only 
by a balance of probabilities resting on indirect evidence, the 
question for whose answer these matters are of chief importance, 
can be decided with a good degree of certainty and on indepen- 
dent grounds. The previous relations of the writer and his 
readers, the circumstances that led to the writing of the letter, 
the purpose for which it was written, these appear with great 
clearness in the letter itself. 

The Galatians to whom the letter was written were Gentile 
Christians, converted from heathenism (4^), evidently under 
the preaching of Paul (i^- ^ 4^^; cf. $^^-). Paul's first preach- 
ing to them was occasioned by illness on his part (4^^) ; intend- 
ing to go in some other direction, he was led by illness to go 
to Galatia, or being on his way through Galatia and not intend- 
ing to tarry there, he was led to do so by illness. He pro- 
claimed to them Jesus Christ and him crucified, preaching that 
men could through faith in Jesus the Christ escape from the 
present evil age and attain the approval of God apart from 
works of law (3^- 2). He imposed on his converts no Jewish 
ordinances, but taught a purely spiritual Christianity (32- ^ 
48-11 ^3. 4)_ 'pjig Galatians received him and his gospel with 
enthusiasm {4}^-^^). They were baptised (3") and received the 
gift of the Holy Spirit, miracles wrought among them giving 
evidence of his presence (3^-^). That Paul visited them a sec- 
ond time is made practically certain by the evidence of 194"- 20 
(g. v.). Possibly before the second visit there had been false 
teachers among them (i^), but if so the defection had not been 
serious (i^ 5^). More recently, however, a serious attempt had 

* See Burton, Records and Letters of the Apostolic Age, pp. 204/. 


been made to draw them away from the gospel as Paul had 
preached it to them (i^ 5^2) _ ^his new doctrine opposed to 
Paul's was of a judaistic and legalistic type. Its advocates 
I evidently endeavoured to win the Galatians to it by appealing 
to the promises to Abraham and his seed recorded in the Old 
Testament. Though the letter makes no definite quotation 
from the language of these teachers it is easily evident from 
the counter argument of the apostle in chapters 3 and 4 that 
they had taught the Galatians either that salvation was possi- 
ble only to those who were, by blood or adoption, children of 
Abraham, or that the highest privileges belonged only to these. 
See especially 3^- ^' " 42^-^^ They had laid chief stress upon 
circumcision, this being the initiatory rite by which a Gentile 
was adopted into the family of Abraham. Though they had 
cautiously abstained from endeavouring to impose upon the 
Galatians the whole Jewish law, or from pointing out that this 
was logically involved in what they demanded (5^), they had 
induced them to adopt the Jewish feasts and fasts (4^°). 

To these doctrinal elements of the controversy, themselves 
sufficient to arouse deep feeling and sharp antagonisms, there 
was added a personal element still more conducive to embitter- 
ment. The letter itself furnishes evidence, which is confirmed 
by I and 2 Corinthians, that the apostolic office or function 
was clearly recognised as one of great importance in the Chris- 
tian community, and that the question who could legitimately 
claim it was one on which there was sharp difference of opinion. 
An apostle was much more than a local elder or itinerant mis- 
sionary. He was a divinely commissioned founder of Christian 
churches, indeed, more, of the Christian church oecumenical. 
) With their effort to keep the Christian movement within the 
* Jewish church, including proselytes from other religions, the 
, judaisers naturally associated the contention that the aposto- 
: late was Hmited to those who were appointed by Jesus or by 
\ those whom he appointed. With their denial of the distinct- 
ive doctrines of Paul they associated a denial of his right to 
teach them as an apostle. This denial seems to have taken 
the form of representing Paul as a renegade follower of the 


Twelve, a man who knew nothing of Christianity except what 
he had learned from the Twelve, and preached this in a per- 
verted form. This appears from the nature of Paul's defence 
of his independent authority as an apostle in the first two chap- 
ters of the letter, and indicates that with their theory of a lim- 
ited apostolate the judaisers had associated the claim that the 
apostoKc commission must proceed from the circle of the origi- 
nal Twelve. See detached note on 'AttoVtoXos, pp. 363^. 

This double attack of the judaisers upon the apostle and his 
doctrine and the attempt to convert the Galatians to their 
view was upon the point of succeeding when Paul learned of 
the state of affairs. The Galatians were already giving up the 
gospel which Paul had taught them (i''); he feared that his 
labour on them was wasted (4^^ ; yet in a hopeful moment he 
was confident in the Lord that they would not be carried 
away (51°). 

Such is the situation that gave rise to the letter. In a sense 
Paul had a double purpose, partly to defend himself, partly to 
defend his gospel, but only in a sense. The defence of himself 
was forced on the apostle by the relation in v/hich the question 
of his apostleship stood to the truth of his gospel. Considerable 
space is necessarily devoted in the first third of the letter to 
the personal matter, since it was of little use for the apostle 
to argue, and of no use to affirm, what constituted the true 
gospel, while his readers doubted his claim to be an authorised 
expounder of the gospel. Towards the end he carefully guards 
his doctrine from certain specious but false and mischievous 
inferences from it (s^^°-), and touches upon a few other minor 
matters. But the central purpose of the letter is to arrest the 
progress of the judaising propaganda with its perverted gospel 
of salvation through works of law, which the Galatians were on 
the very point of accepting, and to win them back to faith in 
Jesus Christ apart from works of law, the gospel which Paul 
himself had taught them. 

Incidentally the letter affords us most important information 
which we can not suppose to have been any part of the apostle's 
plan to transmit to us, but which is not on that account the less 


valuable. No other letter contains so full and objective a 
piece of autobiography as that which he has given us in the 
first two chapters of this letter. Informing as are i and 2 
Corinthians, i Thessalonians and Philippians, these chapters 
are even more so. 
Not less valuable is the contribution of the letter to the his- 
N^l tory of the apostoHc age. It carries us into the very heart of 
t^the controversy between the narrow, judaistic conception of 
i the gospel, and that more enlightened, broader view of which 
, Paul was the chief champion in the first age of the church. 
1 The story is told, indeed, in part in Acts, but as it was conceived 
i years after the event; in the letter we have not so much an 
; account of the controversy as a voice out of the conflict itself. 
'The information is first-hand; the colours have the freshness 
and vividness of nature. Not least important for us to-day 
is the testimony which the letter bears to the Hmits of that 
controversy. A just interpretation of the second chapter shows 
most clearly not that Peter and Paul were in sharp antagonism 
to one another, representatives of opposing factions, but that, 
while they did not altogether agree in their conceptions of reli- 
gious truth, and while Peter lacked the steadiness of vision 
necessary to make him stand firmly for the more liberal view, 
yet neither he nor even James directly opposed Paul's view, 
or his claim to be an apostle of Christ. The opponents of 
Paul were certain "false brethren . . . who came in privily to 
spy out our liberty." They had, indeed, influence enough 
with the Jerusalem apostles to lead the latter to urge Paul to 
pursue a compromising course; but when Paul refused, the 
pillar-apostles virtually took his side and gave to him hands 
of fellowship, recognising the legitimacy of his mission to the 

Yet the recognition of the fact that there were really three 
parties to the controversy rather than two leaves its signifi- 
cance but little diminished and its bitterness unchanged. The 
.1 sharpness of the apostle's language both in Galatlans and 
, 2 Corinthians was doubtless called forth by at least an equal 
i bitterness on the side of his opponents. The questions at issue 


were fundamental (see below, § V) and the discussion of them 
was no calm academic debate, but a veritable contest for large 
stakes between men of intense conviction and deep feeling. 
Nor was it significant for Galatia and Corinth and Jerusalem 
. only, nor for that age alone. Had no one arisen in that age 
'; to espouse the view for which Paul contended, or had the con- 
1 troversy issued in a victory for the judaistic party, the whole 
history of Christianity must have been different from what it 
has been. Christianity would have been only a sect of Juda- 
ism, and as such would probably have been of relatively little 
; force in the history of the world, or would even have been lost 
! altogether, becoming reabsorbed into the community from 
, U which it came. The letter to the Galatians is a first-hand 
i document from the heart of one of the most significant contro- 
j versies in the history of religion. 


The above statement of the occasion of the letter is sufficient 
to show that the controversy in which it played a part had to 
do with certain questions which were of fundamental impor- 
tance for early Christianity. These questions did not first 
come to the surface in Galatia, but neither did they become 
prominent at the beginning of Paul's career, nor were they all 
stated and discussed with equal expHcitness. The one which 
came most clearly into the foreground and was probably also 
, the first to be debated was whether Gentiles who, attracted by 
I the message of the gospel, were disposed to accept it must be 
^'Hcircumcised in order to be recognised as members of the Chris- 
tian community and to participate in the salvation which the 
gospel brought to those who received it. To this question 
Gal. 31-3 shows clearly that Paul had, before beginning his 
evangeUstic work in Galatia, returned a definitely negative 
answer. This epistle furnishes evidence which, though not 
explicit in its individual items, is on the whole sufficient to 
show that this position of the apostle was not at first strongly 
opposed by the Jerusalem church (see i^^ and notes thereon). 
The statement of Gal. i^^- ^'^ that when the churches of Judgea^ 


heard of Paul's work in Syria and Cilicia they glorified God in 
him, taken with the evidence that Paul's convictions about 
the relation of his gospel to the Gentiles were formed very 
early in his career as a Christian, makes it probable that there 
was at first no strong sentiment in the Jerusalem church against 
recognising Gentiles who accepted the gospel message as mem- 
bers of the new fellowship and community. That presently, 
however, there arose a conflict of opinion on the subject was 
apparently due to two causes. On the one hand, there were 
added to the Christian community in Judaea certain men of 
strongly conservative tendencies who were convinced that 
Christianity ought to be built strictly on the basis of the 
j Abrahamic covenant, and that the Christian sect ought to 
I differ from other Jewish sects, in particular from the Pharisaic 
sect, only by the addition of the doctrine of the Messiahship of 
Jesus, and in no case by any subtraction from the doctrines or 
requirements of the Old Testament religion as currently inter- 
preted. On the other hand, as the effects of the evangelistic 
activity of Paul became more manifest and better known to 
the church at Jerusalem, the real extent and serious nature of 
his departure from the views and practices now becoming cur- 
rent in the mother church doubtless became more evident. As 
a result of these two influences the question of the obligation of 
the Gentile Christians to be circumcised came to an issue in the 
incident narrated by Paul in Gal. 2^-^°. The debate which took 
place on that occasion was apparently limited to this one ques- 
tion of the circumcision of Gentile Christians. The Jerusalem 
apostles at first urging Paul to conform, at least in the case of 
Titus, to the views of the ultraconservative element, were at 
length persuaded to throw their influence on the side of Paul's 
view, to give their approval to his way of winning the Gentiles 
to faith in Christ, and not to insist upon circumcision. See the 
commentary on this passage. 

But the decision of this question speedily opened another 
one. In the Antioch church, in which there were both Jews 
and Gentiles, it became customary not only not to circumcise 
the Gentile members, but for Jews to eat with the Gentiles, 


doubtless also for Gentiles to eat with the Jews. It is true 
that our only explicit record is an account of what took place 
after Peter came to Antioch. Yet that he was responsible for 
the custom in which he at first participated is contrary to all 
probabihty. The table-fellowship at Antioch was clearly the 
product of Pauline liberalism, not of Petrine caution or com- 
promise. On the relation of the narrative of Acts, chap. lo, to 
the matter, see pp. ii6/. 

That the Gentiles with whom Jewish Christians were eating 
were not conforming to the laws of the Old Testament concern- 
ing food, and that the table-fellowship of the Jews with Gentiles 
involved violation of the Old Testament law by the Jews, also, 
is the clear implication of the whole narrative. It is not, in- 
deed, impossible that the Jewish legalists in their zeal to "build 
a hedge about the law" had laid down a rule against associa- 
tion of Jews and Gentiles in general {cf. Acts lo^^). But that 
in the present case the requirement of the law, of which the 
more strenuous rule, in so far as it was observed or enforced, 
was an expansion by tradition, was distinctly in mind as the 
crux of the controversy is shown by several considerations. In 
the first place Paul speaks in Gal. 2^^ of Peter's eating with the 
Gentiles, implying that the question at issue was one not only 
of association but of food. In the second place, Paul's inter- 
pretation of Peter's withdrawal from fellowship with the Gen- 
tiles as an attempt to compel the Gentiles to conform to Jewish 
custom (Gal. 2^^) imphes that the fellowship could be resumed 
on condition that the Gentiles observed the Jewish law; which 
obviously would not be the case if those who came from James 
protested against fellowship between Jews and Gentiles in 
general, or even against table-fellowship in particular, without 
reference to whether it involved a disregard of the law of foods. 
In the third place, the apostle's quick transition from the dis- 
cussion of the matter of Jews and Gentiles eating together, in 
w.12-14^ iQ ^jiat Qf |-}^e observance of law in vv.^^^-, makes it 
evident that it was a statute of the law, not a tradition, the 
observance of which was at issue. Even the narrative in Acts, 
chap. 15, though manifestly not a wholly correct report of what 


took place in Jerusalem and having no direct reference to the 
Antioch incident, nevertheless shows how early the food law 
played a part in the question of the freedom of the Gentiles. 

But if the food on the tables of the Gentiles was not restricted 
to that which the Levitical law permitted, then it is evident, 
first, that the Gentiles had generalised the decision respecting 
circumcision and concluded that no Jewish statutes were bind- 
ing upon them, or at least had extended the principle to another 
group of statutes; and, second, what is even more significant, 
that the Jews had acted on the principle that the law which 
was not binding on the Gentiles was not binding on them. 

These two new questions came to issue in the discussion 
between Peter and Paul at Antioch as narrated in 2"^-. And 
on this occasion Paul squarely took the position that the law 
of foods was not only not binding on Jewish Christians, but 
that they must not obey it under circumstances like those at 
Antioch, which made their observance of it a compulsion of the 
Gentiles to do the same. 

By this contention Paul in effect denied the authority of 
the Old Testament statutes over either Jews or Gentiles, at 
least over those who accepted Jesus as the Son of God. That 
he did this not only in effect, but with recognition of the fact 
that this position on circumcision and foods carried with it the 
general principle, is indicated by his employment, both in his 
narrative of what he said to Peter and in his discussion of the 
question later in the epistle, of the general term "law." This 
is also confirmed by the fact that in writing to the Corinthians 
(i Cor. 6^2. (^j^ jo23) he refused to make the authority of the 
law the basis of his stern reproof of sexual immorality. Though 
his principle, "All things are lawful," was quoted in justifica- 
tion of gross immorality, he would not withdraw it, but re- 
affirmed it and rested his case against sexual crime solely on 
the Christian ground that all things are not expedient, and 
that by fornication the members of Christ become members of 
a harlot, i. e., enter into a relationship which destroys the 
Christian's vital fellowship with Christ. To Paul it was not 
circumcision and foods, and festival days only that could not 


be enforced by law; nor ceremonies only; nothing could be 
insisted upon in the name of law. 

Yet in rejecting the authority of the Old Testament statutes, 
Paul did not reject the teachings of the Old Testament in toto. 
While quoting from the Old Testament the dicta of that legal- 
ism which he emphatically rejects (3^°), he more frequently 
quotes from it sentiments which he heartily approves. But, 
more important, he affirms that the whole law is fulfilled 
in one word to which he gives his unqualified assent (5^^), a 
sentence which in view of his clear rejection of certain clear 
requirements of the law can only mean that he saw in the law, 
along with many statutes that were for him of no value, certain 
fundamental principles which he had come to regard as con- 
stituting the real essence and substance of the law. Thus 
Paul neither approves nor disapproves all that the Jewish 
church had canonised, but assumes towards it a discriminative 
attitude, finding much in it that is true and most valuable, 
but denying that being in the Old Testament of itself makes a 
teaching or command authoritative. This discriminative atti- 
tude towards the Old Testament, coupled with the apostle's 
clear recognition of its value as a whole and his insistence, 
despite his dissent from many of its precepts, upon connecting 
the Christian religion historically with that of the Old Testa- 
ment, is most significant. Though he has left us no definite 
statement to this effect, possibly never formulated the matter 
in this way in his own mind, he in effect accepted the principle 
that while each generation is the heir of all the ages, it is also 
the critic of all, and the arbiter of its own rehgion. His con- 
duct implied that not what was held in the past, though it 
stood in sacred scriptures with an affirmation of its perpetual 
authority, was determinative for the conviction and conduct 
of living men, but that the criterion for belief and action was 
to be found in their own interpretation of human experience, 
their own experience and that of past generations as far as 
known to them. Religion is not then, for him, static, but 
fluid, in constant evolution under the influence of men's under- 
standing of the experience of the race. <^^J" 


{ This rejection of the authority of the Old Testament as such, 
^ coupled with the apostle's kindred contention that the gospel 
j was for all nations as they were, i. e., without entrance into the 
I Jewish community or subjection to Jewish law, raised squarely 
[the issue whether Christianity was to be a potentially universal 
•religion or was to continue, as it was at first, a sect of Judaism, 
differing mainly by one doctrine from current Pharisaism. On 
this question Paul took clear issue wdth the conservative party 
among the believers in the Messiahship of Jesus. The inspira- 
tion of his mission was a vision of a church universal worship- 
ping the one God and Father, and accepting Jesus as Lord and 
Saviour — a church into which men should come from every 
nation and religion, not through the vestibule of Judaism and 
the acceptance of the law of Moses and the rites of the Old 
Testament, but straight from where they were and through the 
single and open door of faith in Jesus Christ. His opponents 
also believed in one God and in Jesus as his Messiah, but they 
could not consent or conceive that men should enter the Chris- 
tian community except through an acceptance of Judaism, or 
that the Christian church should be anything else than a specific 
expression of the Jewish religious community. 

But Paul brought the question of authority in religion to the 
front in another way also. When the conservative brethren 
at Jerusalem, whom Paul in his intensity of feeling denounces 
as false brethren, took up arms against his doctrine of the 
freedom of the Gentiles and his practical apphcation of it to 
circumcision and foods, they found it necessary to deny his 
right to assume to be an expositor of Christianity, and to claim 
substantially that such authority was vested in those who had 
received it from Jesus while he was alive on earth. This 
affirmation Paul denied, claiming that he had an independent 
right to preach the gospel by virtue of the revelation of Jesus to 
him as the Son of God (i^*^- "^•). Yet in claiming for himself 
this right to preach the gospel without hindrance or permission 
from the Twelve he conceded to them equally with himself the 
title of apostle (i^^), and the same right to preach within their 
sphere of action the convictions which they held (2^). It is true, 


indeed, that he was severe in his denunciation of those who 
endeavoured to undo his own work (i«), and was outspoken in 
his condemnation of those whom he regarded as false apostles 
(2 Cor. iii3). But this is but the extreme affirmation of his own 
divinely conferred commission, and an evidence that zeal to 
make converts was not for him a necessary proof of a divine 
commission or a right spirit. It in no way contravenes what 
we are now affirming that what he claimed for himself, viz., a 
divine commission and a corresponding responsibility, he freely 
admitted might be possessed by other men who did not wholly 
agree with him. Sitting in council with them he neither con- 
sented to conform his own course of action or message to their 
practice nor demanded that they should conform theirs to his. 
The gospel of the circumcision and the gospel of the uncircum- 
cision had certain elements in common, but they were by no 
means identical. Yet he claimed for himself the right and 
duty to preach his gospel, and admitted the right and duty of 
the other apostles to preach theirs. 

Thus to his rejection of the authority of Old Testament 
statutes over the conduct of the men of his time, he added in 
effect the denial that there was any central doctrinal authority 
for the Christian community as a whole. Claiming the right 
to teach to the Gentiles a religion stripped of all legalism and 
reduced to a few religious and ethical principles, he conceded 
to his fellow-apostles the right to attempt to win the Jews to 
faith in Jesus while leaving them still in the practice of a strict 
legalism. That both parties ahke had this right to preach 
according to their conviction, demanded that each should recog- 
nise the other's right. Such recognition Paul freely granted 
to his fellow-apostles and claimed for himself. Thus without 
expounding in detail a doctrine of the seat of authority in 
religion, he in reality raised the whole question, and by implica- 
tion took a very positive position, not against conference and 
consultation or consideration for the rights of others — these he 
insisted on — but against the authority of community or council, 
and in favour of the right of the individual to deliver the mes- 
sage he believes God has given him, and if he gives credible 


evidence of a real divine commission, to go forward with his 
work without interference. 

But in connection with this principle of liberty in religion 
there arose in the mind of the apostle, as doubtless also in 
the minds both of his converts and his critics, further questions. 
What is the essence of true religion? How is moral character 
achieved? To men who had been wont to think of religion as 
authoritatively denned for them in certain sacred books, of 
morality as consisting in obedience to the statutes contained 
in these books, and of acceptance with God as conditioned 
upon such obedience and membership in the community whose 
uniting tie and basis of unity was a relation to the covenant 
recorded in the books, it was a serious question what became 
of religion and morality if there was no longer any authoritative 
book or any centralised ecclesiastical authority. Precisely this 
question Paul never states in these words, but with the ques- 
tion itself he deals explicitly and directly. ReHgion, he says 
in effect, is not conformity to statutes, or non-conformity, but 
a spiritual relation to God expressed in the word "faith," and 
an ethical attitude towards man, summed up in the word "love" 
(Gal. 5«). Morality, he affirms, is not achieved by keeping 
rules, but by living in fellowship with the Spirit of God and in 
consequent love towards men, issuing in conduct that makes 
for their welfare (s^^-^^). Thus he makes religion personal rather 
than ecclesiastical, and morality a social relation grounded in 
religion. This is not a new doctrine. It had been announced 
by the prophets of Israel long before. It is the doctrine which 
the synoptic gospels tell us Jesus taught. But not even the 
teaching of Jesus had sufficed to make it the dominant thought 
of those who early joined the company of his followers, and it 
was a novelty, indeed, in the Graeco-Roman world. It has 
never been accepted wholeheartedly by any considerable por- 
tion of the Christian church. It is not to-day the real creed 
of any great part of Christendom. 

In this short epistle, written doubtless in haste and some 
heat, Paul has raised some of the most fundamental and far- 
reaching questions that can be raised in the field of religion. 


The positions which he took were in the main not those that 

were generally accepted in his day or have been accepted since. 

1 He was not the first to announce them, but as held by him 

\ they were mainly the product of his own experience and think- 

^ ing. The writing of the Epistle to the Galatians was an 

epochal event in the history of rehgious thought. It is matter 

for profound regret that its vital contentions were so soon lost 

out of the consciousness of the Christian church. 


The question of the genuineness of Galatians is not easily 
detached from the larger questions, how Christianity arose, 
whether there was an apostle Paul who was a factor in its 
origin, and if so whether he wrote any letters at all. It can not 
be settled by the comparison of this letter with some other 
letter which is accepted as certainly written by Paul. For 
there is no other letter which has any better claim to be regarded 
as his work than Galatians itself. But neither can it be best 
discussed without reference to the other letters. As has been 
shown in considering its occasion, the letter itself discloses, 
largely incidentally and without apparent effort or intention, a 
situation so complex, so vital, so self-consistent, so psychologi- 
cally credible as to make it very improbable that it is a work 
of art cunningly framed to create the impression that a situa- 
tion which existed only in the writer's mind was an actual one. 
This fact is itself a strong reason for believing that the letter is 
a natural product of the situation which it reflects. Yet the 
question whether the letter was really written, as it professes 
to have been, by Paul, an early preacher of the Christian gospel 
and a founder of churches among the Gentiles, can best be dealt 
with in connection with the same question respecting some, at 
least, of the other letters which bear his name. For "the real 
question is what hypothesis best accounts for all the data; more 
specifically whether the total evidence of the letters considered 
in relation to all other pertinent evidence renders it most 
probable that they are all genuine products of real situations, 


which they severally disclose, or that the whole group is manu- 
factured, a work of art and literary device, or that while some 
are of the former kind, there are others whose qualities bring 
them under suspicion. Thus, in the same process, we select 
the genuine, if any such there are, and fix the standard by 
which to test the doubtful. In the attempt to select the docu- 
ments of early Christianity which, furnishing first-hand and 
basic testimony respecting that period, should constitute the 
standard by which to assign the other books to their proper 
place, Galatians has always been included in the normative 
group by those who have found in the New Testament collec- 
tion any books that were what they professed to be. On the 
other hand, its own claims to be from Paul and the claim of 
the church that it belonged to the first century have been 
denied only in connection with a general denial that we have 
any first-century Christian literature, or that there was any 
first-century apostle Paul. The reason for this is not far to 
seek. The situation out of which Galatians purports to spring 
and which it professes to reflect is a very definite and concrete 
one with strongly marked features. These features are largely 
repeated in certain other letters that also purport to come from 
Paul, with somewhat less close resemblance in still other let- 
ters bearing Paul's name, and in the Book of Acts. No one 
book can without arbitrariness be assumed to be the standard 
by which to test all the rest. No single book can arbitrarily 
be excluded from consideration or postponed for secondary con- 
sideration. But if in the examination of all the books purport- 
ing to come from the first age of the church, it proves to be a 
difficult task to restore from them all a self-consistent account 
of the whole situation, then it is not an irrational but a reason- 
able course to inquire whether there is any group which unitedly 
reflects a situation which is self-consistent, psychologically pos- 
sible, and in general not lacking in verisimilitude; and then in 
turn to make this group and the situation it discloses the point 
of departure for determining the relation of the rest to this 
situation. F. C. Baur and the Tubingen School may have 
been, probably were, somewhat arbitrary in limiting their 


normative group to Galatians, i and 2 Corinthians, and Ro- 
mans. But their error was not in including these four in this 
group, nor chiefly in beginning with these, but in that having 
begun with these, they excluded such other letters as i Thessa- 
lonians, Philippians, and Philemon on insufficient grounds. 
For our present purpose we shall not go far wrong if with Baur 
we begin with the four letters that he accepted. 

Beginning thus, we find that these four letters all claim to 
have been written by a Paul who describes himself as an apostle 
of Jesus Christ, and that they all present a clearly defined pic- 
ture of him, which, however they differ among themselves in 
important features, is yet consistent in the total result, and 
singularly life-like. In respect to the region of his work, his 
relation to the other apostles and to parties in the church, his 
conception of Jesus and his attitude towards him, the outstand- 
ing elements of his religion, the characteristics of his mind and 
temper, they in part agree, in part supplement one another. 
Their differences are never greater than would be probable in 
the case of letters written by the same man in the same general 
period of his life but in different places and under different 

It is not necessary for the purpose of this argument to inquire 
whether every part of the Epistle to the Romans, as we possess it, was 
written by Paul, or how many epistles have been combined in our 
so-called 2 Corinthians, or whether the editor has added some lines 
of his own. The possibility of editorship including both arrangement 
and some additions does not materially affect the significance of the 
substantial and striking consistency and complementariness of the tes- 
timony of the several letters to the character and career of their author. 
Nor, as indicated above, is it necessary at this point to discuss the 
question whether i and 2 Thessalonians, Philippians, Philemon, Colos- 
sians, and Ephesians have equal claim to genuineness with the four 
which Baur and his school accepted. The course of action which the 
internal evidence of the letters and the history of criticism combine 
to make most practicable is that which is indicated above. 

It is not strange, therefore, that from the second century to 
the present Galatians has been generally accepted as written 
by Paul and as constituting, therefore, a first-hand source of 


knowledge concerning his life, his controversies, and his con- 

Consistently with the general practice of the time, and what 
we find to be the case in respect to other New Testament books, 
there is a considerable period after the writing of the letter in 
which we find traces, indeed, of its influence on other Christian 
writers but no explicit mention of it by the name either of the 
author or of the persons addressed. 

There are certain coincidences of language between Galatians and 
I Peter, which some writers take to be evidence of a use of Galatians 
by the author of the Petrine epistle. Von Soden (cited by Bigg, 
St. Peter and St. Jude, in Int. Crit. Com. p. 20) finds such relationship 
between i Pet. i^^- and Gal. 3" 4^; between i Pet. 2i« and Gal. 5'»; 
and between i Pet. 3« and Gal. 42*. 0. D. Foster, The Literary Rela- 
tions of the First Epistle of Peter, New Haven, 19 13, finds a still longer 
list of coincidences, which he ascribes to dependence of i Peter on 
Galatians. If, as is probable, we should recognise a dependence of 
I Peter upon Romans (Sanday and Headlam, Com. on Romans, pp. 
Lxxiv/.) it is not improbable that the writer knew Galatians also. 
But the passages cited are not in themselves altogether conclusive 
evidence of such knowledge. 

Probable reminiscences of the language of Galatians are found in 
Barn. 19': xotvwvrjastq ev Tuaatv tw xXigatoy aou (Gal. 6«); Clem. 
Rom. 49«: 8ca t?]v (^YdxYjv, t]v eaxsv xpbq Tfj^juzq, xb alfxa auxou gSwxev 
uxe? -rjEAwv 'ItqjoGc; Xptatbc; h x6ptoc; -fjtJLtov, Iv Os^vig^aTt 6sou, y.(x\ t-J)v 
adpxa uxep xi^q aapxbq :f)[jL(i)v xal x-f)v 4"JXV ux^p xwv ^^uj^wv f)[X(ov 
(Gal. lO- Clearer parallels appear in Polyc. Phil. 3«. »: IlauXou . . . 
8q xal <x'Jilq u[J.Iv eypatl^sv lxtaxoXd<;, dq B.q edv syxuxxt]x£, SuvVeiOs 
ofxoSotxstjOat dq i^v SoGsTaav 6[JLtv xfaxcv, r^iiq laxl \^-TiTr\g xdvxwv 
u^uov (Gal. 42«); P/k7. 51, dlb-zzq oijv oxt Gsb^ ou [iuxxT)p(?;exat (Gal. 6^; 
note the coincidence of the anarthrous 626^ in both cases, and cf. 
com. I. €.); Phil. 12': qui credituri sunt in Dominum nostrum et Deum 
Jesum Christum et in ipsius patrem qui resuscitavit eum a mortuis 
(Gal. I'); Just. Mart. Dial 951: extxaxdpaxoq ydp eYpTjxat (sc. 
Miou&qq) %aq oq oux Ifx^^vet Iv xolq yeypa[X[iivoiq Iv xy ^t^Xiq) 
ToCi v6txou xoG xotY^aat aijxd (Gal. 3J0; Lxx read: Iv xaatv xot? X6yot<; 
ToO v6tiou xouxou xotijja'. auxouq). For other possible influences of the 
letters on early Christian literature, cf. Charteris, Canonicity, pp. 
233 /•; Gregory, Canon and Text, pp. 201 /.; Moff. Introd. p. 107. 

As early as about the middle of the second century there 
existed Hsts of the letters of Paul, in which Galatians is included. 


From Tertullian, Adv. Marc. V, and from Epiph. Haer. XLII, we 
learn that Marcion accepted ten epistles of Paul, though somewhat 
modifying their text. These ten were Galatians, i and 2 Corinthians, 
Romans, i and 2 Thessalonians, Laodiceans (Ephesians?), Colossians, 
Philippians, and Philemon. Both writers name them in the same 
order except that Epiphanius puts Philemon before Philippians. The 
agreement of a free-lance such as Marcion with the orthodox party is 
more significant of the state of early Christian opinion than would be 
its acceptance by either alone. Marcion's reference to the Epistle to 
the Galatians is apparently the first extant mention of it by name. 

The Muratorian Canon, which Gregory {op. cit., p. 129) dates about 
170 A. D. and most others before 200 A. d. at latest (for different opinions 
see Jiilicher, Einl.^, p. 146) includes Galatians among the epistles of 

From about 175 a. d. quotations from the epistle with cita- 
tion of it by name, or express quotation of its language are 

Irenaeus quotes Gal. 4^' ^ expressly ascribing it to Paul (Haer. 3. 60, 
and 3" 4*- S speaking of these passages as in the Epistle to the Gala- 
tians. {Haer. 3. f, 16'; 5. 21^. See Charteris, op. cit., p. 235. 

Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 3i«, says that "Paul writing to the 
Galatians says, Texvta \xoo ouq x(iXtv (i8(v(o, (i'xptq oCi (/.optpwe^j Xpta-ubq ev 
6[xcv" (Gal. 4'"). 

Origen, Con. Celsum, v.", quotes Celsus as saying that men who 
differ widely among themselves, and in their quarrels inveigh most 
shamefully against one another, may all be heard saying, "The world 
is crucified to me and I to the world": i[io\ x6a[ji.oq saTaOpwxac, xiy^ 
T^ x6a[JL(p (Gal. 6"). 

From the end of the second century quotations from our 
epistle are frequent, and no question of its Pauline authorship 
was raised until the nineteenth century. Even since that time 
few scholars have doubted it. 

To Bruno Bauer apparently belongs the distinction of being the 
first person to question the genuineness of Galatians.* In opposition 

• Edward Evanson, an English deist previously a clergyman of the Church of England, 
in his work on the Dissonance of our Four Generally Received Evangelists, 1792, directing his 
criticism especially against the fourth gospel, denied also the genuineness of Romans, Ephe- 
sians, and Colossians, and expressed doubts about Philippians, Titus, and Philemon, but 
raised no question about Galatians. Cf. Sief. Kom. p. 26; Knowling, Testimony of St. 
Paul to Christ, p. 38. Steck, Galaterbrief , p. 4, seems to be in error in saying that Evanson 
embraced in his denial all the books of the New Testament with the possible exception of 
Luke. I have not myself seen Evanson. 


to the well-known view of F. C. Baur and the Tubingen school that 
the chief factor in the production of the genuine literary remains of 
the apostolic age was the controversy between the judaistic party 
in the church and the opposing liberal tendency represented by Paul, 
and that Galatians, i and 2 Corinthians, and Romans were the prod- 
ucts on the Pauline side of this conflict, B. Bauer in his Kritik der 
paulinischen Brief e, Berlin, 185(^52, assigned practically all the books 
of the New Testament, including all the so-called letters of Paul, to 
the second century. But, like Evanson before him, Bauer found no 

In 1882 Professor A. D. Loman of Amsterdam began the publication 
of a series of Essays in Theologisch Tijdschrift under the title "Qua;s- 
tiones Paulinae," in which, though recognising the existence of Paul, of 
whom we gain our most trustworthy knowledge in the " we-sections " 
of Acts, he maintained that we have no letters from Paul, and that 
all the letters accepted by Baur are in reality attempts to present an 
idealised Paul. 

A. Pierson, who in 1878 had incidentally expressed doubts of the 
genuineness of the Epistle to the Galatians, in 1886 joined with S. A. 
Naber in a volume entitled, Verisimilia: Laceram conditionem Novi 
Testamenti exemplis illustrarunt et ah origine repetierimt. They ex- 
plained all the New Testament books as the result of a Christian 
working-over of books produced originally by a liberal school of Jewish 
thought. The Pauline epistles in particular are the product of the 
editorial work of a certain Paulus Episcopus of the second century. 

Rudolf Steck, in Der Galaterhrief nach seiner Echthcit untersucM, 
Berlin, 1888, maintains the historicity of the apostle Paul, but holds 
that hke Jesus he wrote nothing. The four principal letters ascribed 
to Paul he maintains to have been written in the order: Romans, 
I Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, by the Pauhne School, the 
last being based upon the earlier ones. 

Van Manen at first vigorously opposed the views of Loman, but 
later himself advocated similar opinions. In his article "Paul," in 
Encyc. Bib. vol. Ill, col. 3603 /., he contends that "we possess no 
epistles of Paul" (col. 3631), "and various reasons lead us so far as 
the canonical text [of Galatians] is concerned to think of a Catholic 
adaptation of a letter previously read in the circle of the Marcionites, 
although we are no longer in a position to restore the older form" 
(col. 3627). 

It is no longer necessary to discuss these views at length. 
They belong already to the history of opinion rather than to 
living issues. Outside the hmited circle of the writers named 


above and a very few others* they have won no adherents either 
in England or America or on the Continent. The verdict of 
Germany as expressed by H. J. Holtzmann is accepted by 
scholars generally. "For ten years a determined effort was 
made by Holland and Switzerland to ascribe all of the epistles 
of Paul as not genuine to the second century. This attempt 
has found no support from German theology" {New World, 
June, 1894, p. 215). 

The student who is interested may consult the works above referred 
to for the views of the writers themselves, and for criticism of their 
views: Zahn, ZkWkL, 1889, pp. 451-466; Gloel, Die jiingste Kritik 
des Galaterbriefes, Erlangen, 1890; Schmidt, Der Galaterbrief im Feuer 
der neuesten Kritik, Leipzig, 1892; Godet, Introduction to the Epistles 
of St. Paul, 1894, pp. 230/.; Knowling, Witness of the Epistles, Lon- 
don, 1892, chap. III; and Testimony of St. Paul to Christ, New York, 
1905, Preface and Lectures I and III; Schmiedel, article, "Galatians," 
in Encyc. Bib. vol. II, cols. 1617-1623; Clemen, Paulus, Giessen, 1904, 
vol. I, pp. 6-42; Lake, Earlier Epistles of St. Paul, London, 191 1, chap. 
VII; cf. also literature referred to by Moff. Introd., p. 107, Knowl- 
ing, and Schmiedel, op. cit. 

Modern criticism as represented by scholars of all schools of 
thought, with the few exceptions noted, ratifies the tradition 
of centuries that the letter to the Galatians was written, as it 
claims to have been, by Paul, the Christian apostle of the first 
century. The internal evidence of the letter, with the vivid 
disclosure of a commanding personality and a tense and in- 
tensely interesting situation, and the correspondence of that 
situation with that which is reflected in the other literature 
professing to come from the same author and period, supple- 
mented by the external evidence, rather meagre though it is, 
furnish no ground or occasion, indeed, for any other opinion. 

* J. Friedrich, Die Unechthett des Galaterbrief s , 1891; Kalthoff, Die Entstehung des Christen- 
thums, 1904; Johnson, Antiqua Mater, 1887; Robertson, Pagan Christs. Cf. Knowling and 
Clemen, op. cit. 



I. Introduction, i^-". 

1. Salutation, including assertion of the writer's apos- 

tolic authority i^-^. 

2. Expression of indignant surprise at the threatened 

abandonment of his teaching by the Galatians, in 
which is disclosed the occasion of the letter i*-^°. 

II. Personal Portion of the Letter. 

The general theme established by proving the apostle's 
independence of all human authority and direct 
relation to Christ: i^^2^^ 

1. Proposition: Paul received his gospel not from men, 

but immediately from God i" ". 

2. Evidence substantiating the preceding assertion of 

his independence of human authority drawn from 
various periods of his life i"-22i. 

a. Evidence drawn from his life before his conver- 

sion i"' ". 

b. Evidence drawn from the circumstances of hii. 

conversion and his conduct immediately there- 
after 115-17. 

c. Evidence drawn from a visit to Jerusalem three 

years after his conversion 1I8-20. 

d. Evidence drawn from the period of his stay in 

Syria and Cilicia 121-24. 

e. Evidence drawn from his conduct on a visit to 

Jerusalem fourteen years after the preceding 

one 21-1°. 
/. Evidence drawn from his conduct in resisting 

Peter at Antioch 211-1^ 
g. Continuation and expansion of his address at 

Antioch so stated as to be for the Galatians, 

also an exposition of the gospel which he 

preached 2"-". 


III. Refutatory Portion of the Letter. 

The doctrine that men, both Jews and Gentiles, become 
acceptable to God through faith rather than by works 
of law, defended by refutation of the arguments of 
the judaisers, and chiefly by showing that the "heirs 
of Abraham" are such by faith, not by works of 
law. Chaps. 3, 4. 

1. Appeal to the early Christian experience of the 

Galatians 3^-^ 

2. Argument from the faith of Abraham, refuting the 

contention of his opponents that only through 
conformity to law could men become "sons of 
Abraham" 3^-9. 

3. Counter argument, showing that those whose stand- 

ing is fixed by law are by the logic of the legalists 
under the curse of the law 310-14. 

4. Argument from the irrevocableness of a covenant 

and the priority of the covenant made with 
Abraham to the law, to the effect that the coven- 
ant is still in force 315-18^ 

5. Answer to the objection that the preceding argu- 

ment leaves the law without a reason for being 

6. Characterisation of the condition under law and, in 

contrast with it, the condition since faith came: 
then we were held in custody under law; now we 
are all sons of God, heirs of the promise t,^-^. 

7. Continuation of the argument for the inferiority of 

the condition under law, with the use of the illus- 
tration of guardianship 4^-^. 

8. Description of the former condition of the Galatians 

as one of bondage to gods not really such, and 
exhortation to them not to return to that state 

9. Affectionate appeal to the Galatians to enter fully 

into their freedom from law, referring to their 


former enthusiastic reception of the apostle and 
affection for him 4^^-^'^. 
10. A supplementary argument, based on an allegorical 
use of the story of the two sons of Abraham, and 
intended to convince the Galatians that they are 
joining the wrong branch of the family 4^^-^^. 

rV. Hortatory Portion of the Letter. 5^-6^" 

1. Exhortations directly connected with the doctrine 

of the letter 51-6^. 

a. Appeal to the Galatians to stand fast in their free- 

dom in Christ 51-12. 

b. Exhortation not to convert their liberty in Christ 

into an occasion for yielding to the impulse of 
the flesh 513-26. 

c. Exhortation to restore those who fall, and to bear 

one another's burdens 6^-^ 

2. Exhortations having a less direct relation to the 

principal subject of the epistle 6^-^°. 

V. Conclusion or the Letter. 6^^-'^^ 

1. Final warning against the judaisers 6"-^^ 

2. Appeal enforced by reference to his own sufferings 6". 

3. Final benediction 6^^. 


Accepting in general the principles of Westcott and Hort, 
the author of this commentary has diligently examined the 
available ev^ence for the text of Galatians in the light of those 
principles. The result has naturally been the acceptance for 
the most part of the Westcott and Hort text; yet in a few cases 
the evidence has seemed to require the adoption of a different 
reading from that preferred by those eminent scholars. 

The evidence has been gained almost wholly from Tischen- 
dorf, Novum Testamentum Greece, ed. oct. crit. maj. Leipzig, 
1872. Use has also been made of Souter, Novum Testamentum 
Greece, Oxford, 1910, and, for the ms. H., of the reproductions 


of it by Omont, Robinson, and Lake. See below, p. Ixxvi. The 
notation is that of Gregory as found in Die griechischen Hand- 
schriften des Neuen Testaments, Leipzig, 1908, 

The epistle is found in whole or in part in twenty-one uncial 
manuscripts, being complete in sixteen of them. The five 
instances in which it is incomplete are noted in the following 

8. Codex Sinaiticus. Fourth century. In Imperial Li- 
brary, Petrograd. Edited by Tischendorf, 1862; 
photographic reproduction by H. and K. Lake, Ox- 
ford, 1911. 

A. Codex Alexandrinus. Fifth century. In British Mu- 

seum, London. Edited by Woide, 1786; N. T. por- 
tion by Cowper, i860; Hansell, 1864; in photo- 
graphic facsimile, by E. Maunde Thompson, 1879; 
and again in photographic simile by F. G. Kenyon 
in 1909. 

B. Codex Vatlcanus. Fourth century. In Vatican Library, 

Rome. Photographic facsimile by Cozza-Luzi, 1889 ; 
and a second issued by the Hoepli publishing house, 

C. Codex EphrcEmi Rescriptus. Fifth century. In National 

Library, Paris. As its name implies, it is a palimp- 
sest, the text of the Syrian Father Ephrem being 
written over the original biblical text. New Testa- 
ment portion edited by Tischendorf, 1843. Con- 
tains Gal. 1 21, eiveira to the end, except that certain 
leaves are damaged on the edge, causing the loss of 
a few words. So e. g. ^rjXos or ^^Xot, Gal. 520. 

Dp. Codex Claromontanus. Sixth century. In National 
Library, Paris. Greek-Latin. Edited by Tischen- 
dorf, 1852. 

Ep. Codex S anger manensis. Ninth century. In Petro- 
grad. Greek-Latin. A copy, not very good, of 


Codex Claromontanus. Hence not cited in the 

F. Codex Augiensis. Ninth century. In Trinity College, 
Cambridge. Greek-Latin. Edited by Scrivener, 
1859. Closely related to Codex Bcernerianus. See 
Gregory, Textkritik, pp. 113/. 

F*. Codex Farisiensis Coislinianus I. Seventh century. 
In National Library, Paris. Edited by Tischendorf 
in Mon. Sac. Ined. 1846. Contains Gal. 421. 22. 

Gp. Codex BcBrnerianus. Ninth century. In Royal Li- 
brary, Dresden. Greek-Latin. Edited by Mat- 
thaei, 1791; photographic reproduction issued by the 
Hiersemann pubhshing house, Leipzig, 1909. 

H. Sixth century. The fragments of this ms. are scattered 
in six European Hbraries. The portion at Athos 
contains Gal. i^-'* 2^''-^^; that in the Imperial Library 
at Petrograd Gal. i^-^o 2^-'^^; that in the National 
Library in Paris Gal. 4^°-5^. The portions known 
at that time were published by Tischendorf in Mon. 
Sac. Ined. Bd. VIII; Duchesne pubhshed the Athos 
and Paris fragments in Archives des Missons sc. et 
lit. Ser. Ill, vol. 3, pp. 420-429, Paris, 1876; and 
H. Omont published the entire ms. as then known 
(forty-one leaves) in Notice sur un trh ancien manu- 
scrit grec en onciales des epttres de Saint Paul, con- 
serve a la Bibliothdgue Nationale, Paris, 1889; which 
is republished in Notices et Extraits des manuscrits 
de la Bibliothhque Nationale, vol. 33, pp. 145-192, 
Paris, 1890. From the offset on opposite leaves J. A. 
Robinson published sixteen pages of the ms., in- 
cluding Gal. 427-30 2 6-10^ in Texts and Studies, vol. Ill, 
No. 3, Cambridge, 1895. Kirsopp Lake reproduced 
the Athos fragments in facsimile and a transcribed 
text in Facsimiles of the Athos Fragment of Codex H 
of the Pauline Epistles ^ Oxford, 1905. The citations 


of the text in this commentary are made from the 
publications of Omont, Robinson, and Lake. 

K. Codex Mosguensis. Ninth century. In Moscow. 

L. Codex Angelicus. Ninth century. In Angelica Library 
in Rome. 

Np. Codex Petropolitanus. Ninth century. In Imperial 
Library, Petrograd. Contains Gal. 5^2-6''. 

P. Codex Porphyrianus. Ninth century. In Imperial Li- 
brary, Petrograd. Published by Tischendorf in 
Mon. Sac. Ined. Bd. V, 1865. 

'^. Eighth or ninth century. At the monastery of the 
Laura on Mt. Athos; unpublished. See Gregory, 
Textkritik, p. 94; Kenyon, Textual Criticism of N. T. 
p. 120. 

056. Tenth century. In National Library, Paris. See 
Gregory, Textkritik, p. 296, No. 19, p. 1047. 

062. Fourth or fifth century. In Damascus. Contains only 
Gal. 4^^-5^^ See Gregory, Textkritik, p. 1047. 

075. Tenth century. In National Library, Athens. See 
Gregory, Textkritik, p. 309, No. 382, p. 1061. 

0142. Tenth century. In Royal Library, Munich. See 
Gregory, Textkritik, p. 267, No. 46, p. 1081. 

0150. Tenth century. InPatmos. See Giegoiy, Textkritik, 

p. 311, No. 413, p. 1081. 

0151. Twelfth century. In Patmos. See Gregory, Text- 

kritik, p. 311, Nos. I and 14, p. 1081. 

The text of the last seven mss. was not available for use in 
the text-critical notes of this commentary. 

Of the approximately six hundred cursive manuscripts which 
contain the epistle in whole or in part, almost all of them in 
whole, Tischendorf cites the evidence of sixty-six, manifestly, 


however, for the most part only when they sustain the readings 
of the more ancient authorities, and some of them only once 
or twice. These sixty-six are i, 2, 3, 4, 5*, 6, 10, 31, 32, 33, 39, 
42, S8, 93, loi, 102, 103, 104, 122, 181, 205, 206, 209, 216, 218, 
234, 242, 263, 309, 314, 3i9» 322, 323, 326, 327, 328, 330, 336, 
356, 4242, 429, 431, 436, 440, 442, 450, 460, 462, 463, 464, 479, 
489, 605, 618, 642, 1905, 1906, 1908, 1911, 1912, 1913, 1924, 
1927, 1944, 1955, 2125. 

The readings for which Tischendorf cites these mss. are 
almost exclusively such as would be classed as pre-Syrian by 
Westcott and Hort. The attestation of the rival reading is in 
most cases either exclusively Syrian, or Western and Syrian. 
The pre-Syrian element is most clearly marked in the following 
six mss. : 

31 (Tdf. 37) the so-called Leicester Codex. Fifteenth cen- 
tury. At Leicester, England. Described by J. Rendel Harris 
in The Origin of the Leicester Codex of the New Testament, Lon- 
don, 1887. 

2,2, (Tdf. 17). Ninth or tenth century. In National Library, 
Paris. Called by Eichhorn " the queen of the cursives." Cited 
by Tischendorf in Galatians more frequently than any other 
cursive. Contains the Prophets as well as Gospels, Acts, Cath. 
Epp. and Paul. 

424 (Tdf. Paul 67). Eleventh century. In Vienna. It is 
in the corrections of the second hand (4242) that the pre-Syrian 
element especially appears. See Westcott and Hort, Introd. 
§ 212, p. 155. 

436 (Tdf. 80). Eleventh century. In the Vatican Library, 

442 (Tdf. 73). Thirteenth century. In Upsala. 

1908 (Tdf. 47). Eleventh century. In Bodleian Library, 

The estimate of the testimony of certain groups of manu- 
scripts which one gains from a study of the text of Galatians is 
in general quite in accordance with the value which Westcott 

* But according to Gregory, Textkrilik, p. 295, this ms. does not contain any part of Gala- 


and Hort ascribe to these groups in the Pauhne epistles in 

In the following one hundred and two instances (which in- 
clude, it is believed, all except those in which either the varia- 
tion or its attestation is unimportant) i< and B agree and 
are supported by various groups of other uncials: i"*- 1°- i^- ^^' ^* 

24, 5(2)*, 6, 8, 9(2), 10, 11, 12, 13, 14(3), 16(4), 18 ^1, 2, 6, 8, 10, 12, 13, 16, 

. 15 (3) , 17 

(2), 21, 23 (2), 
24, 25 51 (2), 3, 8(2), 9, 10, 12 (2), 13, 14(2), 15, 16, 17_ Jj^ 2^^ riKQeV 

which is the reading of ^BDFG 39, 442, is undoubtedly 
an error, though manifestly very ancient. In 6^^ transcrip- 
tional probability is against hoiKo^vrai^ the reading of 
SBD, but intrinsic probability is strongly in its favour. In 
nearly half the remaining instances internal evidence, chiefly 
transcriptional probability, is clearly on the side of the reading 
of ^^B; in a considerable number of cases the external attesta- 
tion of the rival reading is so weak as to leave no room for 
doubt that the reading of XB is the original; in no case other 
than the two named is there any strong evidence for the read- 
ing opposed to that of SB. 

fc< and B agree in supporting a reading unsupported by other 
uncials whose text is available in eight passages, viz., 3^- ^°' ^^ 
49, 18, 19 ^21 510^ In 49 X and B stand quite alone. In 3^ 
their reading is found also in early fathers, in 3^^ in two ancient 
versions, Syr. (psh.) and Aeth., but in no other Greek manu- 
script so far as noted. In the other passages their reading is 
supported by good cursives. Of the eight passages the SB 
reading is unquestionably correct in 6^°; almost unquestionably 
wrong in 4^^; in all the other instances it is accepted or given the 
preference by Westcott and Hort, and doubtless rightly, except 
in 4% where bovKevaai seems clearly to be a corruption of the 
original text. 

S and B are opposed to one another in forty-four instances. 
In sixteen of these S is accompanied by A and by either C or P 
or both, and B is accompanied by FG (once G only) or D, 

* Figures in parentheses indicate the number of instances within the verse. 


sometimes by both. The sixteen passages are i^- 1^- ^^- 1^- 1«; 
26. 14. 20 414. 23. 25. 28 ^26 52. 7. 13^ xHed by internal evidence 
neither group can be said to be uniformly superior to the other. 
The reading of ^sA (C) (P) is preferred by Westcott and Hort 
in twelve of the sixteen instances; viz. in i^* "• i^* ^^ 2^- ^o 423. 23 
^26 52, 7, 13^ Their judgment seems open to question in refer- 
ence to i^^ 2^ 4^8, but in the other nine cases there seems no 
reason for doubt. 

In seven instances i<ACP, and in two instances SAP (C 
being lacking), are accompanied also by DFG, and B stands 
opposed to them supported by good cursives (33, 424-), versions 
or fathers, but by no weighty uncial authority. These nine 
passages are i^- ^^ 2"- " 3"- ^i 56 511, 15^ j^ £ve of these 
passages the B reading is probably the original. In 6^^ West- 
cott and Hort are clearly right in accepting the reading of B 
without alternative. In all the rest they give both readings, 
one in the text, the other in the margin, preferring the NAC 
reading in four of the passages. 

In the remaining nineteen cases in which ^< and B are op- 
posed to one another the division of evidence varies greatly. 
The B reading seems clearly preferable in i^ 3"- ^s (els 
ecrre ev Xpto-JM Tt/ctou) 6-- ^^; the « reading in 4^ 423 (aXV) 
423 (jueV). In the other cases neither is clearly the orig- 
inal, but the B reading is probably so in i^ {evayyeKi^-qTai) 
2I6 328 {jdvres) 425 51, 20 (XrfKos) 6^^; the « reading in 5". 
In i^ iyp-lv) 3^^ 5^° {epiBlaC), perhaps neither is original. 

On the whole it appears that when S and B support different 
readings ACP are much more hkely to be associated with K, 
and DFG somewhat more hkely to be with B. Thus A agrees 
with N thirty times, with B seven times; C agrees with X 
twenty-one times, with B nine times; P agrees with ^< twenty- 
eight times, with B five times. D agrees with t< nineteen 
times, with B twenty times. FG agree with S sixteen times, 
with B twenty-two times. There is a slight preponderance of 
probability in favour of a reading of S supported by A and 
either C or P as against the rival reading of B with its various 
support; but a reading of « without at least two of the group 


ACP is very rarely original. The i^ACP group is stronger 
without the support of DFG than with it. In the instances in 
which the cursive 33 is quoted it agrees with ^^ eight times, 
with B ten times. It is almost invariably on the side of the 
more probable reading, but it is possible that the record would 
be somewhat different if it had been cited in all the forty-four 
cases in which S and B are on opposite sides. 

It is not within the scope of this commentary to discuss the 
textual theory of Von Soden, nor has it been judged practicable 
to cite the evidence which he has assembled in addition to that 
of Tischendorf. His text of Galatians differs all told in forty- 
six readings from that of Westcott and Hort. But this number 
gives an exaggerated impression of the real difference between 
the two texts. Of the forty-six instances of disagreement one 
(6 crap^, 517) is the result of a palpable misprint in Von Soden. 
Nine are differences in the spelling of a word as, e. g., by the 
addition or omission of y movable. Three pertain to order of 
words, not affecting the sense. In eleven Westcott and Hort 
and Von Soden adopt the same reading, but Westcott and 
Hort admit an alternative reading which Von Soden ignores 
(j8, 15, 21 26, 13. 21 ^23 ^6 51. 4. 18)^ j^ elcveu Vou Soden adopts (in 
ten cases without alternative, in one with alternative) the read- 
ing to which Westcott and Hort give their second preference: 
viz., in I* 7r€pt for vTrep; in 3^^ 01; for av; in 3^1 eK voixov rjv av 
for ev vojiw av ^v; in 4^ dovXevetv for SouXeOcat; in 4-^ 5ta T7]S 
for 5t'; in 428 vfxels . . . eo-re for rjfxeis . . . eV/zeV; in 52° 
epets, ^rj\oL for epts, ^?}Xos; in 6^2 jov 'x^piaTov for rov ^(^piaTOv 
[\r](7ov\\ in 5^1 Kai in brackets for ao-t in the margin. In 
eleven cases Von Soden adopts a reading which is not recog- 
nised by Westcott and Hort and involves more than spelling 
or order of words, viz., in i^ evayyeKC^-qrai for evayyeKLarjraL; 
in 3^3 avyKeKKeia fjievoL for crvvKKeiojievQi-^ in 4^^ 7«p for 5e; 
in 4^° KK-qpovoiirjcrri for KKrjpovofxrjaeL; in 6^ eKKaKMfiev for 
evKaKSifiev) in 5^^ 5e for Tap; in 6^° e'xpy'^v for e^co/xc^; in 
3^ adds [eV vixiv] after eVraupco/xeVos; in 4" [TavTCJp] after 
M'^VP', in 5^^ [(J)6uol] after (pdovoL; and in 6" avpiov before 
^\r](Tov. With the exception of 521 none of these differences 


affects the meaning of the passage further than in the shade of 
the thought or expHcitness of expression. 

In a number of instances the reading adopted by Von Soden 
had before the pubHcation of his text already been adopted 
for the present work in preference to that of Westcott and Hort. 
So, e. g., in i^ evayyeXi^'qTaL, 2^^ ov^l, 321 iK voixov, 4^ dovKevetv^ 
428 vjjieLS . . . eVre. 

An examination of the whole series fails to disclose any clear 
and constant principle underlying the text of Von Soden. 
But it is evident that he gives to B much less weight than do 
Westcott and Hort, rates ^sAC higher than they do, yet puts 
DFG still higher, and even at times prefers a reading supported 
by KLP to its rival supported by all the other uncials. 

For a discussion of the evidence of the ancient versions and 
the fathers the reader is referred to the standard treatises on 
Textual Criticism, such as Gregory, Textkritik des Neuen Tes- 
taments, vol. II, Leipzig, 1902; Canon and Text of the New Tes- 
tament, New York, 1907; Kenyon, Textual Criticism of the 
New Testamenf^, London, 191 2. 


This list does not include general works on Introduction to the New Tes- 
tament or to the Pauline Epistles, or general treatises on the Life of Paul 
or the Apostolic Age, or New Testament Theology. Many treatises on 
special topics not included in this list are referred to in the body of the 


For a list of Patristic Commentaries on the Epistle to the Galatians with 
characterisation of them, see Lightfoot, J. B., St. Paul's Epistle to the Gala- 
tians, pp. 227-236; and Turner, C. H., "Greek Patristic Commentaries on 
the Pauline Epistles" in HDB, vol. V, pp. 484^. See also Sanday and 
Headlam, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, pp. xcviii^. 

* The intention has been in general to give the date of the first edition of each work listed 
and to indicate the existence of later editions when such were published. But as not all 
the works cited were at hand and as first editions were often inaccessible exactness of state- 
ment can not be guaranteed in every case. The Commentaries marked with a * are of excep- 
tional interest or value. 


Faber, J., Epistolce divi Pauli ApostoU: cum Commentariis. Paris, 1517. 

♦Luther, Martin, In Epistolam Paidi ad Galatas Commentarius. Leipzig, 
1 5 19. German edition, 1525. 

* ^ In Epistolam S. Pauli ad Galatas Commentarius ex Prcsledione D. 

M. Lutheri colledus. Wittenberg, 1535. (Not a revised edition of 
the preceding, but a distinct and larger work. See preface to the edi- 
tion of J. C. Irmischer, Erlangen, 1843, i844-) Many other editions 
and translations. For characterisation, see S. and H., p. ciii. 

Erasmus, Desiderius (Roterodamus) , In Epistolam Paidi ad Galatas Para- 
phrasis, Leipzig, 1519. 

Bugenhagen, J., Adnotationes in Epistolas ad Galatas, etc. Basle, 1527. 

BuUinger, Heinrich, Commentarii in omnes Epistolas Apostolorum. 1537. 

Cajetan, Thomas de Vio, In omnes D. Pauli et aliorum Epistolas Commen- 
tarii. Lyons, 1539. 

♦Calvin, J., Commentarii in quatuor Pauli Epistolas (Gal. Eph. Phil. Col.). 
Geneva, 1548. 

* ^ In omnes Paidi ApostoU Epistolas Commentarii. Geneva, 1565. 

Various later editions and translations. 

Beze, Theodore de. Novum Testamentum . . . ejusdem Th. BezcB Annota- 
tiones. Geneva, 1565. 

Prime, John, Exposition and Observations upon St. Paul to the Galatians. 
Oxford, 1587. 

Piscator, Johannes, Commentarii in omnes Libros Novi Testamenti. Herborn, 

Estius, Guilelmus, In omnes Pauli Epistolas Commentarii. Douay, 1614. 

Lapide, Cornelius a (C. Van den Steen), Commentarius in omnes D. Paidi 
Epistolas. Antwerp, 16 14. Numerous later editions. 

Orellius, Johann, Commentarius in Epistolam Paidi ad Galatas. Racov, 1628. 

Grotius, Hugo (Huig van Groot), Annotatio7ies in Novum Testamentum. 
Paris, 1644. See S. and H., p. civ. 

Cocceius, Johannes (Johann Koch), Commentarius in Epistolam ad Galatas. 
Leyden, 1665. 

Calov, Abraham, in Biblia Novi Testamenti illustrata. Frankfort, 1676. 

Locke, John, A Paraphrase and Notes on St. Paul to the Galatians, Corin- 
thians, etc. London, 1705. 

♦Bengel, Johann Albrecht, in Gnomon Novi Testamenti. Tubingen, 1742. 
See S. and H., p. ciii. 

Michaelis, Johann David, Paraphrasis und Anmerkungen iiber die Brief e 
Pauli an die Galater, Epheser, etc. Bremen, 1750. Ed. altera, 1769. 

Wetstein (or Wettstein), J. J., Novum Testamentum Grcecum. Amsterdam, 

1751, 1752. 
Semler, Johann Salomo, Paraphrasis Epistolce ad Galatas, cum Prolegomenis, 

Notis, etc. Magdeburg, 1779. 
Matthaei, P. F., Pauli Epistolce ad Galatas, Ephesios, et Philippenses. Ed. 
altera, Rigae, 1784. 


Mayer, F. G., Der Brief Fault an die Galater, etc. Vienna, 1 788. 
Borger, E. A,, Inter pretatio Epistolce Pauli ad Galatas. Leyden, 1807. 
Rosenmuller, Ernst Friedrich Karl, in Scholia in Novum Testamentum. 

Leipzig, 1815. 
*Winer, Georg Benedict, Pauli ad Galatas Epistola. Latine vertit et perpetua 

Annotatione illustravit. Leipzig, 182 1. Ed. quarta, 1859. 
Flatt, Karl Christian, Vorlesungen ilber die Briefe Pauli an die Galater nnd 

Epheser. Tubingen, 1828. 
Paulus, Heinrich Eberhard Gottlob, Des Apostels Paulus Lehrbriefe an die 

Galater- und Romerchristen. Heidelberg, 1831. 
Riickert, Leopold Immanuel, Commentar iiber den Brief Pauli an die Galater. 

Leipzig, 1833. 
Matthies, Konrad Stephan, Erklarung des Briefes an die Galater. Greifs- 

wald, 1833. 
Usteri, L., Kommentar iiber den Galaterbrief. Zurich, 1833. 
Fritzsche, Karl Friedrich August, Commentarius de nonnullis Epistolce ad 

Galatas Locis. Rostock, 1833-4, 

Schott, H. A., EpistolcB Pauli ad Thessalonicenses et Galatas. Leipzig, 1834. 

Olshausen, Hermann, in Biblischer Kommentar iiber sammtliche Schriften des 

Neuen Testaments. Fortgesetzt von Ebrard und Wiesinger. Konigs- 

berg, 1830-62 (Gal. 1840). E. T. by A. C. Kendrick, New York, 1858. 

*Meyer, Heinrich August Wilhelm, Kritisch-exegetisches Handbuch iiber den 

Brief an die Galater. Gottingen, 1841 , in Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar 

iiber das Neue Testament, 1832-59. E. T., with bibliography, by Ven- 

ables and Dickson. Edinburgh, 1873-85. Various later editions. See 

also under Siefifert. 

*Wette, Martin Leberecht de, Kurze Erklarung des Briefes an die Galater, 

etc. Leipzig, 1841, in Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Neuen 

Testament, 1836-48. Various later editions, 

Baumgarten-Crusius, Ludwig Friedrich Otto, Kommentar iiber den Brief 

Pauli an die Galater, herausgegeben von E. J. Kimmel. Jena, 1845. 

Haldane, James Alexander, An Exposition of the Epistle to the Galatians. 

London, 1848. 
Alford, Henry, in The Greek Testament ... a Critical Exegetical Commen- 
tary. London, 1849-61, Various subsequent editions. 
*Hilgenfeld, Adolph, Der Galaterbrief iiber setzt, in seinen geschichtlichen Bezie- 

hungen untersucht und erklart. Leipzig, 1852. 
Brown, John, An Exposition of the Epistle of Paid to the Galatians. Edin- 
burgh, 1853. 
*Ellicott, Charles John, A Critical ajid Grammatical Commentary on St. 
Paul's Epistle to the Galatians. London, 1854, Various subsequent 
♦Jowett, Benjamin, The Epistles of St. Paid to the Thessalonians, Galatians, 
and Romans. London, 1855. Edited by L. Campbell, London, 1894. 


Webster, W., and Wilkinson, W. F., The Greek Testament with Notes Gram- 
matical and Exegetical. London, 1855-61. 

Wordsworth, Christopher, in The New Testament in the Original Greek. 
London, 1856-60. 5th ed., 1867, 1868. 

Bagge, H, J. T., St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians. London, 1857. 

Ewald, Heinrich, in Sendschreiben des Apostels Paulus. Gottingen, 1857. 

Bisping, August, in Exegetisches Handhuch zu den Brief en des Apostels Patdi. 
Miinster, 1857. 

*Wieseler, Karl, Commentar ilher den Brief Pauli an die Galater. Gottingen, 

Holsten, Carl, Inhalt und Gcdankengang des Pauli Briefes an die Galater, 
Rostock, 1859. 

Schmoller, Otto, Der Brief Pauli an die Galater. Bielefeld, 1862, in Theo- 
logisch-homiletisches Bibelwerk , herausgegeben von J. P. Lange. Various 
later editions. E. T. by C. C. Starbuck. 

Gwynne, G. J., Commentary on St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians. Dublir 

Kamphausen, Adolph Herman Heinrich, in Bunsen's Bibelwerk. Leipzig 

*Lightfoot, Joseph Barber, Saint Paul's Epistle to the Galatians. London, 
1865. 2d ed., revised, 1866. Various later editions. 

Reithmayr, F. X., Commentar zum Brief e an die Galater. Munchen, 1865. 

Carey, Sir Stafford, The Epistle of the Apostle Paul to the Galatians. Lon- 
don, 1867. 

Eadie, John, Commentary on the Greek Text of the Epistle of Paul to the Gala' 
tians. Edinburgh, 1869. 

Brandes, Friedrich, Des Apostels Paulus Sendschreiben an die Galater. Wies- 
baden, 1869. 

Holsten, Carl, Das Evangelium des Paulus. Th. I. Abth. i, Berlin, 1880. 

Sieffert, Friedrich, Der Brief an die Galater, in Kritisch-exegetischer Kom- 
mentar iiber das Neue Testament, begriindet von H. A. W. Meyer. Got- 
tingen, 1880. Sieflfert's first edition is counted as the sixth in the 
Meyer series. The edition cited in this work is the ninth, 1899. 

Howson, J. S., in The Bible Commentary, edited by F. C. Cook. New York, 

Schaff, Philip, in A Popular Commentary on the New Testament. New York, 

Schroeder, Friedrich, Der Brief Pauli an die Galater. Heidelberg, 1882. 

Philippi, Friedrich Adolph, Erkldrung des Briefes Pauli an die Galater. 
Gutersloh, 1884. 

Boise, James Robinson, Notes, Critical and Explanatory on Paul's Epistle to 
the Galatians. Chicago, 1885. 

Beet, Joseph Agar, A Commentary on St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians. 
London, 1885. Later editions. 


Zockler, Otto, in Kurzgefasster Kommentar zu den heiligen Schriften Alien 
und Neuen Testamentes, herausgegeben von Strack und Zockler. Nord- 
lingen, 1887. Later editions. 

Wood, William Spicer, Studies in Saint Paul's Epistle to the Galatians. 
London, 1887. 

Findlay, G. G., in The Expositor's Bible. New York, 1888. 

Baljon, J. M. S., Exegetisch-kritische verhandeling over den brief van Paulus 
aan de Galatiers. Leyden, 1889. 

Hovey, Alvah, in An American Commentary on the New Testament. Phila- 
delphia, 1890. 

Perowne, E. B,, in Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges. Cambridge, 

Schlatter, A., Der Galaterbrief ausgelegt fur Bibelleser. Stuttgart, 1890. 

Lipsius, R. A., in Hand-Commentar zum Neuen Testament, bearbeitet von 
H. J, Holtzmann et al. Freiburg, 1891. 

*Ramsay, W. M., A Historical Commentary on St. Paul's Epistle to the Gala- 
tians. London and New York, 1900. 

Rendall, Frederick, in The Expositor's Greek Testament, vol. III. London 
and New York, 1903. 

Bousset, Wilhelm, in Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments. Gottingen, 
1907. 2te Aufl., 1908. 

Williams, A. L., in Cambridge Greek Testament. Cambridge, 1910. 

Adeney, W. F., in The New Century Bible. Edinburgh, 1911. 

*Emmet, Cyril, in Reader's Commentary, edited by Dawson Walker. Lon- 
don, 1912. 

MacKenzie, W. D., in Westminster New Testament. London, 191 2. 

Girdlestone, R. B., St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians. London, 1913. 

I. The Destination of the Epistle. 

Perrot, Georges, De Galatia Provincia Romana. Paris, 1867. 

SiefTert, Galatien und seine ersten Christengemeinden, in ZhTh., vol. XLI, 

Grimm, Willibald, t/ber die Nationalitat der kleinasiatischen Galatern, in 

Th.St.u.Kr., 1876. 
Schurer, Emil, Was ist unter V(xkaxi<x in der Uberschrift des Galaterbrief es zu 

verstehen? in JfpT., vol. XVIII, 1892. 
Gifford, E. H., The Churches of Galatia, in Expositor, Ser. IV, vol. X, 1894. 
Clemen, Carl, Die Adressaten des Galaterbrief es, in ZwTh., 1894. 
Votaw, Clyde W., Location of the Galatian Churches, in BW., vol. Ill, 1894. 
Zockler, Otto, Wo lag das biblische Galatien? in Th.St.u.Kr., 1895. 
Ramsay, W. M., The "Galatia" of St. Paul and the Galatic Territory of Acts, 

in Studia Biblica et Ecclesiastica, vol. IV, 1896. 


Askwith, E. H., The Epistle to the Galatians. An Essay on its Destination 

and Date. London, 1899. 
Weber, Valentin, Die Adressaten des Galaterhriefes. Beweis der rein-sild- 

lichen Theorie. Ravensburg, 1900. 
Steinmann, Alphons, Der Leserkreis des Galaterhriefes. Miinster i. W., 1908. 
Moffatt, J., Destination of Galatians (Review of Steinmann, Leserkreis des 

Galaterhriefes), in AJT., vol. XIII, 1909. 

2, The Date of the Epistle. 

Meister, Kritische Ermittelung der Ahfassungszeit der Brief e des heiligen 

Paulus. Regensburg, 1874. 
Clemen, Carl, Die Chronologie der paulinischen Brief e aufs Neue untersucht. 

Halle, 1893. 
Rendall, Frederick, The Galatians of St. Paid and the Date of the Epistle, in 

Expositor, Ser. IV, vol. IX, pp. 254-264, 1894. 
Askwith, E. H., The Epistle to the Galatians. An Essay on its Destination 

and Date. London, 1899. 
Weber, Valentin, Die Abfassung des Galaterhriefes vor dem Apostelkonzil. 

Ravensburg, 1900. 
Briggs, Emily, The Date of the Epistle of St. Paul to the Galatians, in New 

World, vol. IX, 1900. 
Aberle, Chronologie des Apostels Paulus von seiner Bekehrung his zur Abfas- 
sung des Galaterhriefes, in BZ., vol. I, 1903. 
, Chronologie des Apostels Paulus vom Apostelkonzil his zum Martyrertode 

des Paulus in Rom, in BZ., vol. Ill, 1905. 
Round, Douglass, The Date of St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians. Cambridge, 

Steinmann, Alphons, Die Ahfassungszeit des Galaterhriefes. Miinster i. W., 

1906. With extensive bibliography, 

3. Genuineness and Integrity. 

Steck, Rudolf, Der Galaterhrief nach seiner Echtheit untersucht, nehst kritischen 
Bemerkungen zu den paulinischen Hauptbriefen. Berlin, 1888. 

Lindemann, Rudolf, Die Echtheit der paulinischen Haupthriefe gegen Stecks 
Umsturzversuch vertheidigt. Zurich, 1889. 

Volter, D., Die Composition der paulinischen Haupthriefe. Vol. I. Tubin- 
gen, 1890. 

Weiss, Bernhard, The Present Status of the Inquiry concerning the Genuine- 
ness of the Pauline Epistles. Chicago, 1897; also in AJT., vol. I, 1897. 

For further references, see pp. Ixxi/. 

4. The Text of the Epistle. 

Zimmer, Friedrich, Zur Textkritik des Galaterhriefes, in ZwTh., 1881, 1882. 
Baljon, J. M. S., De tekst der hrieven van Paulus, etc. Utrecht, 1884. 


Corssen, Peter, Epistola ad Galatas ad Fidem optimorum Codicum Vulgates 

recognovit Prolegomenis instruxit Vulgatam cum antiquioribus Versionibus 

comparavit. Berlin, 1885. 
Zimmer, Friedrich, Der Galaterbrief im altlateinischen Text ah Grundlagefiir 

einen textkritischen Apparatus der vetus Latina. Konigsberg, 1887. 
Weiss, Bernhard, Die patdinischen Brief e und der Hebrderbrief im berichiigten 

Text. Leipzig, 1896. 
• ; Textkritik der paulinischen Briefe, in Texte u. Untersuchungen z. Ge- 

schickte d. altchristlichen Literatur, vol. XIV, 3. Leipzig, 1896. 
Hemphill, W. L., Codex Coxianus of the Homilies of Chrysostom on Ephe- 

sians and his Commentary on Galatians. Norwood, 19 16. 
See further references in Encyc. Bib., vol. II, col. 1626. 

5. The Apostolic Conference and Decree. 

Bertheau, Carl, Einige Bemerkungen fiber die Stelle Gal. 2 und ihr Verhdltniss 

zur Apostelgeschichte. Hamburg, 1854. 
Holtzmann, H. J., Der Apostelconvent, in ZwTh., 1882, 1883. 
Zimmer, Friedrich, Galaterbrief und Apostelgeschichte, 1887. 
Hilgenfeld, A., Die neuesten Vertheidiger des Aposteldecrets, in ZwTh., 1891. 
Dobschiitz, Ernst von, Probleme des apostolischen Zeitalters. Leipzig, 1904. 
Volter, D., Paiilus und seine Briefe. Strassburg, 1905. 
Kreyenbiihl, J., Der Apostel Paulus und die Urgemeinde, in ZntW., 1907. 
Bacon, B. W., Acts versus Galatians: The Crux of Apostolic History, in 

AJT., vol. XI, 1907. 
For further references see p. xliv, and Lipsius, op. cit. sup. 


Holsten, Carl, Zum Evangelium des Paulus u. Petrus. Rostock, 1848. 

, Das Evangelium des Paulus. Th. II. Berlin, 1898. 

Sabatier, A., VApdtre Paul. Esquisse d'une Histoire de sa Pensie. Paris, 

3d ed., 1870. E. T. by A. M. Hellier, London, 1891. 
Pfleiderer, Otto, Der Paidinismus. Leipzig, 1873. E. T. by Edward Peters, 

London, 1877. 
Cler, Samuel, La Notion de La Foi dans Saint Paul. Etude de ThSologie 

Biblique. Alengon, 1886. 
Gloel, Johannes, Der heilige Geist in der Heilsverkiindigung des Paulus. 

Halle, 1888. 
Everling, Otto, Die paulinische Angelologie und Ddmonologie. Gottingen, 

Stevens, George Barker, The Pauline Theology. New York, 1892. 
Grafe, Eduard, Die paulinische Lehre vom Gesetz nach den vier Hauptbriefen. 

Freiburg, 2te Aufl., 1893. 
Kabisch, Richard, Die Eschatologie des Paulus. Gottingen, 1893. 


Bruce, Alexander Balmain, St. Paul's Conception of Christianity. Edin- 
burgh and New York, 1894. 
Teichmann, Ernst, Die paulinischen V orstellungen von Aufersiehung und 

Gericht und ihre Beziehung zur judischen Apokalyptik. Freiburg, 1896. 
Somerville, David, St. Paul's Conception of Christ. Edinburgh, 1897. 
Simon, Theodore, Die Psychologic des Apostels Paulus. Gottingen, 1897. 
Wemle, Paul, Der Christ und die Siinde bei Paulus. Freiburg, 1897. 
Feine, Paul, Das gesetzesfreie Evangelium des Paulus. Leipzig, 1899. 
Thackeray, Henry St. John, The Relation of St. Paul to Contemporary Jewish 

Thought. London, 1900. 
Mommsen, Theodor, Die Rechtsverhdllnisse des Apostels Paulus, in ZntW., 

Wemle, Paul, Die Anfange unserer Religion. Tubingen, 1901. 
Feine, Paul, Jesus Christus und Paulus. Leipzig, 1902. 
Bruckner, Martin, Die Entstehung der paulinischen Christologie. Strassburg, 

Vos, Gerhardus, The Alleged Legalism in Paul's Doctrine of Justification, in 

PThR., 1903. 
Sokolowski, Emil, Die Begriffe Geist und I^ben bei Paulus. Gottingen, 1903. 
Kennedy, H. A. A., St. Paul's Conception of the Last Things. New York, 

Monteil, S. Essai sur la Christologie de Saint Paul. Paris, 1906. 
Amal, Jean, La Notion de V Esprit, sa Genese et son Evolution dans la Thiologie 

Chretienne. Paris, 1907. 
DuBose, William Parcher, The Gospel according to St. Paul. New York, 

Olschewski, Wilhelm, Die Wurzeln der paulinischen Christologie. Konigs- 

berg, 1909. 
Macintosh, Douglas C, The Pragmatic Element in the Teaching of Paul, in 

AJT., vol. XIV, 1910. 
Gardner, Percy, The Religious Experience of St. Paul. New York, 191 1. 
Dewick, E. C, Primitive Christian Eschatology. Cambridge, 1912. 
Boysson, A. de, La Loi et la Foi. Paris, 191 2. 
Williams, E. J. Watson, A Plea for a Reconsideration of St. Paul's Doctrine of 

Justification. London, 191 2. 
Wetter, Gillis Piton, Der Vergeltungsgedanke bei Paulus. Gottingen, 191 2. 
Rostron, S. Nowell, The Christology of St. Paul. London, 191 2. 
Westcott, F. B., St. Paul and Justification. London and New York, 1913. 
Prat, F. La Theologie de Saint Paul. Paris, 1913. Contains bibliography. 
Ramsay, W. M., The Teaching of Paul in Terms of the Present Day. Lon- 
don, 1913. 
Hatch, William Henry Paine, The Pauline Idea of Faith in Its Relation to 

Jewish-Hellenistic Religion. Cambridge, 191 7. 
Morgan, W. The Religion and Theology of Paul. Edinburgh, 191 7. 



I. Salutation, including the assertion of the writer^ s 
apostolic commission (i^"^). 

The apostle Paul, writing to the churches of Galatia (who 
had received the gospel from him, but were already, under 
the influence of preachers who held a different type of Christian 
thought, on the point of abandoning the gospel as Paul had 
taught it to them to accept the teachings of these other preach- 
ers), affirms in the very salutation of the letter his direct com- 
mission as an apostle from Jesus Christ and God the Father, 
making mention also in this connection, doubtless as against 
the declaration or insinuation of his opponents that only a per- 
sonal follower of Jesus could be an apostle, of the fact that the 
Christ still lives, having been raised from the dead by the 
Father. Invoking upon them grace and peace from God the 
Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, he adds to this usual element 
of his epistolary salutation a characterisation of Jesus Christ, 
emphasising his mission of Saviour of men from, their sins, as 
against the conception of law as the means of salvation, which 
the preachers who had succeeded him in Galatia held. 

Paul, an apostle, not from men nor through man, but through 
Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised him from the dead, ^and 
all the brethren that are with me, to the churches of Galatia : ^grace 
to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, 
Hvho gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us out of 
the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, 
Ho whom be the glory for ever. Amen. 
I I 


1. IlauXo? aTToaroXof;, ''Paul an apostle." By the addition 
of the word airoaroXo^ to his name, at the very opening of the 
epistle Paul claims to be one who is divinely commissioned to 
preach the gospel of Christ and authorised to plant Christianity. 
The apostleship as conceived by him invplved the idea of the 
church oecumenical, Christianity as an organic whole, not sim- 
ply isolated centres of effort, and of divine appointment in rela- 
tion to it. To the apostles was committed the task of laying 
the foundations of the church (i Cor. 36. 10 Eph. 320) and among 
those who were endowed with the gifts of the Spirit for the 
building up of the church they constituted the highest rank 
(i Cor., chap. 12, esp. v. 28; cf. Eph. 4"' 12). These facts gave 
to them a responsibility and right above that of any other class 
in the church. While this was apparently generally recognised 
there was much controversy over the question to whom this 
responsibility and right belonged. In Paul's view they belonged 
neither exclusively to any individual nor to a college of apostles 
as such. The function of the apostle, neither limited on the 
one side to a local church, nor extended on the other to the 
whole world, was defined as respects each apostle or group of 
apostles by the divine commission which made them apos- 
tles. See Rom. i^- ^ in which S. and H. rightly translate 
iv iraatv toU eOvecrcv "among all the Gentiles"; i Cor. 9^; 
but esp. Gal. 2^. Respecting the origin of the apostolic 
order or class, the qualifications, rights, and responsibilities of 
an apostle, and the Umitations of his authority, see detached 
note on 'AttoVtoXo?, p. 363. It is evident from what follows 
in the epistle both that Paul's representation of the con- 
tent of the gospel had been declared to be incorrect by those 
who had visited Galatia since Paul was there, and that they 
had denied his right to assume the function or claim the rights 
of an apostle. This denial Paul meets, in the very salutation 
with which the letter opens, by the affirmation of his apostle- 
ship, which he claims to possess not to the exclusion^ of others, 
but along with others; note the absence of the article before 
airoaroXo^ and cf. i^^ 2^. The title is certainly not here, and 
probably not in the salutation of any of his letters, a mere title 

h I 3 

of dignity, but involves an assertion, the maintenance of which 
is essential to the purpose of the letter. Cf. i Cor. i^ 2 Cor. i* 
Rom. i^ I Thes. 2^, etc. 

ovK air avOpayircov ovBe Bl avOpcoTrov "not from men nor 
through man." The first phrase denies that Paul's apostleship 
had a human source, the second that it had come to him through 
a human channel, by human agency. Paul claims not only to be 
an apostle, but to have an apostleship which is in no sense in- 
direct, dependent, or secondary. This fact is important for the 
understanding of the whole personal portion of the letter. It is 
evident that his opponents were substantially in agreement with 
Paul himself in holding that the right of self-directed presenta- 
tion of the gospel, and the laying of foundations, belonged to the 
apostles as a definite class in the church. Apparently, also, 
they held respecting apostles much the same view which Acts 
j2i, 22 represents Peter as holding respecting the Eleven, viz.: 
that authority to add to the number lay with the Jerusalem 
church. With this idea of the basis on which additions to the 
Eleven were to be made they apparently associated the view 
that any one whose teaching differed from that of the Jerasalem 
church, in which the influence of James and the Twelve was 
dominant, was either an altogether unauthorised and false 
teacher, or a renegade associate or representative of the Twelve 
and a perverter of the true teaching; in either case no true 
apostle. It is not wholly clear in which class Paul's critics had 
placed him. But the nature of his reply, in which he denies 
with emphasis any kind of dependence on men in general (i^' "), 
or the apostles in particular (i^^- 1^), combined with the facts 
mentioned in i^^-^'* in themselves considered, makes it probable 
that his opponents looked upon him, not indeed as having been 
commissioned as an apostle by the Twelve, but as one who hav- 
ing received instruction from them had perverted their teach- 
ing, and thereby deprived himself of all right as a Christian 
teacher. His claim to be an apostle they would doubtless have 
treated as wholly groundless. This denial of authority he an- 
swers, not as Barnabas or Mark might have done, with the 
assertion that he was true to the teaching of the Twelve, but 


by affirming that he possessed an independent apostleship, neither 
derived from a human source nor through a human channel. 

The preposition dcTc6 expresses source in its simplest and most general 
form; hence it is the most natural preposition to use to express clearly 
the idea of source as distinguished from that of agency expressed by Sti. 
By ojx ix' . . . iv0ptoTcou the apostle denies definitely and specifically 
that either the source or the agency of his apostleship was human. 

The phrase oux dx' dfvOpwxtov is evidently qualitative, denying human 
origin in the broadest possible way without of itself directing the mind 
to any particular persons. Even the generic plural with the article, 
ol (i'vOptoxot, is used very freely in N. T., not to denote the totality 
of the race, but in reference to any group of men thought of as actually 
existing, though unnamed and unidentified. See Mt. s^^' ^^' ^' ^^' '^ 
Rom. i4i» I Cor. i" Col. 2^' ". But the noun without the article is more 
clearly and emphatically qualitative, being nearly equivalent in the 
genitive to the adjective "human," or with 1^ or dx6 to the phrase 
"of human origin." See Rom. i'^ xdcaav . . . iStxc'av dvGpwxwv, 
"every form of human iniquity"; i Cor. 2^, [jL-f) . . . ev co(picf dvGpuxtov 
iXk' ev Buvafxet 6eou, " not in human wisdom but in divine power"; also 
Phil. 2 7 Mt. 15= 2 1 25. 26. It is in this broad sense that Paul uses the 
phrase here. Yet vv. ^^' " leave no doubt that in using it he has 
especially in mind the primitive apostles, or the Christian church in 
Jerusalem, in which they were the dominant influence, it being from 
this source that his opponents would hold that he ought to have derived 
his apostleship in order to make it valid. In like manner, although 
the singular is much less commonly used with qualitative force than 
the plural, ou5s ot' dvOpwxou is probably to be taken simply as denying 
human agency, and is better translated "-through man" than "through 
a man." Cf. Acts ly'^ Rom. i"' 3^ Gal. i"- " 2«. 

Though it is evidently no part of the apostle's purpose in this verse 
to set forth his conception of the nature or mission of Christ, yet his 
language indirectly and partially reflects his thought on that subject. 
The antithesis between ouBe Si' dvOptoxou and Bca TiQaoO XptaxoO, even 
though to the latter is joined xal Geou xaxpoq, and the very fact of the 
close association of 'IrjaoQ XptaTou with GeoO xaTp6<; after the one 
preposition ht&, combine to indicate that Paul distinguished Jesus 
Christ from men; not indeed in the sense that he denied that he was 
man (cf. i Cor. 1521), but that this term did not state the whole, or 
even the most important truth about him. Even had Paul believed 
that his apostleship came from God through his fellow apostles, he 
could never have written ouSs S'.' ivOpcoxou, dXkdc 3ta twv d-KoaioXoyv 
yux\ OsoCi xaTp6q, or even dXka Sia twv axoaToXwv xal dxb Oeou xaTp6(;. 
See detached note on HaTi^p as applied to God, p. 384, and on The 
Titles aftd Predicates of Jesus, p. 392. 

I, I 5 

The change from the plural, ivOpwxwv, to the' singular, dvOpdo'xou, is 
probably purely stylistic, it being natural to think of a possible human 
source of authority as composed of a group of men, and of the agent 
of its transmission as a single person. The plural may, indeed, be in 
some measure due to the fact that the source of authority which he 
had particularly in mind to deny was a group, the apostles. But there 
is no corresponding explanation of the singular. Zahn interprets ouBe 
St' dvepuxou as a denial of a charge that he had received his apostleship 
through a certain unnamed person, most probably Barnabas. But 
this view overlooks the fact that Paul is here denying, not that he 
received his apostleship in the way in which they alleged he had, but 
that he had obtained it as they alleged he (not having been one of the 
original group) must have received it if it were genuine. They did not 
say, " You received your apostleship from men, and through a man, 
therefore it is not genuine," but " You should thus have received it," 
and Paul's answer is that he received it in a way far above this, which 
made human source and human agency wholly superfluous. 

aXka Blcl 'It^o-oO ^piarov kol deov irarpd^ "but through 
Jesus Christ and God the Father." Three facts are specially 
noticeable in reference to this expression: (i) the use of Btd 
rather than awo, indicating that the apostle is speaking not 
simply of a source of his apostleship between which and him- 
self there intervenes an agent, but of the channel through 
which it came to him, or of the immediate source of it (see on 
meanings of Sid below) ; (2) the addition of /cal Oeov Trarpo^; to 
^lr](Tov l^pLarov, showing that he is not thinking simply of the 
agency through which his apostleship came to him, but also 
of the source, than which, being ultimate, there can be no higher; 
(3) the governing of both substantives by the one preposition 
but once expressed, showing that Jesus Christ and God the 
Father are not separated in his mind as sustaining different rela- 
tions to his apostleship, but are conceived of jointly and as sus- 
taining one relation. Taken together, therefore, the whole ex- 
pression bears the meaning "directly from Jesus Christ and 
God the Father." Had he thought of Christ as the agent and 
God as the source he must have written Bia 'lyaov XpLCTTov kol 
airb Oeov irarpo^; if of God and Christ, as jointly source only, 
airo ^Irjaov 'Kptcrrov kol deov Trar/ao'?, which, however, would 
not have furnished a proper antithesis to Sc av6po)7rov, since 
it would have left open the possibiHty of a human channel. 


Aid: with the genitive, in addition to its use with reference to spatial 
and temporal relations, expresses means or instrument, which with a 
personal object merges into the idea of agency; but in three ways: (a) 
Expressing mediate agency. This use of the preposition grows natu- 
rally and most directly out of the spatial sense of the preposition 
" through," the governed substantive being thought of as standing 
between the source of power and the person or thing affected, and as 
transmitting the power. See, e. g., Rom. i^ 51 i Cor. 21" et freq. (b) 
The idea of mediateness falling into the background or disappearing, 
Zi& is used with a word denoting that which is at the same time source 
and agent; in such cases, while the preposition itself perhaps expresses 
only agency, the conception of mediateness implying something behind 
the agent is lost, and the fact that the agent is also source is separately 
expressed or implied in the nature of the case. See Th. s. v. A. 
Ill I and such passages as Rom. 11" i Cor. i». (c) The idea of 
agency merging into that of conditioning cause (viz. that which, though 
not the instrument of the action, or its ultimate source, is necessary 
to its accomplishment), Std is used with reference to that which, so to 
speak, stands behind the action and renders it possible. So, e. g., 
Acts i« Rom. i« is'o I Thes. 4K 

In the phrase 8t' dtvOpwxou, Std: evidently expresses mediate agency, 
since source is separately expressed by dex' dv0pa)TCO)v, and the thought 
of man as a conditioning cause standing behind and rendering possible 
the action by which Paul became an apostle is excluded by the obvious 
nature of the facts. But the ^i& with 'lYjaoO XptatoO, though evi- 
dently suggested by the use of Btdt with dvOpwxou, is used rather with 
the second meaning (b). The idea of mediateness is not required by 
any antithetical ix6, and in respect to Oeou xaTp6<;, which is also gov- 
erned by this same Std, the idea of mediateness is excluded, since it 
can not be supposed that the apostle thinks of a more ultimate source 
than God of which God is the agent.* Nor is it probable that the idea 
of mediateness is present even in respect to 'l-qaoi) XptaToO, since 
neither is dx6 used with OeoO xaxpdi; nor is Bed: even repeated before it; 
instead the two substantives are closely bound together under the 
government of one preposition, which probably therefore has the same 
force with both of them. The whole phrase 8ca 'ItqjoO . . . xaTp6<; 
is accordingly antithetical not to Bt' dev0p(oxou only, but to dx' ivOpwxwv 
and Bt' dvOptixou, being the positive correlative of the negative oOx . . . 

Tov €yeipavTo<; avrov e'/c veKpoiv^ " who raised him from the 
dead." By this characterisation of God Paul reminds his 

• C/. Philo, Leg. Alleg. I 41 (13) : to. /u.ev kox viro Oeov ycVerai itdi Si' avrov, to. Se vno deov fiev, 
oil Si avTov S4. He illustrates this general statement by the assertion that the mind of 
man is created both by and through God, the irrational parts of the soul by God but not 
through God, being produced through the reasoning power that rules in the soul. 

I, I 7 

readers, who may have been told that Paul could not be an 
apostle because he was not a follower of Jesus in the flesh, that 
Jesus rose from the dead, and that it was the risen Christ who 
had given him his commission. 

Of the apostle's motive for adding this expression there have been 
many theories. See a considerable number of them in Sief. That of 
Wies., who regards the reference to the resurrection as intended to sub- 
stantiate on the one hand the superhuman nature and divine sonship 
of Jesus, which is implied in ouSe St' (ivOpwxou and in the association 
of Jesus with the Father, and on the other hand the fatherhood of 
God, intrudes into the sentence a Christological and theological inter- 
est which is quite foreign to its purpose. The words o^Se . . . xaigdq 
undoubtedly reflect incidentally the apostle's conception of God and 
Christ, but they are themselves introduced for the purpose of estab- 
lishing the main point, Paul's independent apostleship, and it is wholly 
improbable that the added words, toO eyet'pavToq, etc., were injected 
to confirm the incidentally reflected thought. Sief. himself, taking in 
general the same view, goes beyond probability in supposing that the 
phrase conveys a reference to the resurrection of Christ as that through 
which God manifested his paternal love to the Son in the highest de- 
gree and established him in the full status of Son, this fact being in turn 
the basis on which Paul's call into the apostleship is made possible. 
The evident emphasis of the sentence upon Paul's apostleship, its in- 
dependence and its validity, makes it improbable that there underlay 
it, unexpressed, any such elaborate and indirect reasoning. Nor is the 
fact that Tou lyefpavToc; limits eeou Tcaxpdq sufficient to set this objec- 
tion aside. Having, according to his usual custom (enforced in this 
case by special reasons) joined the names of Christ and God closely 
together, the only way in which he could then make reference to the 
fact of the resurrection without inconvenient circumlocution was by a 
phrase limiting OsoQ xaxpdq. A similar objection holds against most 
of the interpretations enumerated by Sief., and against that of Beet, 
who introduces the thought that the Father, when raising Jesus from 
the dead, with a view to the proclamation of the gospel throughout 
the world, was himself taking part personally in the mission of the 

The word lyefpw is Paul's regular term for the raising from the 
dead. He uses it in this sense 35 times, in 10 instances in the active, 
in 25 in the passive (exclusive of Eph. and the pastorals), only twice in 
any other sense (Rom. 13" Phil. i^O- He employs iv{aTT][i,t of rising 
from the dead in i Thes. 4"- " only. In the gospels and Acts both 
terms are used with approximately equal frequency, except that Mt. 
has a decided preference for sYsfpto (pass.), using ivftj-cTj^xt but once, 


though it appears as a variant in three other passages also. There is 
apparently little or no distinction in thought between the two terms. 
The general usage of lyetpw suggests a waking out of sleep, that of 
dv(aTir)[jLt a rising up from a recumbent position, but this distinction 
affects the terms as used of the resurrection from the dead at most 
merely in the outward form of the thought. Both verbs are frequently 
followed by ex vexpwv. For lyec'po) (act.), see Rom. 4'^ 8^^ 10'; (pass.), 
Rom. 6*- ^ I Cor. 151=. 20, Only rarely do ex twv vexpwv (see i Thes. 
V>, where, however, AC omit xdiv and WH. bracket it, and Eph. 5»<, a 
quotation from some unidentified source) and dxb twv vexpwv (Alt. 14-) 
occur. The omission of the article is probably due to the expression 
being a fixed prepositional phrase. See Slaten, Qualitative Nouns in 
the Pauline Epistles, p. 25, Chicago, igi8. 

2. ical ol (Tvv ifiol Trdvie^ a8eX<j)0Lj "and all the brethren 
that are with me." The term "brethren" is one which accord- 
ing to Paul's usage and that of the early Christians generally 
(i Thes. i4 2I I Cor. 5^1 6^-^ 8^^, etfreq. in Paul; Jas. i^ i Pet. 512 
I Jn. 3" Rev. 12^°; Clem. Rom. i^; Ign. Philad. 5^ — much less 
frequent in the early fathers than in N. T.) usually meant "fel- 
low-Christians." See below on v. ". The fact that it is Paul's 
usual habit to join with himself in the address of a letter one or 
two of his closest companions and fellow-labourers (see esp. i 
Cor. ii and cf. 1620; 2 Cor. i^ and cf. 131^' 12; Phil. ji, and cf. 421. 22 j 
Col. i^ and cf. 410' 12. 14)^ the distinction which he apparently 
makes in Phil. 421. 22 between "the brethren with him" and the 
resident Christians, and the fact that a temporary sojourner in 
a place would more naturally refer to the residents of the place 
as " those with whom I am staying" or more generally as " the 
brethren of such a place," than "the brethren that are with 
me," makes it probable that the phrase here designates not the 
Christians of the place in general (as Wies., Zahn, and Bous. 
maintain), but his fellow-missionaries (so Hilg., Ltft., Ell., 
Sief., Beet). 

The purpose of this association of his companions with himself in 
the writing of the letter does not clearly appear. If the persons thus 
named took any part in the composition of the letter, we are unable 
now to detect their part, or even that they had any such. Even in 
I Thes. where Paul uses the first person plural in the first two chapters 
and part of the third {cf. Frame on i. i) it is probable that while the 

I, I, 2 9 

pronoun at first includes the companions named at the beginning, they 
took no actual part in the composition of the letter, being only in the 
background of his thought, as 2'^ itself shows. But in Gal. the almost 
uniform use of the first person singular for the author, not only in 
narrative passages (such as 112-19. "." 21-1" 413-15) and in those in which 
the pronoun might be supposed to be rhetorically used for the Chris- 
tian believer as such (2I8-"), but in those in which the writer speaks of 
himself as such, referring to what he is at the moment saying (i«- i"- ^^- '" 
^■i, 15. 17 41, 12, 16-ji ^2, 3, 10-12, 16 517)^ practically excludes the possibility of 
any partnership in the writing of the letter. The first person plural is 
usually "we Jews," or " we Christians." Only in i^. » can it be taken 
as an epistolary plural referring to Paul himself (see Dick, Der schrijt- 
stcllerische Plural bei Paidus, 1900), and even here more probably (see 
on those vv.) as a designation of the apostle and his companions. But 
in I', at least, these are apparently referred to, not as with him at the 
moment of writing, but when he was preaching in Galatia; and that 
"the brethren with me" here referred to were his companions in Gala- 
tia is rather improbable, since had those who shared with him in the 
preaching of the gospel in Galatia been with the apostle at the moment 
of writing it is likely that, instead of there being no other reference to 
them in the letter than this obscure one, they would have received at 
least as much recognition as in i Thes. Paul gives to Timothy and 
Silas. Nor does it seem likely that the brethren here referred to are 
intended to be understood as indorsing the apostle's statements. The 
mention of them seems rather, as in Paul's salutations generally, mainly 
at least, an act of courtesy, though doubtless carrying with it the impli- 
cation that the brethren were aware of his writing the letter, and were 
not averse to being mentioned in it. 

The question who these brethren were is, of course, inseparably con- 
nected with the question where and when the letter was written. If 
it was written to the churches of southern Galatia from Corinth on 
the second missionary journey (see Introd., pp. xlvii/.) we can name 
none who were more probably included than Silas and Timothy, 
who were with Paul in Macedonia and Achaia on this journey, his first 
into that region (i Thes. ii 3»- '■ ' 2 Thes. i^ 2 Cor. i^' Acts i;'"- '* i80- 
If it was written from Antioch between the second and third journeys, 
Timothy or Titus was very likely among those referred to. Both were 
with Paul on the latter journey (2 Cor. ii 21'). Titus had been with 
Paul in Antioch before the writing of this letter (Gal. 2^), perhaps 
about three years before, and was sent by him to Corinth in connection 
with the trouble in the Corinthian church (2 Cor. 2". i» 7" 12I8), prob- 
ably about three years after the writing of the letter to the Gala- 
tians, if it was written at Antioch; but his movements in the interval 
we can not trace. If it was sent from Ephesus or Macedonia, there is 


a still wider range of possibilities (i Cor. !»• " 1610-12.17 2 Cor. i^ 2<» 
8i6-2<, That the Galatians knew who were referred to, or would be 
informed by those who bore the letter, is rendered probable by the very 
omission of the names. On the use of the term dSsXtpdq, see on I'l. 

Tat9 eKKXr^dCai^ tt)? raXaria?* "to the churches of Gala- 
tia." On the location of these churches see Introd., p. xxi. 
On the use of the word iKtckr^aia in N. T. see detached 
note, p. 417. The most notable characteristic of this salutation 
is the total lack of such commendatory words as are found in 
the address of all other PauHne letters (see below). This is 
commonly and doubtless rightly explained as reflecting the 
apostle's perturbation of mind mingled with indignation against 
the fickle Galatians. Cf. on Oavfid^co, v. ^ 

I and 2 Thes. are addressed -rfj sxxXiQattjc ©edaaXovtxiwv Iv 6e(p xarpl 
xal xup((j) 'It)(joO Xptaxw, with -fjixoiv after izoczpi in 2 Thes. In i and 2 
Cor. the address is Tf) i'x.vX-qaiqi toO 0eou x'n ouaf] ev Kopt'vOq), the first 
letter adding •fjYtaattivoiq sv XptaT(p 'IiQaou, xXtqtoc<; &yioi<; etc., the 
second adding auv lolq ay(oiq xaatv, etc. None of the later Pauline 
letters, from Rom. on, have the term IxxXiQafa in the address, but all 
those addressed to communities have a phrase designating the mem- 
bers of the community and always including the word aytoi;. 

3. %a/3i? vfJLLP Kol elprjvr} "grace to you and peace." These 
words form a part of the benediction which in every Pauline 
letter is included in the opening salutation, usually forming the 
last words of it. The first word is perhaps connected with the 
common Greek salutation %at/oeiz^, with which also the Ep. of 
Jas. begins (Jas. i^, cf. Mayor, The Epistle of St. James, pp. 30, 
31; Acts 1523 23^6), but, if so, is a decidedly Christian version of 
it. elprjVT) is the Greek word which represents the Semitic sal- 
utation, Hebrew, "Ou^, Aramaic, OT^, used both in personal 
greeting (Lk. lo^ 24^^) and at the beginning of a letter (Ezr. 4^^ 
5^). Yet this term also takes on a deeper religious significance 
than it commonly bore as a salutation among the Hebrews. 
%a/ot9 is a comprehensive term for that favour of God towards 
men which is the basis of their salvation. It includes the ideas 
of love, forbearance, desire to save, elp^vrj denotes the blessed 
state of well-being into which men are brought and in which 

I, 2-4 II 

they are kept by the divine %«/3i?. For a fuller discussion, 
see detached notes, pp. 423 and 424. The words stand with- 
out the article because the thought of the sentence calls for a 
qualitative not an individualising representation of grace and 
peace. C/., on the other hand, Gal. 6^^. 

CLTTO deov Trarpo^ rjiioyv kol Kvplov 'Irjcrov X/3i<TT0i), " from God 
our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." These words also, or a 
phrase but slightly different from them, are found in the saluta- 
tion of every Pauline letter except i Thes. and Col. They are 
undoubtedly to be taken as hmiting both %a/3t9 and elprjvT]. It 
is characteristic of the apostle's method of thought that he 
joins together God the Father and Christ the Lord as jointly 
source of grace and peace. Any attempt to discriminate sharply 
their respective shares in the bestowment of these blessings 
would lead us away from the apostle's thought. The entire 
sentence constitutes in effect a prayer for the Galatians that 
God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ may be gracious to 
them, may look upon them not in wrath, but in favour that 
brings salvation, and that (as a consequence) they may be in 
a state of spiritual well-being. 

Concerning Oeov Trarpo^^ see detached note, on Uar'^p as ap- 
plied to God pp. 384 #, and on Kvpiov as apphed to Christ, see 
detached note on the Tiiles and Predicates of Jesus, pp. 399 Jf. 

'HtAwv stands after xaTp6q in ^AP :^:^ al plu. 20 fu. demid. Chr. 
Ambrst.; after xupt'ou in BDFGHKL, 31, 1908, al 20 fere d e f g Vg. Syr. 
(psh. hard, pal.) Arm. Goth. Victorin. Hier.; in Boh. Aeth. in both places. 
The external evidence is indecisive; the reading of t^AP, etc., may be 
regarded as non-Western and its rival as Western, or it may be Alex- 
andrian and its rival non- Alexandrian. Intrinsic probability favours 
the reading of i<AP (after izazpoq); see Rom. i' i Cor. i» 2 Cor. i« 
Eph. i» Phil. i» Col. 1= Phm. 3 (contra Eph. 6" 2 Thes. i« i Tim. i^ 
2 Tim. I' Tit. i^), and transcriptional probability is certainly not 
against it. On the whole the preponderance of probability is slightly 
on the side of xaTpbq tjiawv. 

4. rod 8oVto9 eavTov virep t(ov d/JLapriMv rjjxSiv ''who gave 
himself for our sins." In itself the expression to hovvai eavrov 
may perfectly well refer to a devotion of one's self in service, 


but the general usage of Paul so associates the death of Christ 
with deliverance from sin as to leave no reasonable doubt that 
he here refers especially if not exclusively to Jesus' voluntary 
surrender of himself in his death. See Rom. 5^' ^ i Cor. 153 Gal. 
2^0, Similarly virep r. dfi. yfi. in itself means (to achieve some- 
thing) "in relation to our sins." But Paul's conception of sin 
and its effects on men and the relation of Jesus' death to it, as 
elsewhere expressed, and the following expression, oTrco? . . . 
irovqpov, leave no doubt that in his thought deliverance from 
sins is that which is to be achieved in respect to them. Since 
the apostle elsewhere associates the death of Jesus with de- 
liverance both from the power of sin over one's hfe (Rom. 6^-") 
and from the condemnation under which it brings men (chap. 
2 13, 14 Rom. 323-26 5 9. 10)^ either of these aspects of salvation may 
be in mind here. But as the association of the death with the 
forensic aspect is somewhat more frequent in Paul, and as it is 
this phase which is prominent in this epistle, it is probably this 
that the apostle has chiefly in mind here. On the meaning of 
d/jLupria^ see detached note, pp. 436 ^. 

On the usage of Souvai eauxdv, see Polyb. 8.1811: outox; I^tj BcSaetv h 
BibXiq eauxbv slq t-?)v ^pelav: "So Bolls said he would give himself 
to the matter"; 10. 6^°: i%\ icpdi^et? auxbv eSwxe TsX^wq -jcapcfe tolq 
TcoXkolc; i-K-qk-Kiajfiivaq: "He undertook affairs regarded by most as per- 
fectly hopeless"; i Mac. 2"f- and exx. from papyri and inscriptions 
referred to by Nageli, Wortschatz, p. 50, in none of which does it seem 
to mean to lay down one's life. On the other hand, see Jos. Ant. 2. 144 
(6*). For a discussion of SoOvai T"?jV '{'ux^v ai-coO in Mk. io« Mt. 
20", and of T-fjv !J^ux"^v 6slvat in Jn. lo^^, see Burton, Smith, and Smith, 
Biblical Ideas oj Atonement, pp. 114^. 

The preposition uwip primarily signifies "over" in a local sense, but 
it is not so used in N. T. Its common use there is in the sense "on 
behalf of," "for the benefit of," followed by a personal term. See, 
e. g., chap. 2" I Cor. i" Rom. $*^-. The modification of this meaning 
which the preposition necessarily undergoes when used with an abstract 
noun gives it a telle force, "to accomplish something for, or in respect 
to," the thing to be accomplished being in each case implied in the 
nature of the thing which stands as the object of the preposition. With 
most abstract nouns the meaning is approximately "for the promotion 
of": thus in Jn. ii<, uic^p T^q Bd^iQq toO Geou, "for the promotion or 
manifestation of the glory of God"; 2 Cor. i*, uxlp Ttjq f)^d)v xapa- 

h 4 13 

%k-{]aeii)q, "for your comfort, that you may be comforted"; and Phil. 
2^', xal rb GiXetv xal xb evepYsIv uxep tt^i; euBoxfat;. "both the willing and 
the working for the accomplishment of that which is well pleasing (to 
God)." Cf. also Jn. 6^' Rom. 15' i6< 2 Cor. 13' Eph. 6'o 2 Thes. i» 
Heb. 13''. With a^iap-zidv and words of similar import, the meaning 
" on behalf of " naturally becomes not " for the promotion of," but " for 
the deliverance from," or with the genitive -Jj^xtov following, "to deliver 
us from our sins." The possibility that the apostle had in mind a still 
more definite meaning can for reasons given above neither be excluded 
nor established. 

K''BH33,424' al. read uxip. S*ADFGKLP al. 50 fere read xept. 
The latter testimony is apparently Western and Syrian. Cf. Introd. 
p. Ixxx. Intrinsic probability is in favour of bizip; for though Paul 
uses both prepositions with both meanings, "concerning" and "on 
behalf of," he employs n:ep( much more commonly in the former sense 
and b%ip in the latter. 

OTTft)? i^eXTjTac 97/xa? e/c tov ala)vo<; tov ii>e<TT(OT0<; irovrjpov 
"that he might deliver us out of the present evil age." On 
aicov and iveaT(i)<; see detached notes pp. 426, 432. The phrase 
o aiwv 6 ivearm, here only in N. T., but manifestly the 
equivalent of the more usual o alwv 0UT09, is primarily a phrase 
of time denoting the (then) present period of the world's history 
as distinguished from the coming age, o alcov 6 fieXXcov. Its 
evil character is implied in i Cor. i^o and Rom. 12^, and ap- 
parently always assumed, but here only is the adjective ttoi^t^/jo? 
directly attached to alcov. Its position here gives it special 
emphasis.* i^eXrjTac denotes not a removal from, but a res- 
cue from the power of. Cf. Acts 71°- ^* 12^^ 23" 26^^, in all which 
cases the emphasis of the word is upon the idea of rescue. It 
occurs in Paul's epistles here only. Cf. Jn. 17^^ The whole 
clause expresses the purpose for which the Lord Jesus Christ 
gave himself for our sins, and thus presents from a different 
point of view the thought of vTrkp roiv afxaprtcov r^jiSiv. 

The very presence of these words (v. ^) at this point is itself 
a significant fact. In all the other Pauline letters the saluta- 
tion closes with the benediction, though not always in exactly 
the same form, and the next paragraph is introduced by an 

* An interesting parallel, the only other observed instance of albiv eveard';, is found in an 
inscription of 37 A. d., 015 av tov rjStcrTou a.v&pui-noiq at(Li'o(s) vvv evfaTooTOi (Dittenberger, 
Sylloge, 364. g) ; quoted by M. and M Voc. s, v., who suggest that aiiav means "period of life," 
but without obvious ground; it seems clearly to mean "age" (of human history). 


expression of thanksgiving or an ascription of praise to God. 
The addition of this verse with its reference to the death of 
Christ for the salvation of men is undoubtedly occasioned by 
the nature of the erroneous teaching which was propagated 
among the Galatians by the judaising opponents of Paul, and 
which this letter was written to combat. As in opposition to 
their personal attack on him he affirmed his independent apos- 
tleship (v.^), so here against their legalistic conception of the 
value of works of law, he sets forth even in the salutation the 
divine way of deliverance provided in Christ's gift of himself 
for us according to the will of God. 

It remains to be considered whether the deliverance here referred to 
is (a) ethical, having reference to emancipation from the moral influ- 
ence of this present evil age {cf. Rom. 8^), or (b) present judicial, con- 
sisting essentially in justification, through the death of Christ {cf. 
Rom. 5 'a- "),or (c) eschatological, being deliverance from the wrath 
of God which will fall upon the wicked at the coming of the Lord 
{cf. I Thes. 52. 3. 9. " Rom. s'^). There is no doubt that Paul held the 
current Jewish doctrine of the two ages (see detached note on A((jv, 
p. 426), and though he never]definitely places the coming of the Lord in 
judgment on the wicked and salvation for believers at the boundary- 
line between the two ages, his language is most naturally understood 
as implying this, and there is in any case no doubt that in his thought 
salvation was achieved in the full sense not before but at the coming 
of the Lord {cf. Rom. 5' 13" i Thes. loc. cit.). The associations of the 
phrase are therefore eschatological. Nor can it be urged against the in- 
terpretation of the whole expression as eschatological that the thought 
of the future salvation distinctly as such is usually associated by Paul 
not with the death of Jesus but with his resurrection (so Zahn; cf. 
Rom. 51" 6^ I Cor. i5i2ff- Phil. 310). For though this is true, it is also 
true that in several of the passages the death is closely associated 
with the resurrection, and in i Thes. 59- >", the deliverance from wrath 
at the coming of the Lord {cf. v. *«) is definitely made to result from 
the death of Christ. There are, however, two valid objections to the 
supposition that the reference of the phrase is chiefly eschatological. 
The first is the use of the word i^i\rf:<xu The present age is to end 
at the coming of the Lord. Salvation at that time consists not in 
deliverance from this age, but from the wrath of God. Had the apos- 
tle's thought at this point been, as it is in Rom. s*"- ", definitely eschato- 
logical, he would naturally have written Eicdx; I^^XTjTat ^^aq ixb t^(; 
6pYfi(; ToG 6eoCi ev ij^ xapouat'ijt tou xupfou. The second reason is found 

I, 4 15 

in the general atmosphere and purpose of the epistle. Its thought is 
concentrated on the way of acceptance with God in the present life; 
eschatological references are few and indirect; it is improbable, there- 
fore, that in the salutation, which bears clear marks of being written 
under the influence of the controversial situation with which the epistle 
deals, the idea of the salvation achieved at the coming of the Lord 
should fill a prominent place As between the judicial and the ethical 
conceptions, it is doubtful whether we should exclude either (c/. on 
6xep X. &[>.. i]\i. above).* To limit the reference to the ethical phase 
would be to exclude that aspect of the significance of Christ's death 
which the apostle usually emphasises (see Rom. 3"' » s'-i" Gal. 31'), and 
which precisely in this epistle, which deals so largely with justification, 
we should least expect to be forgotten. But, on the other hand, the 
appropriateness of the words to describe the ethical aspect, and the 
absence of any phraseology expressly limiting the thought to the judicial 
aspect (as, e. g., in Rom. 8^ and Gal. 3"), seem to forbid the exclusion 
of the former. That Paul sometimes associated the morally trans- 
forming power of Christ with his death clearly appears from Gal. 2"' " 
and Rom. e^"- " (c/. also a clear expression of this idea in i Pet. i"- "). 
Probably, therefore, we must include the judicial aspect, and not ex- 
clude the ethical. That the apostle has the law chiefly in mind as an 
element of the present evil age from which the Christ by his death is to 
deliver men (see Bous. ad loc.) is improbable, not indeed because the 
thought itself is un-Pauline (see Rom. 10^), but because the phrase 
"present evil age" is too general and inclusive to suggest a single 
element of that age so little characteristic of it as a whole as was the 

Kara to OeXrjixa rod Oeov Kal Trar/oo? ti/jlcov, " according to the 
will of our God and Father." Whether these words are to be 
taken as limiting (a) Bovto^; or (b) i^eXrjrai,, or (c), the whole 
complex idea expressed by rov B6vto<^ , . . irovrjpov (Trovrjpov 
alone is manifestly out of the question), can not be decisively 
determined. Most probably, however, the third construction 
is the true one. Twice before in this paragraph the apostle has 
closely associated together Jesus Christ and God the Father, 
first as the source of his own apostleship (v. ^) and then as the 
source of grace and peace to those to whom he is writing. 
The present phrase emphasises once more essentially the same 

* The idea of removal from the present life by death or translation is itself naturally sug- 
gested by the words e/c t. at. t. ivear. iroi'., but is rendered improbable by the usage of the 
word e^e\r)rai. (see above) and decisively excluded by the wholly un-Pauline character of 
the thought that the salvation through Christ shortens the earthly life of the saved. 


thought, affirming that in the salvation provided for us (the 
pronouns tj^imv and r^fia^ in v.'* include both the apostle and 
his readers) through Christ's gift of himself for us, God our 
Father also participates, the gift and its purpose being accord- 
ing to his will. Concerning the construction of rj^ioyv and the 
translation of rov Oeov ical iraTpo^ rj/icop^ see detached note 
on IlaT'}]p as applied to God, pp. 388 /. 

5. w rj Bo^a et? rois aloiva^ tmv aioovwv a/irjv. " to whom be 
the glory for ever and ever. Amen." An ascription of praise to 
God for the gift of Christ and the deliverance accomplished 
through it. Bo^a (here only in Gal.) is frequent in Paul, with 
considerable variation of meaning. See Th. s. v. and Kennedy, 
St. Paul's Conception of the Last Things, pp. 229 /. Its sense 
here, " praise," comes down from the classic times, and is fre- 
quent in N. T. The article, when occurring, seems almost 
invariably to convey a reference to something which has just 
been mentioned; in this case, no doubt, the redeeming work of 
Christ. Cf. Rom. ii^s 16" Eph. 321 Phil. 420 2 Tim. 4I8 Heb. 1321 
I Pet. 4^^ Contrast Lk. 2^^ (where, however, the poetic form 
may rather be the cause of the omission of the article); Rom. 
15^ Phil. 2^^ The generic (or intensive) force of the article, 
such as apparently occurs in Rev. 7^2 ^nd perhaps in 2 Pet. 3^^, 
is possible but less probable than the demonstrative force sug- 
gested above. On et? r. al. r. alcovcov, see detached note on 
Alcov, p. 426. 

'A[).i]v (Heb. ICN, an adverb derived from ids "to be firm," 
Hiphil, "to believe," "to trust") is carried over into the N. T. vo- 
cabukry from the Hebrew. It is used in O. T. as confirming an oath 
(Num. 5" et al.), as the solemn conclusion and confirmation of a doxol- 
ogy (Neh. 8« Ps. 41", etc.), and otherwise. The Lxx usually trans- 
late it by ylvotTo, but occasionally transliterate (i Chron. i6'« Neh. 
5»» 8« I Esd. 9^' Tob. 8' i4»0, but none of these instances are at the end 
of a doxology or benediction. This usage, of which 3 Mac. 7" (see also 
4 Mac. 182^) apparently furnishes the earliest example, may have arisen 
from the custom of the congregation responding "Amen" to the prayer 
offered by the leader. Cf. Neh. 8« i Cor. 141s, and Frame on i Thes. 
3", also M. and M. Voc. s. v. 

On the relation between the salutations of the Pauline and other 

h 4-5 17 

N. T, letters, and the methods of beginning letters current among 
Greek, Roman, Jewish, and early Christian writers, see extended and 
instructive note in Hilgenfeld, Der Galaterbrief, 1852, pp. 99 Jf.; also 
respecting the classical Greek and Latin forms, Fritzsche on Rom. 1 1; 
Wendland, Handbuch zum Neuen Testament, III 3, Beilage 15, pp. 
411 /.; Ziemann, Dc Epistidarum graecarumformulis, in Diss. phil. Hal. 
XVIII 4, 1910. Respecting the evidence of the papyri, see Lietzmann, 
Griechische Papyri, 1905 ; Witkowski, Epistulae graecae privatae, 1906, and 
Milligan, Selections from the Greek Papyri, 1910. CJ. Frame on i I'hes. 
ii. See also Mayor, The Epistle of St. James, pp. 30, 31. The following 
are typical examples: IlXdiTwv 'ApxuT(jc TapavTcvw eu xpdtTxstv (Epistle 
IX, Ed. Hermann, p. 58). M. Cicero salutem dicit P. Lentulo Procos. 
(Ed. Mueller, IV i, pp. i ff.); nVd nc^c= n^^o rrnnV (Ezr. 5^); xolq 
dBeXcpot? Tolq xkt' ATyuxTov 'louSaiotq x^ttpeiv ol dSeXcpol ol Iv 'lepoaoXO- 
IJLoti; 'louBalot v.aX oX ev xfj X"?? tt^"; 'louSat'aq, etp-ovT)v dya0T)v (2 Mac. ji). 
xal ol ev T]^ 'louSafqc xal ^ yspoujfa xal 'loGSaq 'AptaTogouXtp • . • xoiigziv 
xal uyta{vecv (2 Mac. 1^°). KXauStoq Auat'aq Tcp y.paT{jT(j) T}ye[JL6vt •l>iX{x.t 
Xai'petv (Acts 2326; c/. Acts 1523). 'IwAvtqi; xatq exxa exxXirjafac? 'zalq ev 
Tfi 'Aaftjt- x<^P"^ "tJi-'v '^a^ etpiQVTj (Rev. i*). noXuxapxoq • • • Tfj ex/.XT]afqc 
Tou 6eo0 T'n xapoixouai] 4>tXixxoic;. eXeoq 'J[JlIv xal eJpigvTQ xapd: 6eou 
(Polyc. Phil.). The following, from Milligan's Selections, show the 
usage of the papyri: Ylokuv.gii.'zriq Twt xaxpl yjxigziv. 'AxoXXcivtoq IIto- 
>.£[xa{(i)t Tto xaxpl xaigz\y. 'IXapicov [a] "AXtTt x^t aBeX(p^c xXecaxa 
Xic(petv. 0ea)v Tupavvcot xwt xitJLKOTaTWt x>vetaxa xaipeiv. 

These and other examples cited by the writers above referred to 
show (i) that both Greeks and Romans, if not also the Hebrews, fre- 
quently began a letter with the writer's name; (2) that the naming of the 
person or persons addressed, usually in the dative, but sometimes in 
the vocative, w^as the general custom among Greeks, Romans, and 
Hebrews; (3) that to these two it was customary among the Hebrews 
to add the word DiStt^, or if writing in Greek, dpr}yri, among the Greeks 
Xafpstv, with or without the addition of >.^yet, and among the Romans 
salutem with or without dicit; (4) that the early Christian writers fol- 
lowed in general the usages then current in the Roman world, but in 
the exercise of that liberty which these usages themselves sanctioned, 
combined elements derived on the one side from the Greek custom and 
on the other from the Hebrew, and introduced also distinctly Christian 
elements. As a result there seems to have been created almost a 
standard Christian form (note the resemblance between the salutation 
of the Pauline letters, those ascribed to Peter, 2 and 3 Jn., the saluta- 
tion of Rev. I*, and those used by Clem. Rom. and Polycarp), yet one 
which was freely modified by each writer in adaptation to the particular 
occasion and persons addressed. Note the variations from the usual 
form in Jas. and the Ignatian letters, and the lack of salutation in i Jn. 


and Heb., though these latter are perhaps rather literary epistles than 
letters in the stricter sense. See Deissmann, Bible Studies, chap. I. 
In the creation of this general Christian form for beginning letters, the 
dates of the literature would suggest that Paul exerted a special influ- 
ence, though there can hardly have been any slavish, perhaps not even 
a conscious, copying of his form by others. 

2. Expression of indignant surprise at the threatened 
ahandonment of his teaching by the Galatians, in 
which is disclosed the occasion of the letter (i^-^o). 

In place of the expression of thanksgiving or of praise 
to God with which in all the letters that bear Paul's name, 
except I Tim. and Titus, the paragraph immediately fol- 
lowing the address and salutation opens, there stands in this 
letter an expression of surprise and indignation; surprise that 
the Galatians are so quickly abandoning the gospel as they 
had received it from the apostle, and are on the point of accept- 
ing from others a perversion of it; indignation at those who 
are troubling them and seeking to pervert the gospel of the 
Christ. In this expression there is disclosed, as usually in the 
second paragraph of the apostle's letters, the occasion of the 

^I marvel that ye are so quickly turning away from him who 
called you in the grace of Christ unto a different gospel, ''which is 
not another except in the sense that there are some who are troubling 
you and desire to pervert the gospel of the Christ. ^But even if we 
or an angel from heaven shall preach unto you a gospel not in 
accordance with that which we preached to you, let him be accursed. 
^As we said before, so now I say again, if any one is preaching 
to you a gospel not in accordance with that which ye received, let 
him be accursed. ^^For am I now seeking the favour of men, or of 
God? Or am I now seeking to please men? If I were still pleas- 
ing men I should not be a servant of Christ. 

6. ^avfjid^co on ovrco^ Ta')(e(a<; iieiarCOeaOe cltto tov KoXecav- 
T09 vjjLCL'^ iv %a/3iTt XpL(7T0v "I marvcl that ye are so 
quickly turning away from him who called you in the grace of 
Christ." The present tense of the verb fJLerarLOeaOe indicates 
clearly that when the apostle wrote the apostasy of the Gala- 

tians was as yet only in process. They were, so to speak, on the 
point, or more exactly in the very act, of turning. The mind 
of the apostle wavers while he writes between hope and fear as 
to the outcome (4^°' 5^°). The word ra^eW might conceivabl}'- 
refer to the rapid development of the apostatising movement 
after it was once begun. But it is equally suitable to the usage 
of the word to take it in the sense of "soon" (cf. i Cor. 4" Phil. 
219, 24 ]^^ ^25 -^^^ g39)^ and it is certainly far more probable 
that the apostle is here speaking of the brevity of the interval 
than of the rapidity of the process. The point from which this 
interval, which seems to the apostle so brief, is reckoned is left 
unstated, but that of which one most naturally thinks in speak- 
ing of an apostasy is the time of the original acceptance of that 
which is now abandoned — in this case the gospel — and this is 
also suggested by arrrb tov KokecravTO^ and et? erepov evayyeXtou^ 

Little help is afforded by this expression towards the determi- 
nation of the date of the letter, since such a change as is here 
spoken of would doubtless seem to the apostle to have been 
quickly made if it took place at any time within a few years 
after the conversion of the Galatians. 

It is grammatically possible to take tov KoXeaavro^ as limit- 
ing ^pi,(TTov and so to render "from the Christ who called you 
in grace." On this order of words see BMT 427; Gild. Synt^ 
622, and cf. Gal. 3". The thought thus yielded would more- 
over be wholly appropriate to this situation, since the apostasy 
of the Galatians was from Christ and his grace. But Paul's 
general use of the verb KaXeco (see below) must be regarded as a 
decisive objection to referring the phrase to Christ (as is done 
by Hier. Luth. Calv. Beng. et al.; cf. Wies. and Sief. ad loc.) or 
to Paul (as by Paulus, cited by Wies.), and as a convincing rea- 
son for here referring it to God (so Chrvs. Wies. Mey. Sief. Ell. 

The verb \i.zxaxi^r^^i, meaning in the active, "to transfer," "to re- 
move" (see,e. g.,Heb. ii^ or "to alter," "to pervert" (Jude4), is used 
in the middle or pass, with various constructions in the sense "to 
change [one's opinion]". Hdt. y'*: eyd) xal auxbq xg&xo^at %dX t-})v 
YvtdiiTjv iJLeTaTfOe^jLac : "I myself am changing and altering my opinion;" 


Plato, Rep. 345 B: ^a^egdq, [xsTaTcOejo xal ^-^aq [x:f) e^ax(4Ta: "Change 
your mind openly, and do not [attempt to] deceive us." Followed by 
dxo, as here, in 2 Mac. y^^, it means " to turn from," " to apostatise from," 
[xexaOlnevov dxb xdiv xaTpfwv, "on condition of having apostatised from 
the ancestral [laws]." With xp6q, instead of etq as here, "to turn to" 
in Polyb. 26. 2^. 

For various interpretations of ourwq xaxewq, see Sief . who himself 
takes it to mean "rapidly," "swiftly since it began." 

In fifteen passages in the letters ascribed to Paul the writer attributes 
"calling" to God (Rom. 41^ S'" gn.^* i Cor. !» 715.17 Gal. i^^ i Thes. 2 12 
4^ 5^^ 2 Tim. 1 9, using the verb v-aXiia; Rom. 11" i Cor. i^' Eph. jis Phil. 
3" 2 Tim. i9, using xX^atq), and never, except in the sense of "naming" 
or "inviting to a feast," to any one else. The main features of the 
apostle's conception of this divine act appear clearly in the passages 
cited. It is in execution of his predetermined purpose (Rom. S^a-so 
2 Thes. 213. i4j cf. 2 Tim. i '); an act of grace, not in accordance with men's 
deserts (Gal. ii^; c/. 2 Tim. i^); it is the divine initiative of the Christian 
life (i Cor. 7"-"), by which God summons men into the fellowship of 
his Son Jesus Christ (i Cor. i^; cj. Rom. S^-^"), to live in sanctification 
(i Thes. 4O, and peace (i Cor. 71^ Col. 315), and to attain unto salvation 
(2 Thes. 21^, God's kingdom and glory (i Thes. 212; cj. also i Tim. 61==). 
Though always spoken of as God's act, it may take place through the 
preaching of the gospel by men (2 Thes. 21^, and it is doubtless to the 
divine call, brought to the Galatians through his own preaching, that 
the apostle here refers. 

Paul's use of the terms "call" and "calling" is in general such as to 
suggest that he thought of those only as called who obeyed the divine 
summons (see esp. Rom. 8=8-30) ; of a rejected call at least he never 
speaks. Yet the present passage evidently speaks of the Galatians as 
on the point or in the act of turning from him who had called them. 
This apostasy, moreover, the apostle evidently regarded as a most 
serious matter, vitally affecting their relation to Christ (see esp. 52-O. 
It can not therefore be unqualifiedly affirmed that Paul always con- 
ceived of "calling" as effectual in the sense that all who were called 
were su.rely destined unto eternal life. 

On the meaning of yjig\q,. see on v.'. Modern commentators have 
generally given to the preposition ev either its instrumental force (see 
Th. Iv, I 5d), or its causal and basal sense (see Th. 1 6c). In either 
case the grace of Christ is that which is manifested in his gift of him- 
self for men, and is conceived of specially in its relation to their en- 
I trance into the kingdom of God; in the latter case, it is that on the 
■ ground of which, by virtue of which, men are called; in the former 
case, it is that by which the calling takes place. To these views there 
is no decisive objection either in the usage of the phrase "grace of 

I, 6 21 

Christ" (see 2 Cor. 8' Rom. 5^') or in the use of the preposition Iv 
(see Th. u. s.). But (a) the grace of Christ is more commonly spoken 
of by Paul in its relation to the Christian in his Christian life (see 
Rom. 16^° 2 Cor. 12' 131" Gal. 6^^ Phil. 4'' i Thes. 5^^ 2 Thes. 3^^;cf. 
also Rom. sS and the benedictions in connection with the salutation 
of all the letters), (b) In the expression xaXlw Iv as used elsewhere 
by Paul (Rom. 9^ does not properly come into account, being from 
the Lxx, and xaXiw not being used in its special Pauline sense of the 
divine call into the kingdom), Iv is never either instrumental or causal, 
except possibly in i Cor. 7", but almost uniformly marks its object as 
the state or sphere in which the one called is, either (i) when he is 
called (i Cor. 718.20.24), or (2) as the result of his call. In this latter 
case the phrase is pregnant and bears the meaning "call to be in" 
(i Thes. 4' I Cor. 7'= Col. 3'' (Iv Ivl ooy^axt) Eph. 4'; cf. Th. Iv I 7, and 
dq in I Cor. i' Col. 3I' 2 Thes. 2"). Usage evidently favours the meta- 
phorical local sense of the preposition, and, since x&pixi is evidently 
not the sphere in which the Galatians were when they were called, the 
pregnant use of the phrase is the more probable, (c) The sense yielded 
for this passage by taking x&pixi as referring to the state in which the 
Galatians were called to be is much more suitable to the connection 
than that given by either of the other constructions. In speaking of a 
change of position on their part, it is more natural to refer to the state 
in which by God's call they are or should be than to emphasise the 
basis or instrument of God's call. The remarkable and surprising fact 
about their apostasy was that they were abandoning the position of 
grace, i. e., the relation towards God which made them the objects of 
the grace of Christ and participators in its benefits, to put themselves 
under law, which could only award them their sad deserts. On Paul's 
view of the nature of the change cf. $' 3"'"- It is a further objection 
to the view that Iv is basal that while redemption is conceived of by 
Paul as based on the work of Christ (Rom. 3^"), it is difficult to suppose 
that he would speak of God's call as being on the ground of the grace 
of Christ. It is rather his thought that the work of Christ has its basis 
in the love of God. See Rom. s^^-. Nor is the thought that the call 
of God is by means of Christ's grace materially easier, for the expansion 
of this into "the announcement of the grace of Christ" is unwarranted 
by the language. 

The absence of the article before lapixi has the effect, and is doubt- 
less due to the intention, of giving the word qualitative rather than 
individualising force. This in turn emphasises the folly of the con- 
duct of the Galatians. This shade of meaning can not well be expressed 
in English (which requires a definite article before "grace" because of 
the phrase that follows it) except by some such periphrasis as, "I mar- 
vel that ye are so quickly turning away from grace, that of Christ." 


ctV €T€pov cvayyeXtop/'unto a different gospel." On the 
meaning of the word hepov, see detached note, p. 420. On 
evayyeXiov, see detached note, p. 422. It is evident that in 
the present passage, as indeed generally in this epistle, it is the 
doctrinal aspect of the gospel that the apostle has specially in 
mind. The questions at issue between Paul and his judaistic 
opponents did not at all concern the historical facts of the life 
of Jesus, nor did they so far as known have to do with the 
methods of carrying on the gospel work. They pertained 
rather to the way of acceptance with God and the significance 
of the Christ in relation to such acceptance. They were thus 
distinctly doctrinal questions. 

The preposition et? denotes mental direction (cf. Acts. 26^^ 
Rom. 2* I Tim. i^) and in view of the meaning and tense of 
fieraTiOea-Oe signifies "towards, with inclination to accept." 
That Paul calls the teaching of his opponents in Galatia a 
different "gospel" doubtless reflects the fact that they claimed 
for it the name "gospel," "good tidings"; they may even have 
described it in contrast with Paul's preaching, as a different 
gospel, erepov evayyeXiov, In what sense Paul was willing to 
apply to it the term "gospel" appears in what follows. 

7. 6 ovK eariv aXKo^ el /jlt] "which is not another except in 
the sense that." The relative o should undoubtedly be taken 
as referring neither to evayyeXiov alone, nor to the whole state- 
ment fMeraTiOeade . . . evayyeXtov (reasons given below), but, 
as the manifest emphasis upon hepov in the preceding clause 
and the use of the partly antithetical aXXo in this clause sug- 
gests, to erepov evayyiXiov taken as a single term and designat- 
ing the erroneous teaching of the judaisers. The clause is thus 
a qualification of the preceding statement, intended to exclude 
the possible implication that that which the Galatians were 
urged to accept was really a gospel which might legitimately be 
substituted for that which Paul preached. On el fir} meaning 
"except" and introducing not a protasis but an exception, see 
Th. el, III 8 c; BMT 274, 471. On el jiri meaning "except 
that," see Mk. 6^ Rom. I4l^ and cf. Th. el, III 8 b. 

03x SckXo ei [i-i] is taken in the sense "nothing else than" by Winer 
{Com, ad loc), Grot., Ruck., as also by Grimm (Th. e! Ill 8 c e), ARV. 

I, 6-7 23 

marg., and Ram. (first choice; see also below), being in this case 
referred not to lirspov eiaYYiXtov, but to the fact related in [xexaxfOeaGs 
. . . eiayyekiov. To this construction there are several objections: (i) 
It makes the antithesis between exepov and SXko only seeming and acci- 
dental, which is in view of Paul's usage rather improbable. See below 
on N. T. usage of these words. (2) It necessitates the supposition 
that Paul left the application of the term euay-^iXioy to the teaching 
of the judaisers unretracted. (3) The reference of to the whole pre- 
ceding sentence is awkward and improbable. Following immediately 
upon gxspov zuayyiliov, and agreeing with it in gender and number, 
could scarcely be taken by the reader otherwise than as referring to 
this expression. If Paul had intended to refer to the entire preceding 
clause he would naturally have written a (c/. 4-*) or xouto ydtp laxtv or 
ToOxo M laxtv.* (4) It gives to oOx SXko el [jltq the sense "not other 
than" (denying qualitative distinction), which is unsustained by usage. 
See for classical writers Jelf, 773. 5 860. 7; Ktihner-Gerth, 597 m. For 
this idea the Lxx use oH <kXk' ri (Gen. 28"), t{ ( = oOx) aXXo rt (Mai. 
215), oiix si ]xi] (Neh. 2^); N. T. writers use oOx, SXkoq iW ri (2 Cor. i"), 
oOx. el \i.r] (i Cor. iqI'), t^? ( = o^'^-) e^ ['-'^l (Rom. ii'^ Eph. 4'), but neither 
Lxx nor N. T. use oOx. dtXXoi; el ti-^.f 

By a still older view (Chrys., Thdrt., Luth., Beza, Beng., Koppe, 
de W., and Hilg., cited by Sief. ad loc.) 8 is referred to zha^^iXio^ in 
the sense of the true gospel, the relative clause is taken as equivalent 
to oO yap Iffxtv (2XXo, and the el \i.ri clause is taken as adversative. 
This view is now generally recognised to be erroneous, and requires no 

* The relative o might indeed be taken to refer to erepov eiiayye'^io'', the expression 
ovK aXAo ei /xij being still interpreted as meaning "not other than" or "nothing else than," 
and against this the objection of Sief. (cf. also Wies.) that in that case on must have been 
inserted, as in 2 Cor. 12", or eiaiv omitted, is hardly valid in view of Mk. 6' Rom. 14'^ But 
there would still remain the first and fourth objections, and these, taken together, are decisive 
against this mterpretation. 

t The idea of qualitative non-distinction ("not other than." "the same as") is, of course, 
not the same as (numerical) exception to a negative statement ("no other except," "none 
beside," or "not except"). For this latter the Lxx use ovk dMos irKrjv (Exod. 8"> Isa. 45"* 
Bel. 41); ov< 6Tt ir\riv (Deut. 4"), e/cro? aAA.os ovk dsa. 26"). ovic Trapef (Isa. 45"''), ovk el fxr) 
(Neh. 2"). N. T. writers use most commonly ovk (or ovSei?, /a^jSet's) el fj-ri (Mt 11" 17' 21" 
Rom. 7' I3'' » I Cor. I'S etc.), once ovk dA.\os nXriv (Mk. 12"; quotation from Lxx), once 
e7epo<; ovk el ixr) (Gal. i"), and once dAA.05 ovk el /jltj (Jn. 6"). These last two expressions most 
closely resemble the one before us in v.', Jn. 62-. being the only exact verbal parallel (and 
not even this in order of words) found in either Lxx or N. T. But in both these passages 
what is expressed is not qualitative non-distinction, but exception (rather loosely attached) 
to a preceding negative statement. They furnish no argument, therefore, for taking the 
present passage in the sense "not other than," but in so far as they weigh at all favour taking 
€1 /xij as introducing an exceptive clause, qualifying the preceding relatively complete state- 
ment, rather than as coalescing with the preceding <xA.Ao to express a single idea, "not other 
than," "equivalent to saying." The use of ou5ets dWo? in Jn. 15'' Acts 4". meaning "no 
one else," and of ovSev a\Ko in Gal. s" in the sense "nothing else" creates some probability 
that if Paul had meant here "nothing else than" he would have written ovSev aWo instead of 
OVK akko. But the fact that nowhere in Lxx or N. T. is ovSev akko used in a phrase meaning 
"nothing else than" forbids laying stress on this argument. 


extended discussion. Each element of it is in itself impossible: 8 can 
not refer to euayTsXtov alone in the sense of the (true) gospel, since this 
would involve an abrupt dropping from the mind of the emphatic ele- 
ment in the antecedent clause, and the mental substitution of a word 
(t:6) having practically the opposite force; 6 o6x eaxtv might possibly 
mean "for it is not," but can not mean, as this interpretation requires, 
"there is not," since the substantive element of o in this case altogether 
disappears; nor can e! '^ri be merely adversative in force (see on i^^). 

Ram., as stated above, prefers the first of these views, but as his 
second choice translates "another gospel, which is not different (from 
mine), except in so far as certain persons pervert the gospel of Christ." 
iTspov euayy^Atov he refers to the teaching of the Twelve, which Paul 
affirms to be not really different from his own; the perverters of this 
gospel, which is common to Paul and the Twelve, he supposes to be 
the judaisers. Aside from the question whether Paul could by this 
language convey so complex an idea, and whether Paul really regarded 
his gospel as quite so closely identical with that of the Twelve as this 
interpretation supposes, the crucial question is whether it does justice 
to the relative meanings of 'ixepoq and ^Xkoq, and to this question it 
seems necessary to return a negative answer, and consequently to 
reject Ram.'s interpretation of the passage. See detached note on 
"Exepoq and "AXKoq, p. 420. 

The balance of evidence therefore seems to require taking exspov as 
meaning "different," aXko in the sense "another" (additional) and 
translating oux. eaxtv SXXo el ^tq as above, "which is not another ex- 
cept in the sense that." The only alternative is not, with Ram,, to 
reverse this distinction between exspog and akXoq, but to suppose that 
the two terms are entirely synonymous, the change being simply for 
variety of expression. In the latter case both words might consistently 
with Greek usage in general mean either "another" (second) numeri- 
cally distinct, or "different." But the interpretation advocated above 
is more probable than either of these latter. In any case el [jltj retains 
its exceptive force, meaning here "except (in the sense that)." 

Ttv€<; ela-iv 01 rapdaaovre^ vjjlol'^ /cal 6eXovTe<; fji€TaaTpe\jraL 
TO evayyeXLOv tou xP^o-tov. " there are some who are troubhng 
you and desire to pervert the gospel of the Christ." This is the 
first mention of those who were preaching the other gospel 
among the Galatians. The present tense of the verb indicates 
that they are still in Galatia, and that this letter is intended to 
combat them while they are in the very midst of their work. 
The verb rapdaa-a), prop, "to agitate physically" (Jn. 5'), much 
more frequently in N. T. means "to disturb mentally," with 

I, 7-8 25 

excitement, perplexity, or fear (Mt. 2^ Jn. 14* Acts 152*). Con- 
cerning the participle, or other attributive, with the article after 
an indefinite word like Tivi^ or a noun without the article, see 
W. XVIII 3; XX 4 (WM. pp. 136, 174), BMr 424, Bl. § 412 
(732), Rad. p. 93, Gild. Syn. p. 283, Rob. p. 277. W. implies 
that TLvh is here subject and ol rap. pred. ; but the attributive 
construction is more probable; cf. chaps. 220 321. Observe in 
the use of OeXovre^ another indication that the Galatians have 
not yet succumbed to the influence of the judaising mission- 
aries. The troubling is a present fact. The perversion is as 
yet only a v/ish of the disturbers. 

MsTajxp^cj^o) (in N. T. Acts 2"-^, here, and Jas. 4= only) means (i) "to 
turn," "to transfer," (2) "to change from one thing into another or 
from one state to another"; whether for better or for worse is not in- 
volved in the meaning of the word (Deut. 23^ Sir. ii3U33i)| yet when the 
thing changed is right and good, to change it is naturally thought of as 
being to pervert it. 

On the meaning of xg\.<zxoq, see detached note on The Titles and 
Predicates of Jesus, III, pp. 395 _ff. Note that we should here trans- 
late "the gospel of the Christ," x?^'^'^^^ with the article being here, as 
usually, and always after xb euayyeXcov, not a proper name but a de- 
scriptive title, with tacit identification of the person referred to; as one 
would say "the Governor" or "the President," leaving the hearer to 
supply the personal identification. 

8. aWa KaX eav rffjueU 7) ayyeXo'; i^ ovpavov euayyeXi^TjTac 
v/JLLV Trap' 6 evTjyyeXLadfieOa vfjilv, avdOefia earco. "But even 
if we or an angel from heaven shall preach unto you a gospel 
not in accordance with that which we preached to you, let him 
be accursed." This strong language shows how serious Paul 
considered the differences between his gospel and that which 
the Jewish Christian preachers were promulgating in Galatia. 
Contrast the language of Phil, jis-is. The antithesis expressed 
by aWd is probably between the disposition, which he suspects 
some of his readers may feel, to regard the gospel of Paul and 
that of the judaisers as, after all, not so very different, and his 
own strong sense of the serious difference between them. The 
clause, so far as rjfJLel^ r) dyyeXo^ ef ovpavov is concerned, is 
concessive, being unfavourable to the fulfilment of the apodosis, 


avdOefia earo}, and the fcal is intensive, marking the extreme 
nature of the supposition. It is, of course, only rhetorically a 
possibility. In respect to the following words, Trap' o, etc., the 
clause is causally conditional. See BMT 278, 281, 285 b. On 
the meaning of dyyeXo^, see on 4^''. 

1<A Dialso" Ath. Cy^^^ Euthal. al. read euaYyeXfarjTat; BDFGHL 
al. pier. Bas. read B'jayyekl'C,i]'zai; Eus. Chr. Thdrt. Dam. have both -arjTat 
and -l^YjTat; KP 442, 460, 1908 al. read -t;eTac. External evidence is 
indecisive as between -arixat. and -'(jirau Intrinsically it is a little more 
probable that Paul would write -^tixat, implying a continuous propagand- 
ism, rather than -c-q-zoci, which might suggest a single occasion of preach- 
ing, contrary to the apostle's doctrine. Transcriptional probability also 
favours -'(,-qxoct. as more easily than either of the other forms, accounting 
for all the readings, each of the others arising from -i;iQTac by the 
change of a single letter. It is also more probable that scribes would 
give to the apostle's anathema a harsher form by changing -t^rjTai to 
-a-rjxat than that they would soften it by the reverse change. Ln. (mg.) 
Tdf. WH. read -arjTctt. Ln. (txt.) Tr. Alf. Ell. Ltft. Weiss, Sief. Sd. read 

S^AD-'KLP al. pier, d f Vg. Syr. (psh. hard, pal.) Boh. read 6[xlv 
after eiiaYyeX.; BH have it before the verb; ^*F8'"- G g omit it; D* Ath. 
Cyr^' read u^xaq after euayYeX. The reading b^iaq may be set aside as 
weakly attested and probably due to the influence of b'^aq in v. «, yet 
it bears a certain testimony to the presence of a pronoun at this point. 
The witnesses to Citi-Tv before the verb and those to u^jlIv after it furnish 
strong testimony to its presence in one place or the other, with a prob- 
ability in favour of the latter position. 

KuayysXC^ occurs first so far as observed in Aristoph. Eq. 643, 
Xdyoui; dyaOoijq eijayyeXfaaaOat xivt (see Dalman, Words of Jesus, pp. 
102 f.). The active occurs first apparently in the Lxx, but is found 
also in secular writers after N. T. In the Lxx it is a translation of 
"it'3, "to bring tidings," "to bring good news." In N. T. it is found 
in the active (Rev. 10' 14* only), in the middle frequently, and in the 
passive. The middle is accompanied by an accusative of content, 
with or without a dative of indirect object (Lk. 4" 80, or by a dative 
(Rom. I") or accusative (Acts S^") of the person to whom the message 
is delivered without an accusative of content, or is used absolutely 
(i Cor. ji'). Except in Lk. i>' and i Thes. 3* the accusative of content 
refers to the " gospel " message of salvation or to some phase of it. When 
used absolutely or in the passive the reference is to the proclamation 
of the gospel in the N. T. sense of the word. See note on euayyiXiov, 
p. 422.. Paul uses the word in the middle only, both with and without 

I, 8 27 

accusative of content (see Rom. i'^ 1520 i Cor. i^^ 9 !«•!« i5>'« 2 Cor. 
ioi« II' Gal. 18. 9. n, 16. 23 413)^ and always, except in i Thes. 3« Rom. 
io»' and this verse and the next, with reference to the preaching of his 
gospel. By the addition of xap' 0, etc., here and in v. », the word is given 
a more general reference than to Paul's gospel in particular, yet doubt- 
less still refers to the preaching of the Christian gospel, not to the 
announcement of good tidings in general. It is equivalent to s^af'fiXioy 
x,T)puaa£tv, with euaYylXtov in the same breadth of meaning which is 
implied in exepov euo!.jyiXio\> of v. ». On other ways of expressing sub- 
stantially the same idea as that of this v., see i Cor. 3" 2 Cor. ii«. 

It has been much disputed whether xapd: in •Trap' 8 signifies "contrary 
to," or "besides." But the room for dispute which usage permits is 
very narrow. The metaphorical uses of xapd in the New Testament 
are as follows: 

1. Beyond, passing a certain limit, (a) Beyond the measure or 
limit of: (i) in excess of (Rom. 12' 2 Cor. 8' Heb. 11" also Heb. 2^ »); (ii) 
in greater degree than (Luke 132. < Rom. i« 14* Heb. i'); (iii) in trans- 
gression of, contrary to (Acts 18'' Rom. i^' 418 ii«* 16"); (b) after com- 
paratives, than (Luke 3" Heb. 1*3' 9" 11* 12"); (c) after dXkoq, than, 
except (i Cor. 3" and freq. in Greek writers). 

2. Aside from, except, lacking, used with a numeral, 2 Cor. 11", and 
in Greek writers with other expressions suggesting number or quantity. 

3. Because of (i Cor. 12^^-^^). 

The use in the present passage evidently falls neither under 2 nor 3; 
nor under i (a) (i) or (ii) ; nor, because of the absence of a comparative 
or aXkoq, under (b) or (c). The meaning "beside, in addition to," does 
not exist in N. T., nor have instances of it been pointed out in the Lxx 
or Greek writers. The nearest approach to it is that which is illus- 
trated in I Cor. 3"; but this sense apparently occurs only after SXkoq, 
which is not found in the present passage. It remains therefore to 
take xapdc in this verse, and the following, in the sense common in classical 
writers and in N. T., "contrary to," i, (a) (iii) above. It should be 
observed, however, that the fundamental meaning of xapd: is "by the 
side of," then "beyond," and that it acquires the meaning "contrary 
to" from the conception of that which goes beyond (and so transgresses) 
the limits of the object. This fundamental idea seems usually at least 
to linger in the word, suggesting not so much direct contradiction or 
denial, or on the other side merely addition, as exceeding the limits 
of a thing, e. g., a law or teaching — and so non-accordance with it. 
Cf. Rob., p. 616. This meaning suggested by the original sense of the 
preposition and by its usage is entirely appropriate to the present 
passage. The evidence of the letter as a whole indicates that the 
teachings of the judaisers, which Paul evidently has in mind here, were 
neither, on the one side, additions to his own teaching in the same 


spirit as his, nor, on the other side, direct contradictions and denials of 
his, but additions which were actually subversive in effect. The trans- 
lation "other than" (RV., cf. Weizsacker) is not quite accurate, because 
it suggests any variation whatever from Paul's message. "Contrary 
to" (RV. mg.) slightly exaggerates this idea of contrariety, suggesting 
direct contradiction. "Not in accordance with" or "at variance 
with" seems to come nearest to expressing the idea of the Greek. 

The words dcvdcOe'tJia and dvdOTQ[j,a were originally simply variant spell- 
ings of the same word. The latter word meant in Homer "an orna- 
ment," in Herodotus, et al., "votive offering" set up in a temple. 
"Votive offering" is perhaps in fact the older sense. In this 
sense dvd6e[j.a appears in Greek writers from Theocritus down. In 
the Lxx, however, it is used to translate D->n, a thing devoted to 
God for destruction, a thing accursed. In the mss. of the Lxx and 
Apocr. dvd0iQ!i,a and dcvdOsixa are for the most part consistently distin- 
guished, the former signifying "a votive offering," the latter "a thing 
accursed, devoted to destruction" (Lev. 27=8 Deut. 13" i>8i), etc., or 
"a curse" (Deut. iji^um 2o''')- But variant readings appear in 
Deut. 72' his Jud. i6'» i^'i 3 Mac. 3'^ In N. T. dvd075[Aa, found only in 
Lk. 21' (even here SADX read dvdOe[xa), means "a votive offering"; 
d:vd:6e[xa in Rom. 9' i Cor. 12' 16" means "a thing (or rather a person) 
accursed"; in Acts 231* "a curse," a vow taken with an oath, a mean- 
ing found also in an Attic inscription of the first or second century 
A. D. (see Deissmann in ZntW. II 342), and hence doubtless a current 
use of the term in Common Greek, as it is also in modern Grk. Cf. 
M. and M. Voc. s. v. The former of these two meanings differs from 
the common Lxx sense of dvdOe^a in that it denotes not so much a 
thing devoted to God to be destroyed (see, e. g., Josh. 6>'-") as one 
under the curse of God. See esp. Rom. 9'. In this sense the word must 
be taken in the present passage. How this condemnation of God 
would express itself is not conveyed in this word. Taken in their 
literal sense the words dvdOsjjia eaxd) (on the use of the imper. see Rob. 
p. 939) are the opposite of the benediction in v. '; they are a petition 
that the person referred to may be deprived of God's grace, and instead 
be the object of his disapproval. Precisely what thought the expres- 
sion represented in Paul's mind is difficult to determine, because it is 
impossible to know precisely how largely the hyperbole of impassioned 
feeling entered into the words. For the evidence that dvdOe[xa does 
not here or in N. T. generally refer to excommunication, as some older 
interpreters maintained, see Wieseler's extended note on this passage. 

9. ft)? TTpoeipriKafiev, kol apn ttoXlv Xeyw, "As we said before 
so now I say again." The irpo- in mpoeipr^Kaixev may mean 
"before" cither in the sense "on a former occasion," as, e, g., in 

I, 8-9 29 

2 Cor. 73 Heb. 4^, or in a predictive sense "before the event 
spoken of," as in Mk. 1323 Rom. g^^ 2 Cor. 132. The two ideas 
are indeed not mutually exclusive. But the fact that v.^^, 
which is distinctly said to be a repetition of the utterance re- 
ferred to in TvpoeiprjKay^ev^ is not a prediction shows that Trpo- 
refers to a previous utterance of these words. This previous ut- 
terance, however, is not that of v. ^ but something said on a pre- 
vious occasion, as e. ^., on a visit to Galatia, or in a previous letter. 
Paul does, indeed, not infrequently use a plural in speaking of 
himself alone, and even change abruptly from plural to singular 
(see I Thes. 2^^ 3I' « 2 Cor. ii^f- 23 iq^ 1121, and Dick, Der schrijt- 
stellerische Plural bei Paulus, pp. 143 #), and Trpoeipi^Kafiev 
could in itself refer to something just said in the letter (see 
2 Cor. 7'). But the use of dprt here implying difference of 
time between the two utterances excludes the supposition that 
he is here referring to words just written down. Since we 
know of no previous letter to the Galatians, the previous utter- 
ance was probably made by Paul (or by Paul and his com- 
panions — on this point the plural can not in view of 2 Cor. i^^f- 
and other passages cited above be said to be decisive) when he 
was in Galatia. On which of the two occasions on which he 
had probably already visited the Galatians (4^^) this warning 
was given, depends somewhat on the question of the chronology 
of these visits, itself turning in large part on the location of 
the churches. See Introd., p. xxi. The very fact that he felt 
it necessary to utter such a warning as this suggests an al- 
ready existing danger. If the churches, being in northern 
Galatia, were founded on his second missionary journey, there 
might easily have been occasion for such a warning on his first 
visit to them. If, on the other hand, the churches were in 
southern Galatia, and hence founded on the first missionary 
journey, it is less probable that he had occasion at that time 
to utter so pointed a warning, and more likely that he refers 
to something said on the occasion of his second visit. 

The perfect tense of -jcpoetpToxatAev marks this saying as not simply a 
past fact, but as one of which the result remains, doubtless in 
that they remember (or may be assumed to remember) the utterance 


of the saying. BMT 74, 85. The tense therefore conveys an appeal 
to their memory of the utterance. This reference to the existing result 
of the saying can not be expressed in English except by an interjected 
clause, "as we told you and you remember," and inasmuch as the use 
of the English perfect in such a connection suggests a recent action— 
in this case most naturally an utterance just made in the preceding 
sentence— the best translation is the simple past, which though it leaves 
unexpressed a part of the meaning of the Greek, has at least the advan- 
tage of not expressing anything not conveyed by the Greek. BMT 82. 
The strict force of before apxt is doubtless adverbial, "also," but 
EngUsh idiom in such a case prefers the simple "so." Cf. Jn. 6" 13" 
I Cor. 15". The fuller and more definitely comparative expression 
ouTwq v.oci occurs I Cor. 15" Gal. 4", etc. apxi, frequent in papyri, of 
strictly present time (M. and M. Voc. s. v.), is cited by Nageli, Worl- 
schatz, p. 78, as a word of the unliterary Koivtj; yet see numerous 
classical exx. in L. & S. 

et Ti? v/Aa? evayyeXi^eraL Trap'* TrapeXdfiere, avddefia earco. 
'' If any one is preaching to you a gospel not in accordance with 
that which ye received, let him be accursed." This sentence dif- 
fers from that of v.^ in two respects which affect the thought: 
(i) the element of concession and improbability disappears in the 
omission of Vf^l^ ^ dyyeko^ ej ovpavov; (2) the form of the 
condition that suggests future possibiUty is displaced by that 
which expresses simple present supposition, and which is often 
used when the condition is known to be actually fulfilled. The 
result is to bring the supposition closer home to the actual case, 
and since it was known both to Paul and his readers that the 
condition et Ti? . . . TrapeXd/Sere was at that very time in 
process of fulfilment, to apply the avdOeixa earco directly to 
those who were then preaching in Galatia. 

10. a/OTt yap avOpdnrov^; Treido) t) top Oeov; "For am I now 
seeking the favour of men, or of God ? " dpri, now, i. e., in these 
utterances. The apostle evidently refers to a charge that on 
previous occasions or in other utterances he had shaped his 
words so as to win the favour of men. A similar charge was 
made by his opponents at Corinth, 2 Cor. lo^ ireiOco means 
" to win the favour of," " to conciliate," as in 2 Mac. 4^^ Mt. 28^* 
Acts 1220. The present tense, by reason simply of the meaning 
of the word and the idea of action in progress suggested by 

I, 9-10 31 

the tense, has the meaning, " to seek the favour of." BMT 
11; GMT 25. 

The force of y<^P is difficult to determine. If, indeed, as Win. Th. 
Preusch. et al. affirm, yt^P has a conclusive or illative force (derived, as 
some maintain, from its etymological sense as compounded of -^i and 
(2pa), this meaning would be most suitable. The apostle would in that 
case draw from his preceding sentence the inference, expressed in a 
rhetorical question, that he is not pleasing men (as has been charged 
against him), but God. Or if it had the asseverative force attributed 
to it by Hoogeveen et al. (see Misener, The Meaning of V&q, Baltimore, 
1904), this would also yield a suitable meaning: "Surely I am not now 
pleasing men, am I?" But most of the N. T. passages cited by Th. 
et al. as examples of the illative sense are as well or better explained 
as in some sense causal, and though there remain a very few which it 
is difficult to account for except on the assumption of an asseverative or 
illative force, whether primitive or derived (see Acts 16" Phil, i*), yet 
in view of the preponderance of evidence and judgment that all the 
uses of Y<^P to be explained from its causal force (see Misener, 
op. cit.), and the fact that the only two N. T. cases that obstinately 
refuse to be reduced to this category are in condensed exclamatory 
phrases, we do not seem to be justified in assuming any other than a 
causal force here. In that case it must be either confirmatory — "and 
I mean what I say, for am I now?" etc. — or, explanatory and defen- 
sive, justifying the use of the strong and harsh language of vv.'-' — 
"and this I am justified in saying, for am I now?" etc. Of these two 
explanations the second is the more probable, since the preceding 
expression is already sufficiently strong and would naturally call for 
justification rather than confirmation. To this as to any form of the 
view that makes f&g causal, it is indeed an objection that the clause 
introduced by Y<ip ought naturally to be either a positive assertion, or 
a question the answer to which is to the opponent in argument so 
evident and unquestionable that it has the value of a proved assertion. 
See, e. g., Jn. 7" Acts 8" 1935 i Cor. 11", But this latter is precisely 
what this question does not furnish. To those to whom Paul is ad- 
dressing himself it is by no means self-evident and unquestionable that 
he is concerned to win the favour of God and not of men. But dcpxt with 
its backward reference to the strong language of the preceding sentences 
suggests that this language itself is appealed to as evidence that the 
apostle is not now seeking to please men but God, which fact, as y&p 
shows, he in turn employs to justify the language. It is as if one 
reproved for undue severity should reply, "My language at least proves 
that I am no flatterer," the answer tacitly implying that this fact 
justified the severity. Such a mode of expression is not impossible to 


one writing under strong emotion, and this interpretation furnishes 
the most probable explanation of both dcpTi and -{&?. 

7j ^7}T0) av6paiiroL<^ apeaKeiv; "Or am I seeking to please 
men?" These words only repeat a little more distinctly the 
thought of the preceding clause, ^tjtco apeaKeiv taking the 
place of TreiOw and expressing the idea of attempt more defi- 

el en avOpaaiTOL^ TJpecTKOv, ^ptarov 8ov\o<; ovk av ij/JLrjv. "If 
I were still pleasing men, I should not be a servant of Christ." 
A supposition contrary to fact (BMT 248), implying that he is 
no longer pleasing men, and that he is a servant of Christ. The 
imperfect rjpeaKov is doubtless like the ireiQio above, conative, 
not resultative. This is the usual force of the progressive tenses 
in verbs of pleasing, persuading, and the like, which by their 
meaning suggest effort, and there is no occasion to regard the 
present instance as exceptional. That which the apostle says 
would prove him not to be a servant of Christ is, not a being 
pleasing to men, but an endeavour to please men. The expres- 
sion is moreover comparative rather than absolute, signifying 
not the intention under any circumstances or in any degree to 
please men, but to please men in preference to God, as is im- 
plied in the preceding av6p(t)7rov(; . . . rj rov 6e6v, and for his 
own advantage and convenience as the whole context suggests. 
There is no contradiction, therefore, between this assertion and 
that of I Cor. lo^^. jravra iraaiv apea-fcco, /jlt) ^tjtcov to e/xavrov 
(Tv/jL(j)opov aXXa to roiv ttoXKmv, Xva (TcoOcocrLV. The meaning 
ascribed to the sentence b}^ some of the Greek expositors and 
by a few moderns, according to which it expresses the course 
which the apostle would voluntarily have pursued if he had 
been seeking to win the approval of men, "I would not have 
entered the service of Christ but would have remained a Phari- 
see," would almost of necessity have been expressed by ovk av 
iyevdfjLTjv " I should not have become." On Xpccrrov without the 
article, as a proper name, cf. on rod xpiarov in v. '', and detached 
note on The Titles and Predicates of Jesus, III, p. 396. The 
whole sentence el ere . . . Tj/jLrjv is doubtless, though its rela- 
tion to the preceding is not marked by any conjunction (the 

yap of TR. having no sufficient authority), a confirmation of 
the implied answer to the questions of the first part of the verse. 
The appeal, however, is not to the fact that he was a servant of 
Christ — this his opponents to whose criticisms he is at this 
moment addressing himself, would not have conceded — but to 
his own consciousness of the incongruity of men-pleasing and 
the service of Christ. It is as if he should say: "Surely I am 
not now a men-pleaser, for I myself recognise that that would 
make me no longer a servant of Christ." 

The connection of this verse with v.^ is so obviously close, 
and w. "'^2 so clearly enter upon a new phase of the letter, 
that it is difficult to see how WH. could have made the 
paragraph begin at v.^". RV. is obviously right in beginning 
it at V. ". 

It has been urged against taking i^psaxov as conative that the closely 
preceding dtp^axetv is evidently not conative, since the idea of attempt 
is separately expressed in Z,-qzCi). The objection, however, is of little 
force. The Greek verb ipdaxto in the present system means either "to 
be pleasing to" or (as nearly as it can be expressed in English) "to 
seek to please." With a verb which by its tense suggests the idea of 
attempt, but only suggests it, the conative idea may be separately 
expressed, as in "C^-qxGi ipiaxeiy, or may be left to be conveyed by the 
tense only, as in v^peaxov. 

"Etc "still" (i) primarily a temporal particle marking action as 
continuing, "then as before," or "now as heretofore," is also used (2) 
to denote quantitative or numerical addition (stc Iva '^ 860, "one or two 
more," Mt. iS^^, and (3) logical opposition (t{ etc x&yii ox; dfxapTwXbq 
xpbo[i(xr. "why am I nevertheless judged as a sinner?" Rom. 3O. The 
second and third uses, of course, spring from the first, and occasional 
instances occur in which one or the other of these derived ideas is asso- 
ciated with the temporal idea and modifies it. See, e. g., Heb. 11*. In 
the present passage exi might be (a) purely temporal, the comparison 
being with his pre-Christian life when he was not a servant of Christ; 
(b) purely temporal, the comparison being with a previous period of 
his Christian life when he was seeking to please men and, consequently, 
was not a servant of Christ; (c) purely temporal, the comparison being 
with a previous period of his Christian life, when, as alleged by his oppo- 
nents, he was seeking to please men; or (d) temporal and adversative, 
ixt, meaning "still, despite all that I have passed through." The 
interpretation (b) is excluded by the practical impossibility that Paul 
could characterise any part of his Christian life as one in which he 


was not a servant of Christ. The adversative rendering (d) is rendered 
improbable by the fact that his recent experiences were not such as 
to be specially calculated to eradicate the tendency to men-pleasing; 
rather, if anything, there was in them a temptation to seek to please 
men, a temptation to which his opponents alleged he had yielded. 
The interpretation (c) probably is correct to this extent, that the 
apostle has in mind the charges that have been made against him 
respecting his recent conduct as a Christian apostle, and means to say 
that whatever may have been alleged respecting that past conduct, 
now at least it cannot be charged that he is still seeking to please men. 
Yet it is doubtful whether the reference is solely to an alleged pleasing 
of men, and in so far as ext implies a comparison with anything actual 
in the past, it must be with the days of his Phariseeism. For though 
Paul was perhaps less affected by the desire for the praise of men 
(Mt. 6»- '• " 23»'f-)> having more desire for righteousness and divine 
approval, than most of his fellow Pharisees (Gal. i^^ Phil. 3O, yet he 
would doubtless not hesitate to characterise that period of his life as 
one of men-pleasing as compared with his Christian life. The thought 
is therefore probably: "If I were still pleasing men, as was the case in 
the days of my Phariseeism, and as my opponents allege has been 
recently the case, I should not be a servant of Christ." 

AoOXoq, properly "a slave, a bondservant," is frequently used by 
N. T. writers to express their relation and that of believers in general 
to Christ and to God. The fundamental idea of the word is subjection, 
subservience, with which are associated more or less constantly the 
ideas of proprietorship by a master and service to him. The SouXoq 
is subject to his master (xuptoq, Bsax6TY]q), belongs to him as his prop- 
erty, and renders him service. As applied to the Christian and de- 
scribing his relation to Christ or God the word carries with it all three 
of these ideas, with varying degrees of emphasis in different cases, the 
fundamental idea of subjection, obedience, on the whole predominat- 
ing. At the same time the conception of the slave as one who serves 
unintelligently and obeys from fear, is definitely excluded from the 
idea of the SouXoq XptaToO as held by Paul and other N. T. writers; 
SouXefa in this sense is denied, and uloOeat'a affirmed in its place (Gal. 
41-^ Rom. 8'5. 16; cf. also Jn. 151^ Eph. e^-*). The statement of Cremer 
correctly represents the thought of N. T. in general: ''The normal 
moral relation of man to God is that of a lo'Skoq toO eeoO, whose own 
will though perfectly free is bound to God." It is evidently such a full 
but free service of Christ that Paul has in mind here in the use of the 
term BoOXo? Xpiaroj. The effort to please men conflicts with and 
excludes unreserved obedience to Christ. Cf. Deissmann, New Light 
from the Ancient East, p. 381, 




apostle's independence or all human au- 
thority AND direct relation TO CHRIST 

I. Proposition: Paul received the gospel not from men, 
but immediately from God (i^^- ^'^). 

Beginning with these verses, the apostle addresses him- 
self to the refutation of the charges and criticisms of the 
judaising teachers, and to the re-establishment of himself and 
his gospel in the confidence of the Galatians; and first of all, 
doubtless as against an assertion of his opponents that he had 
never received (from Jerusalem) a commission authorising him 
to set himself up as a teacher of the religion of Jesus, he afhrms 
his entire independence of all human authority or commission, 
and his possession of his gospel by virtue of a divine revelation 
of Jesus Christ. 

^^For I declare to you, brethren, that the gospel that was preached 
by me is not according to man; ^"^for neither did I receive it from 
man, nor was I taught it, but it came to me through revelation of 
Jesus Christ. 

11. TvcopC^o) yap v/jlip, aSe\(f>Oi, " For I declare to you, breth- 
ren." The verb yvwpl^o) suggests a somewhat formal or solemn 
assertion. Cf. i Cor. 12^ 15^ 2 Cor. 8^ Eph. i^, the similar ex- 
pression ov 6e\(ti ayvoelv in Rom. i^^ 11-^ i Cor. 10^ 12^ 2 Cor. 
i^ I Thes. 4^^, and M. and M. Voc. on yvcopL^co and jcvcoaKO). 
The assertion that follows is in effect the proposition to the prov- 
ing of which the whole argument of 1 13-221 is directed. This 
relation of w.^^-^^ to what follows remains the same whether 
we read Se or yap. Only in the latter case the apostle (as in 
Rom. i^^) has attached his leading proposition to a preceding 
statement as a justification of it, not, however, of v.^", which 
is itself a mere appendix to vv. ^-^ and almost parenthetical, 
but of the whole passage, vv. ^-^, as an expression of his surprise 
at their apostasy and his stern denunciation of those who are 


leading them astray. See a somewhat similar use of ^dp at 
the beginning of a new division of the argument in Rom. i^^; cf. 
also Rom. i^^- ^^ The word "brethren," ahe\(^oi, doubtless 
here, as almost invariably in Paul's epistles, signifies fellow- 
Christians. See more fully in fine print below, and on v. ^. 

Fdp after yvfopf^w is the reading of fc<aBD*FG 33 d f g Vg. Dam. 
Victorin. Hier. Aug.; li: ^*XD^'>^° KLP, the major portion of the 
cursives. Syr. (psh. hard, pal.) Boh. Ori'**- Chr. Euthal. Cyr. Thdrt. 
al. The preponderance of evidence for ytSip is very slight. Both readings 
must be very ancient, yd:? is the reading of the distinctively Western 
authorities, and Zi apparently of the Alexandrian text. But which in 
this case diverged from the original can not be decided by genealogical 
evidence. The group BDFG supporting ycip, and that supporting 
li, viz., SAP al., each support readings well attested by internal 
evidence. See Introd., p. Ixxx. The addition of 2>2) to the former group 
in this case somewhat strengthens it, and throws the balance of evidence 
slightly in favour of yip. Internal evidence gives no decided ground of 
preference for either against the other, and the question must appar- 
ently be left about as it is by \VH., ya? in the text as a little more prob- 
ably right, Zi on the margin as almost equally well attested. If Zi 
is the true reading, it is probably resumptive in force (Th. s. v. 7; 
W. LIII. 7 b; Rob. p. 1185 init.), marking a return to the main thought 
of the superhuman authority of the gospel after the partial digression 
of V. 10. 

Among the Jews it was customary to recognise as brethren all the 
members of a given family or tribe (Lev. 25" Num. i6»''), and indeed 
all members of the nation (Lev. 19" Deut. i'« 2 Mac. i^ Acts 7« 
Rom. 9'). Papyri of the second century B. c. show that members of 
the same religious community were called dSe>.cpo(. See M. and M. 
Voc. s. V. The habit of the Christians to call one another brethren 
may have been the product in part of both these older usages. In the 
Christian usage the basis of the relation is purely religious, family and 
national lines, as well as lines of merely personal friendship, being dis- 
regarded. Thus while the brethren mentioned in v.* were presumably 
Jews, those who are here addressed as brethren were Gentiles. Cf. 
also Acts 15". According to the gospels Jesus had taught that they are 
his brethren who do God's will, and they brethren to one another 
who unite in recognising Jesus himself as Master. Mk. 3"-" Mt. 23 ». 
In Paul the emphasis of the term is upon the fraternal, affectionate, 
mutually regardful attitude of Christians to one another (i Cor. 5" 6'-» 
gii-is 1-58 2 Cor. i» 2" Rom. i4i«' "• ^0, though the suggestion of a com- 
mon relationship to Christ and God is not wholly lacking (see Rom. 

I, II 37 

816, 17. 29)^ and the use of it constitutes an appeal to all those relations 
of ajffection and fellowship which Christians sustain to one another by 
virtue of their common faith, and membership in one body (i Cor. 
isi*^-)- On later Christian usage, see Harnack, Mission and Expansion 
of Christianity,'^ I 405 /. 

TO evajyeXiOV rb evayyektadh vtt' ifiov on ovk earcv Kara 
dvOpcoTTov " that the gospel that was preached by me is not ac- 
cording to man." to evayyeXcov, logically the subject of eanVj 
is, by a species of attraction common both in classical writers 
and N. T. (Jelf 898. 2; W. LXVI 5 a) introduced as the ob- 
ject of yvcopL^Q). On the meaning of evayyeXtov, see detached 
note, p. 422, and on evayyeKiadev see on v.^ On the use of the 
verb with an accusative of content, or in the passive with a 
subject denoting the gospel or its content, see vv. ^^-^^ Lk. d>^ 
i6i« I Cor. 151 2 Cor. ii^ The aorist tense, evayyekiaOev, is 
probably used in preference to the present because Paul has in 
mind at this moment the gospel not as that which he is wont 
to preach, or is now preaching, but as that which was preached 
by him to the Galatians. That the gospel preached by him is 
always the same is at once suggested, however, by the use of 
the present tense, eariv. A converse use of aorist and present 
occurs with similar effect in 2^, dveSefM-qv avrok to evayyeXcov 
6 KTjpvaaco. 

Kaxd: (2v6pwxov, a phrase used by Greek writers from Aeschyl. down 
(see Wetst. on Rom. 3^), but in N. T. by Paul only, is of very general 
significance, the noun being neither on the one hand generic (which 
would require xbv avGpwxov) nor individually indefinite, "a man," but 
merely qualitative. The preposition signifies "according to," "agree- 
ably to," "according to the will or thought of," or "after the manner 
of" (see it used similarly in the phrases /.a-ca Ge6v, Rom. 8" 2 Cor. 7'- ", 
xatd x6ptov, 2 Cor. 11', and xara Xptaxbv 'IifjaoOv, Rom. 15^), and the 
whole phrase means "human" or "humanly," "from a human point 
of view," "according to human will or thought": Rom. 3* i Cor. 3' 9* 
15'* Gal. 315. Respecting its precise force here there are three possi- 
bilities: (a) As in i Cor. g^ it may signify "according to the thought 
of man," i. e., of human authority; (b) under the influence of the idea 
of a message in s'jayysXiov it may mean "of human origin"; (c) it may 
convey simply the general idea "human" without more exact dis- 
crimination. There i.-. no decisive ground of choice among these, but 


the last seems more consistent both mth the usage of the phrase and 
with the context; notice that v. i^ covers both source and method of 
origin, and does not specifically mention authority. The suggestion of 
Bous. (SNT.) that it means "self-originated," "eigene Phantasie," is 
not sustained by usage, and is excluded by the next two clauses, oiSI 
. . . eStSdxOigv, in which it is in effect defined, 

12. ovSe jap iyco Trapa avOpw-rrov TrapeXajSov avro," for 
neither did I receive it from man." This is the first step of the 
proof of the preceding general statement that his gospel is not 
a human message. Like the proposition itself it is negative, 
denying human source. ovBe coupled with yap may (i) serve 
to introduce a statement of what is at the same time a fact 
additional to the one already stated and an evidence for it, as 
is the case especially in arguments from analogy (see Lk. 20^^ 
Jn. 522 Acts 412 Rom. 8^), or (2) ouSe may throw its force upon a 
single term of the sentence, suggesting a comparison of the 
case mentioned with some other case previously mentioned or 
in mind. On this latter view the comparison would doubtless 
be with the Twelve, who, it is taken for granted, received the 
gospel otherwise than from man. This comparison itself, how- 
ever, may be of either one of two kinds: (a) It may be com- 
parison simply and, so to speak, on equal terms, 'Tor neither 
did I any more than they receive it, etc." (Cf. Jn. f, as inter- 
preted in AV., "for neither did his brethren beheve on him." 
See also a similar use of OL'Se without yap in Mk. ii26; or (b) it 
may be ascensive comparison: "For not even I, of whom, not 
being of the Twelve, it might have been supposed that I must 
have received the gospel from men, received it thus" (cf. 
Gal. 613). Of these three views the first (maintained by Sief.) 
is most in accord with N. T. usage of ovSe yap (see exx. above), 
but is objectionable because the statement here made can not 
easily be thought of as a co-ordinate addition to the preceding, 
and because the presence of iyd), emphatic by the mere fact of 
its insertion, almost requires that ovBe shall be interpreted as 
throwing its force upon it. The second view, 2(a), is more 
probable than the third, 2(b); the implication of the latter 
that his receiving his gospel otherwise than from man is in a 


sense an extreme case seems foreign to the state of mind of the 
apostle as it appears in this chapter. The objection that there 
is no ground for assuming a comparison with the Twelve is 
without force; the whole tenor of this chapter and the follow- 
ing goes to show that Paul's commission had been declared to 
be inferior to that of the Twelve, and that he has this in mind 
throughout his defence; when, therefore, by the use of €706 he 
indicates that he is comparing himself with some one else as 
respects the source of his gospel, we scarcely need to be informed 
that the unexpressed term of the comparison is the Twelve. 

The verb Tapalaii^avoi bears in N. T. two meanings: (i) "To take to 
or along with one's self," "to accept." (2) "To receive something 
transmitted to one." The latter is the uniform or all but uniform use 
in Paul. I Cor. ii« 15 1.3 Gal. i^* Phil. 4^ Col. 2^ (?) 41' (?) i Thes. 2'^ 
4} 2 Thes. 3«, and is the undoubted meaning here. 

xapa ivGpdjxou. The original force of xapd: with the genitive is "from 
beside," denoting procession from a position beside or with some one. 
In N. T. precisely this sense is rare (Jn. 1528 16"), but in the majority 
of instances the meaning is one which is derived from this. Thus both 
in Greek writers and in N. T. it is used after verbs of learning, hearing, 
inquiring, issuing, receiving, yet often in a sense scarcely distinguish- 
able from that of d(x6. With Mk. 5'^ cf. Lk, 8", and with Mt. i2'8 cf. 
Lk. iji^ When used after a verb which implies transmission, espe- 
cially a compound of xapa, xapd before the noun apparently acquires 
by association the sense "along from," marking its object as source, 
but at the same time as transmitter from a more ultimate source. 
Such seems to be the force of the preposition in i Thes. 2^3 41 2 Thes. 3'; 
it is also entirely appropriate to the first instance of its occurrence in 
Phil. 4I8; its use the second time may be due either to the fact that 
Paul avoided the suggestion of a different relation in the two cases 
which a change to <k%6 would have conveyed, or even to a desire deli- 
cately to hint a divine source back of the Philippians themselves, mak- 
ing them also transmitters. This latter instance seems in any case 
to be strongly against the view of Winer (WM. p. 463/. n.) and Mey. 
on I Cor. 11^3 that xapd means "directly from." On the other hand, 
Ltft.'s view that "where the idea of transmission is prominent xapd 
will be used in preference to dx6," whether the object be the immediate 
or the remote source, is not sustained by the evidence as a whole. 
Not only is xapd often used of ultimate source, with no suggestion of 
transmission, but dx6 is used, in i Cor. 11" at least, when the idea of 
transmission is suggested by the verb, and in every instance where 


xapd is used before a transmitting source, the idea of transmission is 
suggested by the verb or context, and the object is the mediate source. 
To this rule Phil. 4'* is, as remarked above, probably no exception. 
The force of xapd: accordingly in the present phrase luapa ivGpcixou, joined 
with xapdXa^ov, which distinctly suggests receiving by transmission, is 
probably "along from," and taken with ouSi the phrase denies that the 
gospel which Paul preached was received by him from men as the 
intermediate source. This, of course, carries with it, also, the denial 
of man as the ultimate source, since the supposition of an ultimate 
hiunan source with a divine mediate source is excluded by its own 
absurdity. In effect, therefore, xapd in the present phrase covers the 
ground more specifically covered in v.^ by dxd and Std:. 

'Avepwxou is probably to be taken as in 8t' dvOpwxou in v. ^ in the most 
general qualitative sense, not as having reference to any individual; 
it is hence to be translated "from man," rather than "from a man." 
Cf. on v. S and see Jn. s^*- 

ovre iBcBcixOv^, "nor was I taught it." To the denial of 
man as the source from which he received his gospel the apostle 
adds as a correlative statement a denial of instruction as the 
method by which he obtained it. This was, of course, precisely 
tlie method by which the great majority of the Christians and 
even of the Christian tea.chers of that day had received the 
gospel. It had been communicated to them by other men. 
Cf. the case of Apollos, Acts iS^^. 26^ of Timothy, 2 Tim. 3", and 
the frequent use of the word "teach" in reference to the work 
of apostles and preachers in general : Acts 4^^ 5^8 20^0 i Cor. 4^^ 
Col. 1 2^, etc. The apostle characterises his as an exceptional 
case. As a pupil of the Pharisees he had been taught some- 
thing very different from the gospel, but he had had no 
connection with those who at the beginning were the teachers 
of the gospel. See the reference to these facts in vv. ■ 


OuS^ before eStS. is read by SAD*FGP 31, 104, 326, 436, 442 Boh. 
Eus. Chr. Euthal. Cyr. Thdrt. Dam.; ouxe by BD-'KL Oec. al. Since 
the latter evidence proves that outs is not simply an idiosyn- 
crasy of B., and the Western authorities are almost unanimously on 
the side of 06SI, the probability is that ouU is a Western digression 
from the original reading oO're, produced either by accidental assimila- 
tion to the preceding ouB^ or by correction of the unusual combination 
om . . . oCxe. Cf. WM. pp. 617/. 

The oOxe before eStS. can not be regarded as strictly correlative to ouU 

I, 12 41 

at the beginning of the verse, since oOSI and oSxs are not correlative 
conjunctions (WM. p. 617), the "neither . . . nor" of the English 
translation by its suggestion of this relation to that extent misrepre- 
senting the Greek. Nor would the clauses be correlative if ouBe be 
read instead of ouxe here (see below), since oi^i . . . o08e express not 
correlation — the first looking forward to the second and the second 
back to the first — but successive negation, each oOSi looking backward 
and adding a negation to one already in mind. With the reading oSxe, 
however, the second clause is introduced as correlative to the first, 
though the first had been expressed with a backward look to the pre- 
ceding sentence, not with a forward look to the present clause. 

aWa Sl ctTTO/caXv-yjrect)^ 'Irjaov'KpLaTOv. "but it came to me 
through revelation of Jesus Christ." A verb such as is sug- 
gested by irapiXajBov and ehthd'xOrjv is of necessity to be sup- 
plied in thought with Si' aTroKaXvyjreo)^, yet not iStSd^^OTjv itself, 
since there is a manifest contrast between instruction and reve- 
lation, the first being denied and the latter affirmed, as the 
method by which the apostle obtained his gospel. On the 
meaning of a7ro/caXuT|rt9, see detached note on'ATro/caXuTrrwand 
'ATTOKaXvij/LS, p. 433 . It is evident that the apostle is here using 
the term in its third sense, viz., a divine disclosure of a person 
or truth, involving also perception of that which is revealed by 
the person to whom the disclosure is made. He is speaking 
neither of an epiphany of Jesus as a world event, nor of a dis- 
closure of him which, being made to men at large, as, e. g., 
through his life and death, might be perceived by some and fall 
ineffectual upon others, but of a personal experience, divine in 
its origin {cf. ov8e . . . irapa avOpwirov) , personal to himself 
and effectual. 

It has been much disputed whether 'Itjo-ov ^piarov is an 
objective or subjective genitive, whether Christ is the revealed 
or the revealer. According to the former interpretation, PauJ 
in effect affirms that Jesus Christ had been revealed to him, 
and in such way that that revelation carried with it the sub- 
stance of the gospel. If Christ is the revealer, it is doubtless the 
gospel that is revealed. It is in favour of the former view (i) 
that Paul is wont to speak of God as the author of revelations; 
and of Christ as the one revealed, not as the revealer: see for 


the former usage i Cor. 2*° 2 Cor. 12^, and for the latter i Cor. 
i' 2 Thes. i^ Gal i^^; (2) that this latter usage occurs in this 
very context (v.^^) where Paul, apparently speaking of the 
same fact to which he here refers, uses the phrase airoKokvy^ai 
rbv vlov avTov iv ifioi, in which Jesus is unambiguously rep- 
resented as the one revealed. It may be urged in favour of the 
second interpretation (i) that the phrase thus understood fur- 
nishes the proper antithesis to Trapa avOpwirov and iSLBdxOrjv, 
affirming Christ as the source and revelation as the method 
over against man as the source and instruction as the method; 
(2) that the gospel, especially the gospel of Paul as distinguished 
from the Jewish- Christian conception of the gospel, requires as 
its source a revelation of larger and more definite content than 
is implied when the genitive is taken as objective. But these 
arguments are by no means decisive. Paul is not wont to pre- 
serve his antitheses perfect in form, and the first view as truly 
as the second preserves it substantially, since it is self-evident 
that if Christ was revealed to him (or in him) God was the 
revealer. As to whether a revelation of which Christ was the 
content was adequate to be the source of his gospel, there is 
much reason to believe that in his conception of Jesus obtained 
by the revelation of him there were virtually involved for Paul 
all the essential and distinctive features of his gospel. Thus it 
certainly included the resurrection of Jesus, and as an inference 
from it his divine sonship (Rom. i*); these in view of Paul's 
previous attitude towards the law might, probably did, lead him 
to recognise the futility of righteousness by law, this in turn 
preparing the way at least for the recognition of faith as the 
true principle of the religious life; this accepted may have led 
to the conviction that the Gentile could be justified without 
circumcision. While it can not perhaps be proved that pre- 
cisely this was the order of Paul's thought, his various refer- 
ences to his experience find their most natural explanation in 
this view, that the new conception of Jesus which Paul gained 
by the revelation of Christ in him furnished the premise from 
which the essential elements of his gospel were derived. See 
Phil. 3^-9 Gal. 2'9 Rom. f^ 329. 30^ and v.^^ of this chap., where 

I, 13 43 

he closely connects the two extremes of the experience attrib- 
uted to him, viz., the revelation of Christ and the mission to 
the Gentiles. See also Acts 26^^' ", where a similar connection 
occurs. It seems, therefore, more probable that the genitive 
*l7](Tov ILpLCTTov is objectivc, and that the apostle refers to a 
divinely given revelation of Jesus Christ which carried with it 
the conviction that he was the Son of God. See further on v. ^^ 

*AxoxaX6(]^eog, being without the article, maybe either indefinite, "a 
revelation" or qualitative, "revelation." In the former case the ref- 
erence is to a single specific though unidentified experience. In the 
latter case the phrase simply describes the method by which the gospel 
was received without reference to singleness or multiplicity of ex- 
perience. The reference in the apostle's mind may be to the Da- 
mascus experience only {cf. vv. !«■ '0 or iiiay include any revelations 
by which Christ was made known to him. In the absence of evidence 
of specific reference "by revelation" is preferable to "by a revelation" 
as a translation of the phrase. 

2. Evidence substantiating the preceding assertion of his 
independence of human authority (vv.'^^'^^) drawn 
from various periods of his life {i^^-2^^). 

(a) Evidence drawn from his life before his conversion 

To substantiate the statement of vv."'^^ the apostle ap- 
peals to the facts of his life, some of them at least already 
known to his readers; he begins with his life before his con- 
version to faith in Jesus. The evidence in the nature of the 
case is directed towards the negative part of the proposition. 
That which sustained the positive assertion he could affirm, 
but could not appeal to as known to others. 

i^For ye have heard of my manner of life formerly in the religion 
of the Jews, that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God 
and ravaged it. ^^And I was advancing in the religion of the 
Jews beyond many who were of equal age with me in my nation, 
being more exceedingly zealous than they of the traditions of my 

13. 'H/coucrare 70-/3 Tr)v ifirjv ava(TTpo^t]v TTore iv rat *lov- 
BalafjLU), "For ye have heard of my manner of life formerly in 


the religion of the Jews." With this sentence Paul introduces 
the evidence v/hich his own career furnished that he had not 
received the gospel from man or by instruction. The force of 
7a/3 in the present sentence extends in effect into, if not through, 
the second chapter. The argument is cumulative in character. 
Its first step is to the effect that he was not, previous to his 
conversion, under Christian influence at all, but was, on the 
contrary, a violent opposer of the Christian church. From 
whom the Galatians had heard {rjKOvaaTe) the story of his pre- 
Christian life Paul does not say; most probably it was from 
himself. If so, this reflects in an interesting way his probable 
habit of making use of his own experience in presenting the 
gospel. Cf. Acts, chap. 22, and esp. chap. 26. On the tense 
of rjKovcraTe^ see BMT 46, 52. 

'AvaarpocpTQ, meaning in classical writers "return," etc., first ap- 
pears in the second century b. c. in the sense "manner of life," 
"conduct" (Polyb. 4. 821), which sense it also has in the very few 
instances in which it is found in the Apocr.: Tob. 4" 2 Mac. 3" (it is 
not found in the Lxx, canonical books, and though it stands in the 
Roman edition at 2 Mac. 5* it is without the support of either of the 
uncials which contain the passage, viz. AV.); this is also its regular 
meaning in N. T. (Eph. 4" i Tim. 412 Heb. 13^ Jas. 31' i Pet. i". « 2" 
31. '• i« 2 Pet. 2^ 3ii)- 

On the position of xoxi see Butt. p. 91, and cf. Phil. 41° i Cor. 9^; also 
(cited by Sief. ad loc), Plato, Legg. Ill 685 D, •?) ttj? Tpofa? aXwaiq 
xb Seixepov, "the capture of Troy the second time"; Soph, 0. T. 1043, 
Tou Tupdvvou TT^qBe Ytji; Tz^'KoLi xoxe, "the long-ago ruler of this land." 

'IouBacc7tJL6<;, "the Jews' religion," occurs in N. T. only in this and 
the following verse; for exx. outside N. T. see 2 Mac. 2^1 8^ 14" his 
4 Mac. 4". In the passages in Mac. it denotes the Jewish religion in 
contrast with the Hellenism which the Syrian kings were endeavouring 
to force upon the Jews; here, of course, the prevalent Judaism with its 
rejection of Jesus in contrast with the faith of the followers of Jesus as 
the Messiah. The very use of the term in this way is significant of 
the apostle's conception of the relation between his former and his 
present faith, indicating that he held the latter, and had presented it 
to the Galatians, not as a type of Judaism, but as an independent 
religion distinct from that of the Jews. Though the word Chiistianity 
was probably not yet in use, the fact was in existence. 

^Ti Ka6* vTrep^o\7)v ihicoKOv rrjv iKKXijaiav tov deov koI eirop- 
60VV avrriv^ "that beyond measure I persecuted the church of 

I, 13 45 

God and ravaged it." This whole clause and the following one 
are epexegetic of ttjv i/xrjv avaaTpo<l)i]v, not, however, defining 
in full the content of that phrase, but setting forth that element 
of it which the apostle has in mind as bearing on his argument. 
That he stood thus in intense hostility to the church is evidence 
that he was not of those who through the influence of asso- 
ciation with Christians, and as a result of instruction (cf. ovtc 
iSLSdxOifjv, V. ^2) were led to receive the gospel. 

The word Oxep^oXfi and the specific phrase xa6' &xepPo>vf)v are classical, 
but are used in N. T. only by Paul. The phrase occurs in Rom. 7" 
1 Cor. 12" 2 Cor. 1*4", always in the sense "exceeding (ly)," "superior." 

The imperfects, ISfwxov and 6x6p0ouv, representing the actions 
denoted by them as in progress, bring out clearly the continuance of 
the persecuting activity. The latter verb, meaning in itself not simply 
"to injure," but "to destroy," "to ruin," has here, as commonly in 
the progressive tenses, a conative force. See L. & S. s. v. and BMT 23, 
and compare on xefOo) and v^peaxov in v. i". Btwxto, used from Homer 
down, meaning "to pursue," frequently carries the associated idea of 
hostile purpose, and so comes in classical writers to mean "to prose- 
cute" (6 Stcixwv is "the prosecutor," 6 (fedyoiv, "the defendant"), and in 
the Lxx (Jer. lyi^) and N. T. "to persecute" (Rom. 121* i Cor. 4" 
et freq.). xopOeo), used from Homer down as a military term, meaning 
"to destroy," "to ravage" (cities), and from ^schylus, of violence to 
persons, is not found in the Lxx (canonical books) or Apocr., but 
occurs in 4 Mac. 4" ii< of persons. In N. T. it is found in this epistle 
here and v. " and in Acts 9", always of Paul. 

On exx'XTjaia in N. T. see detached note, p. 417. Two facts are 
notable about the expression employed here, tj ixyCkriJiix toO 6eo0: 
(i) the use of the singular to denote not a local body but the Christian 
community at large. Cf. the different use of the word in vv. *• " i Cor. 
i» 2 Cor. ii; and for the evidence that the phrase has this oecumenical 
meaning here, see the detached note referred to above. (2) the char- 
acterisation of this community as the church of God. The first of 
these facts shows that Paul had not only formed the conception of 
churches as local assemblies and communities of Christians (vv. *• "), 
but had already united these local communities in his thought into 
one entity — the church. The second fact shows that this body already 
stood in his mind as the chosen people of God, and indicates how 
fully, in his thought, the Christian church had succeeded to the posi- 
tion once occupied by Israel. Paul's employment of this phrase in 
this particular place was probably due to his sense of the wrongful- 
ness of his persecution as directed against the church of God. Cf. i 
Cor. i5». Incidentally it may be noticed that inasmuch as the church 


which Paul persecuted was a Jewish church, not only in that it was 
composed of Jews, but probably mainly of those who still observed the 
Jewish law, his characterisation of it as the church of God shows how 
far he was from denying the legitimacy of Jewish Christianity in itself. 
Cj. also I Thes. 2'S and see Introd., pp. Ixii/. 

14. Koi TrpoeKOTTTOv iv Tw 'lovBala/xa vTrep 7roX\.ov<; cvvtjXl- 
Ki(i)Ta<; iv TO) yevec fiov, ''and I was advancing in the religion 
of the Jews beyond many who were of equal age with me 
in my nation." As in the preceding part of the sentence, 
so here the action is presented not as a mere fact but as con- 
tinuing. Cf. Lk. 2^2. The nature of this advance in Judaism 
is not defined. Cf. below on vTrdp^wv. Increasing knowledge 
of those things which constituted the learning of the Jewish 
schools, a more perfect realisation of the Jewish (in his case 
specifically the Pharisaic) ideal of conduct, higher standing 
and official position in the Pharisaic order, may ail have been 
included in the experience, and in his thought as here expressed; 
but, as Phil. 35. e would suggest, especially the achievement of 
righteousness according to the standards and ideals of Phar- 
isaism. His progress, he adds, not only carried him beyond 
his own former attainments, but by it he outstripped many of 
his contemporaries, making more rapid progress than they. 

On Iv T(p ylvet ^tou, cf. 2 Cor. 11" Phil. 3*. Though yivoq varies in 
inclusiveness from family to race in the largest sense, yet the etymo- 
logical sense {cf. Y{vo[, Yswdto, etc.) is so far retained that the word 
almost invariably refers to what is determined by origin, not by choice. 
In Jos. Ani. 13. 297 (io«) we find indeed the phrase zh SaBBouxafwv 
Y^voq. Yet this is not N. T. usage, and in view of the use of the term 
'IouSaca;j,6<;, indicating that to his Gentile readers Paul is describing his 
life from the general national point of view, without reference to distinc- 
tion of sects, and in the absence of any qualifying phrase giving to it a 
narrower sense than usual, it can not be understood to have specific 
reference to the sect of the Pharisees. 

irepi(jaoTep(D<i ^rjXcoTrji; vTrdp'^cov rcbv TrarpcKcov /jlov irapaho- 
crecop. ''being more exceedingly zealous than they of the tra- 
ditions of my fathers." irepiaaorepco^ is in form and force a 
comparative; the unexpressed member of the comparison is 
doubtless to be supplied from the ttoWois avpTjXcKLiora^. The 

i; 14 47 

participle vTrdp^cov is probably causal, though not emphatically 
so, "because I was more exceedingly zealous than they." See a 
similar use of vTrapx^ov in similar position in Acts 19^° i Cor. 11^ 
2 Cor. 8^^ Ell. and Sief. take it as a participle of closer defi- 
nition, defining that in which the action of irpoeKoiTTOv takes 
place. But this interpretation mistakes either the meaning or 
the tense-force of irpoeKOivTov, taking it in a sense impossible 
to it, "I was in advance of." The whole phrase accounts tor 
his extraordinary advancement as compared with his fellows. 
Though vTrdp^fov is grammatically subordinate to irpoeKoinov 
the fact expressed by it is, even more emphatically than that 
conveyed by the verb, an evidence of that which the apostle is 
here endeavouring to establish, viz., that he was not at the 
time referred to under such influences or in such frame of mind 
as to make reception of the gospel by him from human hands 
or by instruction possible. The limitation of ^7]\(0Tr)<; by tcop 
TrarpiKCdv irapaSoaecov makes it probable that it is not to be 
taken as a class name meaning a Zealot, a member of the 
Zealot party (see Th. s. v. and Diet. Bib.), but rather as an 
adjective meaning "zealous for," "zealously devoted to." 
Aside from the question whether the Zealots and Pharisees 
were so related to one another that one could be a member of 
both parties (Phil. 3^ shows that Paul was a Pharisee), there 
is no clear or even probable N. T. instance of ^r}\coTrj<s used as a 
class name, and at the same time limited by an objective geni- 
tive, and the passages cited by Ltft. do not at all prove that 
Paul belonged to this party. As an adjective the word does 
not define the exact relation to that which is expressed by the 
genitive, but is general enough to refer to zeal to acquire, to 
observe, to defend, according to the nature of the case. In the 
present instance it evidently includes the two latter ideas. 
Cf, Acts 2i2o 223; the sense is slightly different in Tit. 2^* 
I Pet. s'\ 

Tzag&hoaiq itself signifies an act of transmission or that which is trans- 
mitted (in N. T. always in the latter sense and with reference to in- 
struction or information), without indicating the method of transmis- 
sion, or implying any lapse of time such as is usually associated with 


the English word tradition. Thus Paul uses it of his own instructions, 
both oral and written, i Cor. ii* 2 Thes. 21^ (though possibly referring 
to elements of his teaching received from others), and Josephus of 
his own written narrative. Con. A p. 1. 50 (9), 53 (10). Here, however, 
the addition of xaTptxcov [lou distinctly describes the Tzap&loaiq as trans- 
mitted from previous generations, and the similarity of the phrase to xtz- 
g&^oaiq twv -Tcpea^uTipwv (Mt. 15^ Mk. y*- ", where it is contrasted with the 
laws of Moses), and to xa ex xapaB6aea)c; xoiv xaxipwv, Jos. Ant. 13. 297 
(io«),* where the things derived by tradition from the fathers and not 
written in the laws of Moses are contrasted \^dth those which are thus 
written, makes it clear that Paul refers to the well-known orally trans- 
mitted traditions which were observed by the Pharisees. There is no 
reason, however, especially in view of the fact that Paul is writing to 
Gentiles, to take xaxpcxwv [jlou otherwise than simply in the national 
sense (cf. Iv T(p yhsi (aou above), describing the traditions as derived from 
his national ancestors, not from his (Pharisaic) fathers in contrast with 
those of other Jews, or of the Sadducees. Cf. the passage cited 
above from Josephus, in which the traditions observed by the Pharisees 
are described not as coming from the Pharisees, but from the fathers, 
and criticised not on the ground of their Pharisaic origin, but as being 
observed by the Pharisees as authoritative. Cf. also Mk. y'- K 

(b) Evidence of his independent apostleship drawn from the 
circumstances of his conversion and his conduct immediately 
thereafter (i^^-^^). 

Passing from the evidence of his pre-Christian Hfe, the apostle 
now draws evidence from the conversion -experience and his 
conduct immediately thereafter. 

^^And when it pleased him who from my mother's womb had set 
me apart, and who called me through his grace, ^Ho reveal his Son 
in me, that I might preach him among the Gentiles, immediately I 
communicated not with flesh and blood, ^''nor did I go up to Jeru- 
salem to those that were apostles before me, but I went away 
into Arabia and again I returned to Damascus. 

* vvv Se Syj\u)crai jSovAojuai, ort vofjufj-d riva. TrapeSoa-av tco S^/uw oi ^apKraiot e/c naTep<av 
StaSoxJ)?, anep ov/c avayeypanTai. ev roi? Mwutrew? ro/xots, Kal Sid toOto ravra to 2a55ov- 
Katoiv -yeVos eK^aWei, \^yov eKelva. Selp riyeia9ai, vofJUfxa-Ta yeypaix/xiya, to. S' eK napaSo- 
cretos TMV Trarepiov fj.ri T-qpelv: "And now I wish to show that the Pharisees transmitted to the 
p3ople certain usages received from the fathers which are not recorded in the laws of Moses, 
and on this account the sect of the Sadducees rejects them, saying that it is necessary to re- 
gard as obligatory those things that are written, but not to observe the things handed down 
by tradition from the fathers." 

I, 15, 16 ' 49 

15. "Ore Be evhoKrjaev acj)opL(Ta<; fie e/c KoCkia^ fjLrjrpo^; fiov 
Kal Ka\eaa<^ Sia rfy? ;^aptT09 avrov (16) airoKoXv^lraL top vlov 
avrov ev ifioi "And when it pleased him who from my mother's 
womb had set me apart, and who called me through his grace, 
to reveal his Son in me." The affirmation of this sentence that 
after his conversion, as before, the apostle kept himself apart 
from the Twelve is not antithetical to that of the preceding, 
but continues his argument; Se should, therefore, be translated 
"and," rather than "but" (RV.). For the purposes of his 
argument the central element of the statement of vv.^^-n [^ 
in v."^: "immediately I communicated not with flesh and 
blood." For this statement, however, pertaining to his con- 
duct immediately after his conversion to faith in Jesus, he pre- 
pares the way in w.^^-"^ by referring to certain antecedents 
of his conversion. All these he ascribes to God; for that 
o a(f)Opiaa^ . . . Kal KaXeaa^ refers to God, and airo/caXv^jrai, to 
a divine act, is evident from the nature of the acts referred 
to. See esp. on the Pauline usage of KaXeco, v. ^, and detached 
note on ' AirofcaXvirra) and ^ KirofcaXv^^i^, p. 433. Of the three 
antecedents here named the first and second, expressed by 
a<^opiaa^ and Kokeaa^ are associated together grammatically, 
the participles being under one article and joined by tcai. But 
it is the second and third that are most closely associated in 
time, a(f)opLcra<; being dated from his birth, while the events de- 
noted by fcaXeaa^ and aTro/caXvyfraL, as the usage of the word 
KaXeo) shows, are elements or immediate antecedents of the 
conversion-experience . 

By the emphasis which in his references to these antecedents 
of his conversion he throws upon the divine activity and grace 
(note iv %ajOtTt) and by dating the first of these back to the 
very beginning of his hfe he incidentally strengthens his argu- 
ment for his own independent divine commission. He whom 
God himself from his birth set apart to be a preacher of the 
gospel to the Gentiles and whom by his grace he called into 
that service can not be dependent on men for his commission 
or subject to their control. 

The question whether the phrase cnroKaXvyjrai . . . ev ifioi 


refers to a subjective revelation in and for the apostle or to 
an objective manifestation of Christ in and through him to 
others (on which Ell., e. g., holds the former, and Ltft. the latter 
view) can not be answered simply by an appeal to the meaning 
or usage of the preposition eV. eV e'yLtoican of itself mean nothing 
else than "in me." But it may equally well represent in the 
mind of the writer the thought "within me," with no reference 
to any effect upon any one else (cf. Rom. i^^ Gal. 2^0), or "in 
my case" and thus (impliedly) "by means of me to others" (cf. 
V.24 I Cor. 4^ I Tim. i^^). Which of these two represents the 
apostle's thought must be decided by other evidence than the 
mere force of the preposition, (a) The meaning of the verb 
aTroKaXvTTTco. As pointed out in the detached note on this 
word, p. 433, with rare exceptions, if any, airoKoKyTrToo denotes 
a disclosure of something by the removal of that which hitherto 
concealed it, and, especially, a subjective revelation to an indi- 
vidual mind. Now it is evident that only the revelation of 
Christ to Paul, not the public manifestation or presentation of 
him to the world in and through Paul, could be thought of 
either in general as a disclosure of what was previously hidden 
(since Christ had already been preached in the world but had 
been hidden in his true character from Paul), or specifically as 
a subjective revelation. The choice of the word airoKaXvirrw^ 
therefore, is favourable to the former of the two views named 
above, (b) Such being the case as respects the meaning of 
aTTO/caXuTTTG), it is evident that the idea of a manifestation of 
Christ in and through Paul to others could hardly have been 
expressed simply by ev ifioL, but would require 5ta ifxov 
or some such addition as rw Koa-fjLO). (c) The connection 
with ha evaryyeXL^co/jiaL also favours the reference to an experi- 
ence in itself affecting Paul only. This revelation is defined 
by the passage as the third stage of the apostle's preparation 
for his public proclamation of Christ (not, as Ltft. makes it, an 
integral part of his entrance on that ministry; evayyeXi^cofiac 
avTOP defines his ministry, to which the divine airoKaXv-^ai^ 
equally with the a(f)opL(Tat and the KaXeaac^ were preparatory). 
For this preaching an inward revelation to Paul of the Son of 

I, 15, 16 51 

God, whom he was to preach, was a natural and necessary 
preparation; a manifestation of Christ in and through him to 
others is too nearly identical with the preaching itself to be 
spoken of as having that preaching for its purpose, (d) V.^^ 
clearly speaks of a revelation of Christ to Paul by which he 
received his gospel. The similarity of the terms used here and 
the close connection of the thought — Paul is here proving what 
he there affirmed — make it probable that the terms mean the 
same and the fact referred to is the same here as there, (e) 
Even aside from any similarity of terminology it is evident 
that the whole subject of discourse in this paragraph is not how 
Paul made known his gospel, but how he received it; the refer- 
ence of the central term of this sentence to the presentation of 
Christ to others involves an impossible digression from the 
theme of the whole passage. 

The apostle's use of the phrase ''Son of God" and v.^^ ^j-e 
either alone sufficient to make it clear that by tov vlov avrov 
he means Jesus, while the time of the event of which he speaks 
and the phrase ev i/jLoi make it certain that it is the risen Jesus 
of whom he speaks. Though grammatically the direct object 
of aTTOKaXv-^jraLj top vlov avrov is undoubtedly to be taken as 
expressing the conception of Jesus which he obtained in the 
revelation; it is thus in effect equivalent to 'lijaovv cb? (or 
ehai) TOP vlov avrov. On the question, which is very impor- 
tant for the understanding of the genesis of Paul's gospel, 
especially his Christology, what aspect of the divine sonship 
of Jesus he has chiefly in mind as having been revealed to him 
in the Damascus experience, and for the evidence that he refers 
especially to sonship as involving moral likeness to God and 
hence revelation of God, see detached note on The Titles and 
Predicates of Jesus, V, p. 408, and cf. esp. 2 Cor. 4^. 

TR. with SADKLP al. pier, d Boh. Arm. Eth. Or. Dial. Eus. 
Epiph. ps-Ath. Chr. Cyr. Euthal. Severian Thdrt. Dam. Ir'"*- Aug. al. 
insert 6 Oe6c; after euSoxiQasv. The text as above, without 6 Qeoq, 
is attested by BFG 1905 f g Vg. Syr. (psh. hard.) Eus. Epiph. Chr. 
Thdrt. Iri°t- Victorin. Ambrst. Hier. al. Transcriptional probability 
strongly favours the text without h 6e64 as the original, since there is 


an obvious motive for the (correct) interpretative gloss, but none for its 
omission. In view of the indecisive character of the external evidence 
the internal evidence must be regarded as decisive for the omission. 

The verb euSoxiw (the earliest extant instances of which are found 
in the Lxx, where it stands most often as the translation of the Hebrew 
verb nxn, "to accept," "approve," "delight in," "be pleased," and 
which is found in secular writers from Polybius down) has two general 
uses: (i) "to accept," "to be pleased with," "to take delight in," fol- 
lowed by an ace, dat., or dq with the ace, or sv with the dat.: Gen. 23^° 
Ps. 5i>« I Chron. 29^ Ps. 77^ Sir. 9" i Mac. 8» Mt. 31^ 12I8 2 Thes. 2»2; 
(2) "to see fit," "to consent," "to choose," followed by an infinitive, 
or with an infinitive understood. Ps. 40" (only Lxx instance) ; i Mac. 
623 1^41, 46, 47 L]5^. i2'2 Rom. is^* I Cor. i" 2 Cor. 58 Col. i" i Thes. 2' 3'. 
In this latter sense and construction the verb seems often to convey 
the subsidiary implication that the purpose referred to is kindly or 
gracious towards those affected by the action expressed by the infinitive; 
especially is this true when the verb is used of God. See Ps. 401* 2 Mac. 
14" Lk. 1232 Col. ii9; cf. the use of euBoxfa (which had clearly acquired 
as one of its senses "good-will," "favour") in Ps. 51I8 Sir. 32 (35)»<Ps. 
Sol. 8" Lk. 2i< Phil. 215, and see S. and H. on Rom. lo^: "In this sense it 
came to be used almost technically of the good-will of God to man." 
It is doubtless with such an implication of the gracious character of 
the divine act that Paul uses the verb in this place. The clause empha- 
sises at the same time the lact that he owed his "call" to God and that 
the call itself was an act of divine grace. 

'AcpopiXetv signifies not "to remove from a place," but "to mark off 
from something else," "to separate or set apart from others" (Mt. 13" 
25" Lk. 6« Acts 19' 2 Cor. 6'' Gal. 2'^ Lev. 13*- «• " etfreq. in Lxx and 
in classical writers) ; esp. to set apart for a particular service, this latter 
occurring in Aristot., Pol. 6. 8" (1322 b"); Lxx (Ex. 13^' Deut. 4", 
etc.); and N. T. (Acts 13^ Rom. lO- In view of this meaning of (i<popi'C,Biv, 
i-K xoiXfaq [Lfi-zg^q [xou must be taken, according to what is in any case 
its usual sense, as a phrase of time meaning "from birth." See Judg. 
161^ Ps. 22" 7i« Isa. 49' (Job 1=1 38' only otherwise); Lk. i" Jn. 9» 
Acts 32 148 (Mt. 19" only otherwise). Cf. also Jer. i^. 

On the Pauline usage of the word xaXito, see on v.' and on the mean- 
ing of x&piq, see detached note, p. 423. Zi& is manifestly instrumental, 
but not in the stricter and more usual sense of the term. It marks its 
object not as that which, standing, so to speak, between the doer of the 
action and its effect, is the instrument through which the action is 
accomplished (as, e. g., Rom. 15^^ Gal. 31' 51' etfreq.),\h\it rather as that 
which standing behind the action renders it possible; so, e. g., Acts i* 
Rom. 18 I Thes. 4^ Cf. note on 5t(i instrumental under v. 1. The 
phrase 8ta x^P^'^^o? auxoG may be rendered, "by virtue of his grace," 
"in the exercise of his grace." 

I, i6 53 

Xva evayyeXi^coiiiaL avrbv ev rok eOveaiv, "that I might 
preach him among the Gentiles." The verb €ua77. itself char- 
acterises the message as glad tidings, or perhaps rather as the 
glad message, the gospel {cf. on v.^), while amov (ace. of con- 
tent; cf. for this construction v.^^ i Cor. 151 2 Cor. ii^ Eph. 
2^7 and Delbriick, Vergleichende Syntax, § 179), referring to tov 
vlov avTOV defines its substance. A similar thought of the 
content of the gospel as summed up in Christ himself is ex- 
pressed in Rom. is''^ '' i Cor. i^^ 2 Cor. i^^ Phil, i^^ The use 
of the present tense evayyeXi^cofMai, following the aorists 
a(f)OpL(Ta<;, KaXeaa^, and airoKoXv^lrai indicates that the apostle 
has distinctly in mind that these definite events had for their 
purpose a continued preaching of the gospel. Cf. 1 Thes. 4^2 
Phil. 2^9 Eph. 4^8. Accurately but somewhat awkwardly ren- 
dered into English the clause would read, "that I might con- 
tinue to preach him, as glad tidings (or as the good news) 
among the Gentiles." 

In a few instances, chiefly in the phrases TzoXkh I'Ovtq and xivra to: IOvt) 
as they occur in O. T. quotations, the word eOviQ is used by Paul in the 
general sense meaning "nations." But otherwise and almost uni- 
formly it means "Gentiles" as distinguished from Jews. This is most 
clearly the sense in this letter, except perhaps in 38^; see 2^- »• »• "• "• »" 
38a. 14, Undoubtedly then Paul means here to define the divinely in- 
tended sphere of his preaching as among the Gentiles. Whether he 
recognised this fact at the time of the revelation which had this preach- 
ing as its purpose, or whether the perception of this definition of his 
work came later, this passage does not decide. According to Acts 26^^ 
it came in connection with his conversion. The preposition ev is impor- 
tant, indicating that the scope of his mission as conceived by him was 
not simply the Gentiles (for this he must have written euaYT£^'''^"E^«' 
a^^h^ Tolq eOvsatv) but among the Gentiles, and by implication included 
all who were in Gentile lands. Cf. on 2-- ^ 

evOeca^ ov TrpoaavedefjLrjv aapKL fcal ai/JLari, "immedi- 
ately I conferred not with flesh and blood." The negative 
ov limits TrpoaavedeixTjv, not evdeoy^, which in that case it must 
have preceded, as in Lk. 21^; and this being so, evOeco^ 
must be taken with the whole sentence as far as 'Apa^iav, not 
simply ov Trpoaai^eOefjiTjp, since by its meaning evOecos calls for 


an affirmation, not simply a statement of non-action. Zahn's 
contention that the time of the departure to Arabia is not 
fixed except as within the three years of v. ^^ is therefore with- 
out ground. Place for the events of Acts 919^-22 j^ust be found 
not at this point but after v.^^ Ltft. gives the sense correctly: 
''Forthwith instead of conferring with flesh and blood. . . I 
departed," etc. 

2apx{ xa\ aT^aTi, primarily denoting the parts of a living physical 
body (Heb. 2^*) is here used by metonymy, as a&p^ alone more fre- 
quently is, for a being having such a body, i. e., for a corporeally condi- 
tioned living being, in contrast with beings of a higher order, especially 
with God. Cf. Sir. 14I8 1731 Eph. 6'= and esp. Mt. 16". See detached 
note on nvsu^xa and Sap^, p. 492. xpocaveOltJLTjv (here and 2^ only in 
N. T.) signifies "to betake one's self to," "to hold conference with," "to 
communicate" whether for receiving or imparting. (See Chrysipp. ap. 
Suid. s. V. vs6tto(; [Bernhardy, 959]: ovap yap xtvci (p-t]a', (iea<j&ii.zyov . . . 
xpoaavaGej9at 6vecpox.p(TY}: "For he says that a certain man having had 
a dream conferred with the interpreter of dreams"; Luc. Jup. Trag. i; 
Diod. Sic. 17. 116^, xolq [xdvTefft xpojava6^[jLevo(; xepl tou OT)[jLefou, "con- 
ferring with the soothsayer concerning the sign." See extended note in 
Zahn ad loc. pp. 64/. In 2«, where the verb is limited by an ace. and 
dat., impartation is apparently what is in mind; here, primarily at least, 
receiving, as is indicated by the general subject of discourse, viz., the 
source of his gospel; yet note the double aspect of the act referred to 
in the passages quoted above, involving narrating the dream or the 
sign and receiving advice concerning it. 

17. ovhe avrjXOov ek 'Iepoa6\v/ia tt/oo? tov<; irpo e/xov 
aTToaroXov^, "nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those that 
were apostles before me." The reference is, of course, particu- 
larly to the Twelve, yet would include any, such as James, 
who had been recognised as apostles before Paul himself re- 
ceived the apostolic office. The preposition irpo is evidently 
used in its temporal sense. The reference to Jerusalem indi- 
cates that at this time Jerusalem was the headquarters of the 
Christian movement as conducted by the Twelve, and that 
they or the leaders among them still resided there. The use 
of the phrase tov<; Trpb ifiov airoa-roXov'; involves the recogni- 
tion of the apostleship of the Twelve, and implies that Paul 
regarded his apostleship and that of the Twelve as of essen- 

I, 17 55 

tially the same character. Cf. detached note on 'AttoVtoXo?, 
p 363 It possibly suggests that he regarded himself as already 
at the time referred to, an apostle, but does not necessarUy 
involve this. 

066I d^vfjXOov: SAKLP al. pier. It. Vg. Syr. (harcl-txt.) Arm. Aeth. Boh. 
Chr Euthal. Cyr. Thrdt. Dam. Victorin. Ambrst. Aug. Hier.; oOSs 
dcxrjXeov: BDFG 103, 181, 429, 462, Syr. (psh. harcl-mg.) Bas.Thphl 
The attestation of dcx- seems to be Western, that of iv- Alexandrian and 
Syrian. Either reading might arise by assimilation, dvi^Xeov under the 
influence of v.i«, dcxfjXOov under that of ^'^ but the former more easily 
because of the d, 'hgo.bXw^a. Because it was common usage to speak 
of going up to Jerusalem (as in v.-; cf. M. and M. Voc. s. v.) d^fjXOov 
would be more likely to be changed to dvfjXeov than the reverse, but 
for the same reason intrinsic probabiUty is on the side of ivT^XGov, and 
the latter is in this case perhaps of greater weight. The preponder- 
ance of evidence is but slightly in favour of dvTjX6ov. So Tdf. WH. 
Ltft. Sief. Sd. et al. Contra Zahn. 

hXkh airrikOov ek 'kpa^lav, ''but I went away into Arabia." 
K The purpose of this visit to Arabia, though not specifically 
stated, is clearly implied in ov TrpocTaved^M^ aapKi Kai aipxiTi 
above. By that phrase the apostle denies not only that he 
sought instruction from the Twelve in particular, but that he 
put himself in communication with men at all, excluding not 
only the receiving of instruction, but the imparting of it. The 
only natural, almost the only possible, impUcation is that he 
sought communion with God, a thought sufficienUy mdicated 
on the one side by the antithesis of ''flesh and blood" and on 
the other by the mention of the relatively desert land to which 
he went. The view of some of the early fathers (adopted 
substantially by Bous.) that he sought no instruction from 
men, but having received his message hastened to Arabia to 
preach the gospel to the "barbarous and savage people" of this 
foreign land (for fuUer statement of the early views see Ltft., 
p. 90) is not sustained by the language. He must in that case 
have written not irpoaaveeeM^, but some such expression as 
ovK i^rirrjae BiBaaKaXiav. Nor is it in accordance with psy- 
chological probabiUty. The revelation of Jesus as the Son of 
God must at once have undermined that structure of Pharisaic 



thought which he had hitherto accepted, and, no doubt, fur- 
nished also the premises of an entirely new system of thought. 
But the replacement of the ruined structure with a new one 
built on the new premises and as complete as the materials 
and his power of thought enabled him to make it, however 
urgent the necessity for it, could not have been the work of 
an hour or a day. The process would have been simpler had 
the acceptance of Jesus as the Christ been, as it was to some 
of his fellow Jews, the mere addition to Judaism of the belief 
that Jesus was the long-expected Messiah; it would have been 
simpler if the acceptance of Jesus had been to him what it 
doubtless was to many of his Gentile converts, the acceptance 
of a new religion with an almost total displacement of former 
religious views and practices. To Paul the revelation of Jesus 
as the Son of God meant neither of these, but a revolutionary 
revision of his former beliefs, which issued in a conception of re- 
ligion which differed from the primitive Christian faith as com- 
monly held by Jewish Christians perhaps even more than the 
latter differed from current Judaism. Only prolonged thought 
could enable him to see just how much of the old was to be 
abandoned, how much revised, how much retained unchanged. 
Many days would be needed to construct out of the material 
new and old even so much of a new system as would enable 
him to begin his work as a preacher of the new faith. A period 
of retirement in which he should in some measure accomplish 
this necessary task is both more consistent with his language 
and in itself more probable than an impetuous plunging into 
evangelism. Particularly improbable is the selection of Arabia 
(see belovv on the meaning of the word) as a place of preaching. 
Aside from the question whether there were Jews in Arabia, 
and whether Paul at this early period recognised with sufficient 
clearness his mission to the Gentiles to lead him to seek at once 
a Gentile field of effort, it is clear ahke from his letters and 
from the narrative of Acts that Paul had a strong preference 
for work in the centres of population and of civilised life. A 
withdrawal to a region like that of Arabia, sparsely inhabited 
and comparatively untouched by either Jewish or Roman civ- 

I, 17 57 

ilisation is almost certainly, unless Paul's disposition in this 
respect underwent a radical change, not a missionary enterprise 
but a withdrawal from contact with men. 

The term 'Apapc'a (Heb. any, originally simply "desert") is applied 
by Greek writers from Herodotus down to the whole or various por- 
tions of that vast peninsula that lies between the Red Sea on the 
southwest and the Persian Gulf and the Euphrates River on the 
northeast, and extends to the ocean on the southeast. See Hdt. 2" 
2107-113 439 [Encyc. Bib.). Its northwestern boundary was some- 
what vague, but the term generally included the Sinaitic peninsula, 
and excluded Palestine and Phoenicia. Within this great territory, 
inhabited doubtless by many nomad tribes, the kingdom of the Naba- 
teans established itself some time previous to 312 b. c. (see Encyc. Bib. 
art. "Nabateans"). In Jos. Ant. 14. 15 /. (i^), which refers to the 
time of Hyrcanus II and Antipater, father of Herod, Aretas, known 
from other sources to be king of the Nabateans, is spoken of as king of 
the Arabians (cf. also 2 Mac. 58); his country is said to border upon 
Judea and its capital to be Petra. 2 Cor. ii'^ has been interpreted as 
showing that at the time to which our present passage refers the Naba- 
tean dominion included Damascus. See Schiirer, Gesch. des jiid. Volkes,^ 
vol. I, pp. 726 Jf. In that case Paul would seem to say that he went 
from a city of Arabia into Arabia, which would be like saying that one 
went from London into England. But it is known that Pompey gave 
Damascus to Syria, and the coins of Damascus show that down to 
34 A. D. (between 34 and 62 a. d. evidence is lacking) it was under Rome; 
while a passage which Josephus {Ant. 14. 117 [7^]) quotes from Strabo 
refers to an ethnarch of the Jews in Alexandria, and thus indicates that 
the title ethnarch might be applied to one who acted as governor of the 
people of a given nationality residing in a foreign city. It is probable, 
therefore, that at the time of which Paul is speaking, though there 
was an ethnarch of the Nabateans in the city, Damascus was not under 
Nabatean rule, hence not in Arabia. This both removes all difficulty 
from this sentence, and makes it practically certain that by 'Agoc^ioc 
Paul means the Nabatean kingdom. See Clemen, Paulus, 1 83; Lake, 
Earlier Epistles of St. Paul, pp. 321 ff.* 

Into what portion of the kingdom Paul went the sentence does not, 
of course, indicate. That the Sinaitic peninsula was sometimes in- 
cluded in Arabia is shown in 4", which, if the clause is a genuine part 
of the epistle, shows also that Paul so included it. But this does not 

*Zahn, Neue kirchl. Zeilschr,, 1904, pp. 34-41, and following him, Bachmann, Der zweite 
Brief d. Paulus an die Korinther, p. 383, think that the ethnarch had jurisdiction over 
(nomad?) Nabateans in the vicinity of Damascus. But while this supposition comports well 
with e4>povpei, TJjv noKiv, it is less accordant with if Aa^aa-xo). 


prove that it was to this peninsula that Paul went. If it is necessary 
to suppose that he went to a city, Petra in the south and Bostra in the 
north are among the possibilities. There is nothing to necessitate the 
supposition that he went far from Damascus, nor anything to exclude 
a far-distant journey except that if he had gone far to the south a return 
to Damascus would pcrhapj have been improbable. 

KoX ttoXlv VTrearpeyjra et? Aafiacr/cov. "and again I returned 
to Damascus." An indirect assertion that the experience de- 
scribed above (cnroKaXv-^jraL top vlov avrov iv i/xoi) occurred at 
Damascus (cf. Acts 9^-22 and parallels); from which, however, it 
neither follows that the airoKoXv^i^ here spoken of must be- 
cause of Acts 93. 4 be interpreted as an external appearance of 
Jesus, nor that the narrative in Acts is to be interpreted as 
referring to an experience wholly subjective. The identity of 
place, Damascus, and the evident fact that both passages refer 
to the experience by which Paul was led to abandon his opposi- 
tion to Jesus and accept him as the Christ, require us to refer 
both statements to the same general occasion; but not (nor are 
we permitted), to govern the interpretation of one expression 
by the other. As shown above our present passage deals only 
with the subjective element of the experience. For the apos- 
tle's own interpretation of the character of the event viewed 
objectively, cf. 1 Cor. 9^ 151-8. 

(c) Evidence of his independent apostleship drawn from a 
visit to Jerusalem three years after his conversion (i^^-^o). 

The apostle now takes up the circumstances of his first visit 
to Jerusalem after his Damascus experience, finding in it evi- 
dence that he was conscious of a source of truth independent 
of men. 

^^Then after three years I went up to Jerusale^n to visit Cephas, 
and I remained with him fifteen days, ^^and no other of the apostles 
did I see except James the brother of the Lord. ^^Now as re- 
spects the things which I write to you, behold, before God, I am 
not lying. 

18. "ETTCira fiera rpia hrj avrfkOov d<^ 'lepoaoXvfia la-roprjcrai, 
K7}(l)dv, "Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to 
visit Cephas." The phrase "after three years" is argumenta- 

I, i8 59 

tive in purpose, not merely chronological. The mention of the 
period subsequent to his conversion during which he volun- 
tarily abstained from contact with the apostles at Jerusalem 
tends to show his entire independence of them. The three 
years are therefore doubtless to be reckoned not from his 
return to Damascus, but from the crisis of his life which pre- 
ceded his departure from Damascus. The exact length of the 
interval can not be determined from this phrase, which is prob- 
ably a round number {cf. Acts 20^1, and with it Acts 19^' 1°- 22). 
In reckoning the years of their kings the later Jews apparently 
counted the years from one New Year's Day, the ist of Abib 
(or Nisan) to another, and the fraction of a year on either side 
as a year. See Wieseler, Chronological Synopsis of the Four 
Gospels, pp. 53 f. But we do not know that Paul would have 
followed the same method in a statement such as this. It is 
not possible in any case to determine how large a part of the 
three years was spent in Arabia. 

Kt^ipav is the reading of S*AB 2>2n 424', 191 2, Syr. (psh. hcl-mg. pal.) 
Boh. Aeth. The Western and Syrian authorities generally read IldTpov, 
which is evidently the substitution of the more familiar for the less 
familiar name of the apostle. 

The verb laTopIo) (cognate with '['aTwp, TSptq, oIBa) is found in Greek 
writers from Herodotus down, meaning "to inquire"; in Aristotle and 
later writers in the sense "to narrate," "to report"; it has this sense 
also in i Esdr. 131(33), 40(42)^ the only passages in biblical Greek beside 
the present one in which the word occurs at all; it occurs in Plut. Thes. 
30<; Pomp. 40'; Polyb. 3. 48^2, with the meaning "to visit" (places), and 
in Jos. {Ant. 8. 46 [2^] Bell. 6. 81 [i*]); Clem. Rom. (8=^) meaning "to visit" 
(persons). See Hilg. and Ell. aJ /oc. The sense in the present passage 
is evidently that which is found also in Josephus. By the use of this 
word Paul characterises his journey as having had for its purpose 
personal acquaintance with Peter, rather than the receiving of in- 
struction. Cf. v. 12, and see below on xpb? ajTov. 

KoX iire/jLeiva 7r/3o? avrov rjfjiepa^ Se/cairevre- "And I remained 
with him fifteen days." The use of the phrase tt/oo? avrov^ 
with its personal pronoun in the singular, referring definitely 
to Peter, rather than Tr/aoV with a plural pronoun or an adverb 
of place, emphasises the purely personal character of the visit. 


On the preposition tt/^o? with the accusative after a verb not 
expressing motion, cf. Th. s.v. I 2 b, and for exx. in Paul see 
1 Thes. 3^ Gal. 2^ 4^^' "^, etc. The mention of the brief duration 
of the stay is intended, especially in contrast with the three 
years of absence from Jerusalem, to show how impossible it 
was to regard him as a disciple of the Twelve, learning all that 
he knew of the gospel from them. Cf. ovre iSiSd'x^Orjv^ v. ". 

19. erepov Se rcou airoaroXcov ovk elSop^ el firj 'laKco^ov rov 
aSe?^(f)bv Tov Kvpiov. "and no other of the apostles did I see 
except James the brother of the Lord." On the use of erepov, 
see detached note, p. 420. It is evidently used here in its 
closest approximation to aXKo<^, denoting merely numerical 
non-identity, not qualitative distinction, el fxtj means here, as 
always before a noun, ''except." The only question is whether 
el fiT] 'laKcofiov, etc., is an exception to the whole of the preced- 
ing statement erepov . . . ovk elBov, or only a part of it, ov/c 
elBov. Either is in accordance with usage (see Th. el, III 
8c^, and such cases as Lk. 426.27 Rq^i^ jjis^ g^.^, )^ j^^ ^j^jg 
passage, however, the view which would make the exception 
apply to a part only of the preceding assertion is excluded, 
since Paul certainly can not mean to say that he saw no one in 
Jerusalem except Peter and James, or even, according at least 
to Acts 927, no person of importance. The phrase must proba- 
bly be taken as stating an exception to the whole of the pre- 
ceding assertion, and as implying that James was an apostle. 
The assumption that the term ctTroaroXo^ is applied to James 
in a broad and loose sense only (so Sief., e. g.) is without good 
ground in usage and is especially unjustified in view of the fact 
that the term airoaroXayv under which James is by the exceptive 
phrase included, refers primarily to the Twelve. Cf. detached 
note on 'AttoVtoXo?, p. 363. 

James, here designated the brother of the Lord, is doubtless the same 
who is similarly spoken of in Mk. 6', and simply as James in Gal. 2»- '* 
I Cor. 15^ Acts 15" 2i>8; cf. also Jn. 7' i Cor. 9^. He is never men- 
tioned as one of the Twelve; it is rather to be supposed that he was 
brought to believe in Jesus by the vision recorded in i Cor. 15^ 
He early took a prominent place in the church at Jerusalem (Gal 2»- »« 
Acts is^'ff), and was known in later tradition as the first bishop of 

I, 19-20 61 

that church (Eus. Hist. Eccl. II i). The view of Jerome which iden- 
tifies James the brother of the Lord with James the son of Alphaeus 
(see defence of it by Meyrick in Smith, DB art. "James," and criti- 
cism by Mayor in HDB art. "Brethren of the Lord") rests on no 
good evidence. Nor is there any positive evidence for the theory 
that he was older than Jesus, being the son of Joseph and a wife pre- 
vious to Mary. See Ltft.'s defence of this (Epiphanian) view in Dis- 
sertation II, appended to his Galatians, and reprinted as Dissertation I, 
in his Dissertations on the Apostolic Age; and Farrar's argument for the 
(Helvidian) view that the brothers of the Lord were sons of Joseph 
and Mary, in Early Days of Christianity^ chap. XIX, and in Smith, DB 
art. "Brothers of the Lord"; also Mayor, op. cit., and Cone, art. 
"James" in Encyc. Bib. Mt. i^^ and Lk. i^ naturally imply that the 
early church knew of children of Mary younger than Jesus. It does 
not indeed follow that all the six children named in Mk. 6^ were borne 
by her. But neither is there any direct evidence that there were chil- 
dren of Joseph by a former marriage, Jn. ig^^. " might suggest it (c/. 
Ltft. u. s.) but its late date and the uncertainty whether the statement 
is in intent historical or symbolic diminish its value for historical pur- 
poses. On the other hand the implication of the infancy narrative of 
Mt. and Lk. that Joseph was not the father of Jesus and hence that 
his sons by a former marriage were not brothers of Jesus, can not be 
cited against the Epiphanian view; for not only does this presuppose a 
strictness in the use of the term brother which is unsustained by usage, 
but the evidence of this passage as to the time at which the title " brother 
of the Lord" was given to James, and the evidence of the Pauline let- 
ters in general {cf. on 4O as to the time when the theory of the virgin 
birth of Jesus became current, make it nearly certain that the former 
much preceded the latter. 

20. OL he <ypd(j)co vfilv, ISov ivwinov rod 6eov on ov ylrevBo/iat. 
"Now as respects the things which I write to you, behold, be- 
fore God, I am not lying." For similar affirmations of Paul 
that in the presence of God he is speaking truly, see i Thes. 2^ 
2 Cor. i^ ii^i. Its use here shows clearly that the facts just 
stated are given not simply for their historical value, but as 
evidence of what he has before asserted, his independence of 
the Twelve, a jpdcjxo doubtless refers to all that precedes, from 
V. ^3 (or 1^) on. Even so one can not but wonder why Paul 
should use such very strong language unless he had been 
charged with misstating the facts about his visits to the other 


(d) Evidence of his independent apostleship drawn from the 
period of his stay in Syria and Cilicia (i^^-^^). 

The apostle now turns to a period, which 2^ compared with 
i" shows to have been eleven or even fourteen years, during 
which he was out of Judea and not in touch with the other 
apostles, yet was carrying on his work as a preacher of the 

^^Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia, ^^and I was 
unknown by face to the churches of Judea that are in Christ; ^^only 
they heard {kept hearing), Our former persecutor is now preach- 
ing the faith which formerly he ravaged; and they glorified God in 

21. "ETreira rjXdov ek ra KKljiara r^? ^vpLa<; koX T7]<; Kt- 
7uKLa<i. "Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia." 
That this was a period of preaching, not, like that in Arabia, 
of retirement, is implied in v.-^, evayyeXt^eraL. On the ques- 
tion whether he had yet begun to work distinctively for the 
Gentiles in these regions, see below on v.^^. 

The repetition of the article before Kikixlaq is very unusual. The 
two regions being adjacent and both nouns limiting yCkiiiaxa, one would 
expect a single article, standing before the first one. See, e. g., Acts i» 
gi gii 1523. « 276; Jos. Ant. 8. 36 (23) 12. 154 (4O; Bell. 2. 95 (6^ 2. 247 
(i2«), which reflect the all but uniform usage of N. T. and Josephus, to 
which Ant. 13. 175 (4O and 12. 233 (41') are not really exceptions. Note 
especially Acts 15", xaxd t'^v 'Avxtdxeiav -mX Supfav xal KiXtxfav. In 
Acts 15^1, where 2up(av and KtXtxfav occur in the same order, the article 
is inserted before Kt>vtxfav by BD cat^^" Thphyl^ only. This strong 
preponderance of usage makes the second article in the present passage 
a very difficult reading, but even more strongly points to the secondary 
character of the reading without it, sustained by '^*t,z, 241, 1908. 
That some mss. should have omitted it in conformity with common 
usage is not strange; that all the rest should have inserted it, departing 
thereby both from usage and the original text, is almost impossible. 

22. ri^V'^ ^e a<yvooviievo<i ra> TrpoaoiTrq) Tal<; eicK\r}(TiaL<; tyj^ 
Toi/Sata? Tal'i ev XpLo-TM, "and I was unknown by face to 
the churches of Judea that are in Christ." The periphrastic 
form of the imperfect tends to emphasise the continuance of 

I, 20-22 6:^ 

the state, "I remained unknown." The motive of these state- 
ments of the apostle respecting his departure into Syria and 
Cilicia and the non-acquaintance of the Judean churches with 
him is doubtless to show that his work during this period was 
not in that region in which it would have been if he had placed 
himself under the direction of the Twelve, but that, on the con- 
trary, he began at once an independent mission. This, rather 
than, e. g., the intention to show that he was not under the 
influence or instruction of these churches, is what is required 
by the nature of the argument, which has to do not with his 
contact with Christians in general, but with his subjection to 
the influence of the leaders of primitive Christianity. On the 
expression Tal<; eKic\r]aiaL<; . . . iv X/3icrTft), cf. i Thes. i^ 2^^ 
2 Thes. i^ Phil i^ On the force of the preposition as meaning 
"in fellowship with," see Th. s. v. I 6 b, and cf. 5^ The ex- 
pression characterises the churches referred to as Christian as 
distinguished from Jewish, but reflects also the apostle's con- 
ception of the intimacy of the fellowship between these com- 
munities and the risen Jesus. 

In itself the phrase "churches of Judea" of course includes that of 
Jerusalem. Nor is that church excluded by the fact of Paul's persecu- 
tion of it, since this would not necessarily involve his meeting face to 
face those whom he persecuted, and, moreover, some years elapsed 
between the events referred to in v." and those here recorded; nor by 
the visit of Paul to Jerusalem, as recorded in vv. i'> i», since the state- 
ment that he was unknown can hardly be taken so literally as to mean 
that no member of the church had ever seen him. In favour of the more 
inclusive use of the term is also i Thes. 2^*, where a similar phrase is 
employed without the exclusion of Jerusalem. Nor can Acts g"-" be 
regarded as a serious argument against the more inclusive sense of the 
term. For, though v." manifestly implies such an acquaintance of 
Paul with the Christians of Jerusalem as to contradict his state- 
ment here if it includes Jerusalem, and though v." itself might be 
accepted as not directly contradicted by vv. ^s- »' of the present pas- 
sage, yet the conflict between the first-hand testimony of the latter 
and vv. "• '» of the Acts passage is such as to call in question the accu- 
racy in details of the whole section in Acts. Acts 26" is even more at 
variance with Paul's statement here, unless it refers to a period subse- 
quent to the period covered by Gal. i^*-". Nor can Jn. 3" be cited as 
evidence that 'louSafa can mean Judea exclusive of Jerusalem, the 


language there being ■f)'IouBa(a y^> not -f) 'louSafa alone; nor Mt. ^i', 
'Iepoa6Xu[xa v.a\ icaaa -^ 'lojSat'a (c/. Paris and all France); nor Jos. Ant. 
ID. 184 ig''): 'ip-q[ioq xaca -f) 'IouSa(a xal 'lEpoa6Xu[J.a %a\ h vaiq Stipietvev, 
since as the temple is in Jerusalem, so may Jerusalem be in Judea. On 
the other hand it can not justly be urged, as is done by Bous., that a 
statement pertaining to the churches of Judea exclusive of Jerusalem 
would be without force, since, as pointed out above, the reference is in 
any case probably not to these churches as a source of instruction, but 
as those among whom he would probably have been working if he had 
put himself under the guidance of the Twelve. While, therefore, in 
speaking of "the churches of Judea" Paul may have had chiefly in 
mind those outside of Jerusalem, the word Judea can not apparently 
designate the territory outside Jerusalem as distinguished from the 
city. Of the location of the churches of Judea outside of Jerusalem 
we have no exact knowledge. On the extent of the territory covered 
by the term, see detached note on 'louBate, pp. 435/. 

23. fJLovov Sk aKovovr€<; rjaav otl 'O Clco/ccoi' r)fjLa<; irore vvv 
evayyeXi^erai rrjv ttlo-tiv rjV irore eiropOei, "only they heard 
(kept hearing), Our former persecutor is now preaching the faith 
which formerly he ravaged." ^wvov doubtless limits the whole 
statement, indicating that it constitutes the only exception to 
the ignorance of him referred to in the preceding clause. The 
logical subject of the sentence is the members of the churches 
mentioned in v. 22 ; note the gender of the participle aKovovT€<;. 
OTL is recitative, the following words being shown by the pro- 
noun r)fjid<; to be a direct quotation. The present participle 
Blcokcov describes the persecution as a thing in progress, assign- 
ing it to the past, in contrast with the present vvv. The aorist 
would have presented it simply as a (past) fact. Cf. GMT 140, 
BMT 127. ?7/-ta9 refers, of course, not directly to those to 
whom he was unknown by face, but to Christians in general. 
On evayyeXi^erai see v. ^ irCariv is not the body of Christian 
doctrine, in which sense the word is never used by Paul, but 
the faith in Christ which the preachers of the gospel bade men 
exercise. Concerning its nature see more fully under 2^°. On 
^1/ TTore eTTopdec cf. v. ". What is there described as a ravaging 
of the church is here called a ravaging of the faith, which is the 
principle of the church's life; the aim of Paul's persecution was 
the extermination of the church and its faith in Jesus as the 
Christ. The tense is here, as there, conative. 

I, 24 65 

24. fcai iSo^a^ov iv i/nol rov 6e6v. "and they glorified God 
in me," i. e., found in me occasion and reason for praising God. 
On this use of iv of that which constitutes the ground or basis 
of an action (derived from the use of the preposition to denote 
the sphere within which the action takes place) see Th. I 6 c, 
though the classification at this point is far from satisfactory; 
W. XLVIII a (3) c; Ell. ad loc, though here also the matter is 
stated with unnecessary obscurity; and such passages as Mt. 6' 
Acts 729 Rom. 2i^' 23 59 Gal. 3^^' ^*. The satisfaction which the 
churches of Judea found in Paul's missionary activity in this 
period is in sharp contrast with the opposition to him which 
later developed in Jerusalem. See 2^-^^ Of the several ex- 
planations that might be given of the more friendly attitude of 
the early period, (a) that Paul had not yet begun to preach 
the gospel of freedom from the law, or (b) that though he 
was doing so the Christians of Judea were not aware of this 
aspect of his work, or (c) that the strenuous opposition to the 
offering of the gospel to the Gentiles apart from the law had 
not yet developed in the churches of Judea, the first is prob- 
ably true in the sense and to the extent that Paul had not yet 
had occasion to assume a polemic attitude in the matter; but 
in any other sense seems excluded by his repeated impHcation 
that the gospel which he now preached he had preached from 
the beginning (see i^^ 2^ and comment). But in that case there 
is httle room for the second. The third is, moreover, the one 
most consistent with the testimony of this letter; see especially 
2*, with its distinct implication that the opponents of Paul's 
liberaHsm were a recent and pernicious addition to the Jerusa- 
lem church. And this in turn suggests that the apostle's reason 
for adding the statement Kal iSo^a^ov . . . i/iOL was inciden- 
tally to give strength to his contention for the legitimacy of 
his mission by intimating, what 2^ says more clearly, that the 
opposition to him was a recent matter, and did not represent the 
original attitude of the Judean Christians. On the other hand, 
it must not be forgotten that his main contention throughout 
this chapter and the next is not that he had been approved by 
the Judean Christians, but that he had from the first acted 


independently. The whole sentence /jlovov . . . iv i/Mo{ is a 
momentary digression from that point of view. 

(e) Evidence of his independent apostleship drawn from his 
conduct on a visit to Jerusalem fourteen years after the pre- 
ceding one (2^-1°). 

Following, as before, a chronological order, the apostle now 
narrates the circumstances of a very important occasion on 
which he came in contact with those who were apostles before 
him. At the outset he calls attention to the length of his 
absence from Jerusalem, fourteen years, during which, so it is 
implied, he had had no contact with the Jerusalem apostles; 
then to the fact that when he went up it was not at their com- 
mand, but in obedience to divine revelation; then, indicating 
that the question at issue was then, as now in Galatia, the 
circumcision of the Gentiles who had accepted his gospel, 
he tells how he laid his gospel before the Jerusalem Christians, 
and in a private session before the pillars of the church, James 
and Cephas and John, since he recognised that their disapproval 
of his preaching might render of no avail his future work and 
undo what he had already done. Though, out of consideration 
for the opponents of his gospel of freedom from law, who had 
crept into the Jerusalem church for the purpose of robbing the 
Christians of their freedom and bringing them into bondage to 
the law, the apostles urged him to circumcise Titus, a Greek 
Christian who was with him, he refused to do so; and so far 
from his yielding to the authority or persuasion of these em- 
inent men, whose eminent past did not weigh with him, as it 
did not with God, they imparted nothing new to him, but when 
they perceived that God, who had commissioned Peter to 
present the gospel to the Jews, had given to Paul also a com- 
mission to the Gentiles, these leaders of the church cordially 
agreed to a division of the territory and of responsibility. Paul 
and Barnabas were to preach among the Gentiles, Peter among 
the Jews, and the only additional stipulation was that Paul 
and Barnabas should remember the poor among the Jewish 
Christians, which thing, Paul affirms, he gladly did. 

II, I 67 

Then after fourteen years I again went up to Jerusalem, ivith 
Barnabas, taking Titus also along. ^And I went up in accordance 
with [a\ revelation. And I laid before them the gospel which I 
preach among the Gentiles, — but privately before the men of em- 
inence — lest perchance I should run or had run in vain. ^But 
not even Titus, who was with me and was a Greek, was compelled 
to be circumcised {^ow it was because of the false brethren surrep- 
titiously brought in, who sneaked in to spy out our freedom which 
we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage 
[that his circumcision was urged]. Ho whom not for an hour did we 
yield by way of the subjection [demanded] ), that the truth of the gos- 
pel might continue with you. ^ And from those who were accounted 
to be something — what they once were matters not to me — God accepts 
not the person of man — for to me the men of eminence taught noth- 
ing new — ''but on the contrary when they saw that I had been 
entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised as Peter with the 
gospel to the circumcised — ^for he who wrought for Peter unto an 
apostleship to the circumcised wrought also for me unto an apos- 
tleship to the Gentiles — ^and when, I say, they perceived the grace 
that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were 
accounted pillars, gave to me and to Barnabas right hands of fel- 
lowship, that we should go among the Gentiles and they among the 
circumcised, ^^provided only that we should remember the poor^ 
which very thing I have also taken pains to do. 

1, "ETretra hia BeKarea-adpcov ircov irdXiv ave0r)v ek 'lepoao- 
XvfMi "Then after fourteen years I again went up to Jerusalem." 
Since for the purposes of his argument that he had not been 
dependent on the other apostles {cf. i^^- ^^) it is his contacts 
with them that it is pertinent to mention, the fact that he 
speaks of these as visits to Jerusalem (cf. i^^) indicates that 
throughout the period of which he is speaking Jerusalem was 
the headquarters of the apostles. And this being the case the 
denial, by implication, that he had been in Jerusalem is the 
strongest possible way of denying communication with the 
Twelve. It follows also that, had there been other visits to 
Jerusalem in this period, he must have mentioned them, unless 


indeed they had been made under conditions which excluded 
communication with the Twelve, and this fact had been well 
known to his readers. Even in that case he would naturally 
have spoken of them and appealed to the well-known absence 
of the apostles or have spoken, not of going to Jerusalem, but of 
seeing those who were apostles before him. 

"ExetTa, primarily a particle of chronological succession, clearly has 
this force here, as is suggested by Btdk . . . ixdv. The 'ixsncc . . . 
giceiTa . . . CTceiTa of i^*- ^i and the present v. mark the successive 
steps of a chronological series, and at the same time of the apostle's 
argument, because he is arranging it on a chronological framework; 
they thus acquire as in some other cases (see i Thes. 4^^ i Cor. 15") a 
secondary logical force. That ^i& may mean "after the lapse of" is 
clearly shown by Hdt. 3"; Soph. Ph. 758; Xen. Cyr. i. 4^«, and other 
passages cited by L. & S. s. v. A. II 2, and by W. XLVII i. (b) 
(WM. p. 475), and that this use was current in Jewish Greek appears 
from Deut. 9" Mk. 2^ Acts 241^ That this rather than "throughout," 
the only alternative meaning in chronological expressions, is the mean- 
ing here is evident from the unsuitableness of "throughout" to the 
verb dvl^Tjv. On the question whether the period is to be reckoned 
from the same starting point as the three years previously named 
(118) or from the end of that period, there is room for difference of 
opinion. Wies. Ell. Alf. hold the former view; Ltft. Mey. Beet, 
Sief. Lip. Zahn, Bous. the latter. For the exposition of the apostle's 
thought at this point the question is of little consequence. His pur- 
pose is evidently to emphasise the limited amount of his communication 
with the Twelve as tending to show that he did not receive his gospel 
from them, and for this purpose it matters little whether the period 
during which he had no communication with the Twelve was fourteen 
years or eleven. For the chronology of the life of Paul, however, the 
question is of more significance. While it is impossible to determine 
with certainty which view is correct, the balance of probability seems 
to favour reckoning the fourteen years as subsequent to the three years. 
The nature of his argument requires him to mtmtion not how long 
after his conversion he made this visit, but during how long a period 
he remained without personal communication with the other apostles, 
which period would be reckoned, of course, from his latest preceding 
visit. This argmnent is somewhat strengthened by the use of the 
preposition Stdc, which, meaning properly "through," and coming to 
signify "after" only through the thought of a period passed through, 
also suggests that the period of fourteen years constitutes a unit in the 
apostle's mind — an unbroken period of non-commvmication with the 

II, 1-2 69 

The substitution of Teuaipwv for Bexaxeaadtpov (advocated by Grot. 
Semi, et al., named by Sief. and Zahn ad loc), resting as it does on no 
external evidence, calls for no refutation. The supposed difficulties 
of the chronology of the apostle's life based on Sexaxeaadpwv are insuffi- 
cient to justify this purely conjectural emendation of the text. 

For the doubt whether xdiXiv belonged to the origmal text expressed 
by Zahn and Bous. there seems slight justification. It is lacking in 
no ancient ms., though standing in DFG d g Goth. Aeth. after dcvi^Tjv, 
and in but one ancient version, the Boh. The quotation of the sen- 
tence without it by Melon. Iren. Ambrst. Chrys. seems insufficient 
evidence that the original text lacked it. 

fji€Ta Bapvd^a, "with Barnabas," i. e., accompanied by him, 
as in Mt. 1627 i Thes. 312 2 Thes. i^ rather than accompanying 
him, as in Mt. 25^° 26*^ Acts 7*^; for the remainder of the narra- 
tive, especially the constant use of the first person singular, 
implies that Paul and not Barnabas was the chief speaker and 
leader of the party. 

avvTrapaXa/Scbv koI Tltov "taking Titus also along." Titus 
is thus assigned to a distinctly subordinate position as one 
" taken along," and the members of the party evidently ranked 
in the order, Paul, Barnabas, Titus. The apostle says nothing 
at this point concerning the reason for taking Titus with him. 
But the specific mention of the fact and the part that Titus 
played in the subsequent events (vv.^-s) suggest that Paul 
intended to make his a test-case for the whole question of the 
circumcision of the Gentile Christians. 

Concerning the tense of the participle auvxapa>.a^(I)v, see BMT 149, 
and cf. Acts i2«. The act denoted by the participle, though coinciding 
in time with the action of the principal verb, is expressed by an aorist 
rather than a present participle, because it is conceived of as a simple 
fact, not as an action in progress, least of all as one within the time of 
which the action of the principal verb falls. 

2. ave^rjv Be Kara aTrotcaXw^LV' "and I went up in ac- 
cordance with [a] revelation," i. e., in obedience to such [a] 
revelation. The word ci7roKciXir\jri,<i evidently has the same 
meaning here as in i^^ (gee the discussion there and detached 
note on ^ ATroKaXinrrco and 'ATTO/caXuj/^t?, p. 433), but refers in 


this case to a disclosure of the divine will respecting a specific 
matter, not, as there, to a revelation of the person Jesus in his 
true character. Concerning the specific method in which the 
divine will that he should go to Jerusalem was disclosed to 
him, and whether directly to him or through some other per- 
son, the apostle says nothing. Nor can it be determined 
whether the word is here used indefinitely, referring to a 
(specific) revelation, or with merely qualitative force, describ- 
ing revelation as the method by which he obtained his convic- 
tion that he ought to go to Jerusalem. On the former point, 
however, cf. 2 Cor. 121^- Acts 13^ !&• » 21^^ 2']'^^-. 

For a similar use of the preposition xaT(i cj. Acts 23'! Rom. 16" 2 Thes. 
3«. "In accordance with," being the more usual and exact meaning of 
xaxd, is to be preferred to the nearly equivalent sense, "because of." 
In Rom. 16" and Eph. 3', though the phrase is the same, the sense is 

KaX aveOejxrjv auTot? to evayyeXiov KTjpvaaco iv toI<; 
eOveaLv, "And I laid before them the gospel which I preach 
among the Gentiles." The pronoun aurot?, having no def- 
initely expressed antecedent, is to be taken as referring in 
general to those whom he visited in Jerusalem, i. e., the Chris- 
tian community. Concerning the word evayyeXcov, see de- 
tached note, p. 422; the use of the term here is doubtless the 
same as in i^ The questions at issue between Paul and those 
of a different opinion in Jerusalem were not historical, nor prac- 
tical in the sense that they pertained to the methods of gospel 
work, but doctrinal, having to do with the significance of the 
work of Christ, the conditions of salvation, the obligations of 
believers. The use of the present tense, K7)pv<Taco, reflects the 
apostle's thought that he is still at the time of writing preach- 
ing the same gospel which he had been preaching before he 
made this visit to Jerusalem. Cf. the similar implication, 
though with a reverse use of tenses, in i". The use of a past 
tense, eKrjpv^ev, would almost have suggested that what he 
then preached he was now no longer preaching. "Among the 
Gentiles," the apostle says, suggesting that he not only preached 

II, 2 71 

to the Gentiles but to the Jews also, so far as they were in 
Gentile lands. Note the same phrase in i^^ and ek ra eOprj 
in 2 8, all of which indicate that Paul conceived his apostleship 
to be not simply to the Gentile people but to the people of Gen- 
tile lands. 

*Ay(xxlQri[ii, found from Homer down, is apparently used only in later 
writers in the sense "to present" (matter for consideration). See 2 
Mac. 3^; Acts 25'*, only N. T. instance, and c/. M. & M. Voc. s. v. 

KUT Ihlav 3e Toh BoKovacv, "but privately before the men of 
eminence." Those who are here designated as ol Bokovvt€<; 
are evidently the same who in v. ^ are called ol SoKovvre^ and 
ol SoKOVpre^ elvai tl, and in v. ^ ol BoKovvre^ (ttvXol ehai, 
and in v. ^ are also identified as James and Cephas and John. 
See note in fine print below. By these phrases the three men 
named are described as the influential men, the leaders, of the 
Christian community in Jerusalem. There is nothing in the 
present passage or in the usage of the words to indicate that 
they are used wdth irony. 

On the question whether this phrase refers to the same inter- 
"/iew spoken of in aveOefiTjv . . . edveaiv, so that rot? BoKOvaiv 
is merely a more definite designation of avrol^, or to a different 
one, so that there was both a public and a private meeting at 
which Paul set forth his gospel, probabihty is in favour of the 
latter; for although an epexegetic limitation may certainly be 
conjoined to what precedes by Be, yet it is Paul's usual habit 
in such cases to repeat the word which the added phrase is to 
limit (c/. avep7)v in this v.; Rom. 3^2 930 i Cor. i^^ 2^ Phil. 2^ — 
in I Cor. 3^^ it is otherwise). In this case, moreover, it is difli- 
cult to suppose that Paul should have used the very general 
auTOfc? if, indeed, he meant only three men, or to see why if he 
referred to but one interview he should not have written simply 
Kol aveOefiTjv rot? BoKOvaiv to evayyeXiov, etc. Among mod- 
ern interpreters Wies. Ell. Ltft. Mey. Weizs. Hoist. Sief. 
Lip. Zahn, Bous. et at., understand the language to imply two 
interviews; Zeller, Neander, Alf. Beet. Vernon Bartlet (in 
Expositor, Oct., 1899), Emmet, et at., but one. 


On the use of xax' IZhv, which can not mean "especially" (as Bous. 
et al.) but only "privately," cf. Mt. 17" Mk. 4" g^s etc.; Ign. Smyrn. 
7': xpixov ouv kaxiw . . . ix-^ts xkt' fB(av xepl aOxcov XaXeTv ^x-^xe xotv^. 

The phrase ol SoxoOvxeq, vv.^' 6^ is an example of a usage rare in 
ancient Greek literature. The participle alone, as here, is found in 
Eur. Hec. 295 and Troiad. 613, both times in the sense "men of stand- 
ing and consequence, men of esteem." There is no hint of any derog- 
atory flavour in the phrase. In Herodian 6. i', sometimes cited under 
this head, xoCii; ooxouvxaq has a predicate in xal as[ji.vox4xou<; xal . . . 
cwcppovsaxiixouc; following. The meaning is " those esteemed both most 
dignified and most sober." With this cf. ol Soxouvxeq axuXot, v. '. The 
expression o't SoxoOvxeq elvat xt which Paul uses in w.^'>- (and from which, 
as Zahn holds, the shorter form is derived by ellipsis) is found in the 
same form and meaning in Plato, Gorg. 472 A, where it is synonymous 
with e05oxf;jLouq a few lines above; cf. also Etithyd. 303 C, where the 
phrase is the same, except that the elvat xi is inverted. The same 
phrase, however, is used also in the sense "those who think themselves 
something"; so Plut. Apophth. lacon. 49, and probably Plato, Apol. 
35 A. The meanings of the word Soxelv itself as used in these or similar 
phrases are as follows: i. "To be accounted, esteemed" (a) in the 
indifferent sense of the word. See w.^"^- »; cf. Plato, Apol. 35 A; Plut. 
Aristid. i'; Epictet. Enchir. 13: x5v Bd^^jq xtatv e!va{ xic;, dxfaxst 
oeauxfp. 2 Mac. 9" (?) Mk. io« i Cor. 12^2 (?) (b) in the definitely hon- 
ourable sense, "to be highly esteemed," as in vv."- «b. 2. "To account 
one's self," as in Gal. 6^ i Cor. 3I8 8^ 10" Jas. i^e Prov. 261*. For an espe- 
cially close parallel to Gal. 6' see Plato, Apol. 41 E. Thus in all of the 
four instances in the present passage the word has substantially the 
same meaning, differing only in that in vv.**- ' the word is colourless, 
the standing of those referred to being expressed in the predicate, while 
in vv. 2- •I', the predicate is omitted and the verb itself carries the idea of 
high standing. 

fir) 7rco<; ek Kevov Tpi'xw t) eSpa/jLOv. "lest perchance I should 
run or had run in vain." fMi] ttg)? expresses apprehension 
(see more fully below). The whole phrase impHes that the 
apostle saw in the existing situation a danger that his work on 
behalf of the Gentiles, both past and future, might be rendered 
ineffectual by the opposition of the Jerusalem church, or of 
certain men in it, and the disapproval of the apostles, and that 
fearing this, he sought to avert it. The ground of his appre- 
hension is, of course, not a doubt concerning the truth of the 
gospel which he preached — it would be an impossible incon- 

n, 2 73 

gruity on his part to attribute to himself such a doubt in the 
very midst of his strenuous insistence upon the truth and divine 
source of that gospel — but rather, no doubt, the conviction 
that the disapproval of his work by the leading apostles in 
Jerusalem would seriously interfere with that work and to a 
serious degree render it ineffectual. The apostle's conduct 
throughout his career, notably in the matter of the collection 
for the poor of Jerusalem, and his own last visit to Jerusalem 
(see I Cor. 16^-" 2 Cor. chs. 8, 9, esp. 9^2-15 Rom. 1525-32^ esp. yJ^), 
show clearly that it was to him a matter of the utmost impor- 
tance, not only to prevent the forcing of the Jewish law upon 
the Gentiles, but at the same time to maintain the unity of the 
Christian movement, avoiding any division into a Jewish and 
a Gentile branch. To this end he was wiUing to divert energy 
and time from his work of preaching to the Gentiles in order to 
raise money for the Jewish Christians, and to delay his journey 
to the west in order personally to carry this money to Jeru- 
salem. His unshaken confidence in the divine origin and the 
truth of his own gospel did not prevent his seeing that the 
rupture which would result from a refusal of the pillar apostles, 
the leaders of the Jewish part of the church, to recognise the 
legitimacy of his mission and gospel and so of Gentile Christian- 
ity on a non-legal basis, would be disastrous alike to the Jew- 
ish and the Gentile parties which would thus be created. 

Efq xev6v found also in Lxx (Lev. 26" Job 391* Mic. i" Isa. 29*, etc.); 
Jos. Ant. 19. 27 (i*), 96 (113); Bell. 1. 275 (14O; in late Greek writers 
(Diod. Sic. 19. 96) and in the N. T. by Paul (i Thes. 3= 2 Cor. 6' Phil. 
2i«) is with him always, as usually in the Lxx, a phrase of result meaning 
"uselessly," "without effect." Running, as a figure of speech for ef- 
fort directed to an end, is not uncommon with Paul (i Cor. 9"- " 
Gal. 57 Phil. 215; see also Phil. 31* 2 Tim. 4'). 

The clause ^i^ . . . eSpaixov has been explained: (i) As an indirect 
question, "whether perhaps I was running or had run in vain." xpix^^ 
is in this case a present indicative, retained from the direct form. So 
Usteri, assuming an ellipsis of "in order that I might learn from them," 
Wies., who assumes an ellipsis of "in order that they might perceive," 
and Sief., who supplies "to put to test the question," and emphasises 
the fact that since [li] expects a negative answer the apostle implies 
no doubt respecting the result of his work, but only the abstract 


possibility of its fruitlessness. (2) As a final clause, "that I might not 
run or have run in vain" (so Frit. Beet). (3) As an object clause 
after a verb of fearing implied, "fearing lest I should run or had run 
in vain." ipixto is in that case most probably a pres. subj., referring 
to a continued (fruitless) effort in the future. A pres. ind. would be 
possible (GMT 369.1) referring to a then existing situation, but is a 
much less probable complement and antithesis to ISpaixov than a pres. 
subj. referring to the future. Cf. i Thes. 3*. So Ltft. Ell. (?), Lip. 
(though apparently confusing it with the preceding interpretation) . To 
the first of these it is to be objected that it involves a doubtful use of 
[ATQ Tzaq. Goodwin {GMT 369 fn. i) distinguishing clearly, as Sief. fol- 
lowing Kuhner (II 1037, 1042, but cf. Kiihner-Gerth, II 391 fn., which 
corrects Kiihner's error) fails to do, between the indirect question and 
the clause of fear, maintains (L. & S. sub. [xtq xwq, however, contra) that 
[Li} is never used in classical writers in an indirect question. Sief., in- 
deed, alleges that this indirect interrogative use is common in later 
Greek, but cites no evidence. \ir} xox; is certainly not so used in Paul, 
with whom it is always a final particle, occurring in a pure final clause, 
or in a clause of fear, or in an object clause after verbs of precaution 
(i Cor. 89 9" 2 Cor. 2' 9* n^ la^" Gal. 4" i Thes. 3«; it is not used by 
other N. T. writers) and there is no certain instance of yui] so used 
in N. T.; Lk. ii'^, which is generally so taken, is at best a doubtful 
case. To the second interpretation it is a decisive objection that a 
past tense of the indicative is used in final clauses only after a hy- 
pothetical statement contrary to fact and to express an unattained pur- 
pose. Neither of these conditions is fulfilled here. The verb dvsGltxTjv 
expresses a fact, not what would have been under certain circum- 
stances, and the apostle certainly does not mean to characterise the 
purpose that he might not run in vain as unattained. The attempt 
of Frit., approved by W. LVI 2 (b) p (WM. p. 633), to give the 
sentence a hypothetical character by explaining it, "that I might 
not, as might easily have happened if I had not communicated my 
teaching in Jerusalem, have run in vain," is not only artificial, but 
after all fails to make the principal clause iveOlixirjv, etc., an unreal hy- 
pothesis. See GMT $;}:^, 336. The third interpretation is consistent 
both with general Greek usage and with Paul's use of ^jlt^ xgx;, and is 
the only probable one. It involves, of course, the implication of a 
purpose of the apostle's action, viz., to avert what he feared, that his 
future work should be fruitless, or his past work be undone. But such 
implication is common in clauses of fear. When the verb of fear is ex- 
pressed, the [li] clause expresses by implication the purpose of an ac- 
tion previously mentioned or about to be mentioned (Acts 2310 2 Cor. 
12"); when the fear is only implied the ixifj clause, denoting the object 
of apprehension, conveys by implication the purpose of the immediately 
preceding verb (2 Cor. 9* i Thes. 3'). The use of the aorist indicative 

n, 3 75 

following a statement of fact suffices, however, to show that in this 
case the clause expresses primarily an object of apprehension. The 
objection of Sief. to this interpretation, that Paul certainly could not 
have implied that his fear of his past work being rendered fruitless was 
actually realised, rests upon a misunderstanding of the force of a past 
tense in such cases. This implies not that the fear has been realised 
— in this case one would not express fear at all, but regret — but that 
the event is past, and the outcome, which is the real object of fear, as yet 
unknown or undetermined. Cf. GMT 369; BMr 227, and see chap. 
4", where the object clause refers to a past fact, the outcome of which 
is, however, not only as yet unknown to him, but quite possibly yet 
to be determined by the course which the Galatians should pursue in 
response to the letter he was then writing. 

3. clXX! ovhe TfcTO? 6 avv e/Jboly ''^Wrjv mv, r)va<yKda6r) irept- 
TfiyOrjvai,' "But not even Titus, who was with me, and was a 
Greek, was compelled to be circumcised." In antithesis to the 
possibility of his work proving fruitless (by reason of the opposi- 
tion of the Jerusalem church and apostles) Paul here sets forth 
the fact that on this very occasion and in a test-case his view 
prevailed. For aXXd introducing the evidence disproving a pre- 
viously suggested hypothesis, see Rom. 4^ i Cor. 2^ The fact 
of the presence of Titus with the apostle had already been men- 
tioned in the preceding sentence. Its repetition here in avv 
ifiOL is evidently, therefore, for an argumentative purpose, and 
doubtless as emphasising the significance of the fact that he 
was not circumcised. It is upon this element of the sentence 
especially that ovBe "not even" throws its emphasis. The 
opponents of Paul, the "false brethren" desired, of course, the 
circumcision of all Gentile Christians. But so far were they 
from carrying through their demand that not even Titus, who 
was there on the ground at the time, and to whom the demand 
would first of all apply, was circumcised. The non-circumcision 
of Titus, therefore, was in reality a decision of the principle. 
The phrase 6 avv ifioc is thus concessive in effect. See BMT 
428. The participial phrase, "^Wr)v cov, adds a fact, probably 
like o avv ifjLOL, known to the readers, but necessary to be borne 
in mind in order to appreciate the significance of the fact about 
to be stated. Like the preceding phrase it also is concessive 


{BMT 437), "though he was a Greek" (and hence uncircum- 
cised; not of course, "although a Greek and hence under pre- 
eminent obligation to be circumcised," which neither Paul nor 
his opponents would have claimed). Though the Greek con- 
struction is different in the two phrases, the thought is best 
expressed in Enghsh by joining them as in the translation given 
above. Segond also renders "qui etait avec moi et qui etait 
Grec." The term '^^Xkrjv is doubtless to be taken in its broad 
sense of ''Gentile," as in Rom. i^^ 2^- ^^etfreg., a usage which 
occurs also in Jos. Ant. 20. 262 (11^), and in the Christian 
Fathers (Th.). This is the first mention of circumcision in the 
epistle. The fact so well known to Paul and his readers as to 
require no expHcit mention, but clearly brought out later in 
the letter, that the legalistic party insisted most strenuously 
upon circumcision, is here incidentally implied. '^vajKaaOr] is 
undoubtedly to be taken as a resultative aorist {BMT 42), and 
ovSe rjvayKda-Orj denies not the attempt to compel but the suc- 
cess of the attempt. That the attempt was (unsuccessfully) 
made is clearly impHed in the context. 

The argument of Sief. for his interpretation, making ou5e YjvaYxd:cjOt] 
a denial that pressure was brought to bear on Paul, i. e., by the 
apostles, confuses the distinction between the meaning of the word 
and the force of its tense. dvaYxAt^o) is used consistently throughout 
N. T. in the present and imperfect with conative force (Acts 26 '^ 
Gal. 2" 6"), signifying "to apply pressure," "to (seek to) compel"; in 
the aorist, on the other hand, consistently with a resultative sense, in 
the active "to compel," in the passive, "to be forced" (Mt. 14" Mk. 
6*^ Lk. 14" Acts 28'' 2 Cor. 12"). What, therefore, the aorist with 
oOx denies is simply the result. Whether that result did not ensue be- 
cause no pressure was applied, or because the pressure was successfully 
resisted, can be determined only by the connection. The fact, how- 
ever, that the imperfect with oux would have clearly expressed the 
thought that no effort was made, and the clear implication in the con- 
text that effort was made are practically decisive for the present case. 
Sief.'s contention that the context excludes effort on the part of the 
apostles to have Titus circumcised is unsupported by the context, and 
involves a misapprehension of Paul's contention throughout the pas- 
sage; this is not that the apostles did not disagree with him, and always 
approved his position, but that he was independent of them; in this 
particular matter, that they yielded to him. See esp. v. ^ with its clear 

II, 3-4 77 

implication of a change of front on the part of the apostles. For other 
interpretations of oux, . . . xeptxtiTjOi^vat, see below on the various con- 
structions ascribed to Std: . . . (|'£'jSaS^^?ou<;- 

4. Bi^ Be T0U9 irapeLad/CTOis '\lr€vBaBe\(j)ov<! ^ "now it was 
because of the false brethren surreptitiously brought in." 
The question what this phrase limits, i. e., what it was that 
was done because of the false brethren, is one of the most 
difficult of all those raised by the passage. The most probable 
view is that it is to be associated with the idea of pressure, ur- 
gency, implied in ovBe ijvayKda-Orj . The meaning may then be 
expressed thus: "And not even Titus . . . was compelled to be 
circumcised, and (what shows more fully the significance of the 
fact) it was urged because of the false brethren." If this is 
correct it follows that there were three parties to the situation 
under discussion in Jerusalem. There were, first, Paul and 
Barnabas, who stood for the poHcy of receiving Gentiles as 
Christians without circumcision; on the other hand, there were 
those whom Paul characterises as false brethren, and who 
contended that the Gentile Christians must be circumcised; and 
finally there were those who for the sake of the second party 
urged that Paul should waive his scruples and consent to the 
circumcision of Titus. This third party evidently consisted of 
the pillar apostles, with whom Paul held private conference (v. ^) 
and who because of Paul's representations finally themselves 
yielded and gave assent to Paul's view (vv.^-^). With the 
second party it does not appear that Paul came into direct 
contact; they are at least mentioned only as persons for whose 
sake, not by whom, certain things were done. It is thus clearly 
impHed that they who in person urged the circumcision of 
Titus {ol BoKovvre^) did not themselves regard it as necessary 
except as a matter of expediency, as a concession to the feeHngs 
or convictions of those whom Paul designates as false brethren, 
but who were e\ddently regarded by the other apostles rather 
as persons whose prejudices or convictions, however mis- 
taken, it was desirable to consider. On the question whether 
the apostles carried their conciHatory policy to the extent of 
urging the circumcision of all Gentile converts, see fn. p. 91. 


Tlapeha%TO<;, a word not found in extant classical writings, is never- 
theless given by the ancient lexicographers, Hesych. Phot, and Suid. 
Cf. Frit. Opiiscula, pp. iSi Jf. (Th.); Sief. ad loc, p. loi, fn. In view 
of the frequent use of the passive of verbs in later Greek in a middle 
sense, and of the definition of this word by Hesych. Phot, and Suid. 
by the neutral term (iXk6xpioq, it is doubtful whether the passive sense 
can be insisted upon, as if these false brethren had been brought in by 
others. The relative clause, oYxiveq etc., distinctly makes the men 
themselves active in their entrance into the church, which though by 
no means excluding the thought that some within were interested in 
bringing them in, throws the emphasis upon their own activity in the 
matter. Nor is the idea of surreptitiousness, secrecy, at all clearly 
emphasised. That they are alien to the body into which they have 
come is what the term both etymologically and by usage suggests. 
«}jsuBdi:5eX90<;, used elsewhere in N. T. only 2 Cor. ii^", evidently means 
those who profess to be brethren, i. e., to be true members of the 
Christian body, but are not so in fact. Cf. Paul's use of the term 
<J;euSax6aToXo<;, 2 Cor. 11". These words xape-.jdixToui; tj^suSaSiXipou? 
express, of course, Paul's judgment concerning these men when he 
wrote. That they were so looked upon by the other apostles at the 
time of the events here referred to does not necessarily follow. 

The community into which "the false brethren" had made 
their way is unnamed. That they had made their influence 
felt in Antioch, if not also generally among the churches hav- 
ing Gentile members, and that they came from Jerusalem and 
were in some sense representatives of that church, is implied in 
the very fact that Paul and Barnabas came up to Jerusalem 
about the matter. If, therefore, TrapeiaciKTov^ and TrapeLa-rjXOov 
refer to a visit to a church, we should mentally supply with 
them "into the church at Antioch," or "into the churches 
among the Gentiles." But if, as is more probable, these words 
refer to incorporation into the membership of the body, then 
the reference is either to the church at Jerusalem, which is 
favoured by the facts above cited as indicating that they were 
actually from Jerusalem, or the Christian community in gen- 
eral, which is favoured by the indefiniteness of the language 
here employed and the fact that the apostle's indignation is 
most naturally explained if he is thinking of these men not as 
additions to the Jerusalem church in particular, with which he 
was not directly concerned, but as an element of discord in the 

n, 4 79 

Christian community. In either case it is clear that they ema- 
nated from Jerusalem and were exerting their influence as a 
foreign element at Antioch or in general in the churches having 
Gentile members. See further, par. 12, p. 117. 

Of the numerous constructions which have been adopted for the 
phrase Stcl: . . . tJ^suSaS^Xcpouq the following may be named: 

I . Those which make it limit some following word, (a) e?^a(xev. So, 
omitting olq oiSI (in v.'; cf. textual note below), Tert. et ah, and in 
modern times Zahn, This yields the sense, "but because of the false 
brethren ... I yielded for a brief space." This may be dismissed 
because based on a text insufficiently supported by textual evidence, 
and giving the impossible sense that Paul yielded by way of the sub- 
jection demanded by the false brethren that the truth of the gospel 
might continue with the Gentiles.* (b) So, retaining olq ouSi, but 
assuming that the insertion of o\q involves an anacoluthon, Wies. 
p. no; Philippi; and substantially so Weizs. Ap. Zeit. p. 155. 
Cf. Butt. p. 385. Paul, it is supposed, having intended at first to 
make 5td: . . . <J;suBa5. limit ouvt et^a[xev directly, was led by the length 
of the sentence to insert olq, thus changing the thought from an asser- 
tion that on their account he did not yield into a denial that he yielded 
to them, and leaving Sid: . . . tJjsuBaS. without a regimen. The objec- 
tion of Sief. {ad loc, p. 98) to this interpretation that these two concep- 
tions "yielded on account of" and "yielded to" are so different that 
the one could not be merged in the other is of little force; for certainly 
Paul might naturally think of a yielding to a demand made for the sake 
of the false brethren as in effect a yielding to them. Nor can the fact 
of the anacoluthon itself be urged against this view, since anacolutha 
are common in Paul, and especially so in this very paragraph. The 
real objection to this interpretation lies in the difficulty of supposing 
that Paul could say that he refused to circumcise Titus because it was 
requested for the sake of the false brethren, or as Wies. in effect makes 
it, by them. Is it to be supposed that, when the very question at issue 
was the legitimacy of the gospel which offered itself to the Gentiles 
without legal requirement, he would have consented to circumcise 
Titus, if only the request had not been made for the sake of the false 
brethren? Weizs., indeed, interprets Std: . . . tJ^suSaS. as giving not 
the decisive reason, but for the urging of which Titus would have 
been circumcised, but a contributory reason, which made his course all 

• Zahn, like Tert. before him, finds the yielding and the subjection to have been to the 
pillar apostles and in the fact of coming to Jerusalem to submit this question to the apostles 
there (not in the circumcision of Titus, which he maintains Paul denies to have taken place) 
yet supposes that it was not demanded by the apostles, but more probably by the Antioch 
chiurch. See Com. pp. Q3/. A stranger distortion of the record it would be hard to imagine. 


the more necessary — a meaning which has much to commend it, but, 
which it seems would have necessitated the insertion of some such word' 
as iidXtaTa {cf. chap. 6"). 

2. Those which make Btd; . . . (]^euBaB. limit what precedes, introduc- 
ing an epexegetic addition to the preceding statement. So Sief., who, 
joining this verse closely to the words ■qya-^v.&aQt] xep[T[jLTQ6^vat and mak- 
ing oOx limit the whole phrase, finds in the sentence the meaning that 
no attempt was made for the sake of the false brethren to compel Titus 
to be circumcised. In other words, though the leading men might not 
unnaturally have urged the circumcision of Titus for the sake of the 
false brethren, no such compulsion was in fact applied. Aside from 
the improbable sense given to oOSe . . . iivctfK&cQr) (see on v.«), this in- 
volves an extremely difficult if not impossible sense of M, concerning 
which see on v. '. To have yielded this meaning S td; . . . tpeuBaS. must 
have stood in the least prominent position in the midst of the sentence, 
not subjoined and emphasised by hi, or if for the sake of making the 
denial of Titus's circumcision — the fact itself — unequivocal, it was 
necessary that the words Sia . . . 4'euSa^- should stand apart, then 
they must have become a phrase of concession or opposition, express- 
ing the thought, "though urged by," or "in spite of the false brethren," 
or have been introduced by oOBI, "and not even for the sake of the 
false brethren." Cf. on ouH under i^^. Mey. also joins this phrase 
closely to what precedes, but to the whole expression o6Zk . . . 
TceptTtJLTjGYivat, and finds in it the reason why Titus was not circumcised, 
i. e., because the false brethren urged it. If this relates to Paul, con- 
stituting his reason for refusing to consent to the circumcision of Titus, 
it is open to the same objection as i (b) above, viz., it implies that but 
for the advocacy of it by the false brethren Paul would have had no 
objection to the circumcision of Titus. If, on the other hand, the 
phrase is understood to refer to the motives of the eminent Jerusalem 
brethren, giving their reason for not asking for or consenting to the 
circumcision, then we have the representation that the false brethren 
urged the circumcision of Titus, and that the Jerusalem apostles opposed 
it not on principle, but because it was being urged by the false breth- 
ren; a view which attributes to them a degree of opposition to the 
legalistic party in the Jewish portion of the church, and of champion- 
ship of the freedom of the Gentiles, which does not comport with the 
otherwise known history of the apostolic age, and which would, it 
would seem, have made this council itself unnecessary. Had the facts, 
moreover, been what this interpretation makes them, Paul could hardly 
have failed to bring out with greater distinctness what would have 
been so much to the advantage of his case, as he has done, e. g., in 



The joining of the phrase with (ivs6|[X7jv, or dtvl^iQv, advocated by some 
of the older modern expositors (see in Sief.) , scarcely calls for discus- 

11, 4 Si 

sion. These interpretations >'ield a not unreasonable sense, and avoid 
many of the difficulties encountered by the other constructions, but it 
is hardly conceivable that the reader would be expected to supply men- 
tally a word left so far behind. 

3. Those which make Bta . . . (J>£uScz8. limit something supplied 
from the preceding, (a) oux igvaYxciaGiQ xeptT[i,T]0iivai (Ell.) or oux 
TcepisTiJLYjOT] (Frit, cited by Ltft.). This is not materially different from 
making it limit ou8e . . . %spix[L-i]Qf]M(xi already expressed, as is done 
by Mey., and is open to the same objections, (b) xepieTixiQQTj, Riick. 
et al.; advocated by Hort. (WH. II app. p. 121). According to this 
interpretation 06 throws its whole force on ■rivoL-^v.ons^-q, only the compul- 
sion, not the circumcision, being denied; li is adversative, and intro- 
duces the statement of the reason why Titus, though not compelled, 
was nevertheless circumcised, viz., because of the false brethren. This 
is perhaps the most improbable of all the proposed interpretations. If 
the circumcision of Titus was carried through without Paul's consent, 
then how could he have said that it was not compelled ? if with his 
consent and, as he says, because of the false brethren, how could he say 
that he had not yielded to them for so much as an hour ? What was 
such consent but precisely ^ bxoiafii, the surrender which they de- 
manded (cf. on Tfj uTroTayfj, v. ? And with what honesty could he have 
maintained that he had pursued this course at Jerusalem, "that the 
truth of the gospel might continue with you," when in fact he had on 
that occasion surrendered the very thing which was to him the key 
to the whole situation so far as concerned the relation of the Gentile to 
the law and to Christ? Cf. 5^*. In fact, any view which assumes that 
Titus was circumcised involves the conclusion that Paul surrendered 
his case under compulsion or through wavering, and that in his present 
argument he made a disingenuous and unsuccessful attempt to prove 
that he did not surrender it. (c) The thought of (unsuccessful) pres- 
sure implied in ouSe . . . -rivaYx-dae-o. This view (set forth in the larger 
print above), and well advocated by Ltft. pp. 105, 106, yields a clear and 
consistent account of what took place, showing the Jerusalem apostles 
standing between the extremists on both sides, advising Paul to con- 
sent to the circumcision of Titus for the sake of peace, while Paul, see- 
ing in such a yielding a surrender of vital principle to the false repre- 
sentatives of Christianity, persistently refused; it accounts at the same 
time for the insertion of the phrase, and for the characterisation of the 
men referred to as false brethren, etc., showing at the same time the 
extent to which the Jerusalem apostles could, from Paul's point of 
view, be led astray, so as even to advocate a course dictated by regard 
for those who were in reality only false brethren, and suggesting a con- 
tributory reason for his resistance, that the demand for the circum- 
cision of Titus originated with spies from without, men who had no 
proper place in the church a<- all. This view alone brings this portion 


of the paragraph into line with the apostle's general argument by which 
he aims to show his entire independence, even of the other apostles. 

If it be judged too harsh and difl5cult to supply from the preceding 
language the thought, "this was urged," the most reasonable alternative 
view is that of Wies. et al. (i(^) above). From a purely linguistic point 
of view this interpretation is perhaps the easiest of all that have been 
proposed, and if it could be supposed, with Weizs., that Paul would re- 
fer in this unqualified way to a reason which was, after all, only con- 
tributory, it would be the most probable interpretation of the passage. 

otTiz^e? TrapeicrrfKOov Karacr/coTrrjaai rrjv eXevOepCav rj^oiv 
"who sneaked in to spy out our freedom." The Hberty of which 
the apostle here speaks is, of course, the freedom of the Chris- 
tian from bondage to the law, which would have been sur- 
rendered in principle if the Gentile Christians had been com- 
pelled to be circumcised. Cf. 4^- ^' ^^'^^, and esp. 5^-^- ". That 
he calls it "our freedom" {cf. v/^a? at the end of v.^) shows that 
although the obhgation of the Gentile to be circumcised was 
the particular question at issue, this was in the apostle's mind 
only a part of a larger question, which concerned both Jewish 
and Gentile Christians, or else that Paul is for the moment 
associating himself with the Gentile Christians as those whose 
case he represents. The Antioch incident (w."-^^) shows how 
closely the question of the freedom of the Jews was connected 
with that of the liberty of the Gentile Christians, both in fact 
and in the apostle's mind. Yet there is nothing in his nar- 
rative to indicate that in the discussion at Jerusalem the free- 
dom of the Gentile was explicitly considered in relation to any- 
thing except circumcision. Still less is it to be assumed that 
the question of the obligation of the Jewish Christians in re- 
spect to foods or defilement by association with Gentile Chris- 
tians was at this time brought up. Rather does the expression 
"that the truth of the gospel might continue with you" sug- 
gest that at this time the only question raised pertained to the 
Gentiles, and this is further confirmed by the situation which 
afterwards arose at Antioch, in which the question of foods and 
particularly the obligation of the Jews in respect to them ap- 
pears as one on which an agreement had not been previously 

n, 4 S3 

IlapeKjIpxotJ'-a' is a verb not uncommon in later Greek, meaning literally 
"to come in alongside," but usually (not, however, in Rom. 5") imply- 
ing stealth. See exx., cited by Th.; and esp. Luc. Asin. 15, e{ Xuxoq 
xapsi(jiX6oi (Sief.). xaxaaxoxiti), "to spy out," with the associated idea 
of hostile intent, purpose to destroy (Grk. writers from Xenophon 
down, Lxx, here only in N. T.) is here nearly equivalent to "stealthily 
to destroy." 

Tjv e^oyuez; iv 'Kpiarw 'Irjaov, "which we have in Christ Jesus." 
The preposition iv is probably used here to mark its object as 
the causal ground or basis of the freedom which we possess, 
the person by reason of whom and on the basis of whose work 
we have this freedom. See Th. iv, I 6c, and Acts 13^^ Rom. 
324 59 and note on v.^^ below. Others (see Ell., e. g., h. I. and 
v.i^) take iv in the sense "in mystical union with," a meaning 
which the word sometimes has in Paul. But in view of the 
clear instances of the causal sense both before names of Christ 
and other words, it is certainly to be preferred here where the 
so-called mystical sense itself becomes intelligible only by add- 
ing to it a causal sense, making it mean "by virtue of our 
union with." 

Xva r)/xd<i KaTaSovXwaovatv, "that they might bring us 
into bondage," i. e., to the law, implying an already pos- 
sessed freedom. Observe the active voice of the verb, ex- 
cluding the sense to bring into bondage to themselves, and cf. 
49. 10 42i_^i^ Undue stress must not be laid on rjfia<i as meaning 
or including Jewish Christians {cf. on iXevOeplav tj/jloov above), 
yet its obvious reference is to Christians in general, not to Gen- 
tile Christians exclusively. The whole phraseology descriptive 
of these "false brethren" implies, as Weizs. has well pointed 
out (Ap. Zeit. pp. 216-222, E. T., I 257-263) that they were 
distinct and different from the original constituents of the 
church, a foreign element, introduced at a relatively late date, 
distinguished not only from the apostles but from the primi- 
tive church in general, and this not only personally but in their 
spirit and aims. By KaraaKOTrrjaaL and tW KaTaBovXaxrovcnv 
Paul definitely charges that these men entered the church for 
a propagandist purpose, that they joined the Christian com- 


munity in order to make it legalistic, and implies that pre- 
vious to their coming non-legalistic views were, if not generally- 
held, at least tolerated. CJ. also on i^^. As concerns the apos- 
tle's reflection upon the character of these men and the un- 
worthiness of their motive, some allowance must necessarily 
be made for the heat of controversy; but that fact does not 
seem to affect the legitimacy of the inferences from his state- 
ment as to the state of opinion in the Jewish church and of 
practice among Gentile Christians. These facts have an im- 
portant bearing on the question of the relation of Paul's nar- 
rative in this chapter to that of Acts, chaps. 6, 7, 10, 11. The 
recent entrance of these men into the church and the implica- 
tion as to the condition of things before they came suggest that 
the representation of Acts that the Jerusalem church was in 
the early days of its history tolerant of non-legalistic views, 
and not unwilling to look with favour on the acceptance of 
Gentiles as Christians, is not in itself improbable. It is at 
least not in conflict with the testimony of this letter. 

On the use of a future in a pure final clause, see T^MT 198 and cf. 
Lk. 14" 2010 Acts 21", 28" Rom. 3*. 

5. oh ovBe 7r/9o? wpau el^ajiev rrj vTrorayrj^ " to whom not for 
an hour did we yield by way of the subjection (demanded)." 
Though the request that Paul and those with him should yield 
was made not by, but because of, the false brethren, he clearly 
saw that to grant the request would be in effect to surrender 
to the latter. Hence the dative here instead of Sta oik, cor- 
responding to Bia Tov^i \l/evBaB€\(j)Ov<;. The article before 
v7rora<yrj is restrictive, showing that the word is used not sim- 
ply with qualitative force, but refers to the particular obedi- 
ence which was demanded. The phrase is therefore epexe- 
getic of eX^ajiev, indicating wherein the yielding would have 
consisted if it had taken place, and the negative denies the 
yielding, not simply a certain kind of yielding. This fact ex- 
cludes any interpretation which supposes that Paul meant 
simply to deny that he yielded obediently, i. e., to a recognised 
authority, while tacitly admitting a conciliatory yielding (as is 

n, 4-5 85 

maintained by those who hold that he really circumcised Titus). 
For this thought he must have used the dative without the 
article. CJ. Phil. 1^^^^ i Thes. 4^- ^. 

On irpbq Qpav, meaning "for a short time," see 2 Cor. 7^ i Thes. 2" 
Phm.i^ where, as in the present passage, wpa is not a definite mea- 
sure of time, a twelfth of a day, but merely a (relatively) short time; 
in the cases cited, some days or weeks; in the present passage 
rather, as we should say in English, "a moment," "an instant." C/., 
not as exactly similar instances, but as illustrating the flexibility of the 
word, Mt. iQis 26"' «• ". 

Olq ouSe xpbq wpav. The reading at this point has been the subject of 
extended discussion, especially by Klostermann, Probleme ini Apos- 
teltexte, pp. 36 f., Sief. Com. ad loc, and Zahn Com. ad loc. and Ex- 
curs. I. The principal evidence may be summarised as follows: 

xpbq wpav (without oI<; ouSe) : D* d e plur. codd. lat. et gr. ap. Victorin. 
codd. lat. ap. Hier. al. Iren'"^- Tert. Victorin. Ambrst. Pelag. 

o58e xpbc; wpav: codd. gr. et lat. ap. Ambrst., quidam (codd.?) ap. 
Victorin. Mcion, Syr. (psh.), and (accg. to Sief.) one ms. of Vg. 

olq xpbq topav: Jerome quotes certain persons as asserting: el hoc esse 
quod in codlcihus legatur Latinis, "quibus ad horam cessimus." Prima- 
sius (XI 209, quoted by Klostermann, p. 83 ; cf. Hummer, Com. on 2 
Corinthians, p. Iv) says: Latinus habet: '' quibus ad horam cessimus." 
Sedulius: Alale in Latinis codicibus legitur: "quibus ad horam cessimus." 

o\q ouBe xpbg wpav: ^sABCD""" FGKLP, ^t,, and Grk. mss. gener- 
ally, f g Vg. Syr. (psh. hard.) Boh. Arm. Aeth. codd. gr. ap. Hieron,; 
also Bas. Epiph. Euthal. Thdrt. Damas. Aug. Ambr. Hier. 

Klostermann and Zahn adopt the first reading. Tdf . Treg. WH. Ws. 
RV. and modern interpreters generally, the fourth. The evidence 
shows clearly that the difficulty of the latter reading was early felt, 
and that, for whatever reason, a syntactically easier text was current 
among the Latins. The evidence against oI<; ouSe, however, is not 
sufficient to overcome the strong preponderance in its favour, or the 
improbability that any one would have introduced the anacoluthic olq. 
But since the reading ol.; without ouli is very weakly attested it re- 
mains to accept the reading which has both o\q and ouSI. 

Iva rj aXt]9eLa rod evayyeXcov ^Laixelvrj tt/^o? t'/^a?. "that 
the truth of the gospel might continue with you." The clause 
states the purpose of his refusing to yield. To make it a state- 
ment of the purpose of the yielding as Zahn does, omitting oh 
ovCe is, especially in view of the rr} before vTrorayrj^ to represent 
Paul as making the absurd statement that, in order that the 


truth of the gospel that men are free from law might abide 
with the Gentiles, he yielded to the demand of the legalists and 
did as they required. It is also to convert a paragraph which 
is put forth as an evidence that he had always maintained his 
independence of men into a weak apology for having conceded 
the authority of the Twelve. The term evayyeXcov evidently 
has here the same sense as in v. 2 and in i^ {cf. the notes on 
those vv., and note word aXrjOeia here). The genitive is a 
possessive genitive, the truth is the truth contained in, and so 
belonging to, the gospel. CJ. 17 twv vofxwv aXTJ^e^a], Papyri in 
Brit. Mus. II p. 280, cited by M. and M. Voc. The effect of 
the triumph of the view of Paul's opponents would have been 
to rob the Gentiles of the truth of the gospel, leaving them a 
perverted, false gospel. See i^. The verb BLa/xeLvy implies 
that at the time referred to the truth of the gospel, i. e., the 
gospel in its true form as he preached it, not in the perverted 
form preached by the judaisers, had already been given to 
those to whom he refers under vfjLd<;. 

UpSq meaning properly "towards" and then "with," usually of per- 
sons in company and communication with others (i Thes. 3* 2 Thes. 2» 
3*" Gal. i^' 4"' *°) is here used like txeTd: in Phil. 4', of the presence of an 
impersonal thing with men. The idea of possession is not in the prep- 
osition, but is suggested by the context and the nature of the thing 
spoken of. b'^aq may refer specifically to the Galatians, to whom he 
is writing, in which case it is implied that they had already received 
the gospel at the time of this Jerusalem conference. But the more 
general interpretation of u[xa<; as meaning simply "you Gentiles" is 
so easy, and the inclusion of the Galatians with the Gentiles in the 
class on behalf of whom Paul then took his stand is so natural, even 
though historically the Galatians only later participated in the benefit 
of his action, that it would be hazardous to lay any great weight on this 
word in the determination of chronological questions. The most that 
can safely be said is that Sta^xefvn -izphq u[ receives its most obvious in- 
terpretation if the Galatians are supposed to have been already in posses- 
sion of the gospel at the time here referred to. See Introduction, p. xlii. 

6. CLTTO Be TOiv BoKovvTcop elval TL "And from those who were 
accounted to be something." On rcov Bokovvtwv^ etc., cf. v. 2. 
The verb which this phrase was to have limited is left unex- 
pressed, the construction being changed when the thought is 

n, 5, 6 87 

resumed after the parenthesis ottolol, etc. The apostle doubt- 
less had in mind when he began the sentence irapeXa^ov ovSev 
{cf. 1^2) or some equivalent expression. The sentence seems 
not adversative, but continuative; to the statement that when 
the pillar apostles took up, in a sense, the cause of the false 
brethren, he did not for a moment yield to the latter, he adds 
as further evidence of his entire independence of the apostles 
that (in this discussion) they taught him nothing new. 

— OTToloL TTore Tjaav ovBev jjlol hia^epei — "what they once were 
matters not to me." ottoIol^ a quaUtative word, meaning "of 
what kind" (cf. i Thes. i^ i Cor. 3^3 Jas. i^^), here evidently 
refers not to personal character but to rank or standing, and 
doubtless specifically to that standing which the three here 
referred to had by reason of their personal relation to Jesus 
while he was in the flesh, in the case of James as his brother, in 
the case of Peter and John as his personal followers. This fact 
of their past history was undoubtedly appealed to by the oppo- 
nents of Paul as giving them standing and authority wholly 
superior to any that he could claim. Cf. 2 Cor. 5^^ lo^ Paul 
answers here substantially as afterwards to the Corinthians in 
reply to much the same argument, that facts of this sort do 
not concern him, have no significance. Apostleship rests on a 
present relation to the heavenly Christ, a spiritual experience, 
open to him equally with them. The whole parenthetical sen- 
tence, though introduced without a conjunction, serves as a 
justification of the depreciation of the apostles which he had 
begun to express in the preceding clause — or perhaps more 
exactly as an answer in advance to the thought which the apos- 
tle foresaw would be raised by that statement when completed, 
viz.: But if you received nothing from them, that is certainly 
to your disadvantage; were they not personal companions of 
Jesus, the original and authoritative bearers of the gospel? 
What valid commission or message can you have except as you 
derived it from them ? 

With a verb of past time %oxi (enclitic) may mean (a) "ever," "at 
any time"; (b) "at some time," "once," "formerly"; (c) "ever," with 
intensive force, like the Latin cunque, and the English "ever" in "who- 


ever," "whatever." The last meaning is that which is preferred in 
RV.—" whatsoever they were." But this use is unusual in classi- 
cal Greek, and has no example in N. T. The second meaning, 'on 
the other hand, is frequent in N. T., especially in Paul (chap. i". « 
Rom. 79, etc.), and is appropriate in this connection, directing the 
thought to a particular (undefined but easily understood) period of 
past time referred to by ^aav. There can therefore be no doubt that 
it is the meaning here intended. The first meaning is not impos- 
sible, but less appropriate because suggesting various possible past 
periods or points of time, instead of the one, Jesus' lifetime, which gives 
point to the sentence. 

The above interpretation of xoxe and substantially of the sentence is 
adopted by Wies. Hilg. Ltft. and many others from the Latin Vg. 
down. Win. and Lip., though taking xoxe in the sense of cunque, by 
referring ^aav to the time of Jesus' life on earth reach substantially the 
same interpretation of the clause. Ell. Sief., et al., take xoxe in the 
sense of amque, and understand the clause to refer to the esteem in 
v/hich these men were held at the time of the events spoken of; what- 
soever they were, i. e., whatever prestige, standing, they had in Jeru- 
salem at this time. Sief. supplies as subject for 8cac{)^pet the thought 
"to obtain authorisation from them"; making the sentence mean: 
" whatever their standing in Jerusalem, it is of no consequence to me 
to secure their authorisation or commission." But the clause 6xoIo{ xoxe 
^aav {cf. I Cor. 3") itself is a suitable subject, and the supplying of 
a subject unnecessary. 

— TTpoa-cDTTOv ^eo? avOpcoTTOv ov \afjL^dv€L — " God accepts not 
the person of man." To accept the person— Hterally fac^— of 
one is to base one's judgment and action on external and irrele- 
vant considerations. Cf. Mt. 22I6 Mk. 1214 Lk. 2021. Such, in 
the judgment of Paul, were mere natural kinship with Jesus, 
such as James had, or personal companionship with him during 
his earthly life, such as the Twelve had. Cf. 2 Cor. 5^2^ where 
Paul uses iv Trpoa-coTro) with reference to the realm of external 
things. This second parenthesis in its turn gives a reason jus- 
tifying the statement of the first. The former advantages of 
these men signify nothing to me, for God takes no account of 
such external considerations. Concerning the emphasis on ^eo? 
see the textual note. 

As between 6e6<; and b Bed? external evidence alone is indecisive. 
i<AP 3S: 88, 103, 122,* 442, 463, 1912, Chrys. al. insert the article. 

II, 6 89 

BCDFGKL al. pier. Eus. Thdrt. Dam. omit it. Sheer accident 
would be as likely to operate on one side as on the other. At first 
sight intrinsic probability seems to make for the genuineness of the 
article, since the N. T. writers, and Paul in particular, rarely use ee6<; 
as subject without the article. Yet the use of Qeoq without the article, 
because employed with qualitative force with emphasis upon the divine 
attributes, especially in contrast with man, is an established usage of 
which there are numerous examples in Paul (see i Thes. i » 2< i Cor. 2^ 
3»' ") and a few in the nominative (i Thes. 2* Gal. 6' 2 Cor. 51'). In- 
asmuch, therefore, as there is in this passage just such a contrast, it 
would be in accordance with Pauline usage to omit the article, and the 
balance of intrinsic probability is apparently on this side. Tran- 
scriptional probability is also in its favour, since the scribe would be 
more likely to convert the unusual 0e6<; into 6 6e6<; than the reverse. 

ifJLol yap 01 8oKOvvTe^ ovBev TrpoaaveOevTO^ "for to me the 
men of eminence taught nothing new." In these words the 
apostle evidently says what he began to say in airo Be rojv 
BoKovvToov, giving it now the specific form that the Jerusalem 
apostles imposed on him no burden (of doctrine or practice), 
or imparted nothing to him in addition to what he already 
knew. See discussion of TrpoaaveOevro below, yap may be 
justificatory, introducing a statement which justifies the seem- 
ingly harsh language of the two preceding statements, or ex- 
pHcative, the thought overleaping the parenthetical statements 
just preceding, and the new clause introduced by yap putting 
in a different form the thought already partly expressed in cltto 
he roiv BoKovvTcov. The latter is simpler and for that reason 
more probable. 

The uses of the verb xpoaavaTfOe^xat (Mid.) clearly attested outside 
of the present passage are three: (i) "To offer or dedicate beside": 
Boeckh.C./.G. 2782. (2) " To confer with " : Gal. i>6 (5.D.); Diod. Sic. 
17. ii6<; Luc. J up. Trag. i. (3) "To lay upon one's self in addition, 
to undertake besides": 'Ken. Mem. 2.1^ Beside these there have been 
proposed for the present passage: (4) "To lay upon in addition" i. e. 
(3) taken actively instead of with a middle sense. Cf. Pollux, I g^^. (5) 
(equiv. to xpocjt(0tq(xi) "To add," "to bestow something not possessed 
before": Chrys., et al.; (6) (adding to the sense of dcvaTiGe[xat in 22and 
Acts 25", that of xp6<; in composition, "besides," "in addition"), "To 
set forth in addition," i. e., in this connection, " to teach in addition to 
what I had already learned." The word "impart" in RV. might per- 


haps represent either (4), (5), (6), possibly even (2). The first mean- 
ing is evidently impossible here. The second can be applied only by 
taking ouSsv as an accusative of respect, "in respect to nothing did 
they confer with me," and then there still remains the fact that in the 
other instances of the verb used in this sense the conference is chiefly 
for the sake of learning, but here the reference must be to conferring 
for the purpose of teaching. This renders it very difficult, taking the 
word in the sense illustrated in i»«, to find in ouBsv xpoaavaT{Oea0at, 
as Ltft. does, the sense "to impart no fresh knowledge." or as Ell. 
does, taking xpdq as directive only, the meaning "to communicate 
nothing," "to address no communications." Zahn, indeed, takes the 
verb as in i^^ and interprets the sentence as meaning, "for they laid 
nothing before me for decision, they did not make me their judge." 
This Zahn interprets as an explanation and justification of ouSiv [xot 
Bcaqjipei, in that it gives a reason why he did not regard their high 
standing as he might have been tempted to do if he had been acting 
as judge of their affairs. Vv."^- then state that, on the contrary, they 
acted as his judges and pronounced favourable judgment on him. The 
interpretation is lexicographically possible, but logically difficult to the 
point of impossibility. It compels the supposition either that in etxol 
fdip o\, etc. Paul said the opposite of what he set out to say in dxb SI 
TGJv SoxouvTtov, or else that, having begun in the latter phrase to say 
that from the men of esteem he received a favourable judgment, he 
interrupted himself to belittle the value of their judgment. It makes 
the apostle, moreover, admit a dependence upon the pillar apostles 
which it is the whole purpose of 1 11-221 to disprove. The third sense is 
rendered impossible for the present passage by the presence of i[i.oL 
"To lay no additional burden on themselves for me" is without mean- 
ing in this connection. The fourth meaning does not occur elsewhere, 
the voucher being only for the reflexive sense (3), " to lay a burden upon 
one's self." Sief. infers from the fact that (i-vazl%e\x<xi is found in the 
active sense (Xen. Cyr. 8.5*), as well as in the reflexive that the com- 
pound xpoaavaT(9e;xat may also occur in the active sense. The fifth 
sense, though adopted by many interpreters, ancient and modem, 
seems least defensible, being neither attested by any clear instance 
(unless Chrysostom's adoption of it constitutes such an instance) nor 
based on attested use of dvaTtOTQtJLt. The sixth meaning is easily de- 
rived from dvaxfOfjixi; the absence of any actual occurrence of it else- 
where renders it, like the fourth, conjectural, but not impossible, in 
view of the difficulty of all the well-attested senses. Our choice of 
interpretations must lie between the fourth, advocated by Sief. (who 
also cites for it Bretschn. Riick. Lechl. Pfleid. Zeller, Lip.), and the 
sixth. Both satisfy the requirements of the context — for the apostle 
is evidently here, as throughout the paragraph, presenting the evidence 
of his independence of the Jerusalem apostles. But the sixth is, on 

II, 6-7 91 

the whole, slightly to be preferred: it is more consonant -^ith the 
thought of dxb 5e twv Soxouvtwv, in which the apostle apparently began 
to say what he here expresses in a different syntactical form, and with 
the words xpocwxov . . . Xa^^avec, which seem to have been written, as 
pointed out above, in anticipation of these words. 

7. aWa Toi'vavTiov ISovre^ on ireTTiaTev/jiaL to evayyeXtov 
Tr)? aKpo^vaTLa<; /ca6oi<; Herpo^ rr}? Treptro/XT)?, "but on the con- 
trary when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel 
to the uncircumcised as Peter with the gospel to the circum- 
cised." aXXa (Germ, "sondern") introduces the positive side 
of the fact which is negatively stated in e/nol ydp, etc. The 
participle t'SoVre?, giving the reason for the fact about to be 
stated, 8e^La<; eScofcaVj v.^, implies that what they had learned 
led them to take this step, and so that they had in some sense 
changed their minds. There is an obvious relation between 
the words of this v. and v. 2. But whether the decision of the 
Jerusalem apostles to recognise Paul's right of leadership in the 
Gentile field was based on his statement of the content of his 
gospel (v. 2), or on his story of how he received it (i^O? or on the 
recital of its results, or in part on the spirit which he himself 
manifested, or on all these combined, is not here stated. The 
last supposition is perhaps the most probable.* 

That Paul regarded the distinction between the gospel of the 
uncircumcision entrusted to him and that of the circumcision 
entrusted to Peter as fundamentally not one of content but of 
the persons to whom it was addressed is plain from that which 
this verse implies and the next verse distinctly affirms, that the 
same God commissioned both Paul and Peter each for his own 
work. It is implied, moreover, that this essential identity of 

• Nor is it wholly clear precisely to what extent they had changed their minds. If the in- 
terpretation of V. * advocated at that point is correct, they had urged the circumcision of 
Titus on grounds of expediency rather than of principle. They can not therefore have stood 
for the circumcision of Gentile Christians in general as a matter of intrinsic necessity. But 
whether in asking for the circumcision of Titus for the sake of the legalists, they had also 
asked that for like reasons Paul should circumcise all his Gentile converts, does not clearly ap- 
pear. Consistency would have required that they should do so, since the circumcision of 
Titus could have had little significance if it were not to be regarded as a precedent. But it 
is not certain that they were as intent upon logical consistency as upon securing a peaceful 
settlement of the matter. 


both messages was recognised by the Jerusalem apostles as well 
as by Paul; for it was their recognition of the divine source of 
Paul's apostleship, which of course they claimed for their own, 
that, Paul says, led them to give to him and to Barnabas hands 
of fellowship. At the same time it is evident that Paul, con- 
tending for the right to preach this one gospel to the Gentiles 
without demanding that they should accept circumcision, and 
so to make it in content also a gospel of uncircumcision, ex- 
pected that Peter also would preach it to the circumcised Jews 
without demanding that they should abandon circumcision. 
Thus even in content there was an important and far-reaching 
difference between the gospel that Paul preached and that 
which Peter preached, the difference, in fact, between a legalistic 
and a non-legalistic gospel. But even this difference, it is im- 
portant to note, sprang from a fundamental identity of prin- 
ciple, viz., that the one message of salvation is to be offered 
to men, as they are, whether circumcised or uncircumcised. 
Whether this principle was clearly recognised by the Jerusalem 
apostles is not certain, but that it was for Paul not only im- 
plicit but exphcit seems clear from chap. 5^ i Cor. y^^-^^. Thus 
for him at least the one gospel itself involved the principle of 
adaptation to men's opinions and convictions, and consequent 
mutual tolerance. And for such tolerance he contended as 
essential. For differences of opinion and practice in the Chris- 
tian community there must be room, but not for intolerance of 
such differences. That in other things as well as in circumcision 
there might be a difference of practice on the part of those who 
received the one gospel in accordance with the circumstances 
of those addressed and the convictions of those who preached, 
is logically involved in the decision respecting circumcision, and 
is clearly implied in the terms of v. ^ {q. v.). But there is noth- 
ing in the present passage (2^-^°) to indicate that other matters 
were explicitly discussed at this time or that the appUcability 
of the principle to other questions, such, e. g., as clean and un- 
clean foods, the Sabbath, and fasting, was expHcitly recognised. 

The genitives Tfjq axpoguaTfai; and Tfjq iceptTOix^q can not be more 
accurately described than as genitives of connection, being practic?illy 

II, 7-^ 93 

equivalent to rot? Iv ixpo^uGxlq: (in uncircumcision) and Tot<; xeptTS- 
'z[n][iiwiq. Cf. vv. «• 9 and i Cor. 7'« Rom. 4'. Both nouns are used by 
metonymy, dxpo^ucjTta by double metonymy, the word signifying, first, 
" membrum virile," then " uncircumcision," then " uncircumcised person " ; 
on the form of the word, see Th. and M. and M. Voc. s. v. The word 
eiaffi'kiov, referring primarily, no doubt, to the content of the message 
{cf. on !'• " 2» and detached note on eiiaYriXtov, p. 422), by the addition 
of the genitives denoting to whom the message is to be presented 
acquires a secondary reference to the work of presenting it. 

For the construction of eOaYyiXtov with izeTzlazeu^iai, see W. XXXII 5 
(WM. p. 287), Butt., p. 190, and Rom. 3* i Cor. gi' i Tim. i". The 
perfect tense has here — and appropriately — its regular force, denoting 
a past fact and its existing result. BMT 74. Its translation by the 
pluperfect is necessitated by the fact that it stands in indirect discourse 
after a past tense. BMT 353. 

That in this verse and the following Paul speaks only of himself (as 
also in vv.^- ') and Peter, omitting mention of Barnabas on the one 
side and of James and John on the other, doubtless reflects the fact 
that Paul was recognised as the leader of the work among the Gentiles, 
and Peter as the leader, not indeed of the Jemsh Christian church, but 
of the missionary work of the Jerusalem party. When in v.* the refer- 
ence is again to the conference, Barnabas is again named, though after 
Paul, and James is named first among the three Jerusalem apostles. 

8. o yap evepyr}(7a<; Uerpo) ek a7ro(TTo\r}V r^? Tre/otro/XT}? iv- 
•qpyrjaev koX i/xol ek ra eOvrj, "for he who wrought for 
Peter unto an apostleship to the circumcised wrought also 
for me unto an apostleship to the Gentiles." This paren- 
thetical V. is confirmatory of the implied assertion of v. ^, being 
intended either as a statement of the reasoning by which the 
pillar apostles reached their conviction there stated, or more 
probably of Paul's own thought by which he supports and con- 
firms their conclusion. Conceding without reserve Peter's 
apostleship and its divine source, Paul justifies their recognition 
of his own claim to apostleship by appeal to his own equal and 
like experience of God. 

Whether the appeal is to the inner experience of each by which they 
were endowed for their work, or to the known results, in the way of 
converts, etc., of his work and Peter's, depends upon the precise 
sense in which Paul used the words ivepy-qaaq and ev/jpynaev. The usage 
of evepY&i in i Cor, i2«' ", where it refers to the work of the Spirit of 


God in men, fitting and endowing each for his own work, suggests tlic 
first view. But Phil. 2", where in the second instance IvepYslv means 
specifically " to effect, to produce results," shows that Paul might easily 
use the word here with reference to the divine activity in accomplishing 
results through himself and Peter, perhaps preferring it to xaTepY(4!;o^at 
(see Rom. 15^8) because it is intransitive and because it more distinctly 
suggests the divine energy by which the results were accomplished. 
The argument on this view would be similar to that of i Cor. 9*, but 
also wholly appropriate to the present connection, and more forcible 
than a reference to the inner experience of Peter and himself, which 
would be known only to each of them respectively. 

In b ydp evepYTjaaq, as in some other passages, Paul refers to God 
by a descriptive epithet without the insertion of the word Qe6q. See 
i«. » and notes; Col. 310. To understand b evepYT]aa<; of Christ rather 
than God, would not be consistent with Paul's usual method of expres- 
sion concerning the apostleship. Save where as in Gal. i • the two ideas 
coalesce in the representation of God and Christ as immediate source, 
it is his habit to speak of God as its source and Christ as the agent or 
mediator of it (Rom. i« 15" i Cor. is'o Eph. 3*. ' Gal. i^^; cf. also on 
his use of the verb Ivepyito i Cor. 128 Phil. 2^^). 

The dative JJizpiD is a dative of advantage, not governed by Iv in 
composition, hegyy]a(xq not being a verb compounded with ev, but de- 
rived from hegj-qq or hepy6q = ev Ipyv, "effective," and meaning "to 
be operative, to work." 

'AicoaToTvTQ, here as always in N. T. (see Acts i« Rom. i^ i Cor. 9'; it is 
otherwise in classical Greek and the Lxx) refers specifically to the ofuce 
and work of an apostle of Christ; see on i*. The omission of the article 
gives the word qualitative force. The preposition elq expresses not 
mere reference but purpose or result, "for or unto the creation of," 
«. e., "so as to make him an apostle." 

Tf)<;'n:epiTOixfi<;ishere, as in v. ^ by metonymy for "the circumcised." 
dq la eOvin is manifestly a condensed expression equivalent to zlq 
dtTCocToX-fjv Twv eBvwv, or the like, used for brevity's sake or through 
negligence. That dTCOJToXTjv is omitted because of an unwillingness on 
Paul's part to claim apostleship for himself is excluded alike by the 
whole thought of the sentence and by iK 

9. /cat ^vovre^ rrjv %a/?ii/ rrjv SoOeladv /lot, 'ldfCco/3o<; fcal 
Kryc^a? Kal 'IcDavq^, 01 SoKOvvTe<; arvXoi elvaL^ Sefia? eSco/cap 
ifxol Kal Bapvd^a KOivwvLa^^ ''and when, I say, they per- 
ceived the grace that had been given to me, James and 
Cephas and John, who were accounted to be pillars, gave 
to me and to Barnabas right hands of fellowship." These 

II, 8-9 95 

words resume the thought of v.'^, virtually repeating tSoWe? 
OTL TreTTLCTTevfiaL^ etc., and completing what was there begun. 
It is an overrefinement to attempt to discover a marked dif- 
ference between IBovre^ and yvopre^;. The "grace that was 
given to me" is manifestly the grace of God or Christ (on the 
word %«V^^j see i' and detached note p. 423), including espe- 
cially the entrusting to him of the gospel to the uncircumcised 
(v.^), but not necessarily excluding that manifested in the 
results which he had been able to accomplish. Cf. Rom. i'^, 
Bl ov [sc. 'It^ctoO X/QiCTTOv] e\d^o/jL€V X^P^^ '^^^^ airocrrok-qv eh 
v7raKor)v iriaTeco'; iv iracnv T04? eOveaiv. See also i Cor. 3^° 15^^ 
Eph. 32- 7, 8 47^ On the question how the other apostles came 
to recognise that God had given him this grace, cf. on v. '. The 
giving of right hands is in token of a mutual compact, while 
KOLvwvLa^ defines that compact as one of partnership. See 
more fully below in fine print. 

The placing of the name of James first is probably the reflection of a 
certain prominence of James in the action here spoken of and of his 
influence in the decision, even above that of Peter. Thus while Peter 
is mentioned in vv. ''• ', as in some sense the apostle of the circumcision, 
i. e., as the leader in missionary work among the Jews, James was 
apparently the man of greatest influence in the settlement of a ques- 
tion of policy, involving one of doctrine in the more practical sense. 
Cf. on vv. ''' ». 

The substitution of Ilixgoq for KTjtpae;, and the placing of it before 
Tdtxojpoq (DFG d f g Vg. Syr. [psh. hard.] Tert. Hier. al.) like the read- 
ing nirpov for KTjcpav in i^s {q.v.), and Tli-zgoq for Kriqaq in v." and 
nirpo) for Ktj?? in v. »*, is a Western corruption. In vv.^- «, on the other 
hand, Ilixgoq and n^tpo) are undoubtedly the correct readings. 

The custom of giving the hand as a pledge of friendship or agreement 
existed both among the Hebrews and the Greeks, though probably 
derived by the Hebrews from some outside source. Cf. the passages 
cited by Ltft., indicating its existence among the Persians (Corn. Nep. 
Da^ c. 10; Diod. Sic. 16.43'; Justinus XI 151'); and showing its preva- 
lence among the Parthians and other adjacent peoples (Jos. A^it. 1S.328 
(9')); and notice in Gen. 242. ' 25" 3145-49 3310. n other methods of con- 
firming an agreement or expressing friendship. The Hebrew expres- 
sion is "to give the hand," \\r2y. 2 Ki. lo's Ezr. iqI' Ezek. i7<« i Chr. 
292* 2 Chr. 308 Lam. 5^ in the last three instances implying submission. 
In Greek writers yzig, xelp Ss^iTspT), or xelp Sc^ta, or Se^ta alone, are 


used with various verbs, such as Xatx^civw, e^piXXw, 5(5w'^t, in speaking of 
pledges received or given : Horn. //. VI 233 : -/sipSLq t dXX-fjXtov Xa^iir]\i. 
Od. I 121 : xetp' ^e Se^cTepTjv. Soph. Ph. 813: l\i.^aXk& xtighq TCiaTtv. 
Tr. 1181: e'n^aXXe x^tpa Se^idcv. Xen. An. 1. 6«: Se^tav eXagov %a\ ISwxa. 
2. 5', Be^taq SeSotx^vaq. In a papyrus of the second century a. d. the 
expression (xtj (puX(^aa[t]v aou i^v Se^cdcv, "not to keep your pledge" 
(Grenfell, Hunt, and Hogarth, Fayww Towns and their Papyri, 124"), 
indicates that Ss^ti: had acquired the meaning "pledge." In the Jewish 
Greek writings BiSovat Ss^tav (or Se^ia<;) is a token of a friendly com- 
pact. See I Mac. 6'* ii"- •'• " 13" 2 Mac. ii^' i2'i 13"; Jos. Ant. 
18. 328 (9'), 20. 62 (32). In none of these cases does the giving of the hand 
indicate submission, but a pledge of friendship, in most cases from the 
superior power to the inferior. Notice esp. the use of Bouvat and Xa^elv 
in I Mac. ii«« 13'" 2 Mac. 12^^- i'', but also in 2 Mac. 13", where in the 
case of a mutual compact the same person both gives and receives Se^tdtv. 
xotvtovfaq, " fellowship, partnership," implying a friendly participation in 
the same work (c/. Phil, i') defines that which the giving of the right 
hands expressed, and to which the givers pledged themselves. It thus 
excludes the idea of surrender or submission which the phrase "to give 
the hand" without qualification (i Chr. 292^) might suggest, or that of 
superiority which usually accompanies its use in i and 2 Mac. The 
genitive can hardly be defined grammatically more exactly than as a 
genitive of inner connection. WM. pp. 235/. 

On SoxoOvxe? aruXot elvat, see note on ol ooxoOvTsq, v. *. The term 
" pillars " as a designation of those upon whom responsibility rests, is 
found in classical, Jewish, and Christian writers. Thus in Eur. Iph. T. 
57: OTuXoc Yotp ocxtov xatBiq e(aiv ocpaevei;. ^sch. Ag. 898: aTuXov 
icoS-^ptj, tiovoyevei; rixvov icaTpt. Cf. exx. from Rabbinic writings in 
Schottgen, Ilorae Hebraicae, ad loc, and for early Christian writers, see 
Clem. Rom. 5*, ol ^jL^ytaToi xal StxatdTaTot axuXot, referring to the apostles, 
of whom Peter and Paul are especially named. 

Xva rjfjieU ek ra eOvq^ avrol Be ek rrjv irepLTOfjLrjv' "that 
we should go (or preach the gospel) among the Gentiles, and 
they among the circumcised." A verb such as eXOwjiev or 
evayyekLaoyfjLeOa is to be suppHed in the first part, and a cor- 
responding predicate for avroL in the second part. On the 
omission of the verb after tm, see Th. Iva II 4 c, and cf. Rom. 
4^^ I Cor. i^^ 2 Cor. 8^^ The clause defines the content of the 
agreement impHed in Sefm? eSoKav . . . kolvcoulu^. See 
BMT 217 (b) and cf. John 9^2. avroL stands in antithesis to 
J7/x€t9, and is thus shghtly emphatic, but not properly intensive. 

U; 9 97 

See Butt. p. 107. The whole sentence of v. ^ marks the com- 
plete victory of the apostle on this memorable occasion, the 
significance of which Hes not in that the apostles approved him, 
which of itself might signify dependence on them instead of 
the independence on which he has been insisting ever since his 
strong afiirmation of it in i"- ^^, but in that his view prevailed 
as against the opposition of the legalists and the timid com- 
promise which the apostles themselves at first wished to follow. 
Was the division of the field here described territorial or 
racial? Was it understood that Paul and Barnabas were to 
go to Gentile lands, and, though having it as their distinctive 
aim to reach the Gentiles, preach to all whom they found, while 
the other apostles took as their territory the Jewish home 
lands? Or were the Gentiles in any and every land or city 
assigned to Paul and Barnabas and the Jews in the same land 
and city to Peter, James, and John? The use of the terms 
eOvT] and Tre/otTO/A?), which designate the people rather than the 
territory, seems at first sight to indicate a personal, or rather 
racial, division. And no doubt it was this in a sense. The 
basis on which it rested was a difference between Jews and 
Gentiles as peoples, not between the lands in which they lived. 
Unquestionably, too, the mission of Paul and Barnabas was 
chiefly a mission to and for the Gentiles, and that of the others 
to and for the Jews. Yet on the other hand it must be observed 
that Paul has used not a simple dative or Trpo? with the accusa- 
tive, but et?, and that, despite some apparent or even a few 
real exceptions to the general rule, the distinction between these 
constructions severally, whether we assume here an omitted 
eXOco/jLev, evwyyeXtaco/jLeOa^ or Kripvaacofiev^ is with a good 
degree of consistency maintained throughout N. T. The dative 
after verbs such as evayy. and /crjpva-. (the rare cases after verbs 
of motion need not come into account here) is a dative of in- 
direct object denoting the persons addressed, tt/oo? with words 
denoting persons individually or collectively denotes personal 
approach or address; ek with names of places means "into" 
or "to"; with personal designations "among" (i. e., to and 
among), never being used with singular personal nouns (save 


in such special idioms as et? eavrov eKOelv)^ but only v.ath. 
plurals or collectives. The use of the phrase a'? ra edvij rather 
than Tot? Wvea-iv, therefore favours the conclusion that the 
division, though on a basis of preponderant nationality, was 
nevertheless territorial rather than racial. This conclusion is, 
moreover, confirmed by the fact that twice in this epistle (i^^ 2^) 
Paul has spoken unambiguously of the Gentiles as those among 
{ev) whom he preached the gospel, and that he has nowhere in 
this epistle or elsewhere used the preposition eh after evayye- 
Xi^ofiai or KTjpvaaco to express the thought "to preach to" (on 
I Thes. 2^, the only possible exception, see below). The whole 
evidence, therefore, clearly indicates that the meaning of the 
agreement was that Paul and Barnabas were to preach the gos- 
pel in Gentile lands, the other apostles in Jewish lands. On 
the question whether the division of territory involved a differ- 
ence in the content of the message, see on v. \ 

For instances of the dative after verbs of speaking, see 4I' i Cor. 3^ 
iS^- » 2 Cor. II' Rom. i" 319 71 Acts 8^ io«. The dative is the most 
frequent construction with siayfekiX,o\iai. For izpiq with the accusa- 
tive (occurring only Rev. 10' after zuix'{-^e\CC,o[i(xi, never after xTjpuaao), 
frequently after xopeuo^jLac and esp. epxopiat), see i^''^- 1 Thes. 2»* 2 Cor. 
ii5. 16 Rom. I'"' " 15"' "• "• " Mt. io« Lk. 16'" i8i« Jn. i4i''- ". For dq 
with personal nouns, see i Pet. i" (only instance after eOayY- when the 
noun is personal, but cf. 2 Cor. 10") Mk. i" 131" Lk, 24^' i Thes. 2' (after 
X7)p6aaa)) Mt. 15" Lk. 11" Acts 22=1 26" (after iizoa-ziXkoi and l^czxoa- 
tiXk(ji) Jn. 9'^ 21" Acts 20^' (after epxo;xat, i^ipx- ^-nd dqipx-) Jn. 7" Acts 
i8« (after xopsjoixat). The usage of Iv after xTQpuaaoi (chap. 2^ Acts 9-° 2 
Cor. ii' Col. I" I Tim. 3I6), together with the use of distinctly local terms 
after dq (Mk. i'» Lk. 4**), leaves no room for doubt that e[<; after 
XTfjpuaati) means "among" rather than "unto." On i Thes. 2', see 
Bornemann ad loc. and on Mk. 13'° Lk. 24<', see WM. p. 267. Similar 
reasoning based on the use of the dative after z^a-^-^zkl'Qi'^ai (chap. 4^' 
I Cor. i5>' * 2 Cor. 11' Rom. i'^) and the employment of the phrase 
euaYyeXd^otxat Iv in this epistle (ii") and of suayy- dq (2 Cor, io^«; on 
I Pet. i«, see WM. p. 267) leads to a similar conclusion respecting dq 
after this verb. Concerning dq after verbs like xopsuotxat, etc., Jn. 7", 
tt-J) dq TT)v Btaaxopav twv 'EXXtqvcov ^xiXXet xopeusaOai xal ocB(5:(jy.£[v lobq 
"EXXiQvac;, is particularly instructive since the persons to be addressed 
are expressly distinguished from those among {dq) whom Jesus is sup- 
posed to be going. If in Acts i8« e(<j certainly verges towards the mean- 

II, 9-10 99 

ing "unto" (denoting address rather than location), yet the total evi- 
dence leaves no room for doubt that dq uniformly, or all but uniformly, 
retains its local sense after all the verbs here under consideration. 

10. /JLovov TOiv TTTdiXOiv Xva fxvT] fiovevco fxev ^ "provided only 
that we should remember the poor." eOeXr^aav or some similar 
verb might be supplied before this clause. See GMT 332, 
Butt. p. 241. But it is better in the absence of a verb to make 
the clause co-ordinate in construction with the preceding Iva 
clause, 'Cva . . . TrepirofjLTJv, and dependent on the idea of 
agreement implied in ^e|ta9 eBooKav. On this understanding 
the clause is not a request added to the agreement, but a part 
of the agreement itself. fJLovov limits the whole clause and indi- 
cates that it contains the only quahfication of the agreement 
already stated in general terms. On the use of fwvov, intro- 
ducing a qualification of a preceding statement or of its appar- 
ent implications, see i^^ 5"^ and esp. i Cor. 7^^ To the general 
agreement that the field be divided between them, each group 
maintaining entire independence in its own territory, there is 
added as the only qualification of this independence and sep- 
arateness the specification that the apostles to the Gentiles 
shall continue to remember the poor, i. e., manifestly the poor 
among the Christians on the other side of the dividing line {cf. 
Sief. ad loc). The tense of /JLvrjfiovevcofJLev, denoting continued 
action (BMT 96), indicates either that the course of action 
referred to is one which having already been begun is to be 
continued, or that there is distiactly in mind a practice (not 
a single instance) of it in the future. The former as the more 
common implication of a present tense in the dependent moods 
is somewhat m.ore probable. 

o Kal idTTOvSaaa avro rovro Trotijaai. "which very thing I 
have also taken pains to do." On the strengthening of o by 
avTo, see Butt. p. 109. The verb cnrovBd^Q) in N. T. signi- 
fies not simply "to be willing," nor, on the other hand, " to do 
with eagerness," but "to make diligent effort" to do a thing 
(i Thes. 2^^ of unsuccessful effort; everywhere else in exhorta- 
tions); cf. Jth. 131' ^2^ "to make haste" to do a thing. Appar- 
ently, therefore, it can not refer simply to the apostle's state of 


mind, but either to a previous or subsequent activity on his part. 
Against the supposition that the reference is to an effort in 
which Paul and Barnabas had jointly taken part {cf. Acts ii'°) 
is the singular number of eaTrovSacra. A reference to an effort 
on behalf of the poor at that very time in progress is impossible 
in view of the meaning and tense of eairovhaaa, to which also 
its singular number adds further force. This would have re- 
quired an imperfect tense, and in all probability, since Barna- 
bas was with Paul at the time, the plural number (notice the 
number of /JLvrjfjLovevco/jiev) — eairovha^oixev iroLelv or eTroLovfiev. 
There is apparently a slight hint in the present tense of 
fiV7)fiov€VQ)/jLep of a previous remembrance of the poor on the 
part of one or both of them (it would be overpressing the plural 
to say both of them), in eairovhaaa a reference to Paul's subse- 
quent diUgence in fulfiUing the stipulation then made. 

Respecting the argument of the whole paragraph, it should 
be noticed that while the apostle's objective point is precisely 
not to prove that he was in agreement with the Twelve, but 
independent of them, yet by the facts which he advances to 
prove his independence he at the same time excludes the inter- 
pretation which his judaistic opponents would have been glad 
to put upon his conduct, viz., that he was in disagreement 
with the Twelve, they right and he wrong, and shows that, 
though they at first disagreed with him as to what was expedi- 
ent to do, in the end they cordially admitted that he was right. 

f. Evidence of his independence of all human authority 
drawn from his conduct in resisting Peter at Antioch (2"-^^). 

In this passage the apostle relates one of the most significant 
incidents of the whole series from the point of view of his 
independence of the apostles. Peter, coming down to Antioch 
evidently with no hostile intent or critical spirit, and probably 
arriving in Paul's absence, is attracted by the spectacle of Jew- 
ish and Gentile Christians living together in harmony in one 
community, joins himself for the time to this community and, 
following the practice of the Jews of the church, eats with the 
Gentile members. Presently, however, there appeared at An- 

n, lo, 11-14 loi 

tioch certain men who came from Jerusalem as the repre- 
sentatives of James. These men, doubtless contending that 
Peter's conduct in eating with the Gentiles was not only not 
required by the Jerusalem agreement, but was in fact contrary 
to it, since it involved disregard of the law by Jewish Christians, 
brought such pressure to bear upon Peter that he gradually dis- 
continued his social fellowship with the Gentile Christians. 
So influential was this change in Peter's practice that all the 
Jewish members of the church ceased to eat with their Gentile 
fellow-Christians, and as a result of this even Barnabas, who 
at Jerusalem had with Paul championed the freedom of the 
Gentiles, also followed Peter's example. Thus the church was 
divided, socially at least, into two, and by this fact pressure 
was brought upon the Gentiles to take up the observance of 
the Jewish law of foods, since so only could the unity of the 
church be restored. At this point Paul, perhaps returning 
from an absence from Antioch, for it is difficult to suppose that 
matters would have reached this pass while he was present, or 
possibly delaying action so long as the question pertained to 
the conduct of the Jews only, and interfering only when it 
became also a question of the subjection of the Gentiles to the 
Jewish law — at this point, at any rate, Paul boldly rebuked 
Peter, claiming that Peter's own previous conduct showed that 
he recognised that the law was not binding even upon Jewish 
Christians, and that it was therefore unjustifiable and hypo- 
critical for him, by refusing to eat with the Gentiles, in effect 
to endeavour to bring them under the law. By this incident 
a new phase of the question discussed at Jerusalem was brought 
to the front, viz.: whether the Jewish Christian was also re- 
leased from the obhgation to keep the law, as well as the Gen- 
tile; and, by the inclusion of foods as well as circumcision 
among the matters brought into controversy, the question of 
the obligation of statutes in general was raised. The essentially 
contradictory character of the compromise reached at Jeru- 
salem having also in this way been brought to Hght, Paul, so 
far from recognising the authority of Peter as the representa- 
tive of the Jerusalem apostles to dictate his course of action, 


resisted him openly, and following out the logic not of that to 
which he had consented at Jerusalem, viz., the continuance of 
legal practices by the Jewish Christians, but of that for which 
he had contended, viz., the freedom of the Gentiles from ob- 
ligation to conform to the statutes of the law, boldly claimed 
that even Jewish Christians were not under law, and must not 
obey its statutes when such obedience involved compulsion of 
the Gentiles to do the same. In no way could he more ef- 
fectively have affirmed his independence as a Christian apostle 
of all human authority. 

^^And when Cephas came to Antioch I resisted him to the face, 
because he stood cotidcmned. ^"^For before certain came from 
James he was eating with the Gentiles. But when they came 
he gradually drew back and separated himself, fearing the 
circumcised. ^^And there joined him in the hypocrisy the rest 
of the Jews also, so that even Barnabas was carried along with 
their hypocrisy. ^^But when I saw that they were not pursuing a 
straightforward course in relatiojt to the truth of the gospel, I said 
to Cephas in the presence of everybody. If thou, though a Jew, 
livest after the manner of the Gentiles and not after that of the 
Jews, how is it that thou dost constrain the Gentiles to live after the 
Jewish manner? 

11. 'Ore he rjXOev Kt^c^S? et? * AvTco^eiaVj Kara Trpoacoirov 
avTM avTea-Trjv, on KaT€yvcoa/jL€vo<; rjv "And when Cephas came 
to Antioch, I resisted him to the face, because he stood con- 
demned." The antithesis between the right hands of fellow- 
ship (v. 9) and Paul's resistance of Peter at Antioch suggests 
the translation of he by "but." But the paragraph is simply 
continuative of the argument begun in i", and extending to 
and through this paragraph. By one more event in which he 
came into contact with the Jerusalem leaders he enforces his 
argument that he had never admitted their authority over him, 
but had acted with the consciousness of having independent 
guidance for his conduct. 

The Antioch here r,eferred to is unquestionably not the Pisidian 
Antioch, but the more famous Syrian city, which is regularly spoken 
of simply as Antioch, without further title to designate it. See Acts 

II, I I- I 2 103 

II" etfreq. Cf. Acts. 13". This temporal clause evidently denotes the 
time of the fact about to be stated, only in a general way, not as if 
it occurred immediately upon Peter's arrival; for the following verses 
show that in fact a considerable series of events must have elapsed 
before Paul took his stand against Peter. Concerning the time of the 
whole incident, see Introd. pp. 1 /. 

The phrase xczTa xpdawxov conveys in itself no implication of hos- 
tility, but only of "face to face" encounter (Acts 25I6 2 Cor. iqi). 
dvTeaTTjv reflects the fact that to Paul Peter seemed to have made 
the initiative aggression. For while the verb is used both of passive 
resistance (lit. "to stand against") and active counter opposition {cf. 
Acts 13' 2 Tim. 38), yet it usually or invariably implies an initiative 
attack in some sense from the other side. This was furnished in the 
present instance by the conduct of Peter, which though not necessarily 
so in intention v/as in effect an attack on the position which Paul was 
maintaining at Antioch. 

Of the various senses in which the verb xaTaYivtoaxo) is used by 
classical writers, two only can be considered here: (a) "to accuse," (b) 
" to condemn." Of these the latter is evidently much more appropriate 
in a clause in which Paul gives the reason for resisting Peter. The 
participle is predicative, and best taken as forming with ^v a pluper- 
fect of existing state i^MT 90, 91, 430; Gal. 4' Mt. 9" 26" Mk. i« 
Lk. i^). It comes to practically the same thing to take xaxeYvcoajJ-lvoc; 
as having the force of an adjective meaning "guilty" (Sief. cites Hero- 
dian, 5, 15S e^iyx^iv exeipaxo eJxoxoc; xaTeyvwaixivTQV, Luc. De salt. 
952; Clem. Hom. 17"; with which compare also, as illustrating tho 
adjectival use of participles in N. T., Acts 8^ Gal. i" Eph. 2^2 43 
Col. I"; BMr 429). A phrase of agency denoting by whom he had 
been condemned is not in any case necessary, nor is it necessary defi- 
nitely to supply it in thought. Probably Paul's thought is that Peter's 
own action condemned him. Notice the following clause introduced 
by Yi^P- The perfect is used with similar implication in Rom. 14=' 
Jn. 31*; Jos. Bell. 2.135 (8«), cited by Ltft. To supply "by the Gen- 
tile Christians in Antioch" is to add to the text what is neither sug- 
gested by the context nor appropriate to it. For since the purpose of 
the apostle in narrating this event is still to show his own independence 
of the other apostles, a condemnation of Peter's action by the Gentile 
Christians in Antioch is an irrelevant detail, and especially so as the 
reason for Paul's action in rebuking Peter. 

12. TT/ao ToO ^ap e\6elv rtm? airo *laK(o/3ov /.Lera roiv eOvoiv 
avv^adiev. "For before certain came from James he was eating 
with the Gentiles." Not this clause alone but the whole 
sentence (v.^^) gives the reason why Peter stood condemned, 


and so the proof {'yap) of Kareyvcoa-fievo^;. iOvcov refers, of 
course, chiefly or exclusively to the Gentile Christians, as in 
Rom. 15^^ 16^, and in v.^^ below, and (rvvrjadiev^ without doubt, 
to sharing with them in their ordinary meals, as in Lk. 152 Acts 
11^ The imperfect tense imphes that he did this, not on a single 
occasion, but repeatedly or habitually. The significance of the 
act lay in the fact that he thereby exposed himself to the lia- 
bility of eating food forbidden by the O. T. law of clean and 
unclean foods (Lev. chap. 11), and thus in effect declared it not 
binding upon him.* The question thus brought to the front 
was, it should be clearly observed, quite distinct from that one 
which was the centre of discussion at Jerusalem. There it was 
the obligation of the Gentile Christian to observe the law, and 
particularly in the matter of circumcision; here it involves the 
obligation of the Jewish Christian to keep the law, and par- 
ticularly in the matter of food. By his action in eating with 
Gentile Christians, whose freedom from the law had been ex- 
pressly granted at Jerusalem so far as concerned circumcision, 
and who had doubtless exercised a like freedom in respect to 
foods, Peter went beyond anything which the action at Jeru- 
salem directly called for, and in effect declared the Jew also, 
as well as the Gentile, to be free from the law. It does not 
indeed follow that he w^ould have been prepared to apply the 
principle consistently to other prescriptions of the law, and to 
afhrm, e. g., that the Jewish Christian need not circumcise his 
children. Nevertheless, the broad question w^hether any statute 
of the law was binding upon Gentile or Jew was now brought 
out into clear light, and on this question Peter by his conduct 
took a position which was of great significance. 

Yet it can scarcely have been Peter's conduct that first raised 
the question. The custom of Jewish Christians eating with 
Gentiles he no doubt found in existence when he came to 
Antioch and fell in Avith it because it appealed to him as right, 
although contrary to his previous practice. It is wholly im- 

*0n the Jewish feeling respecting Jews eating with Gentiles, see Jubil. 22" Tob. ii". >> 
Dan. I' Esth. Lxx chap. 28 Jth. i2i'^- 3 Mac. 3<. '; Jos. Ant. 4.137 (6»); cited by Bous. Rel. 
d. Jud.*, p. 192; Acts 10" II'. 

11, 12 I05 

probable that not finding it in existence he himself suggested 
it, or that if he had already been in the habit of eating with 
Gentiles in Judea, he would have been deterred from continu- 
ing to do so in Antioch by the arrival of the messengers from 
James. The Antioch practice was clearly an expression of the 
'■freedom in Christ Jesus" which Paul advocated, but in all 
probability a new expression, developed since the conference at 
Jerusalem (vv.i-^°). It was probably only after that event, in 
which the full Christianity of the Gentile Christians was recog- 
nised even at Jerusalem, that the Jewish Christians at Antioch 
gained courage to break over their scruples as Jews, and eat with 
their Gentile brothers in the church. Nor is there any special 
reason to think that Paul would have pressed the matter at the 
beginning. Concerning, as it did, not the freedom of the Gen- 
tiles, but the adherence of the Jews to their own ancestral custom 
enforced by O. T. statute, in consistency with his principles (i 
Cor. 7^^^-) and the course he pursued at Jerusalem, where he 
stood for the freedom of the Gentiles but assumed apparently 
without demurrer that the Jews would continue to observe the 
law, it would probably seem to him not a matter to be pressed, 
but left to the gradual enhghtenment of the Jewish Christians 
themselves. It is difficult to see, moreover, how, if the Jewish 
Christians in Antioch had before the conference at Jerusalem 
already begun to disregard the Jewish law of foods, this should 
not have been even more a burning question at Jerusalem 
than the circumcision of the Gentiles. Certainly it would 
have been more difficult for the legahstic party to yield in 
the former than in the latter matter. Probability, therefore, 
points to the time between Paul's return to Antioch and 
Peter's arrival there as that in which the Jewish Christians 
at Antioch began to eat with their Gentile brethren. 

If this is correct it furnishes, moreover, a natural explana- 
tion of the visit to Antioch both of Peter and of the representa- 
tives of James. If news of this new departure at Antioch had 
come to Jerusalem it might easily seem to Peter that inasmuch 
as it affected not simply the Gentiles, but also the Jewish 
Christians, it concerned him as the apostle of the latter to 


know what was going on. Especially would this be the case 
if there was any uncertainty in his mind as to whether the divi- 
sion of the field agreed to at Jerusalem assigned to him the 
Jews, or Jewish lands. See on 2^. Even if he had come ex- 
pecting to disapprove what he found, it would be by no means 
uncharacteristic of him that, captivated with the picture of 
Christian unity which he saw, he should, instead of reproving, 
have himself adopted the new custom. And if in turn news of 
this state of affairs, including Peter's unexpected conduct, 
reached Jerusalem, this would furnish natural occasion for the 
visit of the representatives of James; for to James as well as to 
the more extreme legaHsts such conduct might seem not only 
to violate the Jerusalem agreement, but to create a most seri- 
ous obstacle to the development of the Christian faith among 
the Jews. 

And this in turn makes clear the important fact that the 
situation at Antioch was not the result of repudiation of the 
Jerusalem agreement by any of the parties to it, but was sim- 
ply the coming to the surface of the contradictory convictions 
which were only imperfectly harmonised in the compromise in 
which the Jerusalem conference issued. A new aspect of the 
question which underlay the discussion at Jerusalem had now 
come to the front and raised a question concerning which pre- 
cisely opposite decisions might easily seem to different persons 
to be involved in the Jerusalem decision. The brethren at 
Antioch might naturally seem to themselves to be only follow- 
ing out what was logically involved in the Jerusalem decision, 
when they found in the recognition of uncircumcised Gentile 
believers as brethren the warrant for full fellowship with them 
on equal terms, and, in the virtual declaration of the non- 
essentiahty of circumcision, ground for the inference that the 
O. T. statutes were no longer binding, and ought not to be 
observed to the detriment of the unity of the Christian com- 
munity. The Jerusalem brethren, on the other hand, might 
with equal sincerity maintain that they had never expressed or 
intimated the belief that the Jews could disregard the statutes 
of the law, and that the tacit understanding of the Jerusalem 

II, 12 I07 

decision was that these statutes should be regarded as still in 
force for the Jews, whatever concessions were made in respect 
to the Gentiles. It was this derivation of contrary conclusions 
from the Jerusalem compromise and Peter's wavering between 
the two interpretations that created the Antioch situation. 

Whether dicb 'laxw^ou limits 'zt.v&q or eXSelv it is impossible to deter- 
mine with certainty. The fact that the subject of an infinitive some- 
what more frequently precedes it than follows it (see Votaw, Inf. in 
Bib. Gr. p. 58; cf. Mt. 6* Lk. 22"; contra Lk. 2=1 Gal. 3^) slightly favours 
explaining the position of xtvA? as due to the desire to bring it into 
connection with <i%h 'laxti^ou. Yet the rarity of any limitation of an 
indefinite pronoun by any phrase except a partitive one is against this 
construction. In either case the mention of the personal name, James, 
the same, of course, who is named in v. " and in i^', implies that the 
persons spoken of were sent by him or in some sense represented him. 
That they did not belong to those whom in v.* Paul calls "false breth- 
ren" is probable not only from the fact that Paul does not so describe 
them, but designates them as representing James, who was of the 
mediating party, but also from the fact, brought out above, that these 
messengers of James to Antioch probably contended not for obedience 
to the Jewish law by Gentile Christians, but for the keeping of the Jeru- 
salem compact as they not unnatvurally interpreted it. 

ore Be yXOov, vireareWev koI a(f)(bpL^ev eavToVy (^o^ovfievo^ 
T0V9 e/c irepLroixTj^. "But when they came, he gradually drew 
back and separated himself, fearing the circumcised." The verb 
vTroareXko), used, especially by Polybius, of the drawing back 
of troops in order to place them under shelter, itself suggests 
a retreat from motives of caution; eavTov is the object of 
both verbs. The imperfect tense is very expressive, indi- 
cating that Peter took this step not at once, immediately on 
the arrival of the men from James, but gradually, under the 
pressure, as the next phrase impHes, of their criticism. The 
force of the tense can hardly be otherwise expressed than by 
the word "gradually." For a possible parallel instance of the 
use of the tense, see Acts i8^ The circumcised from fear of 
whom Peter reversed his course of action are manifestly those 
Jewish Christians who came from James. That Peter should 
have been to such an extent under their domination illustrates 


both his own instability and the extent to which the legaHstic 
party had developed and acquired influence in the Jerusalem 
church and Jewish Christianity generally. In view of this 
statement it is by no means incredible that at that later time 
referred to in Acts 2120 such a situation as is there described 
should have developed. Cf. on i^^. 

*HX0sv (understood by Origen (i^se) to refer to James, eX06vTO(; 
'laxw^ou) though supported by J<BD*FG 39, 442, and the old Latin 
must be either a primitive error or a Western corruption. See WH. 
Introd. p. 224, and App. p. 121. The reading ^X6ov is supported by 
ACD^ et cEHKLP, the great body of later manuscripts and the ancient 
versions with the exception of the old Latin. 

risptTopiiQ is probably not used here as above, by metonymy for "the 
circumcised" — observe the presence of the article there and its omis- 
sion here — but in its proper sense. The preposition expresses source, 
i. e., not of existence but of standing and character (cf. Th. Ix, II 7, 
though the characterisation of the use is not quite broad enough), and 
the phrase means simply "the circumcised," "the Jews." This rather 
than "converts from Judaism" (Ltft.) seems to be the regular sense of 
this phrase, found also in Rom. 4^2 Col. 4" Acts 10" n^, Cf. the ex- 
pression 6 ex. xt'aTswq, chap. 2"'' ' Rom. 3^8 4*^; 6 ex v6[xou, Rom. 4"; see also 
Gal. 310. 

13. Kal avvvireKpLdrjcrav avrw koI 01 XolttoI 'louSatot, wa-re 
Koi 'Bapvd^a^ orvvaTvi^x^V «^twz^ t^ viroKpiaei' " And there 
joined him in the hypocrisy the rest of the Jews also, so that 
even Barnabas was carried along with their hypocrisy." Hy- 
pocrisy, consisting essentially in the concealment of one's real 
character, feehngs, etc., under the guise of conduct implying 
something different (vTroKpiveadat* is "to answer from under," 
i. e., from under a mask as the actor did, playing a part; cf. 
Lk. 20^0), usually takes the form of concealing wrong feel- 
ings, character, etc., under the pretence of better ones. In the 
present case, however, the knowledge, judgment, and feelings 
which were concealed were worse only from the point of view 
of the Jews of whom Peter and those who joined with him 
were afraid. From Paul's point of view it was their better 

* On the compound (, see Polyb. 3. g2', S- 4Q'; Plut. Marius, 14"; here only 
inN. T, 

II, 12-14 log 

knowledge which they cloaked under a mask of worse, the usual 
type of hypocrisy which proceeds from fear. By the charac- 
terisation of this conduct as hypocrisy Paul implies that there 
had been no real change of conviction on the part of Peter and 
the rest, but only conduct which belied their real convictions. 
"The rest of the Jews" are manifestly the other Jewish Chris- 
tians in Antioch, from which it is evident that it was not Peter 
only who had eaten with the Gentile Christians but the Jewish 
Christians generally. That even Barnabas, who shared with 
Paul the apostleship to the Gentiles, yielded to the pressure 
exerted by the brethren from Jerusalem shows again how 
strong was the influence exerted by the latter, 

Kaf (after aOxv) is the reading of S*ACDFGHKLP al. pier, d g 
Syr. (psh. hard.) Arm. Aeth. Victorin. Ambrst. Hier. Or. It is 
omitted by B f Vg. Boh. Goth. Or. (Sout.). Neither external nor 
internal evidence is decisive; but its omission from the small number 
of authorities which do not contain it, either from pure inadvertence 
or from a feeling that it was superfluous, seems somewhat more prob- 
able than its addition to the great body of authorities. 

Tf) uxoxpfaet may be either a dative of accompaniment — "swept 
along with their hypocrisy" — dependent on the auv in composition 
(cf. Eph. 5" Phil. 41* Rom. i2»« et freq.) or perhaps, a little more prob- 
ably, a dative of agent, "by their hypocrisy," "with them" being im- 
plied in auv. On the use of the verb auvaxiiYO), found also in Xen. and 
Lxx, cf. esp. 2 Pet. 31^ 

14. aX)C ore elBov on ovk opOoTroBovcriv tt/jo? ttjv aXrjQeiav 
rov evayyeXioVj "But when I saw that they were not pursuing 
a straightforward course in relation to the truth of the gospel." 
The natural implication of this sentence and indeed of the pre- 
ceding narrative is that all the events thus far related, the com- 
ing of the emissaries of James, the retreat of Peter from his 
first position, the like action of the rest of the Jewish Christians 
and even of Barnabas, took place before Paul himself took a 
position of open opposition to Peter. Had Paul, then, been 
in Antioch all this time, either holding his peace while the 
whole Jewish element in the church took a position which he 
judged to be wrong, or unable, without open opposition to 


Peter, to stem the tide, and reluctant to resort to this? The 
latter alternative is the more probable, if he was actually 
present. But the most probable explanation of the facts, 
neither directly supported nor opposed by anything in the pas- 
sage itself, is that Paul was absent during the early part of 
Peter's stay in Antioch. 

It is indeed possible to suppose that Paul's activity in the matter 
was due not to his arrival in Antioch but to a new perception (note the 
word elSov) of the significance of the question at issue. Possibly he 
himself had not, till this controversy cleared the air, seen how far the 
principles of the gospel that he preached must carry him in his anti- 
legalism, had offered no active opposition to Peter's attempt to bring 
the Jewish Christians under the law, and only when the movement 
began to spread to the Gentile Christians (see v. i< fin.) saw clearly 
that the only position consistent with the gospel was that if the law 
was not binding upon tlie Gentile, neither could it be really so upon 
the Jew, and that when obedience to it by Gentile or Jew became an 
obstacle in the way of the gospel, then both Jew and Gentile must 
cease to obey its statutes. But on this hypothesis Paul himself was 
involved only less deeply than Peter in the latter's confusion of thought 
and it is therefore hardly likely that he would have spoken in the 
words of sharp condemnation of Peter which he employs in v. " and in 
this verse. 

The verb SpOoxoSlw, used only here (and in later eccl. writers where 
its use may be traced to this passage, Ltft.), means "to make a straight 
path" rather than "to walk erect." Cf. bgUizoltq ^afvovTs.;, Nicander, 
Al. 419; and Sophocles, Greek Lexicon of Rom. and Byz. Period. Cf. 
Paul's frequent use of xsptxaTiw, "to walk," as a figure for moral con- 
duct, chap. 5i« Rom. 6< 8S etc. The present word is apparently not simply 
a general ethical term for doing right, but, as the context implies, 
denotes straightforward, unwavering, and sincere conduct in contrast 
with the pursuing of a crooked, wavering, and more or less insincere 
course, such as Paul has just attributed to Peter and those who fol- 
lowed him. The present tense describes the fact from the point 
of view of Paul's original perception of it— "they are not acting 
straightforwardly." It is not, however, a historical present (Sief.) 
but the present of the direct form retained in indirect discourse even 
after a past tense {BMT 341 [b]). The preposition xp6<; probably 
means "towards," "in relation to" (chap. 6^° 2 Cor. i'^ Col. 4'), and 
the phrase xpd? , . . eOayr- constitutes a definitive limitation of 
6p6oxoSouatv, yielding the sense "pursue a straight course in relation 
to the truth of the gospel," "to deal honestly and consistently with it, 

II, 14 III 

not Juggling, or warping, or misrepresenting it." xp6<; may indeed 
mean "in conformity with" (Lk. 12*' 2 Cor. 510 Eph. 3*; so Th. Ltft. 
Ell. Sief.), and the phrase constitute an epexegesis of 6p6oxo5ouatv, 
yielding the sense "pursuing a straightforward (righteous) course, viz., 
one in accordance with the truth of the gospel." But the fact that 
Paul regularly employs vjxzk with iceptxaTiio in the sense "in con- 
formity to" (2 Cor. lo^' » Rom. 14" etc.) is against this latter view, 
while the former is more in accordance with the context, which refers 
not so much to conformity to the truth of the gospel as to an attitude 
(of straightforwardness or crookedness) towards it. The interpretation 
of xp6(; in the sense of (motion) towards, making the truth of the gospel 
the goal of their action, involves a sense possible to xp6<;, but out of 
harmony with the context. The phrase, "the truth of the gospel," is 
doubtless used here in the same sense as in v. *, 5. v. 

cTttop TO) K.rj(l)a efxirpoaOev irdmayv "I said to Cephas in 
the presence of everybody." The omission of the article before 
TrdvTcov makes the statement very general, not simply before 
those who have just been mentioned (twz^ ttcivtcov) but when all 
the members of the church were present. Cf. 1 Cor. 11^^ 14^, 
and esp. i Tim. 520. 

How much of what follows was actually uttered on this occa- 
sion it is impossible to say with certainty. Only the first sen- 
tence (v. "b) contains unmistakable evidence of having been 
addressed to Peter, and the absence of any direct address in the 
remainder of the chapter makes it unlikely that through the 
whole of it Paul is still quoting what he said to Peter. Yet on 
the other hand it is improbable that he intends to limit his 
report of his words on that occasion to a single sentence. He 
passes imperceptibly from the report of his former words into 
argument on the theme itself, and the Hne between the two 
can not be detected. 

El (TV 'louSaZo? v'Trdp')((Dv iOvLfco!s koI ov')(i *IouSat/ca)9 fj?, 
7r(W9 ra eOvr) avayKa^ei^ ^lovBat^cLv; "If thou, though a Jew, 
livest after the manner of the Gentiles, and not after that of 
the Jews, how is it that thou dost constrain the Gentiles to live 
after the Jewish manner?" The terms iOviKoy; and ^lovhaiKSs 
manifestly refer to the living according to Gentile and Jewish 
customs respectively, especially in the matter of foods. The 


conditional clause evidently refers, as is often the case with a 
simple present supposition, to an admitted fact. {BMT 244.) 
It is an overpressing of the present tense to maintain that it 
must refer to an act at that very time in progress, which is 
plainly excluded by the preceding narrative. Grammatically 
it is doubtless to be taken not as a present for an imperfect, but 
as a general present, describing a habit or mental attitude which, 
being illustrated by a recent act, may itself be assumed to be 
still in force {cf. Mk. 2^ Mt. i226ff- Acts 227- s 233. 4 pg. Sg42, 43)^ 
The use of it implies that Peter had not really in principle aban- 
doned the Gentile way of life, though temporarily from fear 
returning to the Jewish way of living. In English we should 
probably say in such a case, "If you can live," or "If your 
convictions permit you to live." Over against this recent prac- 
tice Paul forcibly sets forth Peter's inconsistency in compelling 
the Gentiles to follow the Jewish mode of life. The words 
avayKu^ea 'lovBat^cLv are of crucial importance for the under- 
standing of Paul's position. They show what he regarded as 
the significance if not the deliberate intent of Peter's conduct 
in refusing longer to eat with the Gentile Christians. Under 
the circumstances this amounted not simply to maintaining the 
validity of the Jewish law for Jewish Christians, but involved 
the forcing of Jewish practices upon the Gentile Christians. 
By 1113 refusal any longer to eat with them and by the adoption 
under his influence of the same course on the part of the Jew- 
ish members of the Antioch church, he left to the Gentiles no 
choice but either to conform to the Jewish law of foods, or suffer 
a line of division to be drawn through the church. It was this 
element of coercion brought to bear on the Gentile Christians 
that made the matter one of direct concern to Paul. Against 
efforts to maintain the observance of the Jewish law on the part 
of Jewish Christians, he would doubtless have had nothing to 
say so long as they were confined to Jewish communities, con- 
cerned the Jews only, and did not affect the Gentiles. Had 
Peter, when he came to Antioch, chosen from the first to abstain 
from eating with the Gentiles on the ground that his relation 
to the Jewish Christians made it inexpedient, Paul would prob- 

II, 14 113 

ably have made no objection. But when Peter, having first 
associated freely with the Gentiles, afterwards under pressure 
from the men that came from James, drew back, carrying all 
the other Jewish Christians with him, and forcing the Gentile 
Christians to choose between subjection to the Jewish law and 
the disruption of their church, this conduct involved an inter- 
ference with the freedom of the Gentiles which was of most 
vital concern to Paul as the apostle of the Gentiles and de- 
fender of their freedom. That he interpreted the creation of 
such a situation as a forcing of the Gentile Christians to judaise, 
ignoring the possibility of escape from this by creating a divi- 
sion of the church, is itself of significance as showing how im- 
portant to him was the maintenance of the unity of the church 
as against any division into Jewish and Gentile wings, and con- 
firms the interpretation given above to /u?} tto)? . . . ehpafiov 
(v. 2), and of et? ra edvrj (v.^). 

To the men who came from James it might have seemed an entirely 
feasible course that the Gentiles should constitute a separate — from 
their point of view a second-rank — •Christian body. Has not a similar 
thing sometimes happened for other reasons on a modern mission 
field? They might have justified their course in the matter on the 
ground that they were not dictating to the Gentile Christians what 
course they should pursue; it did not concern them which horn of the 
dilemma the Gentiles chose, whether they elected to observe the Jew- 
ish law, or to constitute a separate body from the Jewish believers; 
they were concerning themselves only with the conduct of Jewish 
Christians. Even Peter might have assumed somewhat the same posi- 
tion, maintaining that he was dealing only with the question of the 
obligation of the Jews in the matter of foods; for the action of the 
Gentiles the latter were themselves responsible. To Paul the matter 
did not appear thus. To a territorial division of the field he had 
indeed consented at Jerusalem; but the creation of a division between 
the Jewish and Gentile Christians in the Gentile territory was evidently 
to him intolerable and out of the question. 

Thus in the maintenance of the freedom of the Gentiles Paul 
was forced to take a position respecting the validity of the law 
for the Jews and concerning the unity of the Christian com- 
munity in Gentile cities. The former at least was decidedly in 


advance of the position taken at Jerusalem, though logically 
involved in it. The Jerusalem decision was essentially a com- 
promise between contradictories, the vaKdity of the law, and 
its non- validity. The practical decision that the Jewish Chris- 
tians should continue to observe the law and the Gentiles be 
free from it left it undecided which of these principles should 
take precedence over the other when they should come into 
that conflict which was sooner or later inevitable. The visit of 
Peter to Antioch and the subsequent arrival of the men from 
James precipitated the conflict. The Jerusalem brethren prac- 
tically took the position that the first half of the Jerusalem 
agreement must be kept at any cost — the Jewish Christian 
must keep the law whatever the effect in respect to the Gentile 
Christians. Paul, carrying to its logical issue the principle 
which underlay the position which he had taken at Jerusalem, 
maintained that the Gentile Christians must not be forced to 
keep the law, even if to avoid such forcing the Jews themselves 
had to abandon the law. In Antioch much more clearly than 
at Jerusalem the issue was made between legalism and anti- 
legalism. It was incidental to the event at Antioch, but from 
the point of view from which Paul introduced the matter here, 
a matter of primary importance that on this occasion more 
decisively than ever before he declared his independence of 
Jerusalem and her apostles. 

The oldest and most trustworthy mss. are divided between oux 
and oOxf before 'louSotlV.wc;, the former being the reading of S*ACP 
31,33, the latter that of S<=BD* and a few cursives. D^' «* ^FGKs'iL 
and most of the cursives read oux. WH., adopting oOx with the margin: 
"oux MSS." apparently judge that oux is a primitive error and oux^ 
a derivative from it. But the grounds of this decision are not easy to 
discover. In view of Acts 2^ Rom. 3", oOxf can not be judged to be 
impossible, and in view of its strong attestation is probably to be 
accepted as the original reading, of which oux is a corruption arising 
from the accidental omission of one c, or from the substitution of the 
more familiar for the less familiar form. 

Udq used as here in the sense of "how is it that," nearly equivalent 
to "why," expressing surprise or displeasure, is of not uncommon 
occurrence both in classical and biblical writers. See Horn. //. IV 26; 
Aesch. Pers. 798; Soph. El. 407; Mt. 221=' Jn. 4' Acts 20, etc. 

II, I-I4 115 

'Avayxtil^etc; is undoubtedly conative, referring not to an accomplished 
result, but to the intention or tendency of Peter's action. BMT ii. 

'Iou8ai!^eiv, "to follow the Jewish way of life"; i. e., to observe the 
Jewish law, occurs in the same sense in the Lxx of Esth. 8^'': /.xl -zoXkoX 
Twv eOvwv xeptexiixvovTO %x\ [ouoati^ov hide Tbv (p6pov xtov 'louSocfwv, in 
Ignat. Mag. lo': aroTcdv eJTtv 'IyjjoOv Xptaxbv "koiXzlv xal EouBatt^stv, 
and in Ev. Nic. 2; Plut. Cic. 7'. In the sense "to favour the Jews," it 
is found in Jos. Bell. 2. 463 (iS^). 

'louSaloq uxdip^wv, standing in opposition to £6vtx.(o? X,%<;, is conces- 
sive. The view of Ltft. that uxipx^v has reference to the original, 
natural state, being nearly equivalent to iputjec wv, is but slenderly 
supported by evidence. Certainly this is not the invariable force of 
uTrdpxo) in N. T. Cj. chap, i'* Acts 2'<' 4'^, etc. 

The term eOvr/.w? occurs here only in Bib. Gr.; elsewhere only in 
later writers; cf. £0vtx6q, Mt. 5^' 6^ iS'^ 3 Jn. ^ 'louSaiV.wq occurs 
here only in Bib. Gr.; elsewhere in Jos. Bell. 6. 17 (i^; cf. 'IouSa'ix6q, 
Tit. i^* 2 Mac. i^^^; Jos. Ant. 20. 258 (iiO- On the meaning of ^jiq, see 
note on ^6uo, p. 134, 

GAL. 2i-» AND ACTS, CHAPS. 10, 11, 15. 

The discussion of the bearing of the historical data furnished by 
this chapter on the interpretation and criticism of the narrative of 
Acts belongs rather to the interpretation of the latter book than to 
the present task. It may not be amiss, however, to point out certain 
results of the interpretation of Galatians which are of concern to the 
student of the life of Paul. 

1. A visit to Jerusalem between that of Gal. ii* and that of 2^ is 
rendered improbable by the constant implication of the apostle that 
Jerusalem was the headquarters of the Jewish church and its leaders, 
combined with his implied assertion that he is enumerating in succes- 
sion the occasions of his contact with these leaders. See more fully 
on 2^, and contra, Steinmann, Ahjassungszeit des Galaterbriefes, pp. 

2. That the visit to Jerusalem recorded in 21-1° was for the purpose 
of relieving the poor of Jerusalem is excluded by the aorist tense of 
eaxouSaaa in 2^°. Cf. on v. ^. 

3. The subject for the discussion of which Paul went to Jerusalem 
on the occasion recorded in 2^ was specifically the necessity of circum- 
cising Gentiles who believed in Christ and wished to join the Christian 
community. Cf. on vv.^-', pp. 69, 75 

4. The defenders of the freedom of the Gentiles were Paul and Bar- 
nabas, Titus being present also as a representative of the Gentile ele- 
ment in the church from which Paul and Barnabas came, presumably 


5. Paul presented the matter in Jerusalem both publicly, and pri- 
vately before the eminent men of the church, James and Peter and 
John. C/. on v. *. 

6. These latter at first, for the sake of certain extreme legalists who 
had recently come into the church, desired that Titus should be cir- 
cumcised, but finally, convinced by Paul's presentation of his gospel, 
3aelded and gave their cordial assent to the prosecution of the Gentile 
mission according to the convictions of Paul, reserving to themselves 
the work among the Jews. Cf. on vv. *• '• '. 

7. Of any discussion at Jerusalem of the question of the obligation 
of the Gentile Christians in respect to foods there is no intimation in 
Paul's narrative; and any decision restricting their liberty in this mat- 
ter is decisively excluded by the statement that the only qualification 
of the entire and strict division of the field between himself and Peter, 
with implication that each was to follow his own conviction in his own 
field (since without this implied provision the question that was raised 
was still as much unsettled as ever), was that he and Barnabas should 
remember the poor of the Jewish Christian community. Cf. p. 99. 

8. Paul's account of the subsequent incident at Antioch also excludes 
the possibility of fellowship between Jews and Gentiles in the church 
having been agreed to at Jerusalem either on the basis of the Gentiles 
conforming to the Jewish law of foods or of the Jews disregarding their 
law. It is practically certain, therefore, that the practice of Jewish 
and Gentile Christians eating together in disregard of the Jewish law 
arose at Antioch, independent of any decision at Jerusalem, and prob- 
ably subsequent to the Jerusalem conference. Cf. on v.>% p. 105. 

9. What the previous practice of the Gentile Christians at Antioch 
was is nowhere explicitly stated. It is highly improbable, however, 
that the silence of the Jerusalem conference with reference to food was 
due to the Gentiles having already adopted the Jewish law of food. 
Having refused to be circumcised, as the case of Titus shows they had, 
it is not likely that they conformed to the law in respect to food. But 
if not, the Jerusalem legalists, since they did not press the question of 
food in the Jerusalem conference, were less insistent on conformity to 
the law in respect to this matter than in reference to circumcision, or 
in respect to the former matter were unable to gain from the pillar 
apostles the measure of support that they obtained in respect to the 
latter. In either case it is evident that the Jerusalem church did 
not in the early days insist upon the Gentile Christians practising a 
thoroughgoing and consistent legalism. 

10. The reference of Paul to the recent incoming of the extreme legal- 
istic element into the Jerusalem church, and the evidence of i" (g. v.) 
also indicate that the Jerusalem church was at first disposed to be 
hospitable towards the acceptance of Gentiles as Christians, and that 
the question was not an acute one until it became so through the in- 

II, I-I4, 15-2 1 117 

coming of the legalistic element. When this occurred the Jerusalem 
apostles endeavoured to conciliate the legalists, but by conviction at 
first, and at length on the practical question also, sided with Paul so 
far as concerned the freedom of the Gentiles. Cf. pp. 77, 97. 

11. This being the case, though Paul does not specifically mention 
the coming of the legalists to Antioch, such a visit is the most prob- 
able explanation of his coming to Jerusalem. 

12. The presence of these men in the private conference at Jerusalem 
is excluded by the very assertion that it was private, but there is noth- 
ing in it either to prove or disprove their presence in the public con- 

13. The impossibility of identifying the event which Paul narrates 
in 21-1" with the visit of Acts ii"-3o (q/". 2 above), and the many simi- 
larities between Paul's narrative in 21-1" and that of Acts 15 make it 
necessary to suppose that these latter both refer to the same event; 
while the differences between the two accounts {cf. 7 and 8, above) 
compel the conclusion that the Acts narrative is inaccurate as to the 
result of the conference; it has perhaps introduced here an event that 
belongs somewhere else. From the argument of Gal. i"-2'i {cf. i above) 
it also follows that Acts 1 127-30 is inaccurate. 

14. From 8 and 10 it follows that before the events of Gal. 21-" the 
apostles at Jerusalem might have looked with favour upon the con- 
version of Gentiles to Christianity without the full acceptance of ths 
Jewish statutes, and might have interpreted such an experience as that 
narrated of Peter in Acts, chap. 10, symbolically, as indicating that 
Gentiles to whom God gave his Spirit could not be rejected by them; 
yet that it is wholly improbable, not to say impossible, that they 
should also have interpreted it as indicating the abolition of the Jew- 
ish law of foods for themselves. Cf. Acts 11', and p. 105 above. 

g. Continuation and expansion of Paul's address at Antioch, 
so stated as to be for the Galatians also an exposition of the 
gospel which he preached (2^^-21). 

Having in the preceding verses, i^-^^, narrated the incident of 
his controversy with Peter in Antioch, he passes in these to 
discuss the question on its merits, yet at first having still in 
mind the Antioch situation and mentally addressing Peter, if 
not quoting from what he said to him. When he leaves the 
Antioch situation behind, or whether he really does so at all, 
it is impossible to say. The argument is at first an appeal to 
the course which both he and Peter had followed in seeking 
justification in Christ, whereby they confessed the worthless- 


ness of works of law. He then raises and answers the objec- 
tion to his position that since his premises had led him and 
Peter to abandon and disregard the statutes of the law, they 
had made Christ a minister of sin, denying the premise of this 
objection that violation of law is sin, and affirming, on the con- 
trary, that one becomes a transgressor by insisting upon obedi- 
ence to the statutes of the law. This paradoxical statement he 
in turn sustains by the affirmation that he— speaking now 
emphatically of his own experience— through law died to law, 
i. e., by his experience under law was forced to abandon it, in 
order to Kve to God. The legitimacy of his anti-legalistic 
course he still further defends by maintaining that in his death 
to law he became a sharer in the death of Christ, and that in 
his new life Christ lives in him, his own impulses and will being 
displaced by those of the Christ, and his life being sustained 
by faith upon the Son of God who loved him and gave himself 
for him. Finally he denies that in so doing he is making of no 
account the grace of God manifest in giving the law, point- 
ing out that the premise of this objection that God intended 
law as the means of justification makes the death of Christ 
needless, a thing which no behever in Christ would affirm or 

^We though Jews by nature and not sinners of Gentile origin, 
''yet knowing that a man is not justified hy works of law, but only 
through faith in Christ Jesus, even we believed in Christ Jesus, 
that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of 
law, because by works of law ''shall no fiesh be justified:' '''But 
if through seeking to be justified in Christ, we ourselves also were 
found to be sinners, is Christ therefore a minister of sin? By no 
means. ''For if the things that I broke down, these I build up 
again, I show myself a transgressor. '^For I through law died to 
law that I might live to God. 20/ j^^ve been crucified with Christ, 
and it is no longer I that live, but Christ that liveth in me, and the 
life that I now live in the fiesh, I live in faith, faith which is in the 
Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21/ ^q not 
make of no effect the grace of God; for if righteousness is through 
law, Christ died needlessly. 

II, I-I4, i5-i<^ ^^9 

15. 'H/i€t? (l)V(T€i 'lovSaloL KoX ovK e| edvMv dfiaprcoXoi, "We 
though Jews by nature and not sinners of Gentile origin." The 
clause is concessive in relation to Kal rjfi€L<; . . . iTrtaTevaafiev, 
etc., below: though possessing by virtue of birth all the advan- 
tages of knowledge of law {cf. Rom. s^' '), and hence of oppor- 
tunity of obeying it and achieving righteousness through it (cf. 
Phil. 3^' ^), and not men born outside the law, and hence in the 
natural course of events possessing none of the advantages of it. 

On the use of qjuaet, cf. Rom. 2" ii=i-2<. |^ lOvwv (note the omission of 
the article) is qualitative in force. The phrase is one of origin, exactly 
antithetical in thought, though not perfectly so in form to <p6ast 'louooclot. 
a'^apTtoXoc is evidently used not in its strict sense denoting persons 
guilty of sin, not perfectly righteous (see detached note on 'A^apTc'a 
p. 436), but, as often in N. T., "persons (from the point of view of the 
speaker or from tliat which he for the moment adopts) pre-eminently 
sinful," "sinners above others," "habitual transgressors of law." So 
of the publicans and other Jews, who at least from the Pharisaic point 
of view were guilty of specific violation of the law, Lk. y"- " is^' S etc., 
and of the Gentiles, like our word "heathen," Mk. 14^ Lk. 24^; cf. 
I Mac. i'^: eO-rjxav exet eOvo? dfJiapTtoXdv, 5vSpaq %(xpcxy6[iouq. Tob. 
I3«: BetxvuG) zriM (a^uv xal tt)v txeyaXtoJUviQV auxou eOvec dtXapTcoXdiv. 

16. elSoTe^ he on ov OLKaiovraL duOpcoTro^ e^ epycov vofiov 
"yet knowing that a man is not justified by works of law." 
In antithesis to the preceding concessive phrase this is causal, 
giving the reason for the iirLo-Tevcra/jLev of the principal clause. 
To be justified, hKaiovaOaL, is to be accounted by God accept- 
able to him, to be approved of God, accepted as being such as 
God desires man to be. In the word BiKacoa) we have one of 
those great words of the Pauline vocabulary, a right under- 
standing of which is of the highest importance for the interpre- 
tation of this letter and of the Pauline theology. But an ade- 
quate conception of its meaning can hardly be conveyed in a 
phrase; still less can the definition of it be justified in a sentence. 
For a fuller discussion intended to set the word in its true his- 
toric Hght and to present the evidence which sustains the defi- 
nition thus reached, see the detached note on Ai'/cato?, Ai/caio- 
avpT]^ and AiKacoco^ p. 460, in particular under VI, N. T. usage, 


C. 2 (b), p. 473. av6pa)7ro<; is used in its wholly indefinite 
sense, as equivalent to rh. Cf. Rom. 3^8 i Cor. 4^ ii^^. 

We meet here for the first time in this letter the phrase ef 
%pr^(ov w/Aou, which in this letter and in the epistle to the Romans 
plays so important a part in the apostle's discussion of the 
basis of acceptance with God. Like BcKaLoo), the phrase calls 
for an extended historical investigation, for which see detached 
note on No/to?, p. 443. vofiov is here evidently used qualita- 
tively, and in its legahstic sense, denoting divine law viewed as 
a purely legahstic system made up of statutes, on the basis of 
obedience or disobedience to which men are approved or con- 
demned as a matter of debt without grace. This is divine law 
as the legalist defined it. In the apostle's thought it stands 
for a reahty only in that it constitutes a single element of the 
divine law detached from all other elements and aspects of 
divine revelation; by such detachment it misrepresents the will 
of God and his real attitude towards men. By epja vofiov Paul 
means deeds of obedience to formal statutes done in the legal- 
istic spirit, with the expectation of thereby meriting and secur- 
ing divine approval and award, such obedience, in other words, 
as the legalists rendered to the law of the O. T. as expanded 
and interpreted by them. Though vofio^ in this sense had no 
existence as representing the basis of justification in the divine 
government, yet epya vofxov had a very real existence in the 
thought and practice of men who conceived of the divine law 
after this fashion. The preposition ef properly denotes source, 
in this case the source of justification. Since, however, justifi- 
cation is an act of God, while ep^a vofiov are deeds of men, the 
preposition in effect marks its object as a conditioning cause, 
whose inadequacy for the justification of men the apostle says 
he and Peter already knew. The translation of this phrase 
here and constantly in RV. by " the works of the law," retained 
also in ARV., and in general the ignoring of the qualitative 
use of v6fjL0<; and other like terms, is a serious defect of these 
translations. Cf. Slaten, Qualitative Nouns in the Pauline 
Epistles, pp. 39/. 

iav fir) Bia 7rtcrT€&)9 Xpto-Tov ^Irjaov^ "but only through faith 

II, 1 6 121 

in Christ Jesus." eav firj is properly exceptive, not adversative 
{cf. on i^^), but it may introduce an exception to the preceding 
statement taken as a whole or to the principal part of it — in 
this case to ov Si/caLOVTai avOpcoiro^ ef epycov vo/jlov or to ov 
hiKaLomai avOpwiro^ alone. The latter alternative is clearly 
to be chosen here, since the former would yield the thought 
that a man can be justified by works of law if this be accom- 
panied by faith, a thought never expressed by the apostle and 
wholly at variance with his doctrine as unambiguously expressed 
in several passages. See, e. g., the latter part of this verse and 
310-", where faith and works of law are set in sharp antithesis 
with one another. But since the word "except" in English is 
always understood to introduce an exception to the whole of 
what precedes, it is necessary to resort to the paraphrastic 
translation "but only." 

In TTtcTTt?, as in BtKaioo) and W/ao9, we have a word of central 
importance in the vocabulary of Paul. It signifies an accept- 
ance of that which accredits itself as true, and a corresponding 
trust in a person which dominates the life and conduct. Its 
personal object is God, or especially Christ as the revelation 
of God. For fuller discussion, see detached note on IltljTt? and 
HLo-revco, p. 475, esp. V B. II 2 (e), p. 482. The following 
clause by its relation to the present clause evidently defines 
both the specific nature of the faith here referred to and the 
relation of Christ Jesus to it. XpLarov ^Irjcrov is therefore to 
be taken as an objective genitive, expressing substantially the 
same relation to Trlcm^ which is expressed after the verb by 

€t9 l^pKTTOV ^lr](TOVV. 

On the view of Haussleiter, Der Glaube Jesu Christi u. der christUcke 
Glauhe, Leipzig, 1891, that the genitive in such cases is subjective, the 
phrase denoting the faith which Christ exercised, see the brief note in 
S. and H. on Rom. 3". The evidence that xfaxtq like iXxiq and dtycixTQ 
may take an objective genitive is too clear to be questioned {cf. Mk. 
II" Acts 3i« Col. 21' 2 Thes. 2"). This once established, the context in 
the present case (see esp. the phrase tie, Xptarbv 'ItjctoOv lxtaTe6aa[xev) is 
decisive for its acceptance here; and the meaning here in turn practi- 
cally decides the meaning of the phrase throughout this epistle. See 
2" 3". 


The preposition Zi&, properly denoting channel and then means, here 
marks its object as the means through which one secures justification, 
and so, in effect, the conditioning cause, that in man by virtue of which 
he is justified by God. To draw any sharp distinction between hii 
as here used and ex. in e^ ^p^(si\ v6txou above or in ex -izla-zei^q below is 
unjustifiable refinement, not legitimate exegesis. 

After Sid xfaretoc; NCDFGKLP al. pier. It. Vg. al. read Ttjjou XptaToO. 
XptJ-rou Tt)joO, on the other hand, is the reading of AB 2;^, some mss. 
of Vg. Victorin. Aug. An examination of all the occurrences of the 
title Xpiaxoq, 'IiQjoOq Xptardc, or Xpiz-zhc, 'IifjaoOq m this epistle indi- 
cates a preference of the scribes for the form Xp. or Xp. 'Irja. after ev, but 
elsewhere for 'Itqgt. Xp. rather thanXp. 'Itjj.; thus in i^- '^ 31' " 6^*- ^' Trja. 
Xp- occurs (not after iv) without variant or with unimportant variation. 
In i*« 2<' 1' 3"' " 5« Iv Xptaxcp or ev Xptcnrcp TiQaoO occurs without im- 
portant variation. Cf. also 6", where ev Xpiaxw 'ItjctoG is doubtless an 
addition to the original text, but attested by a large number of authori- 
ties without variation in the form of the name. In 3", where the cor- 
rect text is undoubtedly 'Itjjou Xptaxou, L reads Iv XptJxy 'Itqjou. On 
the other hand, there are exceptions: in the present passage, 2^'^^, after 
810: xiaieiaq there is, as shown above, good authority for both XptaxoO 
'I-Ojou and TtqcjoO XptcrTou; in 2''^, after ct; most authorities read 'I-qaoQy 
XpiaT6v, but B 322, 429, Syr. (psh. hard.) Boh. Aeth., etc., read XpuTbv 
'IrjaoOv, which Tdf. adopts and WH. prefer; in 5^* toG xP'^J'^ou TTjaou is 
doubtless the original reading, but many authorities omit 'iTjaoO; 
in 3'^ authorities are divided between ev XpiaxcT) 'ItqjoO and ev 'iTjaoO 
XptoTtp. Only in 41* has Xp- Itj- not after ev been allowed to stand 
without variation; in 61' only B 31 are cited for XptaTou 'I-rjjoO, all 
others reading toO XptaxoO. The evidence of the other Pauline epistles 
points in the same direction, ev Xpuxqi and ev Xptar^ 'iTjaou occur 
often, with frequent variations in the mss. between the two forms, but 
in no Greek ms. of these epistles has the form ev 'IigaoG Xptaxy been 
noted. In 2 Thes. i' occurs the form ev . . . y.upftp 'ItjjoG Xptaxcp. Some 
authorities omit xupfcp and transpose to Xptaxcp 'I-qjoQ. In Phil. 3>< to 
Iv Xptaxq) 'IiQjoG some Western authorities add xupfw after ev and then 
transpose to 'Irjcoij Xpcaxq). See also Rom. 14** Phil. 2i« where numer- 
ous authorities convert ev xupfto 'IirjaoG, into sv Xpiaxoi 'IirjaoG. In other 
words, while this evidence shows that it was the apostle's usual habit 
to write Xptaxqi or Xpcaxw 'IiQaoG after ev and to prefer the form Trja- 
Xp- rather than Xp- 'Itqg. in other positions, yet it also shows (a) that 
he allowed himself a certain liberty in the matter, and (b) that the 
tendency of the scribes was (as was natural) to conform his text to his 
usual habit. The evidence therefore tends to confirm the general esti- 
mate of the testimony of AB and points to the conclusion that in such 
cases as the present passage (z^tatmdb^ ^u (j, j,.) ^2*^ it is the apostle 

II, 1 6 123 

who has departed from his usual habit; most of the scribes have con- 
formed the text to it. 

Kal r]ixei<i ek ^picrrov ^Irjcrovv eirLcrrevaaixev ^ Xva SiKaioiOcofiev 
CK 7rL(TTea)<i X/Oicrrou fcal ovk i^ epjcov v6/jlov^ "even we be- 
lieved in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in 
Christ and not by works of law." On the significance of the 
individual words, the qualitative force of the anarthrous nouns 
and the force of the genitive after Trtb-Tew?, see comment on 
the former part of the verse, fcai, throwing its emphasis on 
ijjuet?, itself emphatic by the very fact of being expressed, es- 
pecially after having already been expressed at the beginning 
of the sentence, serves to recall 17 Met? (j)vor€L 'lovBaloi of v^\ 
eiTiaievaaiiev et? expresses in its fullest and most definite form 
the act of Christian faith, the committal of one's self to Christ 
on the basis of the acceptance of the message concerning him. 
See the detached note on IltcrTtv and Tlto-reuco, pp. 475-485, 
esp. V A. 2, p. 480. 

The emphasis of "va . . . vojxou, which expresses the purpose of 
lTCtaTeuaa[JL£v, is evidently upon the verb, not upon its limitations; the 
latter ex -xtaTewi;, etc., are in effect a re-assertion of the condition on 
which alone justification is possible. For a somewhat similar instance 
of emphasis upon one element of a clause, see Rom. 6^\ ex xfaxewq 
differs from Sia x^aTsox; in the former clause rather in the form than 
in the substance of the thought expressed, Sia denoting the means by 
which, Ix that in consequence of which, one is justified. Cf. Th. Ik 
II 6, and for examples indicating the practical equivalence of the two 
expressions, see (for Bcdt) chap. 328 Rom. 3^2. 25 i?ph. 2^ 312. i?; (for ix) 
chap. 3^' 8- « Rom. i^^^ 3" 41* 5* g'o- '2; and especially Rom. 3'", where, 
as here, the two prepositions occur in adjacent clauses. 

On the reasons for preferring the reading, zlq Xpccxbv 'IrjaoCiv, see 
on XptaToO 'Irpou above. 

on i^ epycov vojjlov " ou SiKaLcoOrjo-eTaL Trdaa adp^.^' "because 
by works of law shall no flesh be justified." This clause, added 
at the end of a verse which has already twice expressed in effect 
the same thought, is evidently intended to confirm what has 
been said by the authority of scripture. The words ov BcKai- 
codriaeTaL iraaa crdp^ are from Ps. 143^, following substantially 


the Lxx (which itself renders the Hebrew exactly) except that 
ivojTrLov aov, "before thee," is omitted and Traaa adp^ substi- 
tuted for TTa? ^(bv of the Lxx. The word cdp^, here used by 
metonymy for a materially conditioned being, is practically 
equivalent to avOpauro^. See detached note on Tlvevfia and 
2apf, p. 486, esp. p. 492. The words e'^ ep'ywv vofiov, which 
are essential to the apostle's purpose, are not in the psalm. 
There is, however, a basis for them in the preceding line, "Enter 
not into judgment with thy servant," which gives to the words 
that Paul has quoted the sense, "no man can be justified if 
judged on a basis of merit, all grace and mercy on God's part 
being excluded." The words added are therefore a correct 
interpretative gloss. Indeed, the teaching of the apostle on 
this point is a re-exposition in clearer form of a doctrine already 
taught by the Hebrew prophets. 

17. el Be ^rjrovvre^ BtKaLcoOrjvat iv 'KpLarw "But if through 
seeking to be justified in Christ." The most frequent use 
of this oft-recurring Pauline phrase iv X/Jto-rw is that by 
which, representing Christ as the sphere within which the 
Christian lives, it expresses the intimate fellowship of the be- 
liever with Christ. See Th. iv, I 6 b. Cf. Frame on i Thes. i^ 
and literature there referred to, esp. Deissmann, Die neutesta- 
mentliche Formel ^^ In Christo Jesu^ But this can be adopted 
here only by assuming that by an ellipsis of some such words as 
hih TO elvai the phrase iv X/Jto-rw really stands for "by virtue of 
being in Christ." For this reason and because iv with BLKacoo) 
usually has its causal and basal sense (see Th. iv I 6 c) it is 
best to give it the latter force here. Cf. for this use of iv^ 
3": iv v6/XQ) ovBeh BiKacovTai. Rom. 3^^, Bta tt}? airoXvTpca- 
(T€(o<; TYj^ iv X/atcrrw Tt^ctoO. Rom. 5^, BiKaLcoOevre^ vvv iv rat 
aifiari avrov. Acts 13^^: cnro iravrcov cov ovk rjBvvrjOrjre iv 
vofjL^ Mcovcreas BLKaicoOi^vat iv tovtq) Tra? 6 Tna-revcov BcKat- 
ovrai. Thus interpreted the expression iv 'Kpicrrw is in a sense 
the complement of Bia Trwrreo)? or e/c Trto-recos of the preceding 
v., the former expressing that on which justification rests, that 
which renders it possible, the latter the subjective conditioning 

II, i6-i7 125 

evpedTjfiev fcal avrol dfjLaprcoXoL, "we ourselves also were 
found to be sinners." The emphatic pronoun aurot, indicating 
that the apostle has definite persons or a definite class in mind, 
is most naturally understood to refer to Paul and Peter, and 
indicates that Paul is still maintaining the point of view of his 
address to Peter. The addition of /cat in connection with uvtol 
and dfiaprcoXoL carries the thought back to the expression ovk 
e'f e6vo)v dfjiapTcoXoL in v.^^ and indicates that dfiaprcoXol is to 
be taken here in the sense suggested by that verse, "men out- 
side of the law," "violators of the law," having reference to 
the disregard of the statutes of the law, especially those con- 
cerning clean and unclean meats, which statutes Paul, and for 
a time Peter also, had violated, and which Paul maintained 
ought not under the circumstances existing at Antioch to be 
kept. That they had become sinners by seeking to be justified 
in Christ, Paul would admit in the sense that they had become 
violators of law, but deny what the judaisers would affirm, 
that this was equivalent to saying that they had become actual 
sinners, wrongdoers, violators of God's will. The supposed 
case, ^TjTovvre^ . . . dfiapTcoXoL, Paul probably takes from the 
mouth of an actual or supposed objector, and accepts it as a 
correct statement of the situation in a sense of the words which 
he recognises as current. For confirmation of this interpreta- 
tion, see on firj yevoLro below. 

The passive force of eupiOif)[xsv "were discovered" [by someone] can 
not be pressed. Not only is it true in general that many passives have 
in later Greek a middle or intransitive force (Butt. p. 52), so that 
eupeOrj^Lsv might easily mean, "we found ourselves," but it is clear 
from N. T. examples that eup£8Y)v in particular had the sense "prove 
to be," "turn out to be," almost "to become," without special thought 
of the discovery of the fact. See i Cor. 4* 2 Cor. 5' Acts 5", etc. Yet 
it is also possible that the apostle has in mind, and is in a measure 
quoting here the language of his opponents, who, referring to his viola- 
tion of the statutes of the law, would put their charge in the form: "You 
who profess to be seeking to be justified in Christ are found sinners." 
Cf. Rom. 710 I Cor. 15" 2 Cor. 11" i Pet. i^ 

dpa X/Dio-To? dfiaprla^ SLdKovo<;; "is Christ therefore a min- 
ister of sin?" The sentence is to be taken as a question rather 


than an assertion because of the following fir] yevoLTO, which in 
Paul regularly follows a rhetorical question.* dfiapTLa^; Bkikovo^ 
is not ajxaprla^ SovXo^^ "one who is in bondage to sin" (cf. 
Jn. 8^^), but ''one who ministers to sin/' one who furthers the 
interests of sin, promotes, encourages it. Cf. Rom. 15^ 2 Cor. 
36 jji5^ Whatever the meaning of dfiaprcoXoL above (on this, 
as will appear below, interpreters disagree), the noun dfiapTia 
is doubtless to be taken here in its proper sense, "conduct 
which is not in accordance with true righteousness." The 
noun dfiapTLa is apparently never used in the formal sense, 
violation of law, in N. T., and though in view of the use of 
dfiapT(o\6<i the possibility of it could not be denied, yet the 
absence of any example of it is against it and the nature of the 
argument here even more decisively so. The conclusion which 
Paul by /J'Tj yevoLTo emphatically rejects manifestly pertains 
not to sin in any formal or Pharisaic sense, but to veritable 
guilty wrong-doing. The whole speciousness of the objection 
which Paul is answering turns on the seeming identity, the real 
diversity, of the conceptions of sin imphed in dixarcoXoC and 
dfxapTLa^ respectively. See detached note on 'Ajuaprta, p. 436. 
firj yevoLTo' "by no means," ht. "let it not be." This phrase 
used in N. T. almost exclusively by Paul (elsewhere in Lk. 
20I6 only) is uniformly employed by him to repel as abhorrent 
to him a suggested thought. When standing alone (it is other- 
wise only in 6^^) it invariably follows a rhetorical question and 
rejects the suggested thought as one which the previous prem- 
ises, themselves accepted as true, do not justify; and usually 
(i Cor. 6^5 and possibly Rom. ii^ are the only exceptions), 
a conclusion which may be speciously but falsely deduced 
from his own previous statements. See chap. 3^^ Rom. 3'*, « 6^- ^^ 
y7, 13 gi4 J- jii^ These facts concerning Paul's usage of this phrase 

* Whether we are to read 3pa or apo. there seems to be no decisive reason to determine; 
the sentence being a question and that question being whether a certain inference follows 
from a supposed situation., which is an interrogative particle, leaves the illative element 
unexpressed, while apa, an illative particle, leaves the interrogation unexpressed. But apa. 
being frequent in Paul, whereas there is no clear instance of apa in his writings, the pre- 
sumption is perhaps slightly in favour of the former. The difference of meaning is not great. 
Of the hesitation or bewilderment which lexicographers say is suggested by, there is no 
trace here. 

II, i; 127 

are important. They not only show that the preceding words 
must, as stated above, be taken as a question, but make it 
practically certain that what At^ yevocTo denies is not the sup- 
position el . . . dfJiaprcoXoi and with it the conclusion based 
upon it, but the validity of the deduction of the conclusion 
from the premises. The apostle accepts the premises; denies 
that the conclusion follows. In other words, he admits that they 
became sinners, violators of la-w, by seeking to be justified in 
Christ, but denies that from this fact one can legitimately draw 
the conclusion which hi«» opponents allege to follow and by 
which they seek to discredit his position, viz., that Christ is 
therefore a minister of sin. 

Of this sentence as a whole there have been very many interpreta- 
tions. It will be sufficient here to direct attention to a few. The dif- 
ferences between them may be most easily made clear by setting down 
the three propositions which are involved in the verse: (i) We are seek- 
ing to be justified in Christ. (2) We were found sinners. (3) Christ 
is a minister of sin. Proposition (i) Paul undoubtedly accepts; prop- 
osition (3) he undoubtedly denies. All interpretations agree that " sin" 
is used in proposition (3) in its strict and proper Pauline sense, verita- 
ble wrong-doing. The differences of interpretation turn mainly upon 
two questions: What is the sense of the word " sinners," djAaptoXof, in 
prop. (2) ? Is (2) admitted or denied? 

According to the view of many commentators, both ancient and 
modem,* a^Lap-ztokol is used in a sense corresponding to that of &'^(xpii(xq 
. in the next clause, " sinners " in the proper sense of the word, and (x-f) 
Y^votTo denies both (2) and (3) ; it is tacitly assumed that they stand or 
fall together, as must indeed be the case if t^fjLapxwXof and aixapxfaq corre- 
spond in meaning. This interpretation takes on two slightly different 
forms, according as et . . . Stdixovoq is supposed to be an affirmation 
of an objector quoted by Paul, or a question put by Paul himself. In 
the former case the objector, a legalist Jewish Christian, tacitly assum- 
ing that violation of law is sin, reasons that by their abandonment of 
law in their effort to obtain justification in Christ the Jewish Christians 
have themselves become sinners and thus have made Christ a minis- 
ter of sin, from the objector's point of view a reductio ad absurdum 
which discredits the whole Pauline position. To this Paul replies deny- 

• Sief . cites as holding substantially this view, but with various modificatioss : Chrsrs. 
Thdrt. Cecum. Thphyl. Erasm. Luth. Cast. Calv. Cal. Est. Wolf. Wetst. Semi. Koppe, Borg. 
Fl. Win. Ust. Matth. Schott. B-Cr. de W. Hilg. Ew. Mey. Pfleid. Wetzel, Ws. This 
is also the view of Ell. 


ing that (by violating law) they have been found sinners, and denying 
therefore that there is any ground for affirming that they have made 
Christ a minister of sin. If on the other hand the sentence is a question, 
Paul himself asks whether in seeking to be justified in Christ (without 
law) they have become veritable sinners, and thus made Christ a 
minister of sin, and as before by [i-?) yivoiTo denies that they have (by 
abandoning law) become sinners, and hence that there is any ground 
for saying that they have made Christ a minister of sin. In either 
case Paul uses dtxapxcoXof in the sense of real sinners, admits that 
premise and conclusion go together, and denying (on the unstated 
ground that abandonment of law is not sin) that they are found sin- 
ners, with it denies the conclusion. It is an objection to this interpre- 
tation in all of its forms that it disregards both the obvious force of 
[lil fivoizo in relation to the preceding sentence and the apostle's 
regular usage of it. As Zahn well points out, the question which [li) 
Y^vocTo answers (that it is a question, see above on [jl-Jj yhoixo) is by 
its very terms not an inquiry whether the premises are true, but whether 
the alleged conclusion follows from the premise. The placing of 
£bpiQri\i.ey in the conditional clause along with the unquestionably 
admitted Z,rixoiJyxeq, etc., implies that it is only Xpioxhq &[).ap'ziaq 
8i(5:xovo<; that is called in question. If eupl8-r]pLev . . . &[iapx(iikoi 
were also disputed the sentence ought to have been as follows: "Seek- 
ing to be justified in Christ, were we ourselves also found to be sinners, 
and is Christ accordingly a minister of sin? " This conclusion as to the 
meaning of the sentence is still further confirmed by the fact that by 
[lil ylvotxo, as stated above, Paul regularly negatives a false conclu- 
sion from premises which he accepts. 

Of the interpretations which, giving the necessary weight to the 
usage of [!■?) yivocTO, find in it a denial not of prop. (2) and a consequent 
denial of (3), but of the legitimacy of the deduction of the conclusion 
(prop. 3) from the premise (2) the correctness of which is thereby im- 
plied, the following types may be mentioned: 

Wies., et at., understand d^apttoXof as meaning sinners in the strict 
sense, and make eup^Orj^Lev . . . dtxapxwXof refer to the sins which 
even the justified is found to commit. This view manifestly involves 
an idea remote from the context, and is generally regarded as incor- 
rect by modern interpreters. 

Several modern interpreters take a'^agxiiikoi in the sense suggested 
by d[JLapT(oXo( in v. i^ sinners in that like the Gentiles they are out- 
side of law, find in eupd6'f);xev . . . dtxapTtoXof, a consequence which 
Paul admits follows logically from the attempt to be justified in Christ, 
and in Xptaxbi; djj-apTfaq Sidxovo<; an inference, the legitimacy of 
which Paul denies in ^^ yiwixo. Thus it may be supposed that Paul 
has in mind an objector who alleges that, inasmuch as the apostle's 
own reasoning is to the effect that to make faith in Christ the basis of 

II, 17 129 

justification involves for the Jew putting himself on the plane of the 
Gentile, therefore he makes Christ the minister of sin; to which Paul, 
in reply, admits that this is his reasoning so far as the relation of 
the believer to law is concerned, but denies that the conclusion that 
Christ is the minister of sin legitimately follows. So clearly Ltft., who 
states his view thus: "Seeing that in order to be justified in Christ it 
was necessary to abandon our old ground of legal righteousness and to 
become sinners {i. e., to put ourselves in the position of heathen), may 
it not be argued that Christ is thus made a minister of sin?" So also 
substantially Zahn, who defiinitely maintains that the being foimd sin- 
ners took place in the very fact of conversion, and that "C^iYzouyzeq . . . 
XpiaT(p is practically equivalent to Tctaxeuovxeq; and Sief., who para- 
phrases thus: "In that we Christians, however, on our part sought to 
be justified not by works of the law but in Christ only, it is proved 
that we, just like the heathen, are sinners; this, in fact, follows from 
what was just said (v. i«). This being the case is not Christ, then, 
with whom confessed sinners can, repudiating the righteousness based 
on works of law, seek justification, a promoter of sin?" In favour of 
this general inteipretation it is to be said that it recognises the sig- 
nificance of IJ.T) ■^hoi'zo and of the structure of the sentence, takes 
d[xapTO)>.o{ in a sense suggested by xal au-rot, explains the introduction 
of xapaPczTTj? below, which is brought in when Paul leaves behind the 
ambiguity of dfjiapTtoXoi, and does not make the argument turn on 
remote and unsuggested premises. It may be doubted, however, 
■whether it does not err in that it goes too far afield for its explanation 
of the word djJiapTwXof, detaches the argument too much from the 
situation at Antioch as depicted m w. "-i*, and finds the occasion for 
the apostle's question in a supposed logical inference from the doctrine 
of justification in itself rather than in the actual and recent conduct 
of Peter and Paul. Whether these words were actually uttered in 
substance at Antioch or not, the Antioch incident furnishes their 
background. It is probable, therefore, that the question there at issue 
is still in mind, and that in zbgi^i]\x.zv yjxX aOxol d^apTwXoi he refers 
to himself and Peter, or possibly to the Jewish Christians who had 
associated themselves with his movement, and describes them as be- 
coming, or as being discovered to be, violators of the Jewish law. The 
sentence thus takes on a definite and concrete meaning appropriate 
to the context. 

But this interpretation again assumes two forms, according as one 
supposes Paul to be replying to an objection, or himself presenting to 
Peter's mind an inference from his recent conduct in ceasing to 
eat with the Gentile Christians. In the former case the sentence 
means: "If, then, our seeking to be justified in Christ issued in our 
becoming like the Gentiles, violators of law as was the case at Antioch, 
and in that sense siimers, does it follow, as my critics allege, that 


Christ becomes a minister of sin?" In the latter case it means: "You 
will admit, Peter, that it was while seeking to be justified in Christ 
that we were led to become violators of law at Antioch; are you will- 
ing, then, to admit that Christ is a minister of sin, as would follow 
from what was implied in your conduct in refusing to eat with the 
Gentiles, viz.: that not to obey the statutes of the law is sin?" Either 
of these interpretations is possible. They are alike in that they con- 
nect the thought with the Antioch event and that, recognising the usage 
of [li] -{eyoi-co, they make the sentence a question and [lij Yevot-co a 
denial of the conclusion, not of the expressed premise, and base the 
denial on the rejection of the suppressed premise that violation of the 
statutes of law is (real) sin. But it is in favour of the form which finds 
in them an answer to an objection that e6piOir][xsv is more suggestive 
of the attitude of a critic than of an original statement of Paul (see 
above on s6pe6-), and especially that [li) yivoiTo is more naturally 
understood as repudiating the conclusion and false reasoning of an 
objector, than as a comment of the apostle on his own argument 
addressed to Peter. To combine the two interpretations, as Bous. 
apparently attempts to do, is impossible, because in the one case it is 
the critic of Paul's position who is supposed to allege that Paul's view 
makes Christ a minister of sin, and in the other case it is Paul who 
points out to Peter that his recent conduct issues in this impossible 

18. el ya,p a KareXvaa ravra itoXlv oIkoBo/xw, Trapa^dnjv 
ifiavTov avpiaTcivoi, "for if the things that I broke down, these 
I build up again, I show myself a transgressor." By this state- 
ment the apostle sustains his firj lyevoiro, in which he denied the 
validity of the argument that by becoming a violator of law 
he had made Christ a minister of sin, the suppressed premise of 
which was that violation of law was sin. By a /careXvaa is 
obviously meant the statutes of the law which Paul had by his 
conduct declared to be invalid. The reasoning of this sentence 
is of the type e contrario. So far from its being the case that I 
commit sin by violating statutes of the law, it is, on the con- 
trary, the fact that if I build up again those commands of the 
law which I broke down, I show myself therein a transgressor. 
This was precisely what Peter had done by his vacillating con- 
duct; but Paul instead of saying either "thou" or "we," tact- 
fully applies the statement to himself. That he uses the form 
of conditional sentence expressive of simple supposition, not 

II, ly-iS 131 

that of condition contrary to fact, is probably due to his really 
having in mind Peter's conduct in building up the wall he had 
before broken down. The statement that not by disobeying 
but by obeying the statutes of the law he becomes a transgres- 
sor is, of course, obviously paradoxical and itself requires proof; 
this is furnished in v. ^^ 

On xaxaXud) and o!-/,oBo[X(o in their literal sense, cf. Mk. 15", h 
yLaiakdiay tov vabv /.al oHolo\i.Q>v. But as applied to a law or the like, 
xaTaXuo) means "to deprive of force," "to abrogate" {cf. Mt. 5": \>.^ 
vo^iat]Te oTi ^X0ov xaxaXuffat xbv v&^ov r\ tou^ xpocpTj-raq), and oJxoSoixd) 
as the antithesis of xaxaXua) in this sense means to "give force to," 
"to render or declare valid." 

The word xapa^aTv^? is doubtless chosen instead of k\x.a<?'zhikbq, in 
order to get rid of the ambiguity of this latter term, which lay at the 
basis of the opponent's fallacious reasoning. The -jcapa^iiTTQq is a vio- 
lator of the law, not of the statutes, but of its real intent. To have 
added toO v6[xou would have been correct, but confusing as introducing 
a sense of v6[xoc; quite contrary to that in which it occurs throughout 
the context. The apostle might naturally have precisely reversed this 
usage, employing xapa^i:TTQ<; for the technical violator of the statute, 
and ati.a?T(i)X6<; for the real sinner, the man who was not acting accord- 
ing to God's will, and had he been quite free in the matter it is not im- 
probable that he would have done so. But the usage of his opponents, 
who employed d'sxapTwXdc; rather than xapa^axTQc; for the Gentiles and 
those who like them did not observe the requirements of the law, com- 
pelled him to use this as the ambiguous term, and to resort to xapo:- 
^kxriq when he wished a strictly moral and unambiguous term. It is 
noticeable, however, that in the only other passage in which he uses 
the latter word (Rom. 225. 27)^ it has substantially the same sense as 
here, designating not one who disregards the letter of the law, but one 
who is disobedient to its essential ethical spirit, and the passage gains 
in point and force by applying this forceful term to one who, obe- 
dient to the statutes, misses the real meaning of the law. 

The verb uuvtaxavto, late form of auviaxTfjixt, lit. "to set together," 
is in N. T. employed in its active tenses with the meanings "to prove," 
and "to commend," in the former case usually to prove by one's 
action, to exhibit in one's conduct. Thus in Rom. 5': auvfaxiQaiv Ss 
T'fjv sauToO dyaxTjv eSs ri'xaq h Gebq oxt exc dpLapxwXwv ovxcov -f)[xd)v 
Xpiaxbq uxsp ri'^dv axIBavsv. See also 2 Cor. 6<- ". There is there- 
fore nothing in the force of the verb that requires the interpretation, 
"I prove that I was (in that -former breaking down) a transgressor," or 
that opposes the interpretation, "I show myself therein (i. e., in the 


present building up) a transgressor." There are indications that the 
verb sometimes meant "to establish" (see Num. 27" 2 Mac. 141'' 3 Mac. 
ii' 2", though in no case with two accusatives); but this usage does 
not occur in N. T., and though appropriate to the present passage is 
not demanded by it. 

On the paradox involved in the statement of this verse, see Rom. 3", 
where the apostle maintains, and in chap. 4 endeavours to prove, that 
• the principle of faith, rejecting law, is not hostile to law but conso- 
nant with it; Rom. 8^-*, where he declares in effect that the law is done 
away that the requirements of the law may be fulfilled; and Gal. 
chap. 5, where having in v.' insisted upon freedom from the law, he 
nevertheless in v.^^ distinctly implies the necessity of fulfilling the 

19. iyo) yap BiavoixovvofjLCi) airSavov, "for I through law 
died to law." The use of the first person, which in the preced- 
ing verse was unemphatic because Paul was speaking of what 
would be equally true of any Christian, e. g., of Peter, and 
appUed to himself only hypothetically, becomes now emphatic. 
Note the expressed iyco, which together with the use of direct 
assertion indicates that the apostle is now speaking of his own 
personal experience. In the usage of Paul, "to die to" a thing 
is to cease to have any relation to it, so that it has no further 
claim upon or control over one. See Rom. 62- lo- " 7 6. That 
to which Paul here refers in vofiov and vofjiw is evidently law in 
some sense in which it has played a part in the preceding dis- 
cussion, and most obviously divine law as a legaHstic system, 
a body of statutes legalistically interpreted (see detached note 
on No/A09, pp. 443-460, esp. V 2 (c), p. 457). Paul would cer- 
tainly not say that he had died to law conceived of as consist- 
ing in the ethical principle of love (V 2 (d)), nor to law conceived 
of in the broad inclusive sense of the word (V 2 (b)). Law as a 
concrete historic fact without reference to the distinction be- 
tween the legalistic and ethical interpretation would be a suit- 
able meaning of Blo, vofjLov, but could apply to po/xo) only if we 
suppose that Paul thinks of dying to it not in every respect, 
but as respects subjection to its statutes. On the other hand, 
the legalistic meaning meets all the conditions of this verse 
and the context. It was on the basis of law in this sense that 

II, i8-i9 133 

it was demanded that the Gentiles should be circumcised, and 
the Jewish Christians continue to obey the law of foods. It 
was this to which Paul refers in v. ^^ in the phrase ej epyoiv vofxov. 
It was under this that he had lived in his Pharisaic days, and 
under which he had ceased to live (died to it), and to this he 
may well have referred as that through which he had been 
led to take this step. 

How the necessity of abandoning law was made evident to 
him by law, Paul does not here state. But there is no more 
probable explanation of his language here than that he has in 
mind the experience under the law to the result of which he 
refers in v.^^ and which he describes at length in Rom., chap. 7. 
There he tells how the law — by 6 v6fio<; he doubtless means the 
Mosaic law in its legahstic interpretation — had by his ex- 
perience under it taught him his own inability to meet its 
spiritual requirements and its own inabiHty to make him 
righteous, and thus led him finally to abandon it and to seek 
salvation in Christ. Cf. also Phil. 35-^. 

The sentence does indeed become somewhat more forcible, especially 
as more directly suggesting that he has divine authority for his repudia- 
tion of law, if v6(xo<; be supposed to refer to divine law in a general sense 
(qualitatively considered, as is shown by the omission of the article), 
but with a constant shifting of emphasis from one phase to another. 
We may then mentally supply v6ij.ou in this general sense after xapa^dxiQV 
and read: "But if I build up again the authority of those statutes 
of the law which I broke down, i. e., insist again upon the obligation 
to obey them, I become a transgressor of divine law (in its deepest 
meaning), for through my experience in seeking justification under it 
interpreted as a legalistic system, divine law itself taught me to aban- 
don it, as a body of statutes to be obeyed," But the very complexity 
of the thought thus yielded is an objection to this interpretation, and 
the simpler, more direct and self-consistent one is probably, therefore, 
to be preferred. 

The interpretation of Sia v6[ji.ou according to which it refers to the 
fact expressed by the words 8td: toO gwfiaToq xoO xptaxoij in Rom. 7*: 
e6avaTa)6T]Te T{p v6t«.(j) Sta xou ati)[iaToq tou xPt<^'^ou, and which assumes 
a reference to the curse of the law which falling upon Christ is thereby 
exhausted, leaving the believer in Christ free, is far less probably cor- 
rect than the one proposed above. Sect vdjAou is by no means 
obviously equivalent to Sto: tou aw^iaToi; tou xP^^'^o'^ i^i Rom, 7*. 


The words are different and the connection is different. There Paul 
is stating the objective grounds for freedom from the law; here, as the 
emphatic iy& implies, he is appealing to personal experience. Had 
his thought been what this interpretation supposes, it would certainly 
have been more natural that he should write, ij[ielq Sid: (xoO) v6;xou 
(t(p) vd^JLO) eOavaT(I)OY3[xev. Moreover, it is by no means clear that Paul 
conceived of the law as demanding and causing the death of Christ. 
In chap. 31' he expresses the thought that the law pronounces a curse 
on the sinner, from which Christ by his death frees us. But it is essen- 
tial to the interpretation now under consideration that he should have 
thought of the law as bringing Christ to his death, and thereby ending 
its own dominion over men who are joined with Christ by faith — a 
thought which Paul has nowhere expressed. That the work of Christ 
should avail to avert the curse of the law from man, and to end the 
dominion of law, affords a basis for the statement that through Christ I 
died to law {cf. Rom. 8^) but not for " through law I died to law." See 
Sief. for defence of this general view and criticism of other interpreta- 
tions, and Zahn for a criticism of it. 

ha 6ew ^7}o-co- ^'that I might live to God." Cf. Rom. 6'^- ^' 
147. 8 2 Cor. 5^5. This clause expressing the purpose of the 
apostle's death to law is in effect also an argument in defence 
of it. It is imphed that subjection to law in reality prevented 
the unreserved devotion of the life to God— this is one vice of 
legalism, that it comes between the soul and God, interposing 
law in place of God— and that it had to be abandoned if the life 
was really to be given to God. This is a most important ele- 
ment of Paul's anti-legahsm, showing the basis of his opposi- 
tion to legaHsm in its failure rehgiously, as in Rom. f-^^ he 
sets forth its ethical failure. 

The dative 0£(p is, as in Rom. 6^"- ", primarily a dative of relation 
in antithesis to the dative v6[im in the preceding clause— but while it 
results from the nature of the verb dtxoOvTjjxo) that a dative of relation 
after it implies separation, it results equally from the nature of the 
verb l,!k(i> that the dative of relation with it involves, or at least sug- 
gests, the force of a dative of advantage, as is clearly the case also in 
2 Cor. $"• On the force of Os6; without the article see p. 8g. 

The verb "Q&oi is used by the apostle Paul in four senses, which are, 

however, not always sharply distinguished: i. "To be alive, to be a 

living being " : (a) of men in contrast with dying or with the dead : i Thes. 

4». 17 I Cor. 7" 15" 2 Cor. i» 4" 5''* 6' Rom. 6"(?) 7^' *• * 12' 14'- »* 

* Shading in these cases into meaning 2. 

II, I9-20 135 

Phil. I". "; cj. I Tim, 5« 2 Tim. 4'; (b) of God, in contrast with lifeless 
idols: I Thes. i» 2 Cor. 3' 6'" Rom. 9*^ 10* 14"; cf. i Tim. 31^4"; (c) meta- 
phorically, "to enjoy life," "to live happily" : i Thes. 38 Rom. 7' (?); 
"to have one's living": i Cor. 9". 

2. In an ethical or qualitative sense: "to live in a certain way" 
(usually ethically defined) with reference either to the source of vital 
power or to the direction of energy: chap. 21*- is- " 525 Rom. 6* S^". " 
Col. 2^0 3'; cj. 2 Tim. 3" Tit. 2'^. 

3. In quotations from O. T. in a soteriological sense: "to escape 
death," the penalty of sin, "to attain the divine approval," "to be 
justified": chap. 3" Rom. i^' (in quotation from Hab. 2<); chap. 3^2 
Rom. 10* (quotation from Lev. 18^. 

4. "To live after death," "to possess eternal life": i Thes. s^" 2 Cor. 
13* Rom. 610 14». 

All the instances in this chap, fall under 2 above; those in chap. 3 
under 3. 

20. XpLO-ro) (Tvvea-TavpcojjLaL' "I have been crucified with 
Christ." The thought of participation with Christ in the 
experiences of his redemptive work is a favourite one with Paul, 
and the metaphors by which he expresses it are sometimes 
quite complicated. Cf. Rom. 6^-^ 8^^ Phil. 310 Col. 212-". 20 31-4^ 
A literal interpretation of these expressions, as if the believer 
were in literal fact crucified with Christ, buried with him, raised 
with him, etc., is, of course, impossible. The thought which ^ 
the apostle's type of mind and enthusiastic joy in the thought 1 
of fellowship with Christ led him to express in this form in- I 
volves in itself three elements, which with varying degrees of 
emphasis are present in his several expressions of it, viz.: the 
participation of the believer in the benefits of Christ's experi- 
ence, a spiritual fellowship with him in respect to these experi- 
ences, and the passing of the behever through a similar or 
analogous experience. The first element is distinctly expressed 
in 2 Cor. 5^^ and Rom. 424. 25^ and is probably in mind along with 
the third in Col. 22° 3I; cf. 2^^. The second is the predominant 
element in Phil. 3^°, and the third in Rom. 8^^, while in Rom. 6^ 
both the second and the third are probably in mind. In the 
present instance the verb crvvea-ravpoifiaL indicates that the 
experience of Christ referred to is his death upon the cross, 
and the context imphes that the experience of Paul here spoken 


^ of is his death to law. Whether this death to law is related to 
' the death of Christ objectively by virtue of a participation of 
the believer in the effects of Christ's death (c/. Rom. 32". 2^) or 
subjectively by a spiritual fellowship of the beHever with Christ 
in respect to his death {cf. Rom. a^"' ") is not decisively indi- 
cated. On the one side, Paul has elsewhere expressed the idea 
that the believer is free from law by virtue of the work, specifi- 
cally the death, of Christ (chap. 3" Col. 2^' Eph. z"^- 1«; cf. Gal. 
2* 51 Rom. 10"), and in Col. 2^0 expressed this participation as a 
dying with Christ. On the other hand, while he has several 
times spoken of dying with Christ in the sense of entering into 
a spiritual fellowship with him in his death, he has nowhere 
clearly connected the freedom from the law with such fellow- 
ship.* Probably therefore he has here in mind rather the 
objective fact that the death of Christ brings to an end the 
reign of law (as in Rom. lo^ and esp. Col. 21^) than that the 
individual believer is freed from law by his spiritual fellowship 
with Christ in death. Yet such is the many-sidedness of the 
apostle's thought that neither element can be decisively ex- 
cluded. In either case the expression still further enforces the 
argument in defence of his death to law. It was brought about 
through law; it was necessary in order that I might Hve to 
God; it is demanded by the death of Christ on the cross, v/herein 
he made us free from law, bringing it to an end, or by my fel- 
lowship with him in that death. 

Ltft., interpreting auvecjTaupa)[xs:t by the use of the same word in 
Rom. 66 and by the use of the simple verb in Gal. 5 2* 6" refers it to a 
death to sin, the annihilation of old sins. Such a change in the appli- 
cation of a figure is by no means impossible in Paul (see the varied 
use of ^[JL^pa in i Thes. s"^-^). But a sudden veering off from the central 
subject of his thought— the point which it was essential that he should 
carry— to an irrelevant matter is not characteristic of the aposde, 
and is certainly not demanded here by the mere fact that he has in 
another context used similar phraseology in a sense required by that 
context, but not harmonious with this. 

fo) he ovK€TC ijM, ^rj Be ev ifJLol Xptaror "and it is no 
longer I that live, but Christ that liveth in me." The order of 

• Gal. 2« would be an example of this manner of speaking if ««' Xpio-ro; were taken as 
meaning "in fellowship with Christ" rather than "on the basis of [the work of] Christ." 

II, 20 137 

the Greek is very expressive even when reproduced in Eng- 
Ush: "and live no longer I, but liveth in me Christ." The 
first Be is not adversative but continuative, the sentence ex- 
pressing another aspect of the same fact set forth in the preced- 
ing sentence. The translation of AV. and RV., "Yet I live, 
yet no longer I," is wholly unwarranted; this meaning would 
have required aWd before ovk€ti. Cf. RV. mg. The second 
Be is sub-adversative (Ell.), equivalent to the German "son- 
dern," introducing the positive correlative to a preceding nega- 
tive, statement. In this sentence Paul is clearly speaking of 
spiritual fellowship with Christ {cf. on v.^^). Yet this is not a 
departure from the central thought of the whole passage. He 
has already said in v.^^ that the purpose of the dying to law 
was that he might devote himself directly to the service of God 
instead of to the keeping of commandments. He now adds that 
in so doing he gains a new power for the achievement of that 
purpose, thus further justifying his course. Saying that it is 
no longer "I" that live, he implies that under law it was the 
"I" that Kved, and the emphatic ej(o is the same as in Rom. 
yi5-2o^ There, indeed, it stands in vv."- 20 in direct antithesis 
to the dfiapTca which is inherited from the past (cf. Rom. 5^2)^ 
here over against the Christ who is the power for good in the 
life of one who, leaving law, turns to him in faith. But the 
€700 is the same, the natural man having good impulses and 
willing the good which the law commands, but opposed by 
the inherited evil impulse and undei law unable to do the good. 
On the significance of the exj^ression eV i/xoi, see Rom. 8^' " 
I Cor. 2^6 Col. i"-29 Eph. 3I6-19. It is, of course, the heavenly 
Christ of whom he speaks, who in religious experience is not 
distinguishable from the Spirit of God {cf. chap. 5^^' ^^' ^s). 
With this spiritual being Paul feels himself to be living in such 
intimate fellowship, by him his whole life is so controlled, that 
he conceives him to be resident in him, imparting to him im- 
pulse and power, transforming him morally and working through 
him for and upon other men. Cf. 4^^. Substantially the same 
fact of fellowship with Christ by which he becomes the con- 
trolling factor of the life is expressed, with a difference of form 


of thought rather than of essential conception of the nature of 
the relation, by the phrase eV X/oto-ro), which is more frequent 
in Paul than ii^ e^oC. Cf. i^^ 326. 28 ^4^ 2,-nd Frame on i Thes. i^ 
and references there given to modern literature. 

he vvv ^(o ev aapKiy ev iriareL ^(o " and the life that I now 
live in the flesh, I live in faith." The sentence is continuative 
and epexegetic of the preceding, explaining the life which, 
despite his preceding affirmation that he is no longer Hving, he 
obviously still Hves, by declaring that it is not an independent 
life of his own, but a life of faith, of dependence on the Son of 
God. See below. 

The relative 6 is an accusative of content, which simply puts 
into substantive form the content of the verb ?« (Delbriick, 
Vergleichende Syntax, III i, § 179; Rob. p. 478). vvv mani- 
festly refers to the time subsequent to the change expressed in 
vofiw aireOavov and the corresponding later phrases, ev aapxi 
is therefore not an ethical characterisation of the life (as in 
Rom. 8^' 8) but refers to the body as the outward sphere in 
which the Hfe is lived, in contrast with the life itself and the 
spiritual force by which it was lived. By this contrast and 
the fact that adp^ often has an ethical sense, the phrase takes 
on perhaps a slightly concessive force: " the life that I now 
live though in the flesh is in reality a life of faith." On the 
use of a-dp^ in general, see detached note on Jlvevfia and 
2a>f, p. 492. 

The words ev xfaxet stand in emphatic contrast with those which 
they immediately follow, a contrast heightened by the use of the same 
preposition ev in a different sense, or rather with different implication. 
For, while in both cases ev denotes the sphere in which the life is lived, 
in ev oapxf the sphere is physical and not determinative of the nature 
of the life, in ev xfaxec it is moral and is determinative of the char- 
acter of the life, xfjxet without the article is, like aapxf, qualitative 
in force, and though properly a noun of personal action, is here con- 
ceived of rather as an atmosphere in which one lives and by which one's 
life is characterised. For other instances of this use of the preposition 
with nouns properly denoting activity or condition, see i Cor. 4" 2 Cor. 
37«- Eph. 4>= 5^ 

f' rfj rod vlov rod Oeov "(faith) which is in the Son of God." 
vpaving in the expression ev Trurret described faith qualitatively 

II, 20 139 

as the sphere of his new Hfe, the apostle now hastens to identify 
that faith by the addition of the article ry and a genitive express- 
ing the object of the faith. For other instances of a qualitative 
noun made definite by a subjoined article and limiting phrase, 
see W. XX 4 (WM. p. 174); Rad. p. 93; Gild. Syn. p. 283; 
Rob. p. 777; BMT 424; and cf. chap, i^ 3^1. On the objective 
genitive after irlari'i^ see on 5ia TriVreo;? l^picnov 'It^ctoO, v.^^. 
On the meaning of rov vlov tov OeoVj see detached note on 
The Titles and Predicates of Jesus, Y, p. 404. What par- 
ticular phase of the meaning of this title as applied to Jesus is 
here in mind, or why it is chosen instead of XyotcrTo? or XjOtcrro? 
'Irjaov^, which have been used in this passage thus far, there is 
nothing in the context clearly to indicate. No theory is more 
probable than that here, as in i^^, it is the Son of God as the 
revelation of God that he has in mind, and that this expression 
comes naturally to his lips in thinking of the love of Christ. 
See Rom. 8^- ^'^; but notice also Rom. 5^ 8^°- ^^, and observe in 
the context of these passages the alternation of titles of Jesus 
while speaking of his love or the love of God, without apparent 
reason for the change. 

Tou ulou ToO Gsou: so ^^ACD^ et cKLP, all the cursives, f Vg. Syr. 
(psh. hard.), Boh. Sah. Arm. Eth. Goth. Clem., and other fathers. 
Ln. adopted the reading toQ Oeoa xal Xptaxou attested by BD* FG d g. 
Despite its attestation by B, this is probably a Western corruption. 
The apostle never speaks of God expressly as the object of a Christian's 

TOV aya7n](TavT6<i fie koI 7rapaB6vT0<; eavrbv virep ifiov' 
''who loved me and gave himself up for me." Cf. the note on 
rod 80W0? iavrov virep tmv dfjLapnojv tj/jlmv^ chap. i"*. Here as 
there, and even more clearly because of the use of the verb 
irapaSLBco/jLL {cf. Rom. 4^^ 8^2 i Cor. ii^^ Eph. 52. 25^ esp. Eph. 52) 
in place of the simple SiScofjLL, the reference is to Christ's volun- 
tary surrender of himself to death. The use of p^e and e/JLou 
rather than r)p.a<; and r}p,a)v indicates the deep personal feeling 
with which the apostle writes. The whole expression, while 
suggesting the ground of faith and the aspect of Christ's work 
with which faith has specially to do, is rather a spontaneous 


and grateful utterance of the apostle's feeling called forth by 
the mention of the Son of God as the object of his faith than a 
phrase introduced with argumentative intent. On the mean- 
ing of a<yair(u^, see on 5". 

21. OvK aOeroi rrjv %a/3nv tov deov' "I do not make of 
no effect the grace of God." This sentence, abruptly introduced 
without connective, is doubtless an answer to an objection 
which the apostle knows to have been urged or which he fore- 
sees may easily be urged against his doctrine. This objection, 
as is shown by the %«/3ii; of this sentence and the reference to 
law in the next, is to the effect that he is making of no account 
the special grace of God to Israel in giving them the law 
{cf. Rom. 3^0 . Since X«/9t9 is a favourite term of the apostle in 
reference to the gospel, it is not impossible that it was taken up 
by his critics and turned against him in some such statement 
as that by his doctrine of grace as against law he was really 
making of no account the grace of God to Israel. This criti- 
cism he answers by direct denial, which he sustains in the next 
sentence. It would be natural to expect him to turn the criti- 
cism upon his critics by intimating that it was they who rejected 
the grace of the gospel. But to have suggested this thought 
he must, it would seem, have used the emphatic €7^. 

On dcSeTw, "to set aside," "to reject," cf. Mk. 7' i Thes. 4' Gal. 3"; 
M. and M. Voc. s. v. On the meaning of xi^P"^. see on i'. 

el 'yap Bia p6/jlov SiKaLOcrvvrj, apa ^piaTo<; Bc^peav aireOavev. 
"for if righteousness is through law, then Christ died need- 
lessly." On the use of the word BLKatoavvr) , see detached note, 
p. 460. It is doubtless to be taken here, chiefly at least, in 
its forensic sense (VI B. 2, p. 469), this rather than the ethical 
sense having been the subject of discussion from v. ^^ on, and 
it being this also which the apostle a little more frequently 
associates with the death of Christ (chap. 3^2. u r^j^. s"^^-^^ s'- ^°; 
cf. note on chap. i*). Bta vofiov is doubtless also to be taken, 
as throughout the passage, in its legalistic sense (see detached 
note on No/xo? V 2 (c), p. 457, and cf. on v. ^^ above). Bcopedv 
means not "without result," a meaning which it apparently 


never has, certainly not in N. T., nor "freely," in the sense 
"gratuitously," "without (giving or receiving) pay," which, 
though a well-established meaning of the word (see Rom. 
324, and cf. also M. and M. Voc. s. v), would be wholly in- 
appropriate here, but "without cause," "needlessly," as in 
Jn. 15^^ The protasis el . . . BcKaLoavvr] is in form a simple 
supposition, which is often used, as in chap, i^ Rom. 5^°, when 
the context makes it clear that the condition is fulfilled, but also 
not infrequently, as here and in 3^^, where it is equally clear 
that in the opinion of the writer it is contrary to fact. See 
BMT 248, 249. The argument of the sentence is from a 
Christian point of view a reductio ad ahsurdum, and is adduced 
as proof of the preceding statement. If, as you affirm but I 
deny, men must obey the statutes of the law in order to achieve 
righteousness, then there was no need that Christ should die. 
Law in the legalistic sense, and the conception of righteous- 
ness as obtainable through it, was well established in the world. 
If this conception was correct, if righteousness could really be 
attained in this way, there was no need of a new revelation of 
God's way of righteousness (see Rom. i^^ 32^); and the death 
of Christ, with its demonstration of divine righteousness 
(Rom. 325 ^■) and God's love (Rom. 5^-^°) and its redemption of 
men from the curse of the law (see chap. 3^^ and notes on it), 
was needless. That in the plan of God it came to pass (chap, i* 
4* Rom. 8^2) is evidence that it was not needless, and this in turn 
proves that righteousness through law was not God's plan for 
the world, and refutes the charge that denial of the validity of 
law to secure righteousness involves a setting aside of the 
grace of God. 

Mey. and others understand x&giv to refer exclusively and directly 
to the grace of God manifest in the gospel and take oux dOeTO), etc., not 
as an answer to an objection but as an indirect condemnation of the 
course of Peter, the meaning being, I do not set aside the grace of God 
manifest in the death of Christ, as is virtually done by those who 
insist that righteousness is through law. The clauses? . . . Stxatoauvrj 
is then designed to prove, not, as above, that the rejection of righteous- 
ness by law does not involve a setting aside of the grace of God, but 
that insistence on righteousness by law does involve it. For to affirm 


that righteousness is through law is to say that God's grace manifest 
in his death was useless. Such an interpretation of the argument, 
though not perhaps impossible, is open to two objections: first, that 
the form of expression, "I do not set aside," etc., suggests a denial of 
something that is said or might be speciously said against Paul's view, 
rather than a claim made by himself for his view or an objection to 
his opponent's view; and, secondly, that it makes the el ydp sentence 
a proof of something only remotely implied in the preceding statement 
instead of taking it as directly related to what is expressed in the pre- 
ceding sentence, viz., that Paul's view does not involve a setting at 
nought of God's grace. 



"heirs of Abraham" are such by faith, not 
BY works of law (chaps. 3, 4). 

I. Appeal to the early Christian experience of the Gala- 
tians (3^"^). 

Leaving the defence of his doctrine through the assertion of 
his own direct divine commission, the apostle now takes up 
that defence by refuting the objections to it brought by his op- 
ponents, the judaisers. Vv.^-^ begin that refutation by appeal- 
ing to the early Christian experience of the Galatians, which, 
as both they and he well knew, was not in the sphere of law, 
but of faith. 

Oh foolish Galatians, who bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus 
Christ was placarded crucified ? ^This only would I learn from 
you. Received ye the Spirit on ground of works of law or of a 
hearing of faith ? ^Are ye so foolish ? Having begun with Spirit 
are ye now finishing with flesh ? *Did ye suffer so many things 
in vain ? If it really is to be in vain. ^He therefore that supplied 

Ill, I 143 

the Spirit richly to you and wrought miracles among you, did he 
do these things on ground of works of law or of a hearing of faith ? 

1. *n avorjTOt TaXdrai, ti? vfxa<; i^dcTKavev, oh fcar o<^6a\- 
fjLOv^ 'l7j(Tov<; ^picrTo<; 7rpoeypd<j)T] earavpcoixevo^-, "Oh foolish 
Galatians, who bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ 
was placarded crucified?" Returning to the situation in 
Galatia itself, which he had left behind in I^ but still having 
in mind what he had just said in 2^1 to the effect that the legal- 
istic teaching of the judaisers makes the death of Christ a fact 
without significance, a useless tragedy, the apostle breaks forth, 
somewhat as in i^, in an expression of surprise touched with 
indignation that the Galatians were turning away from his 
gospel of Christ crucified {cf. i Cor. i^^- 23 2^). To this great 
fact, which Paul had set forth before the Galatians with the 
clearness of a public proclamation on a bulletin-board, and 
which it should, therefore, have been impossible for them ever 
to forget, the preaching of the judaisers tends to blind them as 
by mahcious magic. The verb jBaaKaivoi (see below) is doubtless 
used tropically with the meaning "lead astray," and the ques- 
tion, which is, of course, rhetorical, refers to the same persons 
who in 1 7 are spoken of as troubling them and seeking to per- 
vert the gospel of the Christ. On the people here designated 
Galatians, see Introd. pp. xxi-xliv. 

The addition of -zji &\-qMq: [i^ xsfOeaGat after l^cicrxavev by CD"KLP 
al. pier., is a manifest corruption under the influence of 5^. 

'AvoTQTo?, a classical word from Sophocles and Herodotus down, is 
found in N. T., besides here and v.', in Lk. 24"' Rom. i^* i Tim. 6» 
Tit. 3'. Properly a passive, "unthinkable," it has in N. T., as also 
ordinarily in classical writers and regularly in the Lxx, the active sense, 
"foolish," "lacking in the power of perception." i Tim. 6' is not a real 
exception, the word properly describing a person being applied by 
easy metonymy to his desires. The usage of the word, both classical 
and biblical, suggests failure to use one's powers of perception rather 
than natural stupidity, and the context, especially v. ', clearly points 
to the former sense for the present passage. See Hdt. i*' 8^*; Xen. An. 
2. I"; Mem. i. 3'; Plat. Protag. 323D; Phil. 12D; Legg. Ill 687D; 
Prov. 15" 1728 Sir. 428 4 Mac. 5« 8»' Lk. 24" Rom. i" i Tim. 6* Tit. 3'. 

The verb ^aaxaivw, signifying in classical authors, to slander (Dem. 


94>9 291"), "to envy" (Dem. 464"), "to bewitch" (Theocr. 5" 6»»; 
Arist. Prohl. 20. 34 [926 b'-'j; Herodian 2. 4") is used in the Lxx and 
Apocr. (Deut. 2^^*- " Sir. i4«> «) with the meaning, " to envy," but very 
dearly has here, as in Aristot. and Theocr. loc. cit., the meaning "to be- 
witch." For the evidence that the possibility of one person bewitch- 
ing, exercising a spell upon another was matter of current belief both 
among Gentiles and Jews, see HDB, arts. "Magic," esp. vol. Ill, 
p. 208a, and "Sorcery," vol. IV, p. 605b; M. and M. Voc. s. v. See also 
Ltft. ad loc; Jastrow, The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria, pp. 253- 
293; Blau, Das altjudische Zauberwesen, pp. 23^. Concerning the 
practice of magic arts in general, cf. <fap[i.a-A.ia, chap. 5" Acts 19^', and 
Deissmann, Bible Studies, pp. 273 jf., 323/., 352 jf. It would be over- 
pressing the facts to infer from Paul's use of this word that he neces- 
sarily believed in the reality of magical powers, and still more so to 
assume that he supposed the state of mind of the Galatians to be the 
result of such arts. It is more probable that the word, while carrying 
a reference to magical arts, was used by him tropically, as we ourselves 
use the word "bewitch," meaning "to pervert," "to confuse the mind." 

On olq xax' 6?6aX[i,o6(; cf. Aristoph. Ran. 625, Yva aot xax' dipOaXti-oOt; 
Xifti, and chap. 2": xaxd: xp6ffti)xov aSxa) dcvxIaTiQV. 

IIpoYpacfXi) occurs in Greek writers in three senses: (i) "to write be- 
forehand," the xpo- being temporal (Rom. 15* Eph. 3'); (2) "to write 
publicly," "to register" (Jude 4, but by some assigned to the previous 
sense); (3) "to write at the head of the list." The third meaning does 
not occur in biblical writers and may be dismissed as wholly inappro- 
priate to the context. To take it in the first sense as referring to O. T. 
prophecy, though consistent with current usage, is excluded by xa-c' 
6(p6aX[jLo6q; to take it in this sense and refer it to Paul's own presenta- 
tion of Christ to the Galatians is forbidden by the inappropriateness 
of Ypi:({)o to describe the apostle's viva voce preaching; for if xpo- be 
taken temporally, iyg&cp-q alone remains to describe the act itself. 
Many commentators on this passage give to the word the sense "to 
paint publicly," "to depict before, or openly." So Th. Jowett, and 
Sief., the last-named citing, also, Calv. deW. Hoist. Phil. Lips. Zockl. 
et al. The argument for this meaning rests not upon extant instances 
of xpoYp(i(po) in this sense, but upon the usage of the simple ypi^cpt^ in 
the sense "to paint" and the appropriateness of the meaning "to de- 
pict publicly" to this context. But in view of the absence of vouchers 
for this meaning — even the instances of Yp(iq5Ci> in the sense "to paint" 
are, so far at least as cited by lexicographers or commentators on this 
passage, much earlier than the N. T. period — and of the fact that tak- 
ing xposyp- in the meaning "to write publicly," "to placard," yields a 
meaning more suitable to laTaupa)[x^vo<; (see below), it is best to accept 
this latter meaning for this passage, and to understand the apostle as 

in, I 145 

describing his preaching to the Galatians under the figure of public 
announcement or placarding of Jesus before them. 

'EaTaupwtxivoq means "having been crucified," and doubtless in the 
sense of "having been put to death on the cross"; the perfect participle 
expresses an existing (in this case permanent) result of the past fact of 
crucifixion. To express the idea "in the act of being crucified" would 
require a present participle, if the thought were "in the act of being 
afiaxed to the cross," and probably if it were "hanging on the cross." 
For while the verb aTaupoto may be used of the affixing to the 
cross (Mt. 27'«), yet it seems usually to refer to the putting to death on 
the cross as a whole (Acts 2^« 4'°, etc.) and the participle eaxauptotxevoq 
is used in N. T. of Jesus, not as having been afiixed to the cross and 
hanging there, but invariably of him as one who was put to death on 
the cross, and thenceforth, though risen from the dead, the crucified 
one. See Mt. 28^ Mk. i6« i Cor. i" 2«. The tense of the participle, 
therefore, constitutes a strong objection to taking xpoypdcpto in the 
sense of "paint before," and in favour of the meaning "to placard, to 
post publicly"; a picture would doubtless present Jesus on the cross; 
the crucifixion as an accomplished fact would be matter for public 
writing, announcement, as it were, on a public bulletin. 

2Taup6q (root: sta) occurs from Homer down, meaning a stake, used 
for fencing {Od. 14") or driven into the ground for a foundation (Hdt. 
5"). cxaupdto used in Thuc. 7. 25% meaning "to fence with stakes," first 
appears in Polybius with reference to a means of inflicting death (i. 86*), 
where it probably means " to crucify." Polybius also uses dvaaTaupdw 
apparently in the same sense (i. ii^; i. 24^; i. 79O, but also with the 
meaning "to impale" (a dead body, 5. 54^; 8. 23'), which is its meaning 
in Hdt. 3I"; 6"; 9^*, etc.; Thuc. i. iio^; Plato Gorg. 473C; Xen. An. 3. i^^ 
In Esth. 7' 81' line 34 (Swete i6'8) Jt is used of the hanging of Haman 
upon a gallows {yn, ^uXov), said in 5^^ to be fifty cubits high. In 7" 
cTaupdo) translates nSn "to hang," elsewhere in this book translated 
with reference to the same event by ■/.pz\i&yw[n. Impalement or 
hanging as a method of inflicting death, or as applied to the dead 
body of a criminal, was practised by various ancient nations, e. g., the 
Assyrians (cf. the Lexicons of Delitzsch and Muss-Arnolt under Zagapu 
and Zagipu; Schrader, Keilinschriflen desA.T.^, pp. 387/.; Code of Ham- 
murabi, Statute 153, in Winckler, Die Gesetze Hammurabis in Um- 
schrift u. Uebersetzung, p. 45, or R. F. Harper, The Code of Hammurabi, 
p. 55); the Egyptians {cf. Gen. 40^"^ Jos. Ant. 2. 73 [5^]); the Persians (cf. 
Ezra 6"); but it is not possible always to determine precisely what 
method is referred to. Among the Jews the bodies of certain criminals 
were after death hanged upon a tree or impaled (Josh. 8^^ lo^* 2 Sam. 
4>*), but there is no sufficient evidence that these methods were used for 
inflicting death, 2 Sam. 2i«"' being too obscure to sustain this conclu- 


sion. Hanging in the modern sense, of suspension causing immediate 
death by strangulation, is referred to as a means of committing suicide, 
Hdt. 2'"; Thuc. 381; 2 Sam. 17" Tob. 31° Mt. 27^ but was probably un- 
known in ancient times as a means of inflicting the death penalty. 
Crucifixion, i. e., the affixing of the body of the criminal, while still 
living, to an upright post (with or without a crosspiece) to which the 
body was nailed or otherwise fastened, death resulting from pain and 
hunger after hours of suffering, was not a Jewish method of punish- 
ment; though employed by Alexander Jannaeus, Jos. Bell. i. 17 (4'), 
it was inflicted upon Jews, as a rule, only by the Romans. With 
what nation or in what region this peculiarly cruel form of death pen- 
alty originated is not wholly certain. Diod. Sic. 17. 46*, speaking of 
Alexander the Great beiore Tyre, says: b Be ^acriXeCu; . . . ioi)q . . . 
viouq xiivxaq, ovxaq oix Bk&zzoaq Ttov Staxt^iwv, IxpipLaas. Romans of 
the later days of the republic and early days of the empire ascribed 
its origin to Punic Carthage, but perhaps without good evidence. 
Among the Romans crucifixion was for a time (but perhaps not orig- 
inally) practised only in the case of slaves and the worst of crimi- 
nals. When the use of it was gradually extended, especially in the 
provinces {Jos. Ant. 17. 295 [iqi"]; Bell. S- 449-51 [n']) to others than 
these, it retained the idea of special disgrace. 

The word ciocupoq, properly reterring to the upright stake, came 
through its use with reference to the implement of crucifixion to desig- 
nate what we now know as a cross (in N. T. the word ^6Xov is still 
used. Acts 5'" 10" I Pet. 2"^*; cf. Gal. 3"), and through the fact that it 
was on the cross that Jesus suffered death, came to be employed by 
metonymy for the death of Jesus, carrying with it by association the 
thought of the suffering and the disgrace in the eyes of men which that 
death involved and of the salvation which through it is achieved for 
men. See chap. 5'' 6'* i Cor. i'* Phil. 3'« Col. i^". 

On the cross and crucifixion in general, and the crucifixion of Jesus 
in particular, see Cremer, BiU.-Theol. Worterb. s. v.; Zockler, Das Kreuz 
Christi ; Fulda, Das Kreuz und die Kreuzigung ; W. W. Seymour, The 
Cross in Tradition, History, and Art, esp. the bibliography, pp. XXI- 
XXX; the articles "Cross" and "Hanging" in Encyc. Bibl. and HDB, 
and those on "Kreuz" and "Kreuzigung" in PRE., and in Wetzer and 
Welte, Kirchenlexikon ; Mommsen, Romisches Strafrecht, pp. gi8 ff.; 
Hitzig, art. "Crux" in Pauly-Wissowa, Realencyclopddie d. klassischen 
AUertumswissenschaft (with references to literature). On the archae- 
ology of the cross Zockler refers especially to Lipsius, De Cruce, Ant- 
werp, 1595; Zestermann, Die hildliche Darstellung des Kreuzes u. der 
Kreuzigung Jesu Christi historisch entwickelt, Leipzig, 1867; Degen, Das 
Kreuz als Strafwerkzeug u. Strafe der Alten, Aachen, 1873; the Code of 
Hammurabi, Statute 153 (in Winckler or Harper); Birch and Pinches, 

Ill, 1-2 147 

The Bronze Ornaments of the Palace Gates of Balawat, London, 1902, 
Plates B2, D4 and J3. 

2. rovTO fiovov deXoj fiaOelv acf) vfiMv, i^ epyccv vofiov to 
vrvevfjia i\d(3eTe rj i^ uKorj^ TrtVTeo)?; "This only would I learn 
from you, Received ye the Spirit on ground of works of law or 
of a hearing of faith?" A forcible appeal to the experience of 
the Galatians. The implication of fwvov is that an answer to 
the question about to be asked would itself be a decisive argu- 
ment. For fiavOdvo) in the general sense here illustrated, "to 
ascertain," "to fmd out," see Acts 23^7 Col. i\ On eg epyo^v 
vojxov, see detached note on No'/xo? and note on 2^^. a/cor] 
Tr/o-reoj? is a hearing (of the gospel) accompanied by faith (see 
detached note on IIicrTi?), in other words, a believing-hearing, 
acceptance, of the gospel, to irvevfia undoubtedly refers to the 
Spirit of God (see detached note on Uvevfia and 2ap|, and espe- 
cially III B. I (a) in the analysis of meanings on p. 490). The 
receiving of the Spirit here referred to is evidently that which 
marked the beginning of their Christian lives; cf. evap^dfievot 
v.3 and see Rom. 8^3 2 Cor. 1^2 55. That the apostle has espe- 
cially, though notnecessarilyexclusively,in mind the charismatic 
manifestations of the Spirit evidenced by some outward sign, 
such as speaking with tongues or prophesying, is indicated by 
the reference to Swafxet^ in v. &. See also Acts S^''-^^ 10"''-^^ 
J J 16, 17 jgi-6 J Cor. 12^-1^ The two contrasted phrases ef epywv 
vo/jLov and ef cifcorj'^ TTtcrTeoj? express the leading antithesis of 
the whole epistle, and by this question Paul brings the issue 
between the two contrasted principles of religious life to the 
test of experience. The answer which the experience of the 
Galatians would supply, and which therefore did not require 
to be expressed, was of course eg dKorj<^ 7rLaTeco<;. The testi- 
mony of these vv. that Paul in his preaching in Galatia and 
doubtless elsewhere, since he more than once in this epistle 
implicitly claims always to have preached the same gospel (see 
on i^^ and 2^), presented his message to the Gentiles wholly 
divorced from any insistence upon the acceptance of 0. T. 
teachings as such, is of capital importance, both in defin- 
ing for us the content of his gospel {cf. also i Thes. i^*^) and 


as showing how completely he had early in his career as an 
apostle, and not simply when forced to it by controversy, repu- 
diated the principle of scripture authority. 

3. ouTCO? avoTjTOL iare; evap^dfievoL Trveviiari vvv aap/cl 
iinTeXclaOe; "Are ye so foolish? having begun with Spirit, 
are ye now finishing with flesh?" The antithesis is twofold: 
beginning . . . completing; spirit . . . flesh. ivap^d/jLevoL irv. 
recalls eka^. ttv., but instead of following up their assumed 
mental answer to his question, viz. : " we received the Spirit by 
a hearing of faith," in which faith would have been the emphatic 
term, the apostle transfers the emphasis to Trvevfia, which his 
previous question took for granted, as an element in their early 
Christian experience. Apparently it seems to him that the 
antithesis "spirit" and "flesh" is at this point a more effective 
one for his purpose than "faith" and "works of law." On the 
meaning of the words Trvevfia and o"a/o|, see detached note, pp. 
486 _^., especially the discussion of the use of these terms in 
antithesis, p. 494. irvevixarL doubtless refers, as does to Trvev/xa 
above, to the Spirit of God, and crap/CLis used in a purely material 
sense, meaning *' flesh" or "body," as that which is circumcised. 
That the antithesis between Trvevfia and adp^ is quite different 
in chap. 5 is no objection to this interpretation here; for in 
view of the fact that the precise aim of the judaisers was to 
induce the Galatians to be circumcised, a reference to the flesh 
would be naturally taken by them as referring to this, and no 
other meaning would be likely to occur to them. That aapKi 
has a relation to ep'ya vo/jlov in that circumcision falls in the 
category of "works of law" is, of course, obvious, but a apicC is 
not, therefore, to be taken as equivalent to that phrase or as 
denoting the natural powers of men apart from the divine 
Spirit, (i) because ep^a vofiov does not in the preceding sen- 
tence stand in antithesis with Trvev/jLa, and (2) because there is 
nothing in the context to suggest the introduction of this mean- 
ing of o-dp^. The absence of the article with both 77 v. and (rap. 
gives them a qualitative force, and heightens the contrast be- 
tween the two possible agencies of salvation: (divine) Spirit, 
and (material) flesh. That irvevpia is to be taken in a wider 

Ill, 3-4 149 

sense, as including both the divine Spirit which operates and 
the human spirit as the sphere of operation, is possible, but 
improbable in view of the nearness of to irvevaa with its express 
reference to the divine Spirit. Trveviian and aapKL are doubt- 
less instrumental datives, which is, however, no objection to 
taking the latter as referring to the flesh, in the material sense, 
for though the flesh is, strictly speaking, passive in circum- 
cision, that aspect of the fact is a matter of indifference for the 
purpose of the argument. 

On Ivap^. and IxitsX- cf. Phil. i«. iiziizk- occurs elsewhere in 
N. T. in the active (Rom. 1528 2 Cor. 71 S"- " Phil, i' Heb. S^ 9«) in the 
sense ''to accomplish," "to complete," and in i Pet. 5' in the form 
£TCtT£Xel(j0at, which is probably to be taken as a middle (see Bigg 
ad loc). The Lxx use the word in active and passive, not in middle. 
But the existence of a middle usage in Greek writers (Plat. Phil. 27C; 
Xen. Mem. 4. 8«; Polyb. i. 40"; 2. 5810- 5. io8« cited by Sief.) and the 
antithesis of evap^- a word of active force, favours taking ixiisk- also 
as a middle form with active sense, "to finish, to complete." 

4. Toaavra iirddere eUrj; et <ye Kal el/cr). "Did ye suffer 
so great things in vain? If it really is to be in vain." A refer- 
ence to the great experiences through which the Galatians had 
already passed in their life as Christians, and in effect an appeal 
to them not to let these experiences be of no avail. The word 
eTrddere is, so far as our evidence enables us to decide, a neutral 
term, not defining whether the experiences referred to were 
painful or otherwise, el' 76 Kal elKy shows that the question 
whether these experiences are to be in vain is still in doubt, 
depending on whether the Galatians actually yield to the 
persuasion of the judaisers or not. Cf., as illustrating the 
alternation of hope and fear in the apostle's mind, 4^^- 20 510^ y^ 
emphasises the contingency and suggests that the condition 
need not be fulfilled. 

The verb icaaxo) is in itself of neutral significance, "to experience," 
e3 Tcacy/stv meaning "to be v/ell off," "to receive benefits," and xaxwq 
or xaxa xaaxetv, "to suffer ills"; yet icdicxw has in usage so far a pred- 
ilection for use in reference to ills that xdux^'v alone signifies "to 
suffer" (ills), and to express the idea "to experience" (good) requires 
as a rule the addition of e3 or an equivalent indication in the context. 



There is indeed nothing in the immediate limitations of the word in 
Jos. Ant. 3.312 (15O: '^^"^ Qs^^ uTco^vfijai ^jlev, oaa TraOovTeq e^ aiitou 
(i. e., 6eou) xal TCT}>vr/,tov suspYsattov ptsTaXagiovTeq dxapt^i^o' '^P^? ""J'^^v 
Y^voivTo, to indicate that it is employed in a good sense, but it is 
reheved of its ambiguity by the closely following %ri'k!.YM^^ eOspve- 
fftwv, if not, indeed, in part by e^ aixou. Since there is nothing 
in the context of the Galatian passage distinctly to suggest a bene- 
ficial meaning, the presumption is in favour of the more usual adverse 
meaning; and this would undoubtedly be the meaning conveyed to the 
Galatians if they had in fact been exposed to severe sufferings in con- 
nection with their acceptance of the gospel. On the other hand, if 
they had suffered no such things this meaning would evidently be 
excluded, and the word would refer to the benefits spoken of in vv. '• \ 
If we adopt the opinion that the letter was addressed to people of 
southern Galatia, we may find in Acts 14" an intimation of persecutions 
or other like sufferings to which the present passage might refer; but 
no evidence that they were of sufficient severity to merit the term 
ToaauTa. If the churches were in northern Galatia we are unable to say 
whether they had suffered or not. For lack of knowledge of the cir- 
cumstances, therefore, we must probably forego a decision of the 
question whether the experiences were pleasant or painful, and for 
this very reason understand the term xaGeTe in a neutral sense, or, 
more exactly, recognise that the term is for us ambiguous, though it 
could hardly have been so to Paul and the Galatians. This leaves the 
meaning of e(xf) also somewhat in doubt. If the xocjauTa are the 
preaching of the gospel and the gift of the Spirit, then zlrJn means 
"without effect" (as in 4"); if the reference is to persecutions it prob- 
ably means "needlessly," "without good cause" (Col. 2'»), the impli- 
cation being that if they give up the gospel which Paul preached they 
will have abandoned Christ (5'-^ and might just as well have remained 
as they were (note the implication of 4"); or if the persecutions were 
instigated by the Jews, that they might have escaped them by accept- 
ing Judaism, with its legalism, which they are now on the point of 
taking on. 

Toaa-jTa in a large preponderance of cases means in the plural "so 
many" (see L. & S., Th.) and, with the possible exception of Jn. 12", 
always has that meaning elsewhere in N. T. The meaning "so great" 
is, however, possible (see Preusch. s. v.), and in view of the fact that 
it is manifestly more natural for Paul to appeal to the greatness than 
simply to the number of the experiences of the Galatians is perhaps 
to be adopted here. So Wies. and Preusch. 

Sief. finds in s! . . . efxij a reason for taking ToaaOra . . . e?xfi 
not as a question but an exclamation, which is, of course, possible, but 
not necessary because of the conditional clause; for this is, in any 

Ill, 4-5 151 

case, not a true protasis of a preceding apodosis, but is to be mentally 
attached to some such supplied clause as, "which I am justified in 
saying." The dictum that bX ys introduces an assumption that the 
writer believes to be true (Vigerus, ed. Hermann, p. 831, cited by Th.), 
is not regarded by recent authorities as true for classical Greek (see 
L. & S. sub. -{i I 3, Kuhner-Gerth, II i, pp. 177 /•), and certainly does 
not correspond to the usage of N. T. writers. Where the assumption 
is one that is regarded as fulfilled (Rom. 5" 2 Cor. 5' Eph. 4^0, it is the 
context that conveys the implication. In Col. i" there is no such 
impUcation, and perhaps not in Eph. 3^ See WM. p. 561, fn. 6, 
and Ell. Ltft. Sief. In the present passage the conditional clause 
must be understood v/ithout impUcation as to its fulfilment, since the 
context, indeed the whole letter, shows that while the apostle fears 
that the Galatians are about to turn back and so prove themselves 
■zoaaoxa xa6eiv eixfj, yet he hoped, and was in this very appeal seek- 
ing, ' 

to avert this disaster. See esp. 4" s^'". 

5. 6 ovv eiTLXOpri^oiv v/jllv to irvevixa kol evepycov Svvdfiei<; 
ev vfilv ej epr^wv vofjLOV ^ ef a/co^9 TrtaTeoi^; "He therefore that 
suppUed the Spirit richly to you, and wrought miracles among 
you, did he do these things on ground of works of law or of 
a hearing of faith?" This sentence in effect repeats the 
question of v. 2, and, like that, is doubtless to be understood as 
referring to the experiences of the Galatians in connection 
with and shortly after their conversion. The two participles, 
eiTLXopvy^^ and evepycov, limited by one article evidently refer 
to the same person, and describe related activities affecting 
the same persons {v/jlIv . . . ev vfilv). It is obvious, there- 
fore, that the two parts of the phrase are to be regarded as 
mutually interpretative. This, in turn, impHes that the apostle 
has in mind chiefly the charismatic manifestation of the Spirit 
(see detached note on Uvev/jia and ^ap^, I D III B. i(a), p. 
490) , which attests itself in hwafxei^ and other kindred manifesta- 
tions (see I Cor. 1210 2 Cor. 1212, and for the use of the word 
hvvafjLL^ Mk. 62 Lk. lo^^ Acts 2^2, etc.). Yet it must also be 
borne in mind that in the view of the apostle it was one Spirit 
that produced alike the outward x^^P^^t^^'^^ and the inward 
moral fruit of the Spirit (chap. 522. 23), and hence that the latter 
though not included in 8um/A€t9 is not necessarily excluded 
from the thought expressed by e7rt%o/3r/7&)i/ viilv to irveufxa; 


the words ivepyMv . . . v/jlIv may be narrower in scope than 
the preceding phrase. The whole phrase o ovv . . . ev vfuv is 
a designation of God (c/. chap. 4^ i Thes. 4^ 2 Cor. 1^^, and espe- 
cially Rom. 5^, where the idea of abundant supply, here ex- 
pressed by iirixopvy^^, is conveyed by i/cKe^vrai). Oeo^i is 
omitted and left to be supplied in thought as in 2^ and probably 
in 1^5 also. Bvi>dfji€L<; referring to outward deeds, ev vfilv natu- 
rally takes the meaning "among you" {cf. on eV rot? eOveaLv, 
i^^ 2^); yet in view of the dative v/uv after eTnxopvy^^ the 
hvvdiiei^ must be supposed to have been wrought not prin- 
cipally by Paul but by the Galatians themselves, as i Cor. 
j2io. 28. 29 imply was the case among the Corinthians. 2 Cor. 
12^2 indeed suggests that such things were signs of the apostle, 
yet probably not in the sense that he only wrought them, but 
that the SvvdfjLec<i of the apostle were in some way more notable, 
or that they constituted a part of the evidence of his apostle- 
ship. The phrases e^ epyoov vofiov and e^ aK07]<; iriaTeoi^ are, 
of course, to be taken as in the similar question in v. 2. 

'Excxop-, comp. of k%l and xogri-^iii), expresses strongly the idea "to 
supply abundantly." The simple verb means to defray the expense 
of providing a "chorus" at the public feast. In view of 2 Pet. i«, 
imXOQTi'^rizixxz Iv tj) x{<jTst 6|xwv x^-\> dpexiQV, and Phil, i" extxopTQYfaq 
ToO xveij[xaToq, the preposition ext is to be interpreted not as directive 
(so Ell. Beet, Sief.), but, with Ltft., as additive and hence in effect 
intensive, and, therefore, as still further emphasising the idea of abun- 
dance. CJ. 2 Cor. 910 Col. 21' 2 Pet. i^' ". From these participles, 
extxop- and evepy., the unexpressed verbs of the sentence are to be 
supplied, but they afford no clue to the tense of such verbs. To this 
the only guide is the fact that the apostle is still apparently speaking 
of the initial Christian experience of the Galatians and, in effect, repeat- 
ing here the question of v. 2. This would suggest aorists here also, 
IxsxopTjYYjae and evTQpyrjje. The participles may be either general 
presents (J^MT 123), in effect equivalent to nouns, "the supplier," 
"the worker," or progressive presents, and in that case participles of 
identical action, since they refer to the same action as the unexpressed 
principal verbs {BMT 120). The choice of the present tense rather 
than the aorist shows that the apostle has in mind an experience ex- 
tended enough to be thought of as in progress, but not that it is in 
progress at the time of writing (Beet), or that the participle is an 
imperfect participle (Sief.; cf. BMT 127). 

in, 5-6 153 

2. Argument from the faith of Abraham, refuting the 
contention of his opponents that only through con- 
formity to law could men become sons of Abraham 

Passing abruptly, in a subordinate clause, from the early- 
experience of the Galatians to the case of Abraham, the argu- 
ment of the apostle revolves, from this point to the end of 
chap. 4, mainly around the subject of the blessing to Abraham 
and the conditions on which men may participate in it. In 
these verses he affirms at the outset his fundamental conten- 
tion that Abraham was justified by faith, and that so also must 
all they be justified who would inherit the blessing promised to 
his seed. 

^As ^^ Abraham believed God and it was reckoned to him for right- 
eousness.^' "^Know, therefore, that the men of faith, these are sons 
of Abraham. ^And the scripture, foreseeing that God would 
justify the Gentiles on ground of faith, announced the gospel to 
Abraham beforehand, saying, "In thee shall all the nations be 
blessed." ^So that the men of faith are blessed with the faithful 
(believing) Abraham. 

6. KaOay; '^'A^paafi eiriaTevaev rw 0€a>, Koi iXoyiaOr] avra> 
€19 BtKatoavvTjv.^' "as Abraham believed God, and it was 
reckoned to him for righteousness." The apostle assumes that 
to his question of v.^ his readers will, in accordance with the 
historic facts, answer: e^ uKorj^ iTiareoi'^. To this answer he 
attaches a comparison between the faith of the Galatians and 
that of Abraham. The next two chapters, in v/hich the argu- 
ment revolves largely around Abraham and Abraham's sons (see 
^7, 8. 14, 16, 18, 29 422-81)^ show that this is no mere incidental illus- 
tration, but fills a vital place in his argument. The fact itself 
suggests, what an examination of the argument confirms, that 
Paul is here replying to an argument of his opponents. This 
argument, v/e may safely conjecture, was based on Gen. chaps. 
12 and 17, especially 17^'^-^'', and most especially v.^"*, and was 
to the effect that according to O. T. no one could participate in 
the blessings of God's covenant with Abraham, and so in the 


messianic salvation that is inseparably associated with it, who 
v/as not circumcised. Neither the usage of SiKaLoavvrj (see de- 
tached note on At'/cato?, AiKaLoavvT) and AiKaioo), pp. 469^.), 
nor that of Xoyi^erai et? (see below), is decisiv^e as between the 
two meanings: (i) "it was attributed to him as right conduct," 
i. e., "he was accounted to have acted righteously," and (2) "it 
was reckoned to him as ground of acceptance." The general 
context, however, dealing predominantly with righteousness in 
the forensic aspect, acceptance with God, decides for the latter 
meaning. Against the argument probably advanced by his 
opponents in Galatia to the effect that under the covenant with 
Abraham no one is acceptable to God who is not circumcised 
(Gen. 17"; cf. Jub. chap. 15, esp. v.^^), Paul points out that, 
according to the scripture, to Abraham himself it was his faith 
that was accounted as ground of acceptance. 

AoYf'^o[xat is used in Greek writers frequently and in a variety of 
applications of the general meaning "to reckon, to calculate, to deem, 
to consider." To express the idea "to credit or charge something to 
one's account, to put it to his account," the Greeks used Xoy. Ttvt- 
(Dem. 264'*; Lev. yst'si. According to Cremer, "to account a thing 
as being this or that, or having a certain value," was expressed by 
Xoy- with two accusatives (Xen. Cyr. i. 2", \iiav a[jL?>to tout(o tg) ifjixipa 
XoY{t,ovTai). In the Lxx 'kofi'C.o'^ai is the translation of 2vn, "to 
reckon," "to account." In N. T. it is used with much the same varia- 
tion of meanings as in cl. Gr., and the idea "to credit or charge to 
one" is expressed in the same way. (Rom. 4*' « 2 Cor. 51'; cf. Prov. 
17^8). "To reckon a thing or person to be this or that," or "to account 
a thing as having a certain value," is expressed as it is in the Lxx, 
who translate the Heb. S 2'^n by Xoy- elq. The examples show that 
this form of expression may have either of the above-named mean- 
ings; "to think (one) to be this or that," or "to count as having the 
value of this or that." Thus in i Sam. i": iXoflaazo aSr'fjv 'HXl tiq 
[Le%ouaav, it clearly bears the former meaning; so also Rom. 98, tcc 
T^y-va TTJ? iTzayjeklaq \o'{i'C,e'zai dq ax^pfxa. But in Acts ig": 
•AtvSuveuet . , . lepbv slq oiOev XoYtaGi^vat, and in Rom. 2^*: oOx yj 
ixpo^uaxfa aixoO elq xeptTOiJL-?]v XoytcO-rjjsTat, the latter is appar- 
ently the meaning. See also Gen. 1515 Ps. 105 (106)" Isa. 291' 32'° 
40^^ Lam. 4^ Hos. S^^ Wisd. 2i« 31^ g* Jas. 2^^. Even in this second class 
of cases, however, the word itself conveys no implication of a reckon- 
ing above or contrary to real value, as Cremer maintains. If this 

ni, 6-7 15s 

thought is conveyed it must be by the limitations of the word, not by 
the word itself. There being in the present passage no such limita- 
tions, the idea of estimation contrary to fact can not legitimately be 
discovered in the passage. Nor can it be imported into this passage 
from Rom. 4.^'^, concerning which see in detached note on Aixatoauvig, 
p. 470. 

7. TLP(0(TK€Te apa otl ol ifc TTLareoj^j ovrot viol eicnv *A;5- 
padp,. "Know therefore that the men of faith, these are 
sons of Abraham." ttlcttc^ is here not specifically faith in 
Jesus Christ, but, as the absence of the article suggests, and the 
context with its reference on the one hand to Abraham's faith 
in God and on the other to the faith of believers in Jesus clearly 
indicates, faith qualitatively thought of and in a sense broad 
enough to include both these forms of it. Here, as in Rom. f^^-, 
Paul distinctly implies the essential oneness of faith, towards 
whatever expression or revelation of God it is directed. The 
preposition e/c describes source, yet not source of being — they 
do not owe their existence to faith — but source of character and 
standing, existence after a certain manner. The expression 
oi m 7ri(JTea)9, therefore, means " those who believe and whose 
standing and character are determined by that faith"; men of 
faith in the sense of those of whose life faith is the determinative 
factor. Here appears for the first time the expression "sons of 
Abraham," which with its synonyme, "seed of Abraham," is, as 
pointed out above, the centre of the argument in chaps. 3 and 4. 
apa marks this statement as a logical consequence of the pre- 
ceding. Abraham believed God, and was on that ground 
accepted by God; therefore, the sons of Abraham are men of 
faith. The sentence itself shows that "sons of Abraham" is 
not to be taken in a genealogical, but, in the broad use of the 
term, an ethical sense. The context indicates clearly that by it 
Paul means those who are heirs of the promise made to Abra- 
ham, and to be fulfilled to his seed (vv. "• 29). 

The unexpressed premise of this argument is that men become 
acceptable to God and heirs of the promise on the same basis on which 
Abraham himself was accepted. ~ The ground of this premise in Paul's 
mind v/as doubtless his conviction that God deals with all men on 


the same moral basis; in other words, that there is no respect of per- 
sons with God (chap. 2«; c/. Rom. 2" 3"- " Sir. 35"). The expressed 
premise, derived from scripture, is that this basis was faith. Those 
who put forth the argument to which this was an answer would have 
accepted the apostle's definition of sons (or seed) of Abraham, and 
would probably not have directly contradicted either the expressed 
or the unexpressed premise of his argument, but would practically 
have denied the expressed premise. They had probably reached their 
conclusion, that to be sons of Abraham men must be circumcised, by 
ignoring faith as the basis of Abraham's justification, and appealing 
to the express assertion of scripture that the seed of Abraham must 
be circumcised, and that he who will not be circumcised shall be cut 
off from God's people, having broken his covenant (Gen. 17''")- The 
apostle in turn ignores their evidence, and appeals to Gen. is«. In 
fact the whole passage. Gen. chaps. 12-17, furnishes a basis for both 
lines of argument. The difference between Paul and his opponent is 
not in that one appealed to scripture and the other rejected it, but that 
each selected his scripture according to the bent of his own prejudice 
or experience, and ignored that which was contrary to it. 

Ramsay's explanation of v. ^ as grounded in Greek customs and 
usages respecting adoption, and as meaning that because among the 
Gentiles is found the property of Abraham, viz., his faith, therefore 
they must be his sons, since only a son can inherit property, ignores 
all the evidence that Paul is here answering judaistic arguments, and 
is, therefore, moving in the atmosphere not of Greek but of Old Tes- 
tament thought, and goes far afield to import into the passage the far- 
fetched notion of faith as an inheritable property of Abraham. See his 
Com. on Gal. pp. 338 J". 


It has been suggested above that in the employment of this phrase 
Paul is turning against his judaising opponents a weapon which they 
have first endeavoured to use against him, rather than himself intro- 
ducing the term to the Galatians and founding on it an argument 
intended to appeal to their unprejudiced minds. It is in favour of this 
view that the evidence that has been left us does not indicate that it 
was Paul's habit to commend Christ to the Gentiles either on O. T. 
grounds in general or in particular on the ground that through the 
acceptance of Jesus they would become members of the Jewish nation. 
See, e. g., the reports of his speeches in Acts, i Thes., esp. i'"!" i Cor. 2^ 
Phil. 3«'». There is, indeed, an approximation to this form of argu- 
ment in Rom. chaps. 4 and 11. But in both these chapters the apostle 
is rebutting an argument put forth (or anticipated as likely to be put 
forth) from the side of the judaisers; chap. 4 contending that in the 

Ill, 7 157 

case of Abraham there is nothing to disprove, but on the contrary 
much to establish, the principle of the justification of uncircumcised 
Gentiles through faith, and chap. 11 maintaining that the purpose of 
God does not come to nought because of the rejection of Israel from 
its place of peculiar privilege, but finds fulfilment in the elect people, 
whether Jews or Gentiles. Moreover, precisely in respect to the 
Galatians do the testimonies of vv. ^'^ and "• " of this chapter, and 
5*"*, indicate with special clearness that Paul's preaching to them and 
their acceptance of Christ had been on an independently Christian 
basis — Christ crucified, faith in him, Christian baptism, the gift of 
the Spirit manifested in charismatic powers. 

An examination of chaps. 3 and 4, moreover, reveals that Paul's 
argument here is mainly of the nature of rebuttal. Thus the recurrent 
expressions, "sons of Abraham" (3O, "blessed with faithful Abra- 
ham" (3»), "blessing of Abraham" {3^*), "the covenant" and "the 
seed" {3^^'"), "Abraham's seed" (3"), all of which have their basis 
in Gen. 12 and 17 (cf. Gen. 12^ ly^-^o), and the express quotation in 3' 
of the words of Gen. 12', all combine to indicate that the O. T. back- 
ground of the discussion is largely that furnished by Gen. chaps. 12, 17. 
But if we turn to these chapters it is at once clear not only that they 
furnish no natural basis for a direct argument to the effect that the 
Gentiles may participate in the blessing of the Abrahamic salvation 
without first becoming attached to the race of his lineal descendants, 
but that they furnish the premises for a strong argument for the 
position which Paul is here combating. Thus in Gen. ly^'^ there is 
repeated mention of a covenant between God and Abraham, an ever- 
lasting covenant with Abraham and his seed throughout their genera- 
tions, a covenant of blessing on God's part and obligation on their 
part, which he and his seed after him are to keep throughout their 
generation, and it is said: "This is my covenant which ye shall keep 
between me and you and thy seed after thee; every male among you 
shall be circumcised" (v.^") . . . "and it shall be a token of a covenant 
betwixt you and me" (v.")- V.'', moreover, states that this shall 
apply both to him that is born in the house and to him that is bought 
with money of any foreigner, and v." declares that "the uncircumcised 
male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that soul shall 
be cut off from his people — he hath broken my covenant." In i2», 
indeed, it is stated that in Abraham all the nations of the earth shall 
be blessed (so Paul interprets the sentence), yet there is nothing in 
this to intimate that they are to receive this blessing apart from a 
racial relation to Abraham, and chap, 17 seems to exclude such a 
thought. Indeed, it requires neither perversity nor rabbinic exegesis, 
but only a reasonable adherence to the obvious meaning of the passage, 
to find in these chapters the doctrine that God's covenant of blessing 


was with Abraham and his seed, that none could be included in that 
covenant save those who being of the blood of Abraham were sealed 
as his seed by circumcision, or who being adopted into the nation from 
without also received the seal of circumcision, and that any who refused 
thus to receive circumcision could have no part in the people of God 
or the blessing to Abraham's seed, since they had "broken God's cov- 
enant." "The covenant with Abraham," "the seed of Abraham," 
"blessed with faithful Abraham" {cf. Jub. i7»» ig*-'), "in Abraham 
(with an emphasis on 'in') shall all the nations of the world be 
blessed" — these are apparently the premises and stock phrases of the 
judaiser's argument — to which was doubtless added, as we can see 
from Gal. $^^-, the obvious inference that to enjoy these blessings one 
must be circumcised, as Gen. lyi^- says. To the judaiser, v/hose argu- 
ments Paul is answering, "seed of Abraham" meant, as to the Phari- 
saic author of the book of Jubilees (see chap. 15, esp. v."), the circum- 
cised descendant of Abraham, with whom might also be included the 
circumcised proselyte; and to these he limited the blessing of the cove- 
nant with Abraham, and so in effect the blessing of God. 

That all this would be directly contrary to Paul's position is also 
evident {cf. 51-"). It is scarcely less evident that in this third chapter, 
confronted by substantially such an argument as this, he was aiming 
to refute it from the same source from which it was drawn. This he 
does by appeal to Gen. 15', "Abraham believed God, and it was reck- 
oned to him for righteousness," which though it lay between the two 
passages which they had used, we may be sure the judaisers had not 
quoted. On the basis of this passage he puts into their favourite 
phrases, "seed of Abraham," "blessed with Abraham," a different con- 
tent from that which they had given to them, and finds for the bless- 
ing with vv^hich all the nations were to be blessed a different ground 
and condition. The substitution of "sons of Abraham" for "seed of 
Abraham" contributes somewhat to that end, even if the former 
phrase, which is not in Genesis, is not original with Paul {cf. Jub. 15'"). 
Affirming on the basis of Gen. 15' that the characteristic thing about 
Abraham is his faith, and taking the expression "sons of Abraham" 
in a sense by no means foreign to Semitic use of the term "son" as 
meaning those who walk in his footsteps (Rom. 412), those who are 
like him {cf. sons of God in Mt. 5^ Rom. 8i<), he maintains that the 
men of faith are sons of Abraham. The various arguments by which 
the apostle endeavours to substantiate this ethical definition of sons of 
Abraham as against the physical definition of the judaiser, and in 
general to show that men obtain God's blessing not by works of law, 
but by faith, are to be found in this and the following chapter. 

As concerns the apostle's method of refuting the argument of his 
opponents, it is clear that he does not resort to a grammatico-historical 

m, 7-8 159 

exegesis of Genesis, chap. 17. Aside from the fact that on such a 
basis his opponents must have won, such an argument would scarcely 
have appealed to his Galatian readers. Instead, while retaining the 
terminology of the Abrahamic narrative of Genesis, as the exigencies 
of the situation and the necessity of answering the arguments of his 
opponents compelled him to do, he makes his appeal to the assertions 
of Gen. 156 that it was faith that was accounted by God as right- 
eousness, and to the teaching of O. T. as a whole concerning the basis 
of acceptance with God. Circumcision, which was the chief point of 
contention, he does not mention, perhaps because the argument of his 
opponents on this point could not be directly answered. Instead he 
discusses the larger and underlying question, what is the real nature 
of God's demands on men and the basis of acceptance with him, con- 
tending that not by the fulfilment of legal statutes but by faith does 
a man become acceptable to God. How he would have dealt with 
one who admitting this central position should still have asked, "But 
is not circumcision nevertheless required by God?" these chapters do 
not show. That despite the explicit teaching of Gen. 17, he neverthe- 
less did maintain not only that it is faith that justifies, but that cir- 
cumcision was no longer required or, indeed, permissible among Gen- 
tiles, and even went further than this and denied the authority of the 
O. T. statutes as such, shows that he had found some means of dis- 
covering on the basis of experience what portions of 0. T. were still of 
value for the religious life. But what kind of experience he conceived 
to be necessary for this purpose, and whether that kind of experience 
specifically called by him revelation was requisite, is not by this pas- 
sage indicated. 

8. irpoiSovaa Se rj ypacfirj on etc Tr/crTew? Si/caiOL tcl e0v7] 
^€0? TrpoevrjyyeXioraro tw 'A^paa/x on ^^'EvevXoyijdrjaovTai ii^ 
(Tol nrdvTa ra eOvj]." "And the scripture foreseeing that God 
would justify the Gentiles on ground of faith, announced the 
gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying. In thee shall all the na- 
tions be blessed." This is doubtless Paul's answer to an argu- 
ment put forth by the judaisers to the effect that inasmuch 
as it is in Abraham that all the nations are to be blessed, the 
Gentiles to be blessed must be in Abraham, i. e., incorpo- 
rated in his descendants by circumcision. Appealing to the 
fact that Abraham was justified by faith (the particle Be con- 
nects this V. with v.^ itself deduced from v.^), he finds the 
ground and explanation of the promise that the Gentiles would 
be blessed in Abraham in the foreseen fact of their justification 


by faith after the pattern of his justification. He thus converts 
the very oracle which his opponents have cited (Gen. 12^) into 
an announcement, in advance, of his own doctrine that God will 
justify the Gentiles by faith. This is obviously an interpreta- 
tion after the fact. For the nature of the reasoning, see fine 
print below. 

'H Ypaq)-^ (sing.), usually at least, denotes a particular passage of 
scripture (see Lk. 4" 2 Tim. 3" and cf. note on 3"), and there is no 
reason to depart from this usage here. The passage referred to is 
Gen. 12' {cf. i8>8). The participle is causal, "because the scripture 
foresaw." Attributing foresight to the scripture is, of course, a figure 
of speech for the thought that the divine foresight is expressed in the 
scripture in question. Cf. Philo. Leg. alleg. Ill 118 (40), eSSwc; yoOv h 
Xzghq Xdyoc;. On ex xbxewq Btxatol, see detached notes on n{aTt<; 
and Aixaidto and notes on 2'^^^-. Btxaiot is a present for a future (as is 
demanded by xpoiSoOaa) in indirect discourse. The choice of the pres- 
ent may be due in a measure to the feeling that what is here stated 
as then future is, in fact, a general principle, God's rule of action in 
all time, xd: sOvtj is clearly "the Gentiles," not "the nations" in- 
clusively, since it is the former whose justification is under discussion. 
Had he meant to employ an inclusive phrase covering the Gentiles, 
he must have taken over the full phrase xdcvxa xa I'Ovtq from the quo- 
tation, where it has the more inclusive sense, eOvYj meaning "nations." 
xpoeuTQYYsXfaaxo, found neither elsewhere in N. T. nor in the Lxx or 
Apocr., but in Philo, Opif. mund. 34 (9); Mutat. nom. 158 (29); Schol. 
Soph. Track. 335 {cf. Th. s. v., and Sief. ad loc), is probably to be taken 
here specifically in the sense "announced the gospel"; this meaning 
accords with the usual N. T. usage of eCaYY^^tov and its cognates, and 
with the fact that what Paul here represents as fore-announced, 2xt, 
etc., is that which was to him the distinctive and central message of 
the eu3tYY^^'°v. 

The quotation follows the Lxx of Gen. 12', but for xaaat al ipuXai 
substitutes izii^xot. xa e'BvT) of Gen. 18'", doubtless for the purpose of 
bringing in the word SOviq, which Paul desires because of its current 
use in the sense of Gentiles. For a similar reason xt5<; y^<J found in 
both passages is omitted. No violence is, however, thereby done to 
the meaning of the passage, since what is true of all the families (or 
nations) of the earth is, of course, true of the Gentiles. But in follow- 
ing the Lxx with the passive eveuXoYTjOi^aovxat the apostle has prob- 
ably missed the meaning of the Hebrew, which is, "In thee shall all 
the families of the earth bless themselves," i. e., shall make thee the 
standard of blessing, saying, "May God bless us as he blessed Abra- 

Ill, 8 i6i 

ham." He doubtless takes ev in its causal, basal sense, meaning "on 
the basis of what he is or has done," and interprets it as having ref- 
erence to his faith. By virtue of his faith and the establishment in 
connection with it of the principle of justification by faith a blessing is 
conferred on all the Gentiles, since to them also faith is possible. Whether 
the apostle has specifically in mind here the fact that Abraham, when 
he believed and had his faith accounted as righteousness, was himself 
uncircumcised and, therefore, himself a "Gentile" (as in Rom. 4"- ") 
is doubtful. There is no reference to that aspect of the matter. 

Paul's discovery in the language of Gen. 123 of the fact that God will 
justify the Gentiles on ground of faith, and that, therefore, this state- 
ment is a pre-evangelic announcement of the gospel (of justification 
by faith) is not, of course, based on a verbal exegesis of the sentence 
as it stands either in Heb. or Lxx. The language itself and alone 
will sustain neither his view nor that which we have above supposed 
the judaisers to have found in it. But the effort to discover a more 
definite meaning than the words themselves conveyed was on both 
sides legitimate. The passage meant to the original author more 
than its words simply as words expressed. The phrase Iv aoi, in par- 
ticular, is a condensed and ambiguous expression which calls for closer 
definition. The judaiser doubtless found the basis of his view in a 
genealogical sense of ev, reinforced by Gen. ly'-'*. Paul may have 
based his interpretation in part on the context of Gen. 12'. In its ref- 
erence to Abraham's response to the divine command to leave his 
father's house and go out into another land (see Heb. ii» for evidence 
that this act of Abraham was in Paul's day accounted one of faith and 
cf. v. 9 for evidence that Paul had that phase of it in mind here) he may 
have found ground for interpreting ev aoi as meaning, "in thee, be- 
cause by this exercise of faith in God thou hast given occasion to the 
establishment and announcement of the principle that God's approval 
and blessing are upon those that believe." If this principle is estab- 
lished in Abraham's case it follows net only that the blessing that the 
Gentiles are to receive is divine acceptance, but that such acceptance 
is on ground of faith. Secondly, he may have found in the fact that 
the blessing was extended to all the nations evidence of the fact that 
it was not to be bestowed on the basis of the law, since the Gentiles 
were not under the law. Yet this reasoning would be precarious, since 
it was easy to reply that Gen. 17 made it clear that the nations could 
partake in the Abrahamic blessing only in case they joined the seed 
of Abraham by circumcision. Thirdly, he may have reasoned that 
the oracle ought to be interpreted in view of the fact, to him well 
established by his own observation, that God was accepting Gentiles 
on the basis of faith without works of law in general or circumcision in 
particular. This consideration doubtless had great weight with him, 


and was probably the decisive one. It must be remembered, of course, 
that he is not so much proving by original argument that his doctrine 
is sustained by scripture as refuting the argument of his opponents 
that the scripture sustains their view. 

9. (ocre ol i/c TricrTeo)? evXoyovvTac avv tw iridTw ^A^padfi. 
" So that the men of faith are blessed with the faithful (behev- 
ing) Abraham." A definite statement of what Paul wishes to 
prove by his previous argument. The emphasis is on ol e/c 
Trtb-reco? as against ol TrepiTeTfJLrjfieuoL, or ol i^ epywv vo/jlov, of 
whom the judaisers affirmed that they only could inherit the 
blessings of the promise made to Abraham. That he here says 
''blessed with . . . Abraham" instead of "justified" is doubt- 
less due to the fact that he is still using the language of his 
opponents. Note the similarity of this verse to v.^ and com- 
pare notes on that v. "Blessed with Abraham" is clearly 
equivalent to "sons of Abraham." By the addition of the 
word TTLCTTa) {cf. Jub. if^ ig^-^) the apostle reminds his read- 
ers that the important thing about Abraham is the fact of 
his faith. No undue stress must be laid on the use of (tvp 
instead of the eV of the quotation. It may have been his oppo- 
nents' form of expression; but it was, in any case, congenial 
to his own thought. It is his constant contention that they 
who inherit the blessing promised to Abraham must do so on 
the same basis on which he was blessed, viz., faith, and in that 
sense "with" him. A reference to the fact that all who should 
afterwards exercise faith were in the blessing of Abraham pro- 
leptically blessed, evXoyovi^Tat being in that case a historical 
present, is less probable because evXoy. seems obviously to refer 
to the same fact as ivevXoy. of the quotation, and because to 
express this thought unambiguously would have required an 

The adjective %\.<zxQ> is manifestly to be taken in its active sense, as 
is required by ext'cTeucsv of v. «. See Th. s. v. 2 and esp. Eph. i*. The 
English word "believing" would more exactly express its meaning, 
but would obscure the relation between this word and ex xfaxeax;. 
The translation, "Those that believe are blessed with believing Abra- 
ham," is in some respects better but does not do full justice to ol ex 
xtaxeo)?. See note on v.'. 

Ill, 8-IO 163 

3. Counter-argument that those whose standing is fixed 
by works of law are by the logic of the legalists under 
a curse, the curse of the law; yet that their logic is 
perverse, for O. T. teaches that men are justified by 
faith, and from the curse of the law Christ redeemed 
us when he died on the cross (3^°""). 

The apostle now carries his attack directly into the camp 
of the enemy, contending on the basis of passages from Deut. 
and Lev. that those who claim on the basis of scripture that 
justification is by law must on the same basis admit that the 
actual sentence of law is one of condemnation; but maintaining 
that their contention is unjustified, since the scripture itself 
affirms that the righteous man shall hve by faith, and declar- 
ing that Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, in order 
that on the Gentiles might come the blessing of Abraham (not 
by law but by faith). 

^^For as many as are of works of law are under a curse. For it 
is written, ^^ Cursed is every one that continueth not in all the things 
that are written in the book of the law to do them." ^^And that no 
man is justified in law before God, is evident, because, "The 
righteous man shall live by faith "; ^"^and the law is Jiot of faith; but, 
"He that doeth them shall live in them.'' ^^Christ delivered us 
from the curse of the law, becoming a curse for us, because it is 
written, "Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree "; Hhat upon 
the Gentiles might come the blessing of Abraham in Jesus Christ; 
that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. 

10. ''Ocrot 'yap e^ epyccv vojiov elalv vtto Kardpav elcriv^ 
"For as many as are of works of law are under a curse." By 
this sentence the apostle introduces a new weapon for the refu- 
tation of his opponents, an argument e contrario by which he 
seeks to prove that instead of men being blessed by coming 
under law they must, according to their own premises, come 
under a curse. There might have been prefixed to it the words 
of 421 : "Tell m.e, ye that desire to be under law, do ye not hear 
the law?" The word v6p.ov is, as always in the phrase ep^^a 
v6/jLov, used in its legahstic sense (see on 2^^), and oaoL e^ 


ep'yuiv vofjLov are not 01 iroLTjral vofxov, of whom Paul says in 
Rom. 2^3 that they will be justified, but men whose standing 
and character proceed from (e/c) works of legalistic obedience 
to statutes, vtto Kardpav is a qualitative phrase, equivalent to 
[eTTtj/cara/oaTo?. While this sentence undoubtedly represents 
the apostle's real conviction, in the sense that a man who has 
only works of law and not faith to commend him to God will 
actually fail of the divine approval (c/. 2^^), yet it is most im- 
portant for the purposes of its interpretation to notice that 
this is not what it is intended to affirm, but rather that the 
principle of legalism (which he contends is not the basis of 
God's actual judgment of men) leads logically to universal con- 
demnation, by bringing all under the condemnation of the law. 
This appears clearly from the fact that the sentence by which 
he supports the assertion (see below) is one which does not 
express the apostle's own conviction as to the basis of God's 
judgment of men, but the verdict of the law. The curse of 
which the verse speaks is not the curse of God, but as Paul 
expressly calls it in v.", the curse of the law. 

yefypairiaL 'yap on ^'•^^TTHcardpaTO^ 7rd<; 6? ovk efifievei 
Trdatv roL<; yeypafifievoL^ ev tm ^l^Xico rod vofiov rod iroLrjaaL 
aurd.'^ "For it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth 
not in all the things that are written in the book of the law to 
do them." The quotation is from Deut. 272^, with variations 
that do not materially affect the sense, viz., the omission of 
dvOpwiro^ after Tra?, and of ev (which, however, many Western 
and Syrian authorities insert) before irdaiv and the substitution 
of yeypafJLiJL€U0L<; ev tw ^l/3\iq) rod v6/jlov for XdyoL^ rod vo/iov 
rovrov, and of avrd for avroik. The unexpressed premise of 
the argument, necessary to make this passage prove the pre- 
ceding proposition, is that no one does, in fact, continue in all 
the things that are written in the book of the law to do them. 
This is not quite identical with the expressed proposition of 
Rom. 3 3, this being a legalistic, that an ethical, affirmation; 
but the failure which the apostle here assumes may neverthe- 
less be precisely in the moral requirements of the law. 

It is of capital importance for the understanding of the apos- 

m, lo-ii 165 

tie's argument to observe that the sentence which he here 
quotes does not at all express his own conception of the basis 
of God's judgment, but a verdict of law. This sentence, though 
stated negatively, implies the corresponding affirmative, viz., 
that he who faithfully performs all the things written in the 
book of the law lives thereby, and this is actually so stated as 
the principle of law in v.^^: "He that doeth them shall live 
in them." That this is the principle of God's action towards 
men, Paul expressly denies both directly and indirectly: directly 
in the immediately following v., as also before in 2^^; indirectly 
in that he declares in vv. ^^-^^ that the principle of faith estab- 
lished under Abraham was not displaced by the subsequent 
incoming of law, law having for its function not to justify 
men, but to increase transgression. It is necessary, therefore, 
throughout the passage, to distinguish between the verdicts of 
law and the judgments of God, and to recognise that the former 
are, for Paul, not judgments which reflect God's attitude now or 
at any time or under any circumstances, but those which the 
legalist must, to his own undoing, recognise as those of the law 
interpreted as he interprets it, and which on the basis of his 
legalism he must impute to God. Those that are of works of 
law are under the curse of the law, which falls on all who do 
not fully satisfy its requirements. This being so, Paul argues, 
the assumption of the legalist that the law is the basis of the 
divine judgment involves the conclusion that all men are ac- 
cursed, and must be false. On the harmony of this position 
with the apostle's belief that the law is of God, see in detached 
note on No>o9, pp. 451 /., and comment on v. 22b below.^ 

11. OTL Se ev vofio) ovSeU hiKaiovrai irapa rw dew BrjXov, 
"And that no one is justified in law before God is evident." 
Be introduces an additional argument for the position main- 
tained in v.i''. ^o/xft) is manifestly in the legalistic sense; on the 
force of ev^see on 2^^ irapa tw 6ea> is a most significant element 
of the sentence. By it the apostle makes clear that as over 
against the verdict of law set forth in the preceding sentence 
he is now speaking of the actual attitude of God. Cf. notes 
on v.^°. 


That the clause preceding BrjXov is the subject of the propo- 
sition StjXov iart, and the following clause the proof of it, 
rather than the reverse, which is grammatically possible, is 
proved by the fact that the following clause is a quotation from 
O. T., and, therefore, valuable for proof of the apostle's as- 
sertion while not itself requiring to be proved. 

OTL " 'O SiKaLO^ iK TTLarecp^ ^tjaerai;' "because. The righteous 
man shall live by faith." On the use of ori^ see on otl . . . 
BrjXou above. In the quotation from Hr.b. 2' the apostle finds 
an affirmation of his own doctrine of justification by faith. 
The particular sense which the words bore for Paul and which 
he intended them to convey to his readers is undoubtedly to 
be determined rather by Pauline usage in general, and by the 
part which the sentence plays in the apostle's argument, than 
by the meaning which the original Heb. had for the prophet. 
By these considerations Blkuio^ is shown to be a forensic 
rather than an ethical term, the man approved of God, rather 
than the morally righteous; Trto-rew? bears its usual active 
sense, required by the context, "faith." ^^](T€Tai, "shall live," 
refers either to the obtaining of eternal life (cf. Rom. S^- "• "• ") 
as the highest good and goal to which justification looks, or, by 
metonymy, to justification itself. It is justification, in any 
case, that is chiefly in mind. Cf. the other instances of quota- 
tion from O. T., in which the word occurs (v.^^ Rom. i^^ lo^). 
The terms StWio? and ^'naeraL thus combine to express the 
idea of divine approval, and the sentence in effect means, " It 
is by faith that he who is approved of God is approved (and 
saved)." Cf. Rom. i^^ where the same passage is quoted and 
the context requires the same meaning. On the relation of 
this meaning to the original sense of Hab. 2\ see below. 

For defence of the view that ^Tfjaexat refers to "life," but, as alvays 
when Paul speaks of life, to physical life, see Kabisch, Eschatologie des 
Paulus, pp. 52jf. 

The Hebrew of Hab. 2* reads: n;n> ir:ic.N3 p>-ix\ The Lxx read: 6 
SI hi-Kciioq ex xcaT5([)? [xou ^ifjjsTat. njicN signifies "faithfulness," "stead- 
fastness," "integrity." The prophet confronted by the apparent 
triumph of the wicked Babylonian nation over Israel affirms his con- 


viction that in the end righteous Israel will for her steadfastness 
prosper. The use of the passage with the active sense of iziaitq in- 
volves no radical perversion of its meaning, since faith in this sense 
might easily be conceived to be an ingredient or basis of faithfulness. 
Yet there is no definite evidence that Paul arrived at the active 
meaning by such an inferential process. It is, perhaps, quite as 
likely that he took the passage at what was for him the face value of 
the Lxx translation. 

12. 6 Be vofjLO'; ovk eariv i/c iriaTeoi^, "and the law is not 
of faith." That is, the principles of legalism and of faith are 
mutually exclusive as bases of justification. It would have 
been formally more exact to have used o z/Jyuo? and r] iTlari^ or 
e^ ep^Ciiv v6/jL0v and i/c Trtb-reco?. But with essential clearness 
the apostle employs in the predicate the prepositional phrase 
that was the w^atchword of the one doctrine, though for the 
other he had used in the subject a nominative in preference 
to the grammatically harsh prepositional expression. By this 
assertion the apostle excludes the thought of compromise be- 
tween the two principles. Faith is one thing, legalism another, 
and as bases of justification they can not be combined. No 
doubt there wTre those who sought to combine them, admitting 
that justification was by faith, but claiming that obedience to 
law was nevertheless requisite to salvation; as a modern Chris- 
tian will affirm that religion is wholly a spiritual matter, yet 
feel that he is surer of salvation if he has been baptised. 

a\X "'O 7roLrjaa<; avra ^rjo-erat ev aurot?." "but. He that 
doeth them shall live in them." The aWd marks the antithesis 
between this statement of O. T. (Lev. 18^), which the apostle 
takes as a statement of the principle of legalism, and the possi- 
bility just denied that this principle and that of faith might 
somehow be reconciled or reduced to one. One must mentally 
supply after aXX "the law says." Thus to the principle of 
legaUsm stated in its negative form in v." and set over against 
the quotation from Habakkuk with its affirmation of the prin- 
ciple of faith, the apostle adds an assertion of the principle of 
legalism in its positive form, also taken like that in v.^o from 
O. T. On the point of view from which the apostle thus quotes 


O. T. for both doctrines, see on vJ", and more fully in fine print 

13. Xpio-TO? rj^a? e^rjyopacrev eK tt}? Kardpa^ rov p6/jlov 
"Christ delivered us from the curse of the law." "The curse 
/of the law" here spoken of can consistently with the context 
^ be none other than that which is spoken of in v.^^, viz., the 
curse which the legalistic passages of O. T. pronounce on those 
who do not perfectly obey its statutes. As pointed out above 
on, this is not the judgment of God. To miss this fact is 
wholly to misunderstand Paul. But if the curse is not an 
expression of God's attitude towards men, neither is the deliver- 
ance from it a judicial act in the sense of release from penalty, 
but a release from a false conception of God's attitude, viz., 
from the belief that God actually deals with men on a legalistic 
basis. The work here ascribed to Christ is, therefore, of the 
same nature as that spoken of in Rom. f-^^-, and there said to 
be accomplished by Christ in his death, viz., a revelation of the 
way of achieving acceptance with God, a demonstration of 
the divine character and attitude towards men. 

The verb i^ayopi'C,bi, found in late writers only from the Lxx 
(Dan. 28 only) dowTi, is used in two senses: (i) " to buy up," or, figurative- 
ly, " to secure" (by adroitness) : Diod. Sic. 36. 2^; and (2) " to redeem, to 
deliver at cost of some sort to the deliverer." The middle occurs once 
in Eph. and once in Col. in the former sense in the phrase e^ajoga'QsaQai 
xbv y.aipov. The active occurs in the same sense in Dan. 2*. The 
active is found in the second sense in Gal. 4^, Yva xooq b%h v6[jlou 
i^ayop&cs-Q. The meaning here is evidently the same as in 4', " to de- 
liver, to secure release for one," probably with the implication conveyed 
in the etymological sense of the word (the simple verb iyopdCo means 
" to buy," and is frequently used in this sense in the Lxx) that such de- 
liverance involves cost of some kind (effort, suffering, or loss) to him 
who effects it. The question to whom the price is paid is irrelevant, 
unless demanded by the context, intruding into later usage of the word 
an idea left behind in its earlier development. 
/ It requires no argument to show that in the phrase ex zfic xazipaq 
/ Tou v6[xou the apostle has in mind some phase, aspect, or conception 
-- of the law of God, not civil law or law in an inclusive sense of the 
word. It has been maintained above that he refers to law legalisti- 
cally understood, and to deliverance from the curse which God is 
falsely supposed to pronounce upon men on the basis of such a law. 

Ill, 12, 13 169 

In support of this interpretation and against the view, that the law here 
spoken of is law in any other sense of the word (see detached note on 
NotJLoq, esp. V 2a, b, c, d), or that the deliverance is the forgiveness of 
the individual, are the following considerations. 

(a) piroughout this passage Paul is speaking of law legalistically 
understood, law as a body of statutes for failure to obey any of which 
men are under a curse' This is especially clear in vv.''''^^ (q.v.). In 
the phrase /.ardtpa TolT'vdtJLOu itself] there is, indeed, no insuperable 
obstacle to taking v6[j,o<; in the abstract-historical sense (cf. Rom. 2", 
and detached note on N6;jlo? V 2 b), and understanding by it the con- 
demnation which God actually pronounces upon those who not simply 
fall short of perfect obedience to the statutes of the law, but hold down 
the truth in iniquity (Rom. i^'), who disobey the truth and obey 
iniquity (28), who though they may be hearers of the law are not doers 
of it (213). xa-rdpot would in that case represent substantially the idea 
expressed by 6?yt) in Rom. i'« 2*, to which it is practically equivalent. 
Nor is an abrupt change to law in another sense in itself impossible. 
It might easily occur if the change of sense were made evident, as it is 
in Rom. 3" and in various other passages, or if the argument were 
such and the two meanings so related that the logic of the passage 
would be but little affected, whether the meaning be retained or 
changed, as in Rom. 2 12. ^i\^ But in the present passage these condi- 
tions do not exist. The continuity and validity of the argument 
depend on the word in the present verse meaning the same as in the 
preceding verses, f Indeed, there is no place in the whole chapter for 
a change in the meaning or reference of the word vb'^oq. Yet, it must 
also be recognised that the law of which the apostle speaks is not legal- 
ism in the abstract, but a concrete historical reality. It came four 
hundred and thirty years after Moses (v.i"); its fundamental principle 
is expressed in a definite passage of O. T. (v.i^). ^ 

(b) (The tense of the verb s^-riyopaaev is itsfelf an argument for tak- 
ing the deliverance referred to ngjt as an ^ften repeated individual 
experience but as an epochal event. J^lBut thdre are other more decisive 
considerations. Thus (i) it is achieved by Qhrist on the cross; (ii) its 
primary effect is in relation to the Jews; for/ the use of the article with 
v6(xou in V. ", excluding a qualitative use of t:he noun, and the antithesis 
of ii'^aq in v. i' to xd eQvt] in v. ^*, necessitate referring the former pri- 
marily to the Jews; and (iii) the purpose of the redemptive act is to 
achieve a certain result affecting the Gentiles as a class. These facts 
combine to indicate that the apojtle is speaking not, e. g., of the for- 
giveness of the individual, his release from the penalty of his sins, but 
of a result once for all achieved in the death of Christ on the cross.j/ 
It is, therefore, of the nature- of the dicoXuTpGiati; of Rom. 3^^ rather 
than of the Xuxcwat? of i Pet. !•». 



[But the fact that the deliverance is an epochal event confirms our judg- 
ment that it is law in a legalistic sense that is here referred to. Con- 
demnation for failure to fulfil law in the ethical sense is not abol- 
ished by the death of Christ, i Cf. chap. 5"ff- Rom. 2»-i« 8>-*. Nor 
can the reference be to the law "as a historic regime, the Mosaic system 
as such. /For though Rom. lo* might be interpreted as meaning that 
Christ is the end of the law in this sense, and though the apostle un- 
doubtedly held that those who believe in Christ are not under obliga- 
tion to keep the statutes of the Law of Moses as such, yet (i) release 
from obligation to obey statutes is not naturally spoken of as release 
from the curse of the law, and (ii) the idea of the abolition of statutes 
is foreign to this context. It remains, therefore, to take the term in 
its legalistic sense, yet as referring to an actual historically existent 
system. : 

Yet the release from the curse of the law can not be the abolition of 
legalism in the sense that the divine government before Christ having 
been on a legalistic basis is henceforth of a different character. Against 
any interpretation that makes the curse of the law a divine condem- 
nation of men on grounds of legalism, in force from Moses to Christ, 
it is a decisive objection that the apostle both elsewhere and in this 
very chapter insists that God had never so dealt with men, but that 
the principle of faith established before law was not set aside by it 
(see esp. v.^')- 

Neither can we suppose that Paul, though admitting that legalism 
had historic existence in the O. T. period and concrete expression in 
O. T., denied to it all value and authority, as if, e. g., it were a work of 
■ the devil. For he elsewhere declares that the law is holy and righteous 
and good (Rom. T^") and in this chap, (w.^'f) implies that it had its 
legitimate divinely appointed function. Exalting the older principle 
of faith above the later law, the apostle yet sees value and legitimacy 
in both. 

The only explanation that meets these conditions is that in the his- 
toric legalism of O. T. Paul saw a real but not an adequate disclosure 
of the divine thought and will, one which when taken by itself and 
assumed to be complete gave a false notion of God's attitude towards 

The curse of the law is the verdict of a reality, of the law isolated 
from the rest of the O. T. revelation. But so isolated it expressed, 
according to Paul, not the truth but a fraction of it; for the law, he held, 
was never given full possession of the field, never set aside the pre- 
viously revealed principle of faith (3'0- Its function was never that 
of determining the standing of men with God. The curse of the law 
was, therefore, an actual curse in the sense that it expressed the ver- 
dict of legalism, but not in the sense that he on whom it fell was ac- 

Ill, 13 171 

cursed of God. It was a disclosure of the status of a man on a basis 
of merit estimated by actual achievement, not of God's attitude towards 
him. The latter, Paul maintained, was determined by other than 
legalistic considerations, by his faith (v.«), by his aspiration, his striv- 
irig, the fundamental character of his life and conduct (Rom. 2^"^^). 

JBut if this is the meaning of the phrase, "the curse of the law," and 
if deliverance from it was an epochal event accomplished by the death 
of Christ on the cross, it must have been achieved through the reve- 
latory value of the event, by that which God through that event 
revealed; and this either in the sense that God thereby announced the 
end of that system of legalism which in the time of Moses came in to 
achieve a temporary purpose, or in that he thereby revealed his own 
attitude towards men, and so g^ve evidence that legalism never was 
the basis of his judgment of men.i It is the first of these thoughts that 
Paul has apparently expressed m Rom. lo^ and it is not impossible 
here. Yet it is more consonant both with the fact that Paul speaks 
of deliverance from the curse of the law rather than from the law, and 
with what follows (see below on fB\6'^zwq . . . xaxdipa, etc.) to sup- 
pose that, as in Rom. 3". 26 58, he is speaking of a disclosure of the un- 
changed and unchangeable attitude of God. 

If, indeed, and in so far as the law is thought of as brought to an 
end, it is probably in the sense that this results from the revelation 
of God's character rather than by anything like a decree in terms abolish- 
ing it. This is also not improbably the thought that underlies Rom. lo*. 

<y€i'6iJL€vo<; virep 7]fjia)v xardpa, "becoming a curse for us." 
Kardpa, literally ",i curse," "an execration," "an expression or 
sentence of reprobation" (as in the preceding clause and v.^°), 
is evidently here used by metonymy, since a person can not 
become a curse in a literal sense. Such metonymy is common 
in Paul. Cf. the use of TrepiTOfi'^ for the circumcised, and 
aKpo(3v(TTLa for Gentiles in 2^- ^ and Rom. 3^°. Cf. also i Cor. i^", 
"who became wisdom to us from God, and righteousness and 
sanctification and redemption"; but esp. 2 Cor. 5^1 : "Him who 
knew no sin he made to be sin on our behalf {virep y/i(bv), that 
we might become righteousness of God in him." As there 
afiaprta stands in a sense for ayidpTOiXo'; and BiKacoavvi] for 
^t/cato9, so doubtless here Kardpa stands for [eVt]/caTa/3aT09 
as the iTTiKardparo^ in the following quotation also suggests. 
More important is the fact, which the close connection with the 
phrase i/c r?)? Kardpa^ rod pojulov indicates, that Kardpa here 


refers to a curse oj the law, which, as we have seen above, is not 
to be understood as a curse of God. jevofiepo'^ is probably a 
participle of means, the whole phrase expressing the method 
by which Christ redeemed us from the curse, virep r]ix(av 
means "on our behalf." It can not be pressed to mean "in our 
place" (avrC). See further on i^, vTrep tmv dfiaprLcov r/fxcov. 
Precisely in what sense and how Christ came under the curse 
of the law, and how this availed to deliver us from that curse, 
must appear from a consideration of the quotation by which 
Paul supports his affirmation. 

The following are conceivable meanings of the phrase Yev6[xevo<; 
. . . /.axipa, taken by itself: (i) Christ became a curse in that he was 
the object of divine reprobation, personally an object of divine dis- 
approval. (2) He became the actual object of divine reprobation 
vicariously, enduring the penalty of others' sins. (3) He experienced 
in himself God's wrath against sinners, not as himself the object of 
divine wrath, but vicariously and by reason of his relation to men. 
(4) He was the object of human execration — cursed by men. In this 
case Y£v6iJLevoc; would be a participle not of means, but of accompany- 
ing circumstance, the phrase suggesting the cost at which Jesus re- 
deemed us from the curse of the law. How he did so would be left 
entirely unsaid. (5) He fell under the curse of the law, not of God or 
of men. The first of these five interpretations is easily excluded by its 
utter contrariety to Paul's thought about God's attitude towards Christ 
and the righteousness of his judgments. The second, though often 
affirmed, is not sustained by any unambiguous language of the apostle. 
The third is probably quite consistent with the apostle's thought. As 
in 2 Cor. 52^ he says that "him who knew no sin he made to be sin 
for us, that we might become righteousness of God in him," not mean- 
ing that Christ actually became sinful, but that by reason of his rela- 
tion to men he experienced in himself the consequences of sin. so by 
this language he might mean that Jesus by reason of his sympathetic 
relation with men experienced in himself the curse of God upon men for 
their sin. But there is no expression of this thought in the context, 
and it is, on the whole, inharmonious with the meaning of the word 
y.<xz&p(x throughout the passage. The fourth is equally possible in 
itself, but, like all the preceding, is open to the objection that it does 
not, as the context suggests, make the curse that of the law. The 
fifth, though without support in any other passage of the apostle's 
writings, is most consonant with the context, if not actually required 
by it. 

Ill, 13 173 

ore yeypaTTTac, ^^''^TTHcardpaTO^ ira^ 6 Kp6/JidfjL€P0<; eirX ^vXov," 
"because it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a 
tree." The quotation, from Deut. 21^3, is introduced to sup- 
port the statement that Christ became a curse, not that he 
thereby "deUvered us from the curse of the law," or that it 
was "for us." The original passage refers to the body of a 
criminal which, after the man had been put to death, was 
hanged upon a tree. In such a case it is said, "Thou shalt 
surely bury him the same day; for he that is hanged is the 
curse of God, that thou defile not thy land which the Lord thy 
God giveth thee for an inheritance." Between this passage 
and the fact of which the apostle is speaking there seems to 
be only a superficial connection. On the question whether the 
apostle found a more real connection, see below. 

Deut. 2i25, which in the Lxx reads oti xsy.aTT]?a;xevo<; inrb GeoO ira?\iik[).e\>oq 1x1 ^jXou, may be supposed to furnish support to Paul's 
previous statement that Christ became a curse for us in several ways: 
(i) '^syo[iewq /.axapa being understood to have any of the first three 
meanings suggested above, the 0. T. passage may be quoted purely 
for its verbal resemblance to the assertion which the apostle has made; 
there is manifestly nothing in its real meaning to support the assertion 
that Christ, who died not for his own sins but as an innocent man, 
came in any sense under the curse of God. Its use for this purpose 
would be verbalism pure and simple. (2) If Yev6;j,evo<; /.axapa be 
supposed to refer to the reprobation of men, the passage may be used 
to explain that reprobation, men naturally looking upon one who died 
the death of a criminal as actually such and under the curse of God. 
(3) If xarapa refers to the curse of the law, then the quotation may be 
understood to define precisely how and in what sense he became a 
curse of the law. Inasmuch as the law affirms that whoever is hanged 
on a tree is accursed, and Jesus died on the cross, he falls under this 
verdict and the curse of the law. But inasmuch as this verdict is 
manifestly false and monstrous, in it the law does not so much con- 
demn Christ as itself, and thereby, since false in one it may be so in 
all, it emancipates us from the fear of its curse. Or, (4) , with somewhat 
less of literalism xaxdpa may be supposed to refer to the curse of the 
law, the O. T. quotation, however, being cited not solely with refer- 
ence to the fact of hanging on the tree, but to all that the crucifixion 
represents. Law and he who takes his stand on law, must say that 
Christ, having died on the cross, is a sinner — i. e., that under law no 
one could come to such a death who was not himself guilty of sin — as 


vividly the law says in the words of the quotation. But in that verdict 
of legalism it condemns itself, and in the fact that Christ the righteous 
died the death of the cross it is evident that the government of God is 
not one of legalism, but of love and of vicarious suffering, the righteous 
for the wicked. 

Of these various interpretations the last two alone comport with the 
fact that it is the curse of the law of which Paul is speaking throughout 
the passage, and the last is preferable because more consonant with 
the fact that for Paul generally the cross signifies not the outward fact 
that Jesus died by crucifixion or on a tree, but all that the fact stood 
for as a revelation of God and the principles of his dealings with men. 
See I Cor. ii^- >8- ^s. So understood, the quotation serves the same 
purpose as those in vv."' "^ viz., to show the impossible position in 
which the logic of legalism lands its advocates. The argument is 
akin, also, to that of 2^\ in that it uses the fact of the death of Christ to 
refute the legalist, Paul there saying that legalism makes that death 
needless, here that it proves Christ accursed. The omission of uxb 6eou 
is probably due, as Ltft. suggests, to a shrinking of the apostle from 
the suggestion that Christ was the object of God's reprobation. 

If both the latter interpretations be rejected because it seems impos- 
sible that under these words there lies so much thought not directly 
expressed (though this objection will hold against any interpretation 
that seeks to ascertain the real thought of the apostle) our choice of a 
substitute would probably be among the following combinations of 
views already separately objected to: (i) The curse of the law may be 
supposed to be a real curse, the death on the cross a penal expiation of 
it, and the O, T. passage a proof of its penal character. The serious 
objection to this interpretation is not that the O. T. passage is related 
to the fact which it is supposed to sustain in a purely verbal and 
external way, for in view of 3''- ^'> and 4^* (on which, however, see the 
possibility that these are early scribal glosses) it can not be assumed 
that Paul was incapable of such a use of scripture, but that in making 
the curse of the law a real curse (of God) this interpretation makes the 
apostle directly contradict the very proposition which he is maintain- 
ing in this chapter, viz., that men are not judged by God on a basis of 
legalism. Or (2) we may suppose that the phrase "the curse of the 
law" bears the meaning required by the context, but that after the 
first clause of v." the apostle abandons thought for words, and seeks 
to substantiate his assertion that Christ redeemed us from the curse 
of the law by affirming that Christ took upon him the curse of our 
sin, and that he sustains this statement by an O. T. passage which 
supports it in sound but not in sense. As in the preceding case, the 
real difficulty of the interpretation lies in the method of reasoning 
which it imputes to Paul. Having in XptaT6<; . . . v6[jlou affirmed 

ni, 13-14 175 

our release from the curse of the law, according to this interpretation 
he substantiates this statement by affirming that Christ became a 
curse in a quite different sense of the words, and one really remote 
from the context. That the scripture that he quotes supports this 
statement only in appearance is a secondary matter. It remains to 
consider as a final possibility (3) the view that the apostle follows 
up his affirmation that Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, 
not with proof or explanation, but with a statement intended to sug- 
gest the cost at which he achieved the deliverance of men from the 
curse of the law, Yevi^evoq . . . Y-a-z&pcx, referring to the reprobation 
of Christ by men. Cf. Heb. 12'; see (4) on p. 172. The 0. T. 
passage then explains why the death on the cross led men to look on 
him with reprobation as one accursed. To this interpretation the 
only serious objection is that the transition from the idea "cursed by 
the law" to "cursed by men" is expressed only negatively, and it 
would seem inadequately, by the absence of any limiting phrase after 
xaxdipa; the omission of the uTzh OeoG of the Lxx naturally implies the 
carrying forward of a reference to the law. In order of probability 
this view stands next after the fourth in the preceding list. 

The choice between interpretations must be made, not on the ground 
that one does and the other does not supply unexpressed elements of 
thought, or that one does and the other does not take O. T. scripture 
in its historic sense, but on the answer to the question whether it is more 
consistent with the apostle's usual methods of thinking to argue illogi- 
cally, dealing in words rather than thoughts, or to express reasonably 
consistent thought in brief and obscure language. 

14. iva et? ra eOvij rj evXayia rod 'A^paa/JL yeprjrat iv 
*lr)a-ov 'Kpiaro), " that upon the Gentiles might come the bless- 
ing of Abraham in Jesus Christ." In this clause and the fol- 
lowing one the apostle states the purpose not of any of the sub- 
ordinate elements of v,^^, but of the whole fact, especially the 
principal element, i^rjyopacrep . . . rod vo/iov. By ^7 evXojLa 
Tov 'A^pad/jb must be understood, in the Hght of w.*- ^, the bless- 
ing of justification by faith, which, according to Paul's inter- 
pretation of Gen. 12^ {cf. Gen. 28^), was promised beforehand 
to the Gentiles, and which they shared with him. This blessing 
came to the Gentiles in Jesus Christ in that it was through him 
that the purpose of God to accept men by faith was revealed, 
and that through faith in him they enter into actual participa- 
tion in the blessing. 


elq is probably to be taken as marking its object as the destination 
of a movement. Cf. i Thes. i^ In ev 'l-qaou Xptaxt]) the preposition 
is doubtless used in its basal sense; cf. on 2'^ 

'Ev 'iTjaoCi Xptjxw is the reading of SB Syr. (psh.) Aeth., most 
authorities reading ev X. 'I. The facts stated in the textual note on 
2i« with reference to the tendency of the mss., together with the high 
authority of SB, leave no room for doubt that ev Xptaxw 'iTjaoO is a 
corruption due to assimilation of the text to the usual form. Cf. the 
other instances of ^>B and secondary authorities against the other 
uncials in 3^- ^° 4^°' '= 5^1 61°. 

ipa rrjv iirajyeXLav rov 7rv€v/jbaro<; Xd^oj/nev Blcl tt}? Trtcrreco?. 
"that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through 
faith." rrjv iirayyeXLav tov Trvev/jcaro'^ is a metonymic phrase 
meaning the promised Spirit. Cf. Lk. 24^^ Acts i'' 26^ Heb. 
9^^ and especially Acts 2^^. See also the similar cases of e\7ri? 
meaning "that which is hoped for," chap. 5^ Col. i^ This sec- 
ond tVa-clause is probably to be taken, not as dependent on 
the first, but as co-ordinate with it, and the implied subject 
?7/xet? as referring to Christians as such, rather than to be- 
lieving Jews, as is probably the case in v.^^; for it is difficult 
to see how the reception of the Spirit by the Jews could be 
conditioned upon the Gentiles obtaining the blessing of Abra- 
ham ; and if the two cIluscs referred to Gentiles and Jews re- 
spectively this antithesis would probably have been indicated 
by an expressed ^M^t? in the second clause. Obviously the 
latter can not refer to the Gentiles only. Christ's redemption 
of us from the curse of the law had then as co-ordinate ends 
the opening of the door of faith and justification through faith 
apart from works of law, to the Gentile, and the bestowment 
of the promised Spirit on those that have faith. The adapta- 
tion of means to end as respects this second clause seems ob- 
viously to lie in the fact that the redemption of men from the 
curse of the law by their enlightenment as to God's true at- 
titude to them carries with it the revelation of faith as the 
means by which men become acceptable to God, and that 
through such faith they receive the Spirit. Cf. v.^; also vv.^^-^s 
and 4^. These final clauses, therefore, with their double state- 
ment of the purpose of Christ's redemptive work, confirm the 

Ill, 14-15 177 

conclusion already reached that the redemption from the curse 
of the law was an epochal event, having its significance and its 
redemptive power in the revelation which it conveys of the true 
attitude of God towards men. 

Whether in speaking of the promise of the Spirit the apostle has in 
mind the prophecy of Joel. 2^8 Ezek. 36", or, being acquainted with 
the tradition underlying Acts i^, refers to a promise of Jesus can not 
be stated with certainty. It is possible that the second final clause 
is to be taken as, to this extent, epexegetic of the first that the Holy 
Spirit is a definition of the blessing of Abraham. In that case the 
apostle refers to the promise to Abraham and has learned to interpret 
this as having reference to the gift of the Spirit. This possibility is 
in a measure favoured by the use of exaYyeXta in vv. !«• i' of the promise 
to Abraham. 

4. Argument from the irrevocaUeness of a covenant and 

the priority of the covenant made with Abraham to 

the law, to the efect that the covenant is still in force 

Drawing his argument from the common knowledge of men 
that contracts once agreed to can not be modified (except by 
mutual consent), the apostle applies this thought to the cov- 
enant with Abraham, contending that the law coming cen- 
turies afterwards can not modify it. 

^^Brethren, I speak from the point of view of men. Though it 
he man^s, yet a covenant once established no one annuls or adds 
to. {^^Now to Abraham were the promises spoken, "and to his 
seed.^' He saith not, "And to the seeds, ''^ as of many, but as of 
one, "And to thy seed,'' which is Christ.) ^''Now this I mean: 
A covenant previously established by God, the law, which came four 
hundred and thirty years afterwards, does not annul so as to make 
inoperative the promise. ^^For if the inheritance is of law, it is 
no longer of promise; but to Abraham God granted it by promise. 

15. 'ASe\(f)OL, Kara avOpwirov \eyoj. "Brethren, I speak from 
the point of view of men." On the use of aSeXcj^oi, see on i^. 
Its use here is probably due to the apostle's feeling that he is 
now addressing the Galatians more directly than in the preced- 
ing paragraph, in which he was really speaking to the judaisers 


whose argument he was refuting, and to his desire to secure 
their friendly attention. On Kara avOpwirop, see on i". The 
regular meaning of the phrase after a verb is, "as men do," the 
specific point of resemblance being indicated in the context. 
Here this general meaning naturally becomes, "I speak as men 
do about their affairs" {cf. i Cor. 9^), i. e., "1 draw an illustra- 
tion from common human practice." A reference to human 
authority such as is suggested in i Cor. 9^ is improbable here, 
both because there is no suggestion of it in the context and 
because the depreciation of the value of the argument which 
such a reference would imply is uncalled for and without value 
for the apostle's purpose. 

o/^w? avdpcoTTOv Kefcvpw/JLevrjv BcaO^KrjV ovSeh aOerel rj 
iTriSiarda-aeraL. "Though it be man's, yet a covenant once 
established no one annuls or adds to." Of the force of o/xco? 
two views are possible: (i) It may mark an antithesis between 
Kara dvOpwTToy Xeyoj and what follows. In this case, since 
dvOpcoTTov, etc., is not directly adversative to Kara . . . Xeyo), 
the second member of the antithesis must be supposed to be 
suggested by, rather than expressed in, the words that follow; 
most probably by the whole argument of vv. ^^^' ". The 
thought will then be, "Though I speak from the point of view 
of men's affairs, yet what may be so said is not without force: 
a man's ratified covenant," etc. (So substantially Riick. 
Olsh., cited by Wies.) (2) The antithesis may be between 
dvdpcoTTov and what follows. This involves a trajection by 
which o/Ltco? stands not in its natural place before the second 
member of the antithesis, but before the first. Cf. 1 Cor. 14^- 
oyLcco? rd d\pv')(^a (fxjjvrjv BiSovra . . , idi' hiaarokr^v rob; 
(l)66'yyoL<i fiT] So) . . . where ofjuci indicates an antithesis be- 
tween dxj/vxci' and (jiccvrju BiBovTa, or more probably between 
(j)(j)V7]v SiBopra and idv SiaaroXrjv . . . fJirj Bo). With this pas- 
sage have been compared also Plat. Pliaed. 91C {(jiO^elraL fir] 
V 4^^V o/jUjo^ koX OeLorepov koI koWlov ov tov crco/jLaro^; trpo- 
airoWvTjTaL ev dpfxovia^ elhei ovcra)^ Thuc. 7.77^ and Xen. 
Cyr. 5. i-^ (^'i^f^ ^' «^ ouTco? e')(piiev (w? avv fxev aol 0fjLCx)<; fcal ev 
TTj TToXefJLLa 6vre<; Oappovfxev). Cf. WM. p. 693, Kuhner-Gerth, 

Ill, 15 179 

IT 2, p. 85. In this case the contrast Is between the SiaOrjKrj 
as man-made and its irrevocability after its ratification. The 
first view has the advantage of grammatical simpUcity. But 
in view of the instances of trajection, including the only other 
instance of o/xco? in Paul, and of the greater logical simplicity of 
the second view, it is probably to be preferred. KeKvpw^ievqv, 
characterising the supposed covenant as having been executed 
and hence actually in force, expresses a thought which is im- 
plied in haBrjK7]v^ but adds to the clearness of the sentence. 
It clearly belongs to the second element of the antithesis, with 
ovheh aOerel. The validation of the covenant is evidently in 
the apostle's mind not, like avOpcoiroVj a fact in spite of which 
no one annuls it or adds to it, but the ground of the irrevoca- 
bility, as is implied in the re-expression of the idea in the word 
7rpoK€Kvpo^lieV7]P in v.^^ By Siadrj/CT] must be understood not 
''testament" (as Th. Cremer, Sief. Zahn, Behm, 
Lohmeyer, et al.) nor "stipulation," "arrangement," in a sense 
broad enough to cover both will and covenant (Hauck in Th. 
St. u. Kr., 1862, pp. 514^., Segond, and Bous.), but as the usage 
of N. T. in general and of Paul in particular and the context here 
require, "covenant" in the sense of the O. T. H^'IB (soMey. 
Alf. Ell. Ltft. ERV.text, ARV. Beet). Cf. on v.^^, and for 
fuller statement of the evidence, see detached note on AtaOi]Kr]^ 
pp. 496 /. 

'AvGpwxou. The singular number of this noun furnishes no argument 
against the meaning "covenant" (a) because, as will appear below, 
the covenant as conceived of in Hebrew thought, though constituting 
a relation between two persons often proceeds from one, and (b) be- 
cause the noun is here most naturally understood as qualitative as in 
the phrase xaTa d'v0po)xov. Cf. i^ Bt' dv6p(I)xou and other examples 
given there. 

Ke/,upa)[xsvT)v from xupoo, cognate with xuptoq (cf. the adjectival use 
in I Mac. 8'° in the sense "established") means "validated," "effected," 
"executed," referring neither to the drafting of an agreement or will 
preceding its execution nor to a confirmation which follows the actual 
execution (the latter sense though occurring is infrequent; see ^sch. 
Pers. 521, and 4 Mac. 7'; Plut. Oral. vit. Lys.), but to the execution 
itself, that without which it would not be in force at all. The prefix- 
ing of the participle to Bca6-^/,T3v, therefore, simply emphasises what is 


implied in the word itself, pointing out that what is referred to is a 
BtaOiQ/,T3 actually in force, not simply under consideration or written out 
but not yet agreed to and therefore still subject to modification. C/. 
Thuc. 8. 6': i] ixyCk-qcia . . . xupcoaaja laurx StsXuOTf). Polyb. i. ii': 
x(x\ zh [xlv ffuv^Bpiov o05' e?<; x^Xoq sxupwcs t-J)v YvwfjLTfjv . . . Boeckh, 
C. I. G. 1570 a. 45. xb t])-q(f)ia[ia ih xupwG^v. Gen. 232": xal exupcoOt] 6 dtypb? 
. - . T(p 'A^paaiJL etc; xxi^fftv Ttit90u xapa twv uldiv Xex. (Aq. uses the same 
word in v.i')- Dan. 6' (Lxx)- xal ouxwq 6 ^aacXeu? Aapeloq eaxTjae xal 
Ixupwasv. Plut. Alcib. ^2t^: xb ;xev ouv (}jT)(pc(T[JLa TTi(; xa66Sou xpoxepov ex£- 
xOpcoTo. See also Plut. Sol. 30^; Peric. 32'; Pomp. 48'. 

ouSel? a$€Tel 7) errthiaTciaaeTaL is to be taken without 
qualification, least of all with the quahfication, "except the 
contractor" (so Schm., Encyc. Bib. II 1611; cf. Zahn, Bous. 
ad loc). That a compact may be modified by common consent 
of both the parties to it is, of course, not denied, but simply 
assumed and ignored. But to assume that either party alone is 
excepted is to deprive the statement of all meaning. For evi- 
dence that this assertion itself shows that the BluO^kt] avOpcd- 
TTOV, which Paul uses, Kara av6po:)7rov, to prove the un- 
changeableness of the BiaOrjKrj of God is a covenant, not a 
will, see detached note on ^laOrjicri, pp. 496 f. 

'AOexlto, "to render (26stoc;" ( = without place or standing, invalid), 
occurs from Lxx and Polybius down, signifying in respect to laws and 
the like "to disregard," "to violate" (Polyb. 8. 2*; Mk. 7' Heb. 10"), 
or "to annul," "to abrogate" (i Mac. 11" 2 Mac. 13"); of persons "to 
set at nought," "to reject," "to rebel against" (Deut. 211* Isa. i«). 
Cf. also M. and M. Voc. s. v. "To annul" is clearly the meaning here. 

'EictSiaTdaffeTat furnishes the only extant instance of this word, 
but Siaxiacjo) is frequent both in Greek writers and N. T. in the sense 
"to arrange," "to prescribe"; the middle occurring in Plut. in the 
sense " to make a will," " to order by will." The compound ETriBiaTiaad) 
evidently signifies "to make additional prescriptions" {cf. eTci5caT(9TQ;xt, 
Dio Cass. 6215 and extStaOi^xT], "codicil," Jos. Ant. 17. 226 (9*) and ex- 
amples cited by Norton, A Lexicographical and Historical Study of 
AtaO-^xTQ . . . Chicago, 1908). Whether such prescriptions are contrary 
to the original compact (they of course modify it or they would not be 
added) is beside the mark; a compact once executed can not be changed. 

16. Tft) Be ^A/3paafjL ippeOrjcrap al eTrajyeXiaL " Kal tm airep- 
Mart" avTOv- "Now to Abraham were the promises spoken, 
'and to his seed.' " For the evidence that this proposition and 

Ill, I5-K 


the next (v.") are parenthetical, see on rovro Be Xeyo), v.". 
The promises here spoken of are those which accompanied the 
covenant and which constituted it on the side of divine grace. 
On the relation of promise and covenant, see detached note 
on ALadriKr], p. 497, and cf. Gen. g^^^-; but esp. Gen. 17^-8. 
See also Cremer^o, p^ 1062. The apostle more commonly uses 
the singular iirayyeXia (see w.^^- !«• ''• '' Rom. 4^'' ''• ''• ^'), but 
also without marked difference of thought employs the plural 
(see v.21 and Rom. 9^), the basis for which is in the repeated 
occasions on which the promise was made to Abraham, and the 
various forms in which it was expressed. See Gen. i2 2ff- 1314-17 
j^i, 5, 18 jy2-8^ On Paul's definition of the content of the prom- 
ise as interpreted in the light of subsequent events, see on 
KXrjpovofxia, v.^^. From a strictly grammatical point of view 
TO) airepixan is a dative of indirect object after eppedTjaav. 
But it is only by a rhetorical figure that the promises are said 
to be uttered to the seed. In the original passage, Gen. 13^^ 
177. 8, and in this sentence by intent the seed are included 
with Abraham in those to whom the promises are to be ful- 

ov Xeyec '' Kal rol^i crTrep^aaLV,^^ cb? eVl ttoWwv, a\X w? icj) 
evo^ "Kal Tw airepfJLaTi aov,'' 0? iaTcv XpLaro^. "He saith 
not. And to the seeds, as of many, but as of one. And to thy 
seed, which is Christ." The subject of Xeyei to be supplied in 
thought is doubtless o deo^ as implied in virb tov Oeov (v.^O- ^? 
indicates that the following expressions refer to the point of 
view of the speaker, ^eo?, so that it is equivalent to "meaning 
this." CJ. Th. s. V. 3. e-TTt with the genitive in the sense "in re- 
spect to," apparently occurs here only in N. T., but is found in 
classical writers. CJ. Th. s.v.hl.i. e. If these words are from 
the apostle it must be supposed that fcr the purpose of height- 
ening the impression of the dignity and inviolabihty of the 
covenant and suggesting the impossibility of its having already 
received its fulfilment before the law came in, he avails him- 
self of an unusual use of airepiia in the singular as meaning, or 
applied to, an individual descendant, and founds on this fact 
an argument for referring the 0. T. passage to Christ; yet 


probably to him not as an individual, but as the head of a 
spiritual race; cj. the use of Israel as meaning the race of Israel, 
Rom. 96' 31, but especially 928 and i Cor. 1212. This is, of 
course, not the meaning of the original passage referred to 
(Gen. 1315^ or if or ^). But neither is there any other inter- 
pretation which will satisfy the requirements both of the Gen. 
passages and of the context here. The latter must, therefore, 
decide the apostle's meaning; cf. on v.". It is not probable, 
indeed, that the apostle derived the meaning of the promise 
from the use of the singular o-Trepixari. He is well aware of 
the collective sense of the word airepiia in the Gen. passage (see 
V.29 and Rom. 4^3-18) _ jjg doubtless arrived at his thought, not 
by exegesis of scripture, but from an interpretation of history, 
and then availed himself of the singular noun to express his 
thought briefly. It should be observed that 09 ecniv XpLaro^ 
is in any case an assertion of the apostle, for vrhich he claims 
no evidence in O. T. beyond the fact that the promise refers 
to one person. On the possibility that the words ov \eyet . . . 
Xpi,(TT6<; are the work of an early editor of the epistles of Paul, 
see end of detached note on ^ireptxaTi and ^Trepfiaaip^ p. 509. 

17. TOVTO Se XeVco- ''Now this I mean." The function of 
this phrase is to take up for further argument or explanation 
a thought already expressed. Cf. i Cor. 1^2 and similar phrases 
in I Cor. 729 io29 16^°. The following phrase, SiaOrjKrjv 
7rpoKe/cvpo)fi€vr]p vtto tov Oeov, shows that the reversion of 
thought here intended is to the ojuco? avOpcoirov rceKvpoijievr^v 
SiaOiJKTjv of v.i^ V.i^ is, therefore, parenthetical. 

ha9r}Kr]V TTpo/ceKVpoifxevr^v vtto tov Oeov 6 iiera TerpaKoata 
Koi rpiciKOVTa ery yeyopcbs vono^ ovk anvpol^ el? to Ka- 
rapyr^aai ttjv eirayyeXiav. "A covenant previously estab- 
lished by God, the law which came four hundred and thirty 
years afterwards does not annul so as to make inoperative the 
promise." The word hiaOrjtcrj is itself ambiguous, meaning 
either (a) "covenant," "agreement," or (b) "will," "testa- 
ment." But the BLaOrJKTj here referred to is manifestly that 
spoken of in Gen., chap. 17, and this alike in the thought of the 
O. T. writer, of the Lxx translators, and of Paul was essentially 

Ill, 16-17 183 

a covenant. Its fulfilment lay, indeed, in part in the distant 
future, pertaining even to generations yet unborn. In it God 
took the initiative, and it was primarily an expression of his 
grace and authority, not a bargain between equals. Yet none 
of these things contravene the character of a covenant, while 
its mutuality, its irrevocability (see v.^^), and the practical ex- 
clusion of the idea of the death of the testator, mark it as 
essentially a covenant and not a will. See on BiaOrjKT] in v.^^ 
and detached note on Aiadi^KT], p. 502 . The emphatic elements 
of the sentence on which the argument turns are the Trpo- in 
7rpofceKVpoJiJi€V7]v, the phrase viro rod Oeov, and fJ^erd. The 
major premise of the argument is in KCKvpcc^evrjp SiaOrjKTjv 
ovSeh . . . eirihaTacTaeTaL of v.^^; the minor premise is in 
the ixera ... votxo^ of this verse, while viro tov Oeov over 
against the avOpdiirov of v.^^ heightens the force of the argu- 
ment, giving it an a minori ad majus effect. If a covenant once 
in force can not be modified or annulled by any subsequent 
action, the covenant with Abraham can not be set aside by the 
subsequent law. If this is true of a man's covenant, much 
more is it true of a covenant made by God with Abraham, 
since God must be more certainly true to his promises than 
man. Cf. Rom. 3^^. The apostle is especially fond of argu- 
ments of this type. See the several illustrations in Rom., 
chap. 5. 

The words dq Xptcxov after Oeoj, found in the leading Western mss., 
and adopted by most Syrian authorities, are an interpretative addition, 
akin to and doubtless derived from v.i". 

The verb xpoxupoo) occurs elsewhere only in much later writers (Eus. 
Proep. Evang. X 4, etc.). The xpo- is temporal, and in this context 
means "before the law." On the use of jivo[iai in the sense " to come," 
"to appear in history," see Mk. i^ Jn. i<>- " i Jn. 2^K The perfect 
tense marks the coming of the law as something of which an existing 
result remains, in this case evidently the law itself. BAIT 154. This 
phase of the meaning can not well be expressed in English. Cf. BMT 82. 

The number four hundred and thirty is evidently derived by the 
apostle from Exod. 12", where, though according to the Hebrew text, 
"the time that the children of Israel dwelt in Egypt was four hundred 
and thirty years," the Vatican ms. of the Lxx, with which agrees, 
also the Samaritan Pentateuch, reads: •?) Be y.aToi/.TQat? twv ylwv 


'lapaiik y]v xarwxiQjav ev ^f, AlyuxTtp xal Iv ytJ Xavciav I'ty) Terpaxocrfa 
Tptdixov-ca xivTE, but AF, perhaps also the second hand of B, omit 
xivTs (so Tdf.), and A adds auxol xaX ol Tzoc-cipei aiixdiv. The expres- 
sion xal ev Y^ Xavaav, for which there is no equivalent in Hebrew, 
evidently refers to the residence in Canaan previous to that in Egypt, 
so that the whole period covered is, roughly speaking, from Abraham 
to Moses. On the comparison between this datum and Gen. 151', 
quoted in the speech of Stephen, cf. Alf. on Gal. cd loc. For the apos- 
tle's argument the length of the period has, of course, no significance, 
save that the longer the covenant had been in force, the more impres- 
sive is his statement. 

That 6 vofAoq is the law promulgated by Moses, the participial phrase 
clearly shows; yet the presumption is that the apostle is still thinking 
of that law in the same light, or of the same aspect of it, as in 313 
{q. v.); and there is the less reason to depart from that presump- 
tion because it is the supreme place which Paul's opponents had given, 
in their doctrine of the basis of acceptance with God, to the legalistic 
element of the law that leads Paul to make the affirmation oux ixupol. 
The legalistic aspect is, therefore, though less in the foreground than 
in vv.i"' ". 13^ still present. See detached note on N6[xog, p. 457. 

'Axupoto, a late Greek word (i Esd. 6"; Dion. Hal. Antiq. 2. 72"; 
Mt.^i5« Mk. 71' 4. Mac. 2^ s's 7M 172. pjut. Dio, 48^; Apoph. lacon. 3)' 
signifying "to make invalid," whether by rescinding or by overriding, 
or otherwise (in Plut. Cic. 49', apparently in a more material sense, "to 
destroy"), is here used in the first sense. Cf. dGexet, v.'*; M. and M. 
Voc. on ixupoo and dtOexTfj-tq; and Dt.BS. p. 228, quoting from papyri 
the phrase zlq dGexTjaiv xal dxupwatv. Paul would not have denied 
that in the thought and practice of men law had displaced the cove- 
nant, but that law legitimately did so (as a new law may specific- 
ally repeal previous legislation). e(q to with the infinitive expresses the 
measure of effect or conceived result of dtxupol (Bif r 411). xaxapyeto 
(of rare occurrence in Greek authors, in Lxx only 2 Esd. 421. 23 55 6»; 
in N. T. frequent in Paul elsewhere only in Lk. 13' Heb. 2^*) means "to 
make ineffective, inoperative" (a-epyov). t^v exayysXfav signifies the 
same as a\ exayyeXtat in v.i«, the singular here reflecting the substan- 
tial identity of the promises made on the several occasions, as the 
plural there recalls the various occasions and utterances. 

18. el yap i/c vofxov rj KXijpovofjLLa, ou/ceri i^ e7rayyeX{a<;' 
"For if the inheritance is of law, it is no longer of promise." 
As in v.^^ the apostle excludes the possibility of a compromise 
between the two principles, and so justifies the use of the strong 
terms uKvpol and Karapyrjaai. I say "annul" and "make of 

Ill, 17-18 185 

no account," for if the law affects the promise at all, it annuls it. 
It can not be added to it; it destroys it. The previous reference 
to the haOriKri and the iirayyeXia make it clear that rj KXrjpo- 
vofJLLa — note the restrictive article — refers to the possession 
promised in the covenant (Gen. 13^^ 15^ 17^; cf. Rom. 4^3, m)^ 
which was with Abraham and his seed. This promised posses- 
sion, while consisting materially in the promised land, was 
the expression of God's favour and blessing {cf., e. g., 2 Chron. 
6-^ Ps. Sol. 72 92 143^ oTi rj ix€pi<^ KoX 77 KXrjpovojjLLa Tov 6eou 
icTTLP TcrparJX, 17-^), and the term easily becomes in the Chris- 
tian vocabulary a designation of the blessing of God which 
they shall obtain who through faith become acceptable to 
God (see Acts 20^2 i Cor. 6'' ^^ 15^0 Gal. 5^1 Eph. 5^ Col. 32^), of 
which blessing the Spirit, as the initial gift of the new life (v.^) 
is the earnest (2 Cor. 122 55 Eph. i^^- ^^ 4^''), and so the fulfilment 
of the promise (v."). Such a spiritualised conception in general 
doubtless underlies the apostle's use of it here. Cf. Rom. 4^* 
and the suggestion of v.^'' above, that he thought of the promise 
to Abraham as a promise of the Spirit. But for the purposes 
of his argument at this point, the content of the KXrjpovofiia is 
not emphasised. It was whatever the covenant promised to 
Abraham and to his seed. His opponents would concede that 
this was a spiritual, not simply a material, blessing. 

KXr}pow[i.i(x {%kf}poq, "a share," ve[X6), "to distribute"), found in 
Isocrates, Demosthenes, and other classical writers, is in their writings 
usually a possession obtained by inheritance, but sometimes possession 
without the idea of inheritance (Aristot. Nic. Eth. 7. i4« [1153 b"]). 
In the papyri it is used either of one's estate, which is to pass to one's 
heirs, or of that which one receives by inheritance: Pap. Amh. II 72«' «; 
BGU. I 19, II 3, 350 *' 5; Pap. Teht. II 3195' ", etfreq. It occurs very 
often in the Lxx, in the great majority of cases as the translation of ^^^iX- 
This Hebrew word, originally signifying "gift," then "possession," or 
"share," often refers to the possession given to Israel in Canaan 
(Deut. 12' 191* Judg. 2o« Isa. 581^ i Chr. i6i«"i8; cf. Gen. 17'' », where, 
however, the Heb. has n^nst and the Lxx xaxdaxstrtq ) ; or to the share 
of a particular tribe (Josh. chap. 19); or to Israel, or the land of 
Israel, as the possession of God<Deut. 4''« Ps. 78 [79]0- Sometimes it 
denotes an inheritance, usually, however, not in the sense of property 


received by inheritance, but of property which is left by one at death, 
or which will by usage pass to one's descendants (Num. 27^'" ^6^-*' '. »). 
Rarely, if ever, does it refer to property transmitted by will; but see 
Job 42 IS. xXir)povo[jita in the Lxx has the same range of meaning. See 
also Sir. 44''-" Ps. Sol. 7* g' 14'- « i5>2 17". In N. T., though always 
translated "inheritance" in E. V., only in Lk. 121' does it refer strictly 
to property received or transmitted by inheritance. In Mt. 2i'8 
Mk. 12' Lk. 20" Acts 75 Heb. ii* it means "property," "possessions" 
in the material sense. In Acts 20" Eph. i^*- is 55 Col. 3^* Heb. g'^ 
1 Pet. i^ it is used figuratively of a spiritual blessing which men are 
to receive from God. It is in this sense of "promised possession" 
that it is doubtless to be taken here, consistently with the use of 
Sca9Tjx.ifj in the sense of "covenant." Nor is there anything in the 
usage of xXT]povo[xta to combat this sense of StxGtjxT]. 

The anarthrous nouns voixou and exayyeXfaq are both to be taken 
qualitatively: the actual things referred to are 6 vo^xo? and -f) £%Qc-f{ekicc 
(see on v.^O, but are by these phrases presented not individually as the 
law and the promise, but qualitatively as law and promise. The 
legalistic aspect of the law is a shade more in thought here than in v. l^ 
ex. denotes source, specifically that on which something depends (Th. 
s. V. II 6), and ex v6[xou is substantially equivalent to ev vojup in v.". 
ouxItc is to be taken not temporally but logically, as in Rom. 7"- 20 ii« 
(Gal. 22", cited as an example of this usage by Grimm, is probably not 
such, but suggests how the logical use might grow out of the temporal). 
The conditional clause, as in chap. 2", sets forth as a simple supposition 
what the apostle in fact regards as a condition contrary to fact. See 
BUT 243. 

TO) Be 'A/3paafJi 3i' iirayyeXia^ Kexap^o-Tac 6 6e6<^. "but to 
Abraham God granted it by promise." The implied object 
of the verb is evidently rrjv KXr^povoixlav. Ke'^^dpiaTai empha- 
sises the gracious, uncommercial, character of the grant, and 
the perfect tense marks- the grant as one still in force, thus 
recalling the argument of vv.^-^-^^ The statement as a whole 
constitutes the minor premise of which the preceding sentence 
is the major premise. If the inheritance is by law, it is not 
by promise; but it is by promise; therefore it is not by 

XaptXotJ^ai is used from Homer down in the general sense "to do 
something pleasant or agreeable" (to another), "to do one a favour"; 
in N. T. with the meanings (a) "to forgive" and (b) "to grant gra- 
ciously"; cf. Rom, 8'^ etc. 

m, 18-19 187 

5. Answer to the objection that the preceding argument 
leaves the law without a reason for being (3^^"^^). 

The apostle's strong and repeated insistence on the inferiority 
of law to the promise, and its inability to justify, naturally 
raises the question, weighty for one who was not prepared to 
deny to the law all divine authority. What, then, is the law 
for? This Paul answers by ascribing to it the function of 
producing transgressions, denying to it power to give life, and 
making it simply temporary and preparatory to the gospel. 

^^What then is the significance of the law ? For the sake of the 
transgressions it was added, to continue until the seed should come 
to whom the promise still in force was made, being enacted through 
the agency of angels in the hand of a mediator. ^^But the medi- 
ator is not of one; but God is one. ^^Is the law, then, contrary to 
the promises of God? By no means. For if there had been 
given a law that could give life, righteousness would indeed be by 
law. "^"^But the scripture shut up all things under sin that, on 
ground of faith in Jesus Christ, the promise might be given to 
those who believe. 

19. Ti ovv 6 v6}xo^', "What then is the significance of the 
law?" A question obviously raised by the argument advanced 
in vv.i^-18, which seemed to leave the law without function. 
v6iio<; is, of course, the same law there spoken of; see on 
v.^^ and on v.". 

There is no perfectly decisive consideration to enable us to choose 
between the translations "why is" and "what is," "what signifies." 
Paul frequently uses -zl adverbially (Rom. 3' 14'" i Cor. 4^ Gal. 5", 
etc.), yet never elsewhere in the phrase xt ouv. On the other hand, 
while Tt ouv elsewhere signifies "what then," not "why then" (Rom. 
31. 3 41 61' 1% etc.), yet when the thought "what signifies" is to be 
expressed, the copula is usually inserted, not left to be supplied. See 
I Cor. 2>^: -zi ouv ejtiv 'AizoXkuiq; Tt Ss scxtv HauXoq; Jn. 6': Tauxa II il 
ejTtv; but cf. other examples of a similar sense, without copula in 
Bernhardy, Syntax, p. 336. The difference of meaning is not great; the 
question, "Why the law?" is included in the more general question 
"What signifies the law, how is it with the law?" and this, as the con- 
text shows, is in any case the most prominent element of the thought 
in the apostle's mind, ouv connects this question with what precedes, 
signifying "in view, then, of these statements." 


T(ov irapa/Sdaecov x^P^^ TrpooeTedr), "For the sake of the 
transgressions it was added." TrpoaereO'q marks the law as 
supplementary, and hence subordinate to the covenant. The 
statement is not in contradiction with vv.^^^-, because the law 
in the apostle's thought forms no part of the covenant, is a 
thing distinct from it, in no way modifying its provisions. It 
is the apparent contradiction that probably gave rise to the 
reading ireOrj^ which occurs in this v. in D'^FG and other West- 
ern authorities. 

In itself %«/otj^ may be either telic as in Tit. i^- " Jude^* Prov. 
17^^, perhaps also Eph. 3^' ^^, or causal as in Lk. 7^^ i Jn. 3^^; 
Clem. Hom. 11^^: tmv irapairrooixdroiv x^P^^ V ^^jJ-'^p^cL eirerac 
(cited by Ell. and Ltft). The context and Paul's usual con- 
ception of the functions of the law are both in favour of the 
telic force. For, since it is clearly the apostle's usual thought 
that where there is no law% though there may be sin, there is 
no transgression {irapd^aai^^ see Rom. 4^^ 51^), his choice of the 
word TrapajSaaeoi)]^ here must be taken to indicate that he is 
speaking not of that which is antecedent but of that which is 
subsequent to the coming of law. The phrase is, therefore, by 
no means the equivalent of djiapTLMV %a/3tJ', and since the dis- 
tinguishing feature of irapd^aai<^ is that it is not simply the 
following of evil impulse, but violation of explicit law, it nat- 
urally suggests, as involved in the TrapafSdaeccv, the recognition 
of the sinfulness of the deeds, which otherwise might have 
passed without recognition. Nor can it be justly said that 
this interpretation involves the supplying of the phrase, "knowl- 
edge of" (c/. Sief. "so hatte doch Paulus, um verstanden zu 
werden, schreiben miissen tt}? eVtYz^cocreco? tmv irapa^daeoiv 
^ajOti/"), but only the discovery in the expression rcov irapa^d- 
aeojv of its implicate, tt}? iircypcoaecof; r?}? aixapria^. For the 
evidence that the latter was in Paul's thought a function of 
the law and that he probably conceived of it as brought 
about through the conversion of sin into transgression, see 
Rom. 320 415 513. 14. 20 y7-i2^ The article before irapa^dueuiv is 
restrictive, but not retrospective. The thought probably is, 
''the transgressions which will thereby be produced." 

Ill, IQ 189 

ap^pt"? av e\6r) to (TTrepixa w iTTTjyyeXrai, "to continue until 
the seed should come to whom the promise still in force was 
made." rb aireptxa is, doubtless, to be taken in the same 
sense as in v.^*^^, viz., Christ, if v.^^'' is from Paul {cf. p. 182); 
otherwise as in v.29, those who are Christ's. iirruyeXraL, per- 
fect tense, referring to a past fact and its existing result, marks 
the promise as being still in force. The whole clause, «%/3t?, 
etc., sets the limit to the period during which the law continues. 
Thus the covenant of promise is presented to the mind as of 
permanent validity,( both beginning before and continuing 
through the period of the law and afterwards, the law on the 
other hand as temporary, added to the permanent covenant 
for a period hmited in both directions. That the relation of 
men to God was different after the period of law was ended 
from what it had been under the law is implied in v.^^. But 
that the promise with its principle of faith was in no way 
abrogated or suspended in or after the period of the law is the 
unequivocal affirmation of w.^^-'^, and clearly implied in the 
quotation in v,^^ of Hab. 2^, which the apostle doubtless as- 
cribed to this period. 

"Axpt? av is the reading of B33, 191 2 Clem. Eus. All others apparently 
read axpt? ou. Both (Sc'xptq av and a^pt ou are current forms in the 
first century (M. and M. Voc. s. v.), but Paul elsewhere reads (i'xpt[<;] ou 
(Rom. II" I Cor. ii^^ 15"). In Rom. 11" and i Cor. 15" mss. vary 
between 5xpt and axpt<; before ou and in i Cor. 11 -« 15" a consider- 
able group add av after ou, yet none apparently read d'xptq av. It is 
improbable, therefore, that this reading is the work of the scribes. 

Siarayeh St' ayyeXoJv iv %et/3l jieaiTov "being enacted 
through the agency of angels in the hand of a mediator." 
The mediator is self-evidently Moses; the expression ev %et/3t 
is probably, as Sief. suggests, intended literally; see Exod. 
2 1 18 22 1». Concerning the tradition that angels were concerned 
in the giving of the law, see Deut. 33^ (Lxx not Heb.), iic he^twv 
avTov ayyeXoL ixer avTov. Jos. Ant. 15. 136 (5^); Test. XII 
Pat. Dan. 6; Jub. i^s; Heb. 2^ Acts f^' ^^ and Talmudic pas- 
sages cited by DSb.Gwt. p. 27. , The intent of the whole phrase 
is to depreciate the law as not given directly by God. 


On haxikaaii), with reference to the enactment of a law, cf. Hes. Op. 
276; Plato, Legg. XI 931 E. The participle is an aor. of identical action, 
describing one phase of the fact denoted by T.poaeziQri (BMT 139/.). 

Msakriq, " mediator," belongs to late Greek. Job 9": ecBs ^v b [leak-qq 
i][i.u>v xal eXIyxt^''' ^^a^ Staxouov ava [xicov dt^-oo-reptov. Polyb. 28. 15 (ly)': 
e^ouXexo touc; 'PoBt'oug icpovu^aq [leatxaq dtTioSct^at. Diod. Sic. 4. 54, 
TOiJTOv Yap [xeaiTTjv Yeyovoxa twv 6ixoXoYta)v. Cremcr, j-. v., and Riggen- 
bach, "Der Begriff der AtaOifjxTQ im Hebraerbrief," in Theologischc Shuiien 
Th. Zahn . . . dargehracht, p. 307, interpret the word in this passage and 
in Jos. Ant. 4. 133 (6')— see below— as meaning "surety," "guarantor." 
But while this meaning would give reasonable sense to the pabsages, 
there is nothing in the context to require it, and these passages can not, 
therefore, be regarded as vouchers for it. Philo De Somn. I 142 (22); 
Vita Mosis, III 163 (19) : Mwuc:?); . . . [xeaiT-oq SiaXXdxTTj? . . . As- 
sumpt. Mos. ii< (quoted by Gelasius): xal xpoeGsciaaTo ^e (Mwuc-Pjv) 6 
Oebs xpb v.ct'za^o'k'qq 7.da\io\i slvai jxs zfiq, hiocQ-qy.r}q auxou [xeatxT^v. See 
Charles, Apoc. and Psetui., ad loc. {cf. 3>2): itaqnc excogitavit et invenit 
me, qui ah initio orhis tcrrarum pmparatus sum, ut sim arbiter testamentt 
illius; Test. XII Pat. Dan. 6, ^j-satTYj? Osou xa> dcvOpcixou {cf. Charles 
on Jub. I"); Jos. Ant 4. 133 (6^, xauxa Se d^xvuvTsq eXeyov xal Oebv 
IxeakiQv wv uxtaxvouvTO. ^w^. 16. 24 (2^). Pap. Gd. Caw'O, p. 30: edcv aoc 
S6^ [xeaefxTfjv f);xelv 36? (the passage is from the second century A. D. 
f)[xelv refers to two rival claimants for an estate between whom the \iz- 
ak-Qq was to be arbiter). Plut. De Is. et Osir. 46: Stb xal Mi'OpYjv Ilspaat 
Tbv txeat'xTjv dvotxd^ouatv. See other reff. in Th. s. v. In N. T., besides 
the present passage, the word occurs in Heb. 8» 9" 122^ i Tim. 2^, in all 
of which it Is a title of Jesus, though in Heb. 8« there is also a sug- 
gestion of Moses as the mediator of the old covenant, meaning the law. 

20. o Be iJ.eaiTrj<; kvo^ ovk earcv, 6 Be 6e6^ eh earlv. "But 
the mediator is not of one; but God is one." This is a part of 
the argument in depreciation of the law as compared with the 
covenant of promise, reiterating in part what has already been 
said in v.^^. The first clause is a general statement deduced 
from the very definition of a mediator. From the duality of the 
persons between whom the mediator acts and the fact that God 
is but one person, the inference intended to be drawn is that 
the law, being given through a mediator, came from God in- 
directly. That the promise came directly is not affirmed, but 
assumed to be in mind. To find here the thought that the 
law is conditional while the promise is unconditional, or a refer- 
ence to the unchangeableness of God, is to go beyond the 
implication of the words or the context. 

Ill, 19-20 19 1 

For the interpretation of this perplexing verse, of which, according 
to Fricke, Das exegetische Problem Gal. 3=", Leipzig, 1879, about three 
hundred interpretations have been proposed, the following data seem 
determinative, i. h si-zakr^ci is in this clause generic, lit., "The 
mediator of one does not exist," or "the mediator is not [a mediator] 
of one." To make it refer directly and exclusively to a specific medi- 
ator is to make the whole sentence simply assertion, lacking even the 
appearance of argument, and to render the second half of the sentence 
superfluous. It would, indeed, come to the same thing to make 
6 [xea(TT](; refer to the mediator of v.i^ if the assertion of v." be under- 
stood to be true of the mediator of v.i' because true of the mediator 
as such. But this is unnecessarily to complicate the thought. 2. 
This generic statement of v.": 6 Be \kB<zlxr\q hhq oux suxtv, is intended 
to be applied to Moses, the mediator, referred to in v.". To introduce 
the conception of some other mediator, as, e. g., Christ (Jerome Chrys. 
et al.), or the law itself (Holsten), is to exceed the indications of the con- 
text without warrant. 3. evoq must be taken as masculine, and, accord- 
ingly, as personal, the plurality aflBrmed in evbq oux scjtiv referring to 
the contracting parties to a transaction effected through a mediator; 
no other interpretation is consistent with the use of dq in the clause 
h Be eeb<; elq eaxfv. 4. The plurality affirmed in evbq oiix is not a plu- 
rality of persons constituting one party to the transaction effected 
through a mediator, but a duality of parties: in other words, h [xsaiTrji; 
hhc, oux eaxtv aflSrms not that the party for whom the mediator acts 
must consist of a plurality of persons, but that there must be two 
parties to the transaction between whom the mediator acts as go- 
between. However attractive the interpretation which is built upon 
this definition of siBck-qq as the single person acting as the representa- 
tive of a group, Paul being thus made to say that since a mediator can 
not be the representative of one, and God is one, Moses as mediator 
was not the representative of God, but of the angels (Vogel in Stud, 
u. Krit. 1865, pp. 524-38) or of the people (B. Weiss, Die Paul. Briefe im 
berichtiglen Text, ad loc.),it must be rejected on the clear evidence of usage 
(see the passages above) : a tiLea{TTf3i; by no means uniformly acted for a 
plurality of persons (constituting one party), but always, however, he 
may be thought of as specially representing the interests of one party, 
stood, as both the term itself and usage show, as the middleman between 
two parties, the latter consisting each of one person or of more, as 
the case might be. 5. h Se Qehq el? ia-ziv is most naturally taken 
as the minor premise to h Ss (xsatTYjq evbq oi3x lartv. The unexpressed 
but self-evident conclusion from these premises applied to the concrete 
case referred to in v.^' is that to the giving of the law. in which Moses 
was mediator, there was, besides God, a second party. This in itself 
serves to emphasise the statement of v.>», that the law was given through 
a mediator and to intimate that the covenant, in which God acted 


alone, without a mediator, is in this particular different from the law 
and superior to it.* So in the main, Fricke, op. cil. The reasoning is 
"not indeed characteristically Pauline; like that of v.'^b it reads more 
like the gloss of a later commentator than a part of the original argu- 
ment; and such it quite possibly is. Yet we have no decisive proof 
that Paul himself could not have added such a rabbinic re- enforcement 
of his own argument. 

EU.'s view, which while supplying "in the promise" makes the 
clause h SI Geb? elq Ictc'v, thus supplemented, a minor premise, the 
argument then running, A mediator is not of one party, but in the 
promise God is one; therefore, in the promise there is no mediator, 
only arrives by a laboured process at the point from which it started. 
Kendall's view. Expositor's Grk. Test.'. The mediator, Moses, is not of 
one seed, but many (= the law was not like the promise for a single 
chosen family, but to many families of Abraham's children after the 
flesh), but God is nevertheless one ( = the God of Sinai is one with 
the God of promise), is singularly regardless of the requirements alike 
of the language itself and of the context. 

21. o ovv vofJLO^; Kara ro}v eTrayyeXiMv rod Oeov; fJir) yevoLTO. 
"Is the law, then, contrary to the promises of God? By no 
means." The question is suggested by the whole argument 
from v.^o, esp. v.^^ on, w^hich obviously suggests an affirmative 
answer. That Paul returns a negative answer signifies, how- 
ever, not that he has forgotten and is now denying what he 
has up to this time affirmed, nor probably that he is using the 
word "law" in a different sense. It would, indeed, resolve the 
seeming contradiction and take the words in a sense not im- 
probable in itself to suppose that he here means the law simply 

• It comes to nearly the same result to take 6 Se deb? els evriv as referring directly to 
the promise, meaning, in effect: "But God, who gave the promise, is one, acted without a 
mediator "; in which fact the inferiority of the law to the promise is evident. So Ltft. But 
if this were the thought intended to be directly conveyed by this clause, it could hardly 
have failed to be expressed. It seems more reasonable to take the words 6 5e 5eb? el? ea-riu 
as in themselves expressing only what they directly say, and to assume that the thought to be 
supplied is the conclusion which the expressed premises support. 

It may be objected to the view advocated above and equally to that of Ltft. that on the 
supposition that SiaOi^xriv is a covenant. Paul's argument in v." turns on the fact of the two 
parties to it. and thus that the law and the covenant are in that fact placed on the same 
basis. But this ignores the fact that the argument concerning the mediator is in reality to 
the effect that the mediator stands between the two parties, making a third, separating as 
well as joining them, while in the covenant, God, the one, comes into direct relation with 
man. Moreover if, as is probably the case, and as is indicated by his use of enayyeMa for 
what he also calls the SiafljJKij, he shared the T thought oi the covenant as predomi- 
nantly one-sided, God taking the initiative, this fact would still further tend in his mind 
to depreciate the law as compared with the covenant. 


as a historical fact. But it is more likely that as he means 
here by the promises those of the covenant (w.^^- ^^^ ^^), so he 
uses law in the same sense as throughout the passage, and that 
he affirms that they are not in conflict (on Kara, cf. chap. 5^^' " 
2 Cor. 13^ Rom. 8^^), because they have distinct functions. 
Notice that it is this of which the next clause speaks. Paul 
admits, even affirms, that the law judges a man on a basis of 
works of law, and the promises on a basis of faith — in this they 
are different the one from the other, but he contends, as against 
V\ihis opponents who hold that men are actually justified by law, 
that the law, whose sentence is always one of condemnation, 
was not intended to express God's attitude towards men, is not 
the basis of God's actual judgment of men, but is a revelation 
^ of a man's legal standing only. He will presently add that it 
.' |is thus a means of bringing us to Christ (v.^^). At present he 
'■■ is content to affirm that they are not in conflict, because they 
; operate in different spheres. Thus one may rightly say that 
the courts are not in conflict with the pardoning powder; for 
though one sentences and the other releases, each is operative 
In its own sphere, the one saying whether the accused is guilty, 
the other whether he shall be punished; or that a father who 
first ascertains by careful inquiry whether his child has dis- 
obeyed his commands, and pronounces him guilty, and then 
using this very sentence of guilty to bring him to repentance, 
and discovering that he is repentant assures him of forgiveness 
and feUowship, is in no conflict with himself. 

ToO OeoO is omitted by B d e Victorin. Ephrem. (?) Ambrst. only. 
Despite the intrinsic improbability of the reading tou OeoO (the sen- 
tence is equally clear, more terse, and more in Paul's usual style with- 
out the words), the evidence for the insertion of the words and the 
possibility that the omission by the few witnesses on this side is an 
accidental coincidence, is too strong to permit rejection of the words. 

€t yap ehoOrj voixo^ 6 Bwdidevo^; ^CjOOiroLrjcrat, ovt(jo<; m vofiov 

av Tjy T) hKaioavvri. "For if there had been given a law that 

could give life, righteousness would indeed be by law." wjuo?, 

without the article, is a law, and undoubtedly, as the context 



shows, a divine law, which the participial phrase o BvvdiJL€vo<s 
^o^OTroLrjaaL further describes as "a law that could give life." 
The form of the sentence marks it as a supposition contrary to 
fact (BMT 248). Such a sentence is often used to prove the 
falsity of the hypothesis from the unreality of the apodosis. 
Cf. chap. 1^0 I Cor. 2^ i Jn. 2^^. In this case the unreality of the 
apodosis, righteousness by law, is for the present assumed, to 
be proved later, in v.22. The fact thus established, that no law 
had been given that could give life, hence that this was not 
the purpose of the law of Moses, is adduced as proof {yap is 
argumentative) that M^ yevocTo is the right answer to the 
question just asked, i. e., that the law is not against the prom- 
ises. The validity of this proof for its purpose lies in the 
impHcation, not that the two are in agreement, being of the 
same intent and significance, but that they are in separate 
realms, established for different purposes, hence not conflicting. 

'Ex v6[Aou is attested by all authorities except B and Cyr., who read 
Iv v6tx({>; ^v is attested by all authorities except FG 429, 206; &\> is read 
by ABC Cyr. before ^v; by i^sSy 218, 191 2, 436, 462 after ^v; by 
429, 206 without V; by Db«t cKLP al. pier. Chr. Thdrt. befoic Ix v6[xou; 
it is omitted by D* 88, 442, 1952 al. Dam. and, together with V, by 
FG. Alike external evidence and intrinsic and transcriptional prob- 
ability point to ex v6[xou av ^v as the original reading. While 4'' shows 
that Paul might omit av, yet he more commonly inserts it, and when in- 
serting it, places it before the verb; cf. chap. I" I Cor. 2«ii". Out of this 
reading arise in transcription that of t?, etc., and that of the Syrian 
authorities KLP, etc., by transposition of (5v; that of the Western 
authorities D *, etc., by the omission of 5v (cf. the evidence on4'5); that 
of B Cyr. by the substitution for ex vd^jiou of the equally familiar 
Iv v6[X(j); and that of FG 429, 206 by the accidental omission of ^v, the 
two former from the Western reading, the two latter from the original 
reading. It will be observed that the insertion of &v in some position 
is attested by all non- Western authorities, and ex vd'^ou by all authori- 
ties except B Cyr. The assumption of ev v6tJL(j) as original (WH.), neces- 
sitating the derivation of the reading of AC from this original and then 
the derivation of all other variants from this secondary form, involves 
a genealogical relationship distinctly more difficult than that above 
proposed, as well as the adoption of a sub-singular reading of B against 
all other pre-Syrian authorities. 

On an attributive with the article after an indefinite substantive, see 


W. XX 4 (WM. p. 174); Rad. p. 93; Gild. Syn. p. 283; Rob. p. 777; 
BMT 424. Cf. chap. I' 2" Acts 4'^ etc. 

Ztooxotio) occurs in the Lxx in the sense, "to cause to Hve," "to 
give life": Neh. 9': au (0s6<;) J^woTcotetq xoc x(4vTa. 2 Kgs. 5'; "to save 
alive": Jdg. 211* Ps. 71=". In N. T. it means "to cause to live," "to 
germinate" (of a seed): i Cor. is'«; ' io bring to life" (the dead): 
Rom. 8" I Cor. 1522; "to give spiritual life": Jn. 6^^ 2 Cor. 3«. In 
the last passage it stands in antithesis to the death sentence of the 
law, and thus acquires a certain forensic sense. It is probable that 
this is the prominent r^-^ment in the thought of the word here; that it 
is, in fact, the causative of ^aa> as used in v.'^ (see note on t^'^sexat 
there) and in effect means "to justify." That there is an associated 
idea of the ethical life which is imparted by the Spirit of God, as in 
220 ^2s (cj_ ^16, 18) and Rom. 8'''', or of the eternal life after death, as in 
Rom. 8i<'' " (note esp. ")> is not improbable. Ell. and Sief. make the 
reference exclusively to the latter, and interpret the argument as one 
from effect to cause: If there were a law that could give eternal life, 
then justification, which is the condition precedent of such life, would 
be in law. This, also, is possible, but less probable than a more direct ref- 
erence to justification in l^cooxotiiaac. ex v6;aou {cf. textual note above), 
here as in v.^^ (g. v.), expresses source — righteousness would have 
proceeded from law, had its origin in law. It is a qualitative phrase, 
but that which is referred to is the Mosaic law as a legalistic system. 
The emphasis of r\ StxaioauvT; is doubtless upon the forensic element in 
the meaning of the word (see detached note on At/.atotjuvTQ VI B 2, 
and cf. esp. 221). The article reflects the thought that there is but one 
way of acceptance with God, the sentence meaning not, "there would 
be a way of acceptance with God on a basis of legalism" {cf. 2"), but 
"the way of acceptance would be," etc. 

22. aXka (Tvv€fc\eL(Tev r) ypacfjtj to, nrdvTa viro afxapriav 
"But the scripture shut up all things under sin." aWa marks 
the contrast between the unreal hypothesis of v.^^ and the 
actual fact as here stated, which furnishes the proof that the 
apodosis of v.-^'', "righteousness would have been of law," and 
hence also the protasis, "if a law had been given that could 
give life," which that verse by its form implies to be contrary to 
fact, are actually such. That the proof is drawn from the O. T. 
law implies that the latter is the only law actually in question, 
or that if the O. T. law could not justify no law could. The 
scripture is probably Deut. 27^^, referred to in v.^° — a passage 
from the law, and cited here as embodying the verdict of the 


law. The reference to v.^° and the context in general give to 
hiro dfJiapTLav the meaning ''under condemnation of sin," 
equivalent to vtto Kardpav in v.^^. All this refers, it must be 
noted, not to God's sentence against men, but to the verdict 
of law. Paul is still arguing that from law comes no righteous- 
ness, no justification; that for this one must come to God in 
faith. See the next clause. 

SuvxXe^o) is found in Greek writers from Herodotus down in various 
senses, but primarily with the meaning "to shut up," "^o confine," 
either inceptive, "to put in confinement," or continuative, "to hold 
confined." So also in the Lxx, Ps. 30^ (3i0- o^ auvixXetai;? as e!<; 
Xtlgaq ix^poij. 77 (78)^"; likewise in N. T., Lk. 5« Rom. 11". 

In the usage of the N. T. writers in general and of Paul in particular 
the singular ypacp-^ refers to a particular passage of the 0. T. Note 
the expressions -f) yP^^?"^ aui-q (Acts 8"), kxipx ypa^-Q (Jn. 19'') xaaa 
YpacpiQ (2 Tim. 3'Oj and the fact that elsewhere in the Pauline epistles 
the singular is uniformly accompanied by a quotation (chap. 3' 4'" Rom. 
43 gi7 10" II'). See also i Tim. 5'*. In 2 Tim. 3^«, xaaa ypacfi], a 
specific passage is, of course, out of the question. Deut. 27^*, quoted 
in v.i", and Ps. 143', quoted in 2i«, would both be appropriate to the 
apostle's purpose in this v., but the remoteness of the latter passage 
makes against its being the one here meant. A reference to a passage 
itself in the law is, moreover, more probable in view of the fact that 
it is the function of this law that is under discussion. 

Tcfe TccivTa, equivalent to Touq xavraq in Rom. 11", refers to all who 
were under 6 v6[jLoq (v.'Oj ^- ^-i the Jews, since at this point the ques- 
tion pertains simply to the function or rea'^on for existence of the law. 
On the neuter used of persons, the rhetorical effect being somewhat to 
obliterate the thought of individuals and to present those referred to 
as a solidarity, see i Cor. i" Col. i^" Eph. i^o Jn. 1710. uxb d;j,apTtav 
in Rom. 71* (c/. 6i<- ") means "under the power of sin" and in Rom. 3' 
"sinful" (though some interpreters take it in the sense of "under 
condemnation"). But these single instances of the phrase in dififerent 
specific senses are not sufficient to set aside the clear evidence of the 
context in favour of the meaning, "under condemnation for sin," 
which is in itself equally possible. 

Iva 7] eira'y'yeXia i/c TrtcrTea;? ^Irjaov ^picrrov BoOrj roL<i 
irKTTevovcnv. " that, on ground of faith in Jesus Christ, the prom- 
ise might be given to those who believe." This clause ex- 
presses the purpose of the shutting up, referred to in the pre- 
ceding clause: a purpose which, as the mention of Jesus Christ 

Ill, 22 197 

as the object of faith shows, is to be achieved not for each indi- 
vidual in the period of law as he learns the lesson that law 
teaches, but in the historic establishment of the new principle; 
and a purpose of God, as is shown by the fact that the result 
described is that which is achieved in the gospel, which is for 
Paul the gospel of God. But this, in turn, impHes that the 
shutting up was itself an act of God, or, more exactly, that the 
declaration of the scripture expressed something which God 
desired men to learn from the experience under law. In other 
words, though to isolate the law and understand it as defining 
the way of salvation is wholly 10 misunderstand God's attitude 
towards men, yet the law was given by God to accomphsh a 
I certain work preparatory to the giving of the gospel, viz., to 
\ demonstrate that men can not be justified on grounds of merit. 
fThus it is that Paul finds a way to reconcile his rejection of the 
1 legalism which he found in the law, with the divine origin of 
I the law; instead of denying the latter, as Marcion later in effect 
/did (Iren. Ilaer. i. 27^). 

'H exayysXta is manifesdy, as in vv.^^- i^, the promise to Abraham, 
involved in the covenant, and, as in v.", is used by metonymy for the 
thing promised. See reff. there. Whether the reference is as in v.^^ 
specifically to the Spirit, or more generally to acceptance with God 
with all that this involves, is impossible to say with certainty. On 
ex. •rctoTeo)? cf. 2'«, and notes and reff. there. It here expresses the 
ground on which the giving (BoOfj) takes place. 'iTjaoG Xpccxou is, as 
always after Tiaxiq, an objective genitive. See notes on Sia xfareox; 
XptaTou 'l-Qaou, 2^^. xolq xtaTSuouatv, a general present participle 
(EMT 123) with generic article — to believers — is the indirect object 
of So6^. It is necessary to complete the sense, though the thought 
has been in effect expressed by ex xt'jTewq. The repetition emphasises 
the fact that only through faith could the promise be fulfilled. 

6. Characterisation of the condition under law, and, in 
contrast with it, the condition since faith came; 
then we were held in custody under law, now we 
are all sons of God, heirs of the promise (3^^'^^). 

In further confirmation of the temporariness of the law and 
the inferiority of the condition under it the apostle describes 


the latter as one of custody, and that of a child under a 
pedagogue. Now, however, that that period is over and the 
full Christian experience of faith has come, we are no longer in 
subjection. Ye are sons of God, and all alike, without distinc- 
tion of race, status, or sex, one in Christ Jesus; but if in him, 
and his, then also seed of Abraham. Thus the argument 
returns to its starting point in v.". 

""'But before the faith came, we were kept guarded under law, 
shut up for the obtaining of the faith that was to be revealed, '-^sl 
that the law has been for us a pedagogue to bring us to Christ, that 
we might be justified by faith. ^^But the faith having come we are 
no longer under a pedagogue. ^^For ye are all sons of God, through 
your faith, in Christ Jesus. ^-^For as many of you as were bap- 
tised unto Christ did put on Christ. ''^There is no Jew nor Greek, 
no slave nor free, no male and female; for ye are all one in Christ 
Jesus. ^Und if ye are Christ's, then are ye seed of Abraham, 
heirs according to promise. 

23. Trpo Tov Be e\0elv ttjv iriaTLV virb voiiov icfipovpovfieOa 
''But before the faith came, we were kept guarded under law." 
By TTjp irtaTLv is meant not faith qualitatively; the article ex- 
cludes this; not generically; Paul could not speak of this as 
having recently come, since, as he has maintained, it was ac 
least as old as Abraham; nor the faith in the sense "that which 
is believed" {of. on 1^3); but the faith in Christ just spoken of 
in V.22. That this was, in the apostle's view, fundamentally 
alike in kind with the faith of Abraham is clear not chiefly 
from the use of the same word, but from the apostle's definite 
defence of the Christian faith on the ground that the principle 
was established in the case of Abraham. That it was specifi- 
cally different is indicated by the use of the definite article, the 
frequent addition of "Irjcov Xpiarov, and by the assertion of 
this verse that the faith came at the end of the reign of the 
law. The phrase vtto voiiov is a qualitative phrase, "under 
law," but the law referred to is, of course, that spoken of in 
V.19, and this in turn the same as in v.^^ {q, v.). That the sub- 
jection referred to in this phrase was not absolute, exclud- 
ing the possibihty or privilege of faith, or justification by it, 

Ill, 23 199 

is shown by v.^^ and the argument of vv.^^^-. The law has a 
real function, but that function is not the displacement of faith. 
Cf. on v.22b. That the apostle has so far modified his thought 
of that function since v.^^ as to be speaking here in i(f)povpoviie9a 
of protection against transgressions is wholly improbable, for 
though (^povpio: in itself may be used of a protective guarding 
(2 Cor. 11^2 Phil. 4^ I Pet. i^ and examples in classical writers) 
yet the proximity of v.^^ and the participle crvvKXaoixevoL 
compel us to understand it here of a restrictive guarding. 

avvKkeLOixevoL el? rrjv jiiXkovcrav irLGnv airoicaXv^Orivai. 
"shut up for the obtaining of the faith that w^as to be 
revealed." On the meaning of avvKXeiofievoi, see avveKkeiaev, 
vP. It is here a present participle of identical action, hence 
used in its continuative sense, "to hold in confinement," as in 
Aristot. Part. Animal. II 9. 8 (654 b'^): al crvvKkeiovcraL irXev- 
pal TO aTri6o<i. The sense "having been put into confine- 
ment" would demand an aor. or perfect participle, the latter 
of which some mss., most of them late, have. The participle 
ixeWovaav, limiting ttlo-tlu, marks the latter as future from 
the point of view of the verb i(\)povpovixe6a {BMT 142); the 
revelation is at the time of the writing already past, el? may 
be either temporal, as in Phil, i^" 2^^, or telic, "in order to 
produce, give, or obtain" (in this case the latter), as in i Cor. 
55 Rom. 325 Col. i29 Acts 2^8 i Pet. i^- \ So Th. for this passage, 
interpreting it "that we might the more readily embrace the 
faith when its time should come." Of similar ambiguity and 
interestingly parallel to this passage is i Pet. i^ (^povpoviievov^ 
hia TTtcrreco? el? acorrjpiai' eroifJLrjv cnrOKakvt^Orjvai ev KaipQ) ia- 
XO'T^ {cf. vv.-''- ''), which may mean "guarded until (we obtain) 
a salvation," etc., or "that we may obtain." The temporal 
meaning is the simpler, finding in the phrase less that is not 
certainly expressed by it, but in view of the fact that el? with 
temporal force is usually followed by a term of time, and that 
the thought which the telic sense implies is expressed both in 
V.20 above and v.-'* below, it is probably best to suppose it to 
be intended here also. On a7roKa\v(f>6rjvaL, see detached note, 
p. 433, and cf. esp. Rom. i^^ g^s i Cor. 2^0 Eph. 3^ i Pet. i^ 


24. ware 6 v6fio<; Traibayooyo^; tj/jlcov yeyopev et? 'Kpicrrov "So 
that the law has been for us a pedagogue to bring us to Christ." 
i^ofiof; has the same significance as in v.^^, except that it is 
here definitely instead of qualitatively spoken of. A TracBaycc- 
709 was a slave employed in Greek and Roman families to have 
general charge of a boy in the years from about six to sixteen, 
watching over his outward behaviour and attending him when- 
ever he went from home, as e. g. to school. See exx. below. 
By describing the law as having the functions of a Travhayoiy&i 
Paul emphasises both the inferiority of the condition of those 
under it, analogous to that of a child who has not yet arrived 
at the freedom of a mature person, and its temporariness {cf. 
V.25). el? XpcaTop may be temporal (cf. on et? rrjv . . . iriaTiv^ 
V.23) or may be pregnantly used. For exx. of a somewhat 
similar though not identical pregnant force, see Rom. 8^^. 21 
Mt. 20^ I Pet. i^^, TCL eU ^puarov iraOrjjjLaTa, In view of the 
fact that ei? temporal usually takes a temporal object, and of 
the final clause, tVa . . . BtKaioiOcofxev, the pregnant use is 
here the more probable. Yet it does not follow, nor is it prob- 
able that it is to Christ as a teacher that men are thought of 
as coming; the functions of the iraiSayoiyo^ were not so exclu- 
sively to take the boy to school as to suggest this, and the 
apostle's thought of Christ both in general and in this passage 
i§ not of him as a teacher but as one through faith in whom 
men were to be saved. Nor is the reference to the individual 
experience under law as bringing men individually to faith in 
Christ. For the context makes it clear that the apostle is speak- 
ing, rather, of the historic succession of one period of revela- 
tion upon another and the displacement of the law by Christ. 
See esp. w.^^^, 25 a_ jjg^y ^-jig law accompHshed its task is in 
no way intimated in this word or phrase, but appears in the 
final clause following, and the repeated intimations of the 
entire context. See esp. v.^^. Cf. Th. s. v. tt ai8 ay o^yo';. 

On the use of the word xatBaycoyoi;, see Hdt. 8": St'xtwoq, olxizriq 
SI xal xatBaywybq -^v xtov Qeiinzxoy.'kioq xat'Bwv. Eur. Io7i, 725, w xpia^u 
xatBaytiY' 'Kp^x^ioiq xaxpoq xoupLou xox' 3vToq, and esp. the following 
passage quoted by Ltft. ad loc. from Plato, Lysis, 208 C: ae au-rbv ewacv 

Ill, 24-25 201 

dfpxstv asauToO, 9^ ouZk touto excxplxouaf aot; Udtq y&p, lq>T), extTpixouotv; 
'AXX' d'pxst t((; ffou; "OSe xatBaYcoyiq, %y). Mwv BoOXoq wv; 'AXXdb t£ 
IJLT^v; if)p.iTsp6<; ye, I'^v]. ''H 5etv6v, •^v S' eyco, eXeuGspov ovxa uxb S06X0U 
(2p5^ea6ac. xl Se xoiwv aC outoc, 6 xatBaytoYOi; aou d'pxei; "Aywv Sirixou, 
IcpY], e(<; StSaaxdiXou. See also Xen. Laced. 31 : orav ye ixifjv ex xafSwv eJg 
•cb tietpax-toOaOat exPafvtoac, TTf]vtx.aijTa ol [iky SXkoi xauouat (xev dtxb xoct- 
BaYcoycov, xauouat Be xal dxb StBaax(i:Xcov, d'pX°u<^' ^s ouBeveq sti auxtov, 
dXX' auTOvoixouq i9taoiV. Plut. Fab. 5^: ol xbv [ih <E>(iptov axtixxovTcq xal 
xaTa9povouvTet; 'Avvtgou xaihafciyhv dxsxdXouv. The word is frequent in 
Plutarch's Lives. With the xaiSaytoY^a of Plut. Numa, 151 (c/. Ltft.) in 
the sense ot '* moral education" this passage has little or no connection. 
For further treatment and references, see Becker, Charicles, E. T. 4th 
ed., pp. 226/.; Becker and Marquardt, Rom. Alt. vol. I, pp. 114, 122, 164; 
Girard, L' Education A Ihenienne, pp. ii4#-; Cramer, De Educatione Pue- 
rorum apud Atheniensts, Marburg, 1823. Harper^s Dictionary of Clas- 
sical Lit. and Antiq., art. "Education"; KDB, art. "Schoolmaster"; 
further references to sources in L. & S. s. v. 

Xva eic TTicrreiC'^ hKaiOidcoixev "that we might be justified 
by faith." The clause expresses the ultimate purpose of the 
law in its function as 7ratSa7oo7o9, as v.^^ expresses the imme- 
diate intended result. The emphasis of the expression is on 
BLKatcodcoiJiev, not on e/c Trto-reco?, as if there were different 
ways of justification, and the purpose of the law was that we 
might be justified in this rather than in some other way; for 
the apostle maintains that there is no other way. Cf. ifc 
TTtcrreo;? 'Kpiarov m 2^^^, w^hich is similarly added for complete- 
ness, and with descriptive rather than restrictive force. On 
the meaning of e/c Trtb-reco?, cf. also on 2^'^^ (pp. 121, 123), and 
on ZiKaiuiOoijiev see detached note on Ai'/caio?, etc., p. 473. 

25. eXBovar]'^ he Tr]<: Trtcrreo;? ovk€Tl vtto TraiBaycoyop eaiiev. 
"But the faith having come we are no longer under a peda- 
gogue." The article with Trtcrreco? is restrictive, and the refer- 
ence is as in v.^^ {q. v.) to the faith in Christ. ovk6tl is tem- 
poral, contrasting the two periods of time, with possibly a 
suggestion of consequence, the post hoc being also a propter hoc. 
Cf. on 3^^. The phrase vtto TraiSaycoyov is equivalent, as con- 
cerns the fact referred to, to viro voixov, the epithet being sub- 
stituted for the name; but conveys more clearly than viro voiiov 
the idea of subjection and inferior standing. The coming of 


the faith is a historic event, identical with the giving of the 
gospel (see 4*- ^ Rom. i^^- ^^), not an experience of successive 
individuals. Cf. on v.^^ How far this historic event was itself 
conditioned on personal experience, or how far it repeats itself 
in the experience of each behever is remote from the apostle's 
thought here. 

26. lidvTe^ yap viol Oeov iare Bia t7]<; 7rLcrre<jJ<i eV 'KpiaTw 
'lyaov. ''For ye are all sons of God, through your faith, in 
Christ Jesus." By the change from the first person of \\^^% 
with its reference to the Jewish Christians, to the second person 
in this v. the apostle applies the thought of that v. directly to 
his readers. One must supply as the connecting thought to 
which ydp is, as often, directly related, some such phrase as, 
^'And this applies to all of you." That Trdvre^ is emphatic is 
indicated by its position, but esp. by the continuation of the 
thought of universality in v.^^. It may then mean "all you 
Gentiles," so including the Galatians; or if, as is possible, there 
were some Jews in the Galatian churches, it may mean "all 
you Galatians," emphasising the fact that the statements of 
V.25 apply to all the Christians of Galatia, Gentiles as well as 
Jews. In either case viol Oeov, a qualitative expression with- 
out the article, repeats and explicates the idea of ovk6tl viro 
7ratSayo)y6v {cf. the use of various phrases for the related idea 
"sons of Abraham" in vv.^- ^' 2^). The emphasis of the ex- 
pression is, therefore, upon "sons of God" as objects of God's 
favour, men in filial favour with God. See detached note on 
Titles and Predicates of Jesus, V, p. 404. Cf. 4*' ^ for the 
expression of the thought that subjection to law and sonship 
to God are mutually exclusive. That eV XptaTw 'Irjaov does 
not limit TTiVreco? is evident because Paul rarely employs eV 
after ttlg-tl'; (see, however. Col. i^ Eph. i^^), and in this letter 
always uses the genitive (2^^- 20 322)^ but especially because 
VV.27, 28 ^^-^Q ^ip aj-i(^ dwell upon the fact that the Galatians are 
in Christ Jesus. And this fact in turn shows that, unless Paul 
shifts his thought of the meaning of eV after he has used it 
before X/Dto-ro) 'Irjaov, it has here its metaphorical spatial 
sense, marking Christ as one in whom the beUevers live, with 

Ill, 25-27 203 

whom they are in fellowship. This does not of necessity exclude 
the thought that Christ is the basis of their sonship to God, 
but makes this a secondary and suggested thought. For a 
similar instance of a phrase introduced by eV standing after 
TTto-rt? but Hmiting an earher element of the sentence, see 
eV . . . atfJiaTL Rom. 3^5. r^? TTicrreco?, standing then with- 
out limitation, the article may refer specifically to the Chris- 
tian type of faith, as in vv.^^. 25^ or to the faith of the Galatians, 
meaning "your faith"; cf. 2 Cor. i^^. The latter is more prob- 
able because of the personal character of the statement as 
against the impersonal, historical, character of vv.^^. 25. 

On Oeoq without the article in u'tol OeoO, see on chap. 4^. 

27. oaoL yap ekXptarov i^aTTTLcrOrjTe, XptdTov iveBvaaaOe- 
"For as many of you as were baptised unto Christ did put on 
Christ." The fact that the verbs are in the second person, 
requires the insertion of the words "of you" into the transla- 
tion, though they are not in the Greek. But it must not be 
supposed that oaoc includes only a part of the iravre^; for this 
would be itself in effect to contradict the preceding v. By 
i^aTTTLo-OrjTe the apostle undoubtedly refers to Christian bap- 
tism, immersion in water. See Th. s. v. II; Preusch. s. v.; 
M. and M. Voc. s. v. This is the uniform meaning and appli- 
cation of the term in Paul (i Cor. i^^-n 1213 1529 Rom. 6^), with 
the single exception of i Cor. 102, where he speaks of the bap- 
tism of the Israelites into Moses in the cloud and in the sea 
as a thing of similar character and significance with Christian 
baptism. Nowhere does he use the term in a figurative sense 
as in Mk. i^b lo^s. 39 Jn. i^sb Acts i^^^ et? Xpiarov is probably 
to be taken here and in Rom. 6^ in the sense "with reference to 
Christ" (on this use of ek see Th. B II 2 a), and as equiva- 
lent to et? TO oVojua Xpia-rov. See more fully in fine print 
below. "To put on Christ" is to become as Christ, to have 
his standing; in this context to become objects of the divine 
favour, sons of God, as he is the Son of God. C/. 4^' \ By 
the whole sentence the apostle reminds his readers that they, 
who have been baptised, in confession of their acceptance of 


\ Christ, already possess all that it is claimed that circumcision 
land works of law could give them, viz., the divine favour, a 
jrelation to God like that which Christ sustains to God. It is 
^a substantiation (7«P) of the assertion of v.^^, that they are 
/sons of God, drawn from an interpretation of the significance 
I of their baptism. 

The idiom evSusaOat with a personal object is found in late Greek 
writers. Thus in Dion. Hal. Antiq. ii. 5', xbv Tapx6vcov Ixelvov evBu- 
6ttevot, "playing the part of that Tarquinius"; Libanius, Ep. 968 (350 
A. D.), pftj^ai; Tbv axpaTKOTTjv IvdBu xbv aocpiaxiQv: "He laid aside the char- 
acter of the soldier, and put on that of the sophist." It occurs once in 
the Lxx with a somewhat different force: Isa. 49i»: ictivTaq auTodq ox; 
xoaixov ev56aTn, xal xepiGiQaetq auTOuq (bq x6a[jLov, wq vutJ-^Tj, and several 
times in N. T.: Rom. 13**: iXXd IvSucraaGe xbv xGptov 'ItqcoGv Xptax6v. 
Col. 3'"^°, dxexSujipievot xbv xaXatbv avOpwxov aCiv xalq xpd^satv auxou, 
xal ^v8uCTd:[i.evot xbv veov xbv dcvaxatvoip-evov. Eph. 4""2<, dicoO^tjOat . . . 
xbv xaXatbv dvOptoxov . . . xal ev56jaa6at xbv xatvbv SvOptoxov. The 
related figure of clothing one's self with strength, righteousness, glory, 
salvation, occurs frequently in 0. T.: Prov. 31" Job 8" 291* 391' Ps. 
921 103 (104)^ 131 (i32)'' "• ^8 Isa. 51' 521 611" I Mac. i^'; and a sim- 
ilar figure with a variety of objective limitations in N. T.: Rom. 
1312: ev5uaa);j.eGa xd SxXa xou 9(0x61;. i Cor. 15": evSuaaaOat i90apa(av 
. . . IvSuaatjGat dOavaat'av. 15": evSuairjxat dc8avaa(av. Eph. 6'': ev86- 
caaOe x-f)v xavoxXfov xou 0eoO. 6'*, evSuadixevot xbv Gwpaxa xfi<; Stxo;ioauvt]<;. 
Col. 3^': £v5ucaa6e . . . axXdYX"^a olxxtptioO. i Th. 5*, evSuad^J-evot Gwpaxa 
xioxewi; xal dydxiQq. These passages show that the idiom conveyed no 
suggestion of putting on a mask, but referred to an act in which one 
entered into actual relations. Used with an impersonal object, it 
means "to acquire," "to make a part of one's character or possessions" 
(i Thes. 5« I Cor. 15"- " Rom. 13" Col. 3^2)1 ^vith a personal object it 
signifies "to take on the character or standing" of the person referred 
to, "to become," or "to become as." See Rom. i3>< Col. 3"; note 
in each case the adjacent example of the impersonal object and cj. 
the exx. from Dion. Hal. (where the context makes it clear that xbv Tap. 
Ix. evSudpievot means "acting the part of Tarquinius," "standing in 
his shoes,") and Libanius. This meaning is appropriate to the present 
passage. The fact that the Galatians have put on Christ is cited as 
proof that they are sons of God as Christ is the Son of God. 

The preposition e(<; with ^axxft^w signifies (a) literally and spatially 
"into," followed by the element into which one is plunged: Mk. i'; cf. 
i«»; (b) "unto" in the telic sense, "in order to obtain": Acts 2"; (c) 
followed by Svo^ia, "with respect to," specifically, "with mention or 

Ill, 27 205 

confession of": i Cor. i"- " Mt. 28" Acts 8" 19'; with similar force 
but without the use of Svofxa: Acts 19'. It was formerly much dis- 
cussed whether here and in Rom. 6' the meaning is the same as in 
I Cor. I"' ", etc., or whether elq signifies "into fellowship with," Th. 
(c/. pax'cfi;(o, II b. aa) Ell., S. and H. on Rom., et al. hold; Sief. combines 
the two views. As between the two the former is to be preferred, for, 
though the conception of fellowship with Christ in his death is ex- 
pressed in the context of Rom. 6', neither general usage of the phrase 
nor that passage in particular warrant interpreting ^axTt't;(^ tiq as 
having other than its usual meaning, "to baptise with reference to." 
But if this is the case with Rom. 6', then usage brings to the present 
passage no warrant for finding in it any other than the regular meaning 
of the phrase, and the context furnishing none, there is no ground for 
discovering it here. More recent discussion, however, has turned upon 
the question whether in both groups of passages (i Cor. i"- " Acts 8'« 
i9», as well as Rom. 6' and here) there is a reference to the use of the 
name in baptism with supposed magical effect, as in the mystery relig- 
ions. See Preusch. s. v. ^axxiXw and literature there referred to, esp. 
HeitmuUer, Tauje und Abendmahl; also Lake, The Earlier Epistles of 
St. Paul, pp. 383-391; Case, The Evolution of Early Christianity, pp. 
347 /. For the purposes of this commentary it must suffice to point 
out the following outstanding facts affecting the interpretation of 
Paul's thought: (a) The use of ^axTf^w elq -cb Svo^ia was in all prob- 
ability derived from the usage of the mystery religions, and to one 
familiar with that usage would suggest the ideas associated with such 
phraseology, (b) The apostle constantly lays emphasis on faith and 
the Spirit of God (see, e. g., 5«- ^«- !»• ") as the characteristic factors of 
the Christian experience. It would seem that if, denying all spiritual 
value to such a physical rite as circumcision, he ascribed effective force 
to baptism, his arguments should have turned, as they nowhere do, on 
the superiority of baptism to circumcision, (c) i Cor. lo'-i^ makes it 
probable that the Corinthians were putting upon their Christian bap- 
tism the interpretation suggested by the mystery religions, viz., that 
it secured their salvation. Against this view Paul protests, using the 
case of the Israelites passing through the Red Sea, which he calls a 
baptism into Moses, to show that baptism without righteousness does 
not render one acceptable to God. This may, of course, signify only 
that he conceived that the effect of baptism was not necessarily per- 
manent, or that to baptism it is necessary to add a righteous life. But 
it is most naturally interpreted as a protest against precisely that doc- 
trine of the magical efficiency of physical rites which the mystery 
religions had made current. If this is the case and if the thought of 
the apostle here is consistent with that in i Cor. 10, the relation between 
the fact referred to in the relative clause and that of the principal 


clause is not (as in 3' Rom. S^*) causal, but that of symbol and symbol- 
ised fact. The requirement of the passage that there shall be a natural 
connection of thought both between this v. and the preceding, and 
between the two clauses of this, is met by supposing (i) that the 
exceptional mention of baptism in this passage (as, e. g., instead of faith) 
was suggested by its relation as the initiatory Christian rite to circum- 
cision {cf. Col. 2". >2) which the Galatians were being urged to accept, 
and (2) that there was something in the act of baptism as thought of 
by the apostle which suggested the figure of being clothed with Christ. 
This may have been that in baptism one was, as it were, clothed with 
the water, or, possibly, that the initiate was accustomed to wear a 
special garment. To such a relation in thought between fact and out- 
ward symbol there can be, despite Lake's statement that such a thought 
was almost unknown to the ancients, no serious objection in view of 
Gal. 220 Rom. 5" i Cor. ii"'. If, indeed, the relation is causal, the 
apostle must have changed his conception of the matter between the 
writing of Gal. and i Cor., or he conceived of the rite as having no 
necessarily permanent effect and its value as conditioned upon the 
maintenance of a morally pure life. 

28. ouK evL 'lovSato? ovhe "^Wr^v, ovk evi BovXo^ ovBe 
iXevOepo^ij ov/c evL apaev Kal OrjXv' "There is no Jew nor 
Greek, no slave nor free, no male and female." Follov^ing the 
previous sentence without connective either causal or illative, 
these words do not demand to be closely joined in thought to 
any specific element of what immediately precedes. With the 
thought of the basis of acceptance with God in mind, expressed 
in V.26 in the form that through faith men become sons of God, 
and in v.^^ in a different form, the sweep of his thought carries 
him beyond the strict limits of the question at issue in Galatia 
to afhrm that all distinctions are aboHshed, and to present an 
inspiring picture of the world under one universal religion. 
eV XpL(TT(p^ expressed in the similar passage 5^, and imphed in 
Col. 3^^, is doubtless to be mentally supplied here also. It is 
only in the religion of Christ that Paul conceives that men can 
thus be brought together. That he is speaking: of these dis- 
tinctions from the point of view of religion is evident from the 
context in general, but especially from his inclusion of the 
ineradicable distinction of sex. The passage has nothing to do 
directly with the merging of nationalities or the abolition of 

in, 27-28 207 

slavery. Cf. i Cor. 71^-2''. Nor are the passages from ancient 
writers, quoted, e. g., by Zahn ad ioc. ^p. 187), in which these 
distinctions are emphasised, directly antithetical to this affirma- 
tion of the apostle. Yet that the principle had its indirect 
social significance is shown in the implications of the Antioch 
incident 2^^-''', and in Phm. i^- ^^ Col. 4I. 

On "EX^.Tjv, meaning Gentile, not specifically Greek, see on 2*. gvt, 
not a contracted form of evcuxt, but a lengthened form of ev. hi with 
recessive accent, but having the force of eveaxt or eveict, as xapd: and 
eici are used v/ith the force of exeaTt and xapsaxt, may, like the form 
iveoTi itself, mean either "it is present," "there is," or "it is possible." 
See W. § XIV i (older eds. 2); Bl.-D. g8; Hatzidakis, Einleitung in die 
neugriechische Grammatik, 207, and the examples of both meanings 
given in L. & S. Ltft., without assigning reasons, maintains that oiix 
evt must here negative "not the fact only but the possibility," and 
RV. adopts this interpretation in all the N. T. instances: Jas. i^^ 
I Cor. 65 Col. 3", and the present passage. But in none of these pas- 
sages does the context demand this meaning, and in i Cor. 6' it is a dis- 
tinctly difficult meaning. In 4 Mac. 4" the meaning is clearly "it is 
possible," but in Sir. 37^ as clearly "there is (in it)." It seems neces- 
sary therefore to make choice between the two meanings for the 
present passage solely by the context. And this favours the meaning 
"there is" (so Sief. Bous.) rather than "there can be." There is 
nothing in the sentence to suggest that Paul has passed from the state- 
ment of fact to that of possibilities. On the other hand, it is apparently 
true that the word never quite loses the force derived from Iv as a 
preposition of place, and that one must mentally supply after it a 
prepositional phrase introduced by Iv, or the like: in this case not 
ev 6[ji.Iv, for which the context furnishes no basis, but Iv Xpca-cw, as 
suggested by Xptaxbv IveBuvaaes and 5^ 

7rdvT€<; yap vfxek eU eare eV Xpicrrw '\7)a-ov. "for ye are 
all one in Christ Jesus." These words confirm, by repeating 
it in another form, the thought of the preceding sentence, eh 
may be taken distributively and qualitatively, or inclusively 
and numerically. In the former case the meaning is: once in 
Christ Jesus, whether you be Jew or Gentile, slave or master, 
man or woman, all these distinctions vanish (there is no respect 
of persons with God) ; it is as if it were always the same person 
reappearing before him. CJ. i Cor. 3^ In the latter case the 


I thought is that all those in Jesus Christ merge into one per- 
sonaHty. Cf. i Cor. lo^^ 1212. 13 ^o^n. i24' ^ Col. 3^^ There is 
little ground for a choice between the two ideas. Both are 
equally Pauline and equally suitable to the immediate context. 
Only in the fact that the second interpretation furnishes a 
sort of middle term between the assertion of v.^^^ that Christ 
is the seed, and that of v.^a that those who are Christ's are seed 
of Abraham is there a ground of preference for the second in- 
terpretation, and this only in case ^^^ is from Paul. eV yipLarw 
'Irjaov is doubtless to be understood substantially as in v.^^, 
describing Jesus Christ as the one in whom they live, by whom 
their lives are controlled, with the added suggestion that by 
this fact their standing before God is also determined. 

elq effxe ev XptaTw 'iTjaou: so i^'BCDKLP al. pier. Syr. (psh.) Boh. (but 
some mss. omit 'IirjaoG) Clem. Athan. Chrys. Euthal. Thdrt. al.; Iv iaii: FG 
33, d e f g Vg. Or. Athan Bas. al.; late XptaxoCi 'Iyjcjou, omitting elq: J<A, 
but A has sv deleted after ia-zi. ^? is thus a witness to ev X. I. as well as 
to the genitive. With practically all the witnesses, except A, attesting ev X. 
I. against J< A for the genitive there can be no doubt that the reading of the 
latter is derivative, due to assimilation to v.^'. Before iaxi, dq is clearly the 
original reading, changed by Western authorities to h, as in 3" oq is changed 
to by a part of the Western documents. 

29. el Se vjiel'^ Xpiarov, apa rod 'A^padfJL airepfJia iare^ /car' 
iTrayyeXiav /cXrjpovofiOL. ''And if ye are Christ's, then are 
ye seed of Abraham, heirs according to promise." Be is con- 
tinuative, the new sentence adding fresh inferences from what 
has already been said. The conditional clause, expressing in 
itself a simple supposition, refers, as is frequently the case, to 
something ^assumed to be true. BMT 244. ^Aiet? XpcaTov is 
assumed to have been previously affirmed or implied, and 
doubtless in el? eV XpLarw 'It/ctoO or in eV Xptaro) 'Irjaov alone. 
Of these latter alternatives the second is more probable, since 
there is nothing to indicate that in this v. the apostle is intend- 
ing to carry forward the idea of the unity of believers in one 
body, or their equal standing before God. Had this been his 
purpose, he must have employed some such phraseology as 
that of I Cor. 12^2, 27^ qj. Rom. 12^, e. g., eh [or ev ac^fxa] ev 

Ill, 28-29 209 

'KpL(TTa>, or TO (rdijia ^ptaTov. More probably, therefore, the 
genitive is to be taken, as in i Cor. 3^3 ; cf. vv.^i- 22; also Rom. 
S^' \ with its impHcation that those who have the spirit of 
Christ are pleasing to God, and Rom. S^^- ^^, with the sugges- 
tion that behevers are sharers in the possessions of Christ, 
objects of God's love. In the words rov 'A(3paafi crirepiia the 
apostle reverts abruptly to the thought first expressed in v.^ 
but repeated in variant phraseology in vv.^- ^^ The prize 
which the opponents of Paul had held before the eyes of the 
Galatians, and by which they hoped to persuade them to accept 
circumcision and become subjects of the law, was the privilege 
of becoming seed of Abraham, and so heirs of the promise to 
him and to his seed. This prize, the apostle now assures the 
Galatians, belongs to them by virtue of the fact that they are 
Christ's, as in v.^ he had said it belongs to those who are of 
faith. In the phrase /car' eirayyekiav KXrjpovofxoc both nouns 
are quahtative, but the substance of the thought recalls 
the previous mention of the promise and the inheritance in 
yy_i4. 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22^ a,nd emphasises the aspect of Abrahamic 
sonship that is important to the apostle's present purpose. On 
the use of icXripovoiio^, see detached note on AiaOrJKri^ p. 503. 
The Kkr^povoiiia is, doubtless, as in v.^^ {q. v. and cf. v.^"), the 
blessing of justification. The absence of the article before 
(jirepiia is significant. Paul does not say to his readers, "Ye 
are the seed of Abraham," as he might perhaps have done if, 
having written v."^, he wished now to identify the followers 
of Christ with Christ as the seed of Abraham. Observe, also, 
that in the preceding clause he has not said, "ye are Christ," 
but "ye are Christ's." Though the article before 'A^padfi is 
restrictive, as in Rom. 4", directing the thought to a preceding 
mention of him and probably to vv.'^- ^- 1^"*, yet (Tirepixa^ being 
without the article, is indefinite or qualitative. It may desig- 
nate its subject as included in the seed (as distinguished from 
constituting it, which would have required the article) or, like 
viol ^A^padfjL in v.^, ascribe to them the standing and privilege 
of Abrahamic seed. Cf. Tou6ato? Rom. 2^^- 29. If we suppose 
that Paul wrote v.^®^, the reasoning is probably to this effect: 


'' If you belong to Christ, who is the seed of Abraham, you share 
his standing as such." If v.^^^ is not from him the thought may 
be more akin to that of the passages cited above (i Cor. 32^-23 
Rom, 8^^' 32): ''If ye are Christ's then by virtue of that fact you 
are objects of God's approval," which for the purposes of argu- 
ment against his opponents he translates into "seed of Abra- 
ham," since in their vocabulary that phrase really means 
"acceptable to God." In either case the phrase "seed of Abra- 
ham" is a synonym for objects of God's approval; the occasion 
of its employment was its use by those whose views and argu- 
ments Paul is opposing; and the ground of its application to 
the Gentiles is in their relation to Christ. The matter of 
doubt is whether a previous designation of Christ as the seed 
of Abraham (v.^^^) furnished the ground for applying the term 
quahtatively to those who being in Christ are Christ's, or the 
reasoning is independent of a previous apphcation of the phrase 
to Christ. 

7. Continuation of the argument for the inferiority of 
the cofidition under law, with the use of the illus- 
tration of guardianship (4^-''). 

Still pursuing his purpose of persuading the Galatians that 
they would lose, not gain, by putting themselves under the law, 
Paul compares the condition under law to that of an heir who 
is placed under a guardian for a period fixed by the father and 
in that tim.e has no freedom of action, and describes it as a 
bondage under the elements of the world. Over against this 
he sets forth the condition into which they are brought by 
Christ as that of sons of God, living in filial and joyous fellow- 
ship with God. 

^Now I say, so long as the heir is a child, he differs in no way 
from a slave, though he is lord of all, "-but is under guardians and 
stewards until the time set by the father. ^So also we, when we 
were children, were enslaved under the elements of the world. *But 
when the fulness of the time came, God sent forth his Son, born of 
woman, made subject to law, Hhat he might deliver those that were 

Ill, 29-IV, 2 211 

under law, that we might receive the adoption. ^And because ye 
are sons, God sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, 
crying, Abba, Father. ^So that thou art no longer a slave but a 
son, and if son, then heir through God. 

1. Ae7<^ Se, 'e<^' ocrov XP^^^'^ ^ icKrjpovoixo^ viqino^ ianv, 
ouSev hiaj)€pei SovXou Kvptc^ irdvro^v mv, 2. aWci viro eiri- 
Tp6iTOV<^ io-TL Kot oiKOVoixov^ cLXpi Trj<; 7rpo6e(TfiLaq TOV 
Trarpo?. "Now I say, so long as the heir is a child, he differs 
in no way from a slave, though he is lord of all, but is under 
guardians and stewards until the time set by the father." 
Though the argument introduced in y^ was brought to a con- 
clusion in V.29 with a reversion to the thought of 3^ the apostle 
now takes up again the thought of the inferiority of the con- 
dition under law (note the resumptive XeT^ Be; cf. on 3^^ and 
5I6); availing himself of the familiar custom of guardianship 
and of current laws or usages concerning it, he compares the 
condition of those under law to that of an heir who in his youth 
and till a time appointed by his father, though prospective 
owner of the whole estate, is subject to guardians, and char- 
acterises it as practical slavery. The sting of the argument is 
in I'TJTTto?, Sov\o<;, and vTrb iTnTpoirov^ koI olicovoixov^ , which 
he employs to describe the condition of those under law; its 
persuasive element is in axpi. • • nrarpo^ which suggests that the 
time of slavery has gone by, and men ought now to be free. 

The term xX^jpovoixot;, "heir," suggests that the illustration is taken 
from the law or custom of inheritance, the son inheriting from a de- 
ceased father (xaxpoq) under the will of the latter. Nor does this 
element of the illustration create serious incongruity between illus- 
tration and thing illustrated. For an illustration is not necessarily 
perfect at every point, and there is no decisive reason why the apostle 
should not illustrate the condition of the Jewish nation or of the human 
race in the period of law by that of a son who is under guardians await- 
ing an appointed time to take possession of the property left him by 
his father's will; the point of the illustration lying not in the condition 
of the father, but in the relation of the son to his guardians. But 
neither does vXri?owj.oq necessarily imply that in the illustration, still 
less in the thing illustrat£d, the father is dead in the period of the 
guardianship; since a guardianship may be created during the lifetim-C 
of the father, and the term xXT]pov6tJ.oq may be used proleptically sim- 


ply to describe the son as the one who is eventually to possess the 
property. CJ. xuptog xdvtwv tov, and see detached note on AtaOT]XT3, 

p. 496. 

N-rj-Tutoq, properly "one without understanding," is used by Greek 
writers and in the Lxx both in this sense and with the meaning "child"; 
in N. T. apparently in the latter sense (i Cor. 13" Eph. 4'^ with the 
added implication of immaturity, intellectual or moral. No instance 
has been pointed out of its use as a technical term for a minor, a child 
not possessed of manhood's rights, but it is evidently this characteristic 
of a child that the apostle here has specially in mind, xuptoq is used 
in the sense, rather infrequent in N. T., of "owner," with the added 
idea of control. Cf. Mt. 2o« 21". The participle ov is, of course, con- 
cessive. See Bi/r 437.8. 

The phrase I'xtTpdxous x-al o(xov6[jlou<; has given rise to much dis- 
cussion as to the precise meaning of the words and the law which the 
apostle has in mind. The difficulty, however, pertains not to excTpoxo<;. 
This is a frequent word for the guardian of a minor orphan. See Plato, 
Legg. VI 766 C: /.al sav dpipavwv extTpoxoq tsT^suttjciy) z\c,. Dem. 988-: 
TOUTtov 'Apt'aTccixtJi-O'? IxfTpoxoq x-riSetJ-wv eyevsO' exxat'Bsxa Ittq. Xen. 
Mem. I. 2": 'ki'iz'zai ^ag 'AXxt^tdSiQV, xplv etxoatv etwv elvac, IleptxXel 
extTp6x(p iJLev ovxc eauTOu xpoaTaxf) 8e Ti^c; T:h\z<sic, TotdBe StaXexOtjvat xefl 
voixwv. Arius Did. quoted in Mullach, Frag. Phil. Gr. II d>'j'^'^: dxb 
TauTT^q youv tyji; cpcXoaTopyfaq xal Bta0T]xa<; re^veuxdv t^iXkoyiaq BiaTt'OsaOat, 
xal Ttjv ETi xuo9opou[ tppovT(t^£iv, extTpoxouq dtxoXtxdvxaq xal XTjSe- 
[xovaq, xal Toiq ^i^TdTotq xapaxtOepLivout;, xal xapaxaXoOvTa*; IxtxoupeTv 
auToIq. otxovd^JLoq, on the other hand, usually denotes a slave acting as 
house-steward for his master, or an employed steward acting as agent for 
his principal, or a treasurer. See i Ki. 4« 18' i Esd. 4*' Lk. i2« i6» 
Rom. 16". Paul also uses it in a figurative sense of those to whom the 
gospel is entrusted, i Cor. 4»' '. There is no clear instance of its use 
with reference to one who has charge of the person or estate of a 
minor heir, and in particular no other instance of the use of the two 
terms kizkgoizoq and oExov6;j.o<; together. 

Under Roman law indeed (of a period a little later than that of Paul 
— see Sief. ad loc, p. 234) the minor was under a tutor till his fourteenth 
year, and thereafter under a curator until his twenty-fifth year. But 
against the supposition that it was this usage that Paul had in mind is 
the fact that he adds d'y.P' '^^'^ xpoGsa^faq toO xaxpoq, whereas Roman 
law itself fixed the time during which the child was under the tutor 
and curator respectively. On xpo6ea^(a<;, a frequent legal term, see 
Dem. 95218; Plato, Legg. XII 954 D,* etc. Cf. Job 28' Dan. 9=" (Sym.). 
It is not found in Lxx and occurs here only in N. T. 

*Dem. 952": Aa/3e 5jj /not Kac tov t^? irpofleff/xta? vd/iioi'. Plato, Legg. XII 954 D: eav 
fie Kar olKCa<; ev acTTec T€ Tt? XP')'''"'. Tpter^ Tr]v Trpodeafxiav eivat, eav Se ko-t' aypovs if 
atfiavel (ceKTTjrai, SeKa eruiv, eav 5* ev aWodrjuia, ToO iravTOi XP°''°^> °'''*'' o-^'^PJl "■""j M'jSe- 

IV, 1-2 213 

Ramsay holds that Paul refers to the law followed in Greco-Phrygian 
cities, and cites the Syrian law book of the fifth century a. d., accord- 
ing to which the practice was the same as under the Roman law except 
that whereas under Roman law the father appointed only the tutor, 
and could not appoint the curator, under the Syrian law the father 
appointed both the licCxpoxoq who, like the Roman tutor, had charge 
of the child till he reached the age of fourteen, and the curator who 
had the management of the property till the son was twenty-five years 

But aside from the fact that it is precarious to assume that the law 
found in a Syrian law book of the fifth century was in force in Phrygian 
cities in the first century, Ram. overlooks the fact that this usage is 
equally at variance with the language of Paul, who says nothing about 
who appoints the iTzlxpoToq and ohoy6[ioq but does indicate that the 
father fixes the time at which the son passes from under their control. 

In Greek, e. g., Athenian, law there was, so far as has been pointed 
out, no such distinction between tutor and curator or eiziipo-Koq and 


But the use of IxiTpoxoc; v.a\ xTQBe^xwv in Dem. 988^ as a double 
title of one person (see the passage above) suggests that we should not 
seek to distinguish between the functions of the i%hgo'izoq and those 
of the ofxovoixoq, but regard olr.ow[).oq as Paul's synonym for XYjSetxcTjv 
and, like that word, a further description of the ex(Tpoxoq. Cf., also, 
Seneca, De Bcneficiis, Lib. IV, chap. XXVII, ad fin.: quomodo demen- 
tissime testabitur, qui tutorem filio reliquerit pupillorum spoliatorem: 
"As he makes a most mad will who leaves as tutor to his son one who 
has been a spoiler of orphans." There remains, however, the difficulty 

*Bruno und Sachau, Syr.-rom. Rechishuch, Leipzig, 1880. In the following translation 
courteously made from the Syriac text for this work by Professor Martin Sprengling, 
Ph.D., of the University of Chicago, e^trpoTros and curator, have been retained as they stand 
transliterated in the Syriac text. The Syriac terms have been rendered literally because the 
English has but one term covering the functions of both classes of officers, viz., "guardian," 
the use of which for both Syriac words would be confusing. "The law (vdiaoO is asked: 
Can minors make a will (SiaerJKas), and at what age can they do it? A girl up to twelve 
years is subject to the entTpoTros, which, being translated, is the one in command, and can 
not write a will (5iaOrj«rr,). But when she has passed twelve years, she passes from subordi- 
nation to the eTTiTpoTTo? and comes to be under that of the curator, which, being translated, 
is exammer. And from the time when the girl is subject to the curator, she has authority 
to make a will {5ia9rj/ci)). Thus also a boy, until fourteen years, is under the authority ol 
the ^7rtTpo77os, and can not write a will (8ia07jK>j). But from fourteen years and upward he 
is under the authority of the curator and may write a will (SiaerJKrj), if he choose. But 
minors are under the authority of the curator up to twenty-five years; and from twenty-five 
years the boy is a perfect man and the giri a full woman. If a man die and leave children 
orphans, and make a will (5ta9r}Kr,) and appoint therein an eirtVpoTros [or curator] for the 
orphans, they do not give security. 

"Those who by will (StadjjKas) are appointed curators, the law (i^o/xo?) provides that they 
shall not give security, because the owners of the property chpse to establish them admin- 


Jhat we have no knowledge of a guardianship the period of which is 
fixed by the father. If, therefore, the apostle is speaking of inheri- 
tance of property from a deceased father, dying while the son is still a 
child, he must apparently be speaking in terms of some usage not 
otherwise definitely known to us. 

In view of this fact, recourse may be had to a guardianship estab- 
lished for special reasons during the lifetime of the father, such as is 
illustrated in the case of Antiochus Epiphanes and his son, Antiochus 
Eupator. In i Mac. 3"' " it is stated that Antiochus Epiphanes, 
being about to go on a military expedition into Persia, left Lysias ezl 
Ttov TcpayiJLaTwv tou ^aaiX^toq . . . xal xpscpctv 'Avt^o^ov Tbv ulbv 
aixoQ l(i)<; tou exicxpe^'^'t kijtov. In i Mac. 6^' it is said that when 
Lysias knew that the king was dead he set up Antiochus, his son, to 
reign in his stead, whom he had brought up (expecj^ev). From these 
two passages it appears that Antiochus, the father, appointed Lysias 
to be steward of the affairs of the kingdom and guardian of his son 
until a specified time, in effect directing that such stewardship and 
guardianship terminate by the resumption of authority by the father 
on his return, or by succession of his son on the father's death. While, 
therefore, the precise terms used by Paul do not occur, equivalents of 
all three of them (extTpoxoq, olv.o'vo^ioq, TcpoOeatxtoq tou iiaxpoq) are 
found in the passage in i Mac. This equivalence is, moreover, some- 
what confirmed by certain passages in 2 Mac. In lo'i it is stated that 
Antiochus Eupator, xapaXa^wv ttjv ficcatXetav, dveSsc^ev i%\ tcov xpay- 
[jLdcTwv Auai'av, and thereafter, in 2 Mac. iii and 13^ {cf. also 14^), 
Lysias is referred to as extTpoTCoq tou ^aacXiwq y.a\ Ixl twv xpaYfAaTcov, 
"guardian of the king and chancellor or steward." Thus the son, on 
acquiring his throne, re-established for himself the relation which his 
father had created, and the author of 2 Mac. employs to designate the 
oflEice of Lysias excTpoxoq xal Ixl twv xpayExdcTtov, which are evidently 
nearly or quite the equivalent of Paul's excTpoxoq xcd olv.ov6[i.oq. If 
it may be supposed that these passages were before the apostle's mind, 
or that he had in mind such a case as that of Antiochus Epiphanes and 
his son, his language would become entirely clear, as referring to the 
case of a father who during his life placed his son for special reasons 
under the care of one who was at the same time exkpoxoq and o?xov6txo<; 
and who was to hold that office for a period the limit of which was 
indicated by the father. The two terms would not then designate dif- 
ferent persons, but two functions of one person, and the plural would 
be a qualitative plural. It is, perhaps, also in favour of this understand- 
ing of the passage that the situations compared are alike even in the 
fact that the father, corresponding to God, is still alive in the period of 
the stewardship. Yet reference to an ordinary guardianship of a 
minor orphan, in the terms of some existing legal usage not definitely 

w, 2-3 215 

known to us, remains a possibility. Fortunately the application of 
the illustration to the condition of men under law is but little affected 
by any uncertainty respecting the source of the illustration 

3. ovTco^ Kal rj/Jiel^, ore rjiiev vrjiriot, vtto tcl aroLxeia rov 
Koafiov rjixeOa hehovko^ixevoi' "So also we, when we were 
children, were enslaved under the elements of the world." 
•qiiel^ is best understood as referring to Christians generally, 
the predicates of the sentence describing their pre-Christian 
condition. For, though the language of vv.^-^ is specially 
appropriate to Jewish Christians and was probably written 
with them specially in mind, as that in v.^ was probably written 
with the Gentile Galatians especially in mind, yet the use of 
the same or the equivalent expressions with reference to those 
who are included under the first person, ?7Met?, and those who 
are addressed (in the second person), together with the change 
in pronoun or the person of the verb when there is no antith- 
esis but, on the contrary, continuity of reference is required 
by the argument, shows that these grammatical changes do 
not mark a substantial change of persons denoted. CJ. ij^et? 
hehovko^lievoL of v.^ with ovKeTi el SovXo^ of v.^ (notice 
especially the impUcation of ovk€tl that the persons addressed 
— the Galatians— had previously been in bondage), and observe 
that in v.^ rois vtto voiiov (third person) are evidently the same 
who constitute the subject of vTroXd^o^iiev , that in v.^ ^M^^ is 
used of those who are the subject of the verb eVre, and that it 
is scarcely less clear from the nature of the argument that there 
is no real change of persons referred to (other than the change 
of emphasis above mentioned) in passing from v.^ to v.^ A 
comparison of vtto ra aroi'xelci rod Kocrfiov ijiieOa SeSovXccfievoc 
of this verse with ttSs eiridTpe^ere irdXiv iirl ra . . . arocxela 
oh irakiv avoiOev BovXeveiv OeXere cf v.^ points in the same 
direction, v.^ clearly implying that the previous condition of 
the Galatians, as well as that to which they are now in danger 
of turning, was a bondage to the o-roi%eta, while v.^ as dis- 
tinctly marks them as having previously been worshippers of 
idols, and 3^-^ shows that they had come to faith in Christ not 
through Judaism as proselytes, but directly from their worship 


of idols. On the bearing of the phrase vtto vofiov on the inclu- 
siveness of ^Met?, see on v. ■*. For a change of person similar 
to that which takes place in passing from v.^ to v.^, cf. 3^^ and 
notes there. Jews and Gentiles are therefore classed together 
as being before the coming of Christ in the childhood of the 
race, and in bondage, and the knowledge of religion which the 
Jews possessed in the law is classed with that which the Gentiles 
possessed without it under the common title, ''the elements of 
the world," to, crrot^j^eta tov kocf^ov. On the meaning of this 
phrase, see detached note, p. 510. For a direct assertion of 
what is here implied as to the common standing of Jews and 
Gentiles as concerns possession of truth (but without reference 
to its inferiority to the Christian revelation), see Rom. 2"- ^^ 

SD*FG. 33, 442, 463 read rixeGa BsSouX.; ABCD^ et cKL. most cur- 
sives Clem. Chrys. Euthal. Thdrt. read ^[xsv. Despite the weightier ex- 
ternal evidence for r]\iBv the strong improbability that for the common ^;xev 
the unusual Ti^xsOa would be substituted is decisive for the latter. 

4. ore 8e TJX,6ev to TrXr^poiixa tov ')(^p6vov, e^aTricrTetXev 6 6eo^ 
TOV viov avTov, yevoidevov eK jvi'aLK6<;, yevofxevov vtto vojjlop^ 
"But when the fulness of the time came, God sent forth his 
Son, born of woman, made subject to law." That the time 
of all important events, and so pre-eminently that of the com- 
ing of the Christ, was fixed in the purpose of God, was prob- 
ably a common thought of early Christianity (Mk. i" Jn. 2* 
78-30^ etc. Acts 1726 Eph. i^o; cf. Tob. 14O. It was evidently 
shared by the apostle (Rom. 3^6 56). Whether he thought of 
the time as fixed by the necessity that certain things must 
first be accomplished, or that the world reach a certain condi- 
tion (cf. 2 Thes. 2^-), or as appointed to occur after the lapse 
of a certain definite period (cf. Dan. g"^^-) is not here or else- 
where in the epistles clearly indicated. Cf. Bous. Rel. d. 
Jud.^, pp. 278/. That it was associated in his mind with 
the two ages (cf. on i^) is probable, yet the fulness of the time 
did not mark the beginning of the new age, since the former 
was past, the latter still future. The words i^aireaTeiXev 6 
6eb<; TOV viov avTov, though in themselves capable of refer- 

IV, 3-4 217 

ring to the sending of Jesus as God's Son out among men from 
the seclusion of his private life {cf. Acts 9^° 1122 Jn. i^) must 
yet, in view of the apostle's belief in the pre-existence of 
Jesus, as set forth in i Cor. 8^ Phil. 2^- Col. i^^- ^^, and of the 
parallelism of v.^, be interpreted as having reference to the 
sending of the Son from his pre-existent state (iv lJ^op(^rj 6eov, 
Phil. 2 6) into the world. This is also confirmed by the two 
expressions that follow, both of which (see below) are evi- 
dently added to indicate the humiliation (cf. Phil. 2^* ^) to 
which the Son was in the sending forth subjected, the descent 
to the level of those whom he came to redeem. For if 
e^aireareiXev referred simply to a sending forth among men, 
as a prophet is sent forth under divine commission, these ex- 
pressions would mark his condition previous to that sending 
forth, and there would be no suggestion of humiliation, but, 
rather, the contrary. Yet on the other hand, e^airedTeCKev 
need not, probably should not, be Hmited to the entrance into 
the world by and at birth, but should rather be understood 
as extending to, and including, the appearance of Jesus among 
men as one sent from God. On the expression rov vlov avrov^ 
equivalent to top vlbv rod Oeov^ see detached note on Titles 
and Predicates of Jesus, V D, p. 408, for discussion of the 
evidence that the phrase here refers to the pre-existent Son and 
that it has special reference to the Son as the object of 
divine love, in the enjoyment of filial fellowship with God. 
Cf. also vv. ^' 7. The phrase yevoixevov eK yvvauKo^ can 
not be interpreted as excluding human paternity, as some 
interpreters, both ancient and modern, have maintained {cf. 
Sief. and Zahn ad loc). See, e. g., Job 14^, ^porb^; yevvrjro'i 
yvvaiKo^. Mt. 11", eV yevvrjToi<^ yvpacKMv. It could be rea- 
sonably supposed to imply birth from a virgin only in case it 
were otherwise established that the apostle knew and accepted 
the dogma or narrative that Jesus was so born, and not even 
then would it be certain that this phrase was intended to refer 
to this aspect of Jesus' birth. But of such knowledge or 
acceptance the writings of the apostle give no hint. yvvaLKo^ 
is probably, like v6p.ov in the following phrase, not indefinite, 


but qualitative, and the phrase is best translated "born of 
woman." On vtto vo^xov^ cf. 3^^ There is no occasion to take 
it here in any other sense than that which it has there, "under 
law as a system of legalism." See note on 3^^. It was from 
this subjection that Christ came to deliver men. See 5^^ and 
cf. 5^^' ^*, as showing that those who are in Christ still remain 
under law as an ethical principle. Cf. also i Cor. 9^° Rom. 6^^- ^^ 
In applying this phrase to Jesus the passage resembles Phil. 2^, 
but differs in that there it is to God and here to law that he is 
said to be subject. That Paul carried his conception of Jesus' 
subjection to law to the point of supposing that he was in his 
own thinking a legalist is wholly improbable; the subjection to 
law was, doubtless, rather in the fact of his hving under legal- 
istic Judaism, obliged to keep its rules and conform to its usages. 
The motive for the insertion of the phrase is doubtless to em- 
phasise the cost at which the Son effected his redemptive work; 
cf. 2 Cor. 8^ 

Tb x>.if)pw;jLa is evidently used in the active sense, "that which fills," 
Tou xpovou being an objective genitive; the whole period which must 
elapse before the event being incomplete till its last increment is 
added, the last moment, which fills it, is called xXTQpco[i,a. It is, in the 
language of the illustration, t) xpo0ea[x(a xoO xaTp6(; (v.^). 

The words yevotxevov uxb v6[ji,ov should probably be taken in the 
sense "made subject to law" rather than "born under law," for, 
though Yev6[jL£vov ex. Yuvaiy.oq evidently refers to birth, that refer- 
ence is neither conveyed by, nor imparted to, the participle, but lies 
wholly in the limiting phrase. This idea is, therefore, not of necessity 
carried over into the second phrase. Had the apostle desired to ex- 
press the idea "born" in both phrases, he could have done so un- 
ambiguously by the use of Ysw-rjO^vxa. Concerning the time of the 
subjection to law, whether at birth or subsequently, Yevo^jievov says 
nothing decisive. Both participles are best understood as attributive 
participles used substantively (Bil/J' 423) in apposition, therefore, 
with xbv ulbv aijTou, the omission of the article giving to each phrase a 
qualitative force which may be expressed in English by translating 
"his Son, one born of woman, one made subject to law." The employ- 
m^ent of the aorist presents the birth and the subjection to law as in 
each case a simple fact, and leaves the temporal relation to e^axiaxetXsv 
to be inferred solely from the nature of the facts referred to (BAf T 142, 
143). The thought is not very different if the participles be taken as 

IV, 4-5 219 

adverbial participles of attendant circumstances (BMT 449, 450). 
But the phrases are best accounted for as intended not so much to 
express the accompaniments of the sending as directly to characterise 
the Son, describing the relation to humanity and the law in which he 
performed his mission. 

5. LPa Tov<; viro vo/jlop e^ayopddr), "that he might deliver 
those that were under law." The phrase viro vojiov is, doubt- 
less, to be taken in the same sense as in v.'^ and 3^3, viz.: "under 
law" legalistically understood. But while in those cases the 
context shows that the law actually referred to is the O. T. 
law, the context here (see above on the inclusiveness of r)ixel<; 
in V.'' and note the second person in v.^, with its unambiguous 
inclusion of the Galatian Gentiles) imphes that roij^ viro vofiov 
includes both Jews and Gentiles. That Paul conceived the 
Gentiles to possess a law, and that of divine origin, appears 
from Rom. 2^4' ^^ (cf. i^^- '^^); and though the phrase vtto voixov 
is usually employed with reference to the legalism that grew 
up on Jewish soil, yet that Paul was aware that the law whose 
work is written in the heart might also be externalised and 
made legahstic is intrinsically probable and is confirmed by 
I Cor. 9'*', where toT? viro voixov, standing as a middle term 
between TouSatbi? and rot? avoixoL^^ seems to designate 
those, whether Jew or Gentile, who were Hving under a system 
of legalism. On the use of e^a7opa^a;, see on 3^^, p. 168. That 
the deliverance referred to is from the law, is implied in tov<; 
viro vofxov and the absence of any other phrase to suggest 
another enslaving power. That it is from subjection to law, 
i. e., (a) from the obligation to obey legal ordinances, and (b) 
from the conception of God which legalism imphes, is shown 
as respects the former (a) by v.^^ and 5^-'', and as respects the 
latter (b) by the following clause and vv.'^- ^ The whole clause 
expresses the purpose not of the participle yevofxevov only 
and probably not of e^airecFTeCkev only, but of the whole 
assertion i^airearetXev, with its modifiers, wherein is implied 
that his human birth and subjection to law were contributory 
to the achievement of the redemption. 


And this in turn conveys an intimation that Paul already had a 
thought akin to that expressed in Heb. 5'-' with reference to the 
relation between the limitations of the earthly life of Jesus and his 
redemptive work. Yet how he conceived that the deliverance was ac- 
complished, whether as in 3'^ through his death, or through his life ex- 
perience reaching its climax in his death (c/. Phil. 2'- »), this verse in 
no way decides. That the apostle conceived that Jesus himself had 
passed through an experience like that of Paul, referred to by him in 
2i«, in that he also had discovered that one does not come into the 
enjoyment of a filial relation to God through obedience to statutes, 
and that this was embodied in the teaching of Jesus, is not in itself 
improbable, but is not intimated either here or elsewhere in his letters. 

Xva TTjif vlodeaiav cnroXd^wixev. " that we might receive the 
adoption." vioOeaia^ found in inscriptions in the phrase 
KaO' vioOeaiav and rarely in Greek literature (Diog. Laert. 
IV 9 (53), veaviaKOiv nvoiv vlodecria^ TroLeXadaL), does not 
occur in the Lxx and appears in N. T. only in the Pauline 
epistles. In Rom. 9^ it denotes the choice of Israel to be sons 
of God {cf. Exod. 4^2 Deut. 141-2 Hos. iiO- In Rom. 8"- ^^ 
they are said to be viol Oeov who are led by God's Spirit, and 
it is added: "For ye have not received a spirit of bondage 
again to fear, but ye have received a spirit of adoption {irvevixa 
vloOeaias;) whereby we cry, Abba, Father." In Rom. S^^ 
rj vlo6e(Tia is defined as consisting in the redemption of the 
body, doubtless because in Paul's thought only through the 
resurrection and the clothing of the spirit in the spiritual body 
does man enter into the fulness of fellowship with God (cf. 
I Cor. 15"' 1^' ■**). In Eph. i^ adoption is spoken of as that 
which men are foreordained of God to obtain through Jesus 
Christ. V vloOecFia is, therefore, for Paul, God's reception of 
men into the relation to him of sons, objects of his love and 
enjoying his fellowship, the ultimate issue of which is the 
future life wherein they are reclothed with a spiritual body; 
but the word may be used of different stages and aspects of 
this one inclusive experience. The article rijv is, doubtless, 
restrictive, pointing to the thought of vv.^- 2 that at the time 
appointed of the father the child is released from subjection to 
tutors and governors, and comes into direct relation to the 

IV, 5-6 ^^i 

father as a mature son— an intimation more fully developed 

m V. 

The meaning "sonship" would satisfy most of the passages in which 
uloOsaca occurs, but there is no occasion to depart from the etymologi- 
cal sense, "installation as a son." This does not, however, justify 
reading back into v.i the idea of adoption, and from this again carrying 
it back through >cXT5pov6[i.oq into the Zia^x-q of 3'% for Paul is not 
careful to maintain the consistency of his illustrations. He employs 
here his usual term because he is speaking of the establishment of 
those who have previously not had the privileges of a son in the full 
enjoyment of them. 

Whether Yva . . . dcxoTvCt^. expresses the purpose of l^aYopiiaTj, or, 
co-ordinately with that clause, expresses the purpose of e^ax^a-uetXev 
is impossible to say with certainty; nor is the distinction important. 

6. "Ort Be iare vIol, e^anredTeCkev 6 6eo<^ to irvevfxa tov 
vlov avTov eU Ta<; Kap8ia? rjiicov, "And because ye are sons, 
God sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts." The 
clause ort . . . vlo{ is naturally interpreted as causal, giving 
the reason in the divine mind for the act e^airedTeiXev . . . 
r)iiCiv, there being no verb of saying or the like for it to depend 
upon as an object clause. Nor is there any sufficient reason 
for departing from this obvious interpretation. It follows, 
however, that the feonship here spoken of being antecedent to 
and the ground of the^bestowal of the Spirit is not the full, 
achieved fact, nor the consciousness of a filial relation, but the 
first and objective stage which the preceding context has em- 
phasised, viz.: release from bondage to law, figuratively de- 
scribed as a pedagogue or guardians and stew^ards. It is in- 
volved in this relation of sonship and the possession of the 
Spirit that from the consciousness of the latter one may infer 
the former, and it is doubtless to induce the Galatians to draw 
this inference from their consciousness of possessing the Spirit 
{cf. 33-5) that this sentence was written. But the direct affir- 
mation of the sentence is that the sonship is the cause of the 
experience of the Spirit. 

To take oxt as meaning "that," making Ixi . . . ulo{ the propo- 
sition to be established, and then to supply after it "is proved by the 


fact" (Philippi, following ancient interpreters), or to take oxt in the 
sense of quod, "as respects the fact that" (Wies.), introduces unwar- 
ranted complication into a sentence which is on its face complete and 
simple. That in Rom. S'^- '^ sonship is apparently proved by posses- 
sion of the Spirit does not forbid our interpreting this passage as mak- 
ing the sonship the ground of the bestowal of the Spirit; for not only 
is the language of Rom. 8'^- ^^ open to interpretation as an argument 
from effect to cause, in which case there also adoption precedes possession 
of the Spirit, but if the reverse is true there, antecedence of sonship to the 
bestowal of the Spirit, clearly indicated in this passage, is explicable 
by the fact that uloOsafa (see on v.^) is used by the apostle of different 
stages of the process by which men come to the full possession of the 
relationship of sons to God, and that the context implies that it is the 
first and objective stage of which he is here speaking. 

Precisely the phrase tb xveO^xa tou uloO auxou does not occur else- 
where in N. T., but in Phil, i^^ Paul uses xh xveOsxa 'Irjaou Xpta-roij 
and in Rom. S^^ Tcveutxa Xptaxou (cf. also 2 Cor. 31^ Acts 16^ i Pet. i" 
Heb. gi* Rev. iqI"). Particularly instructive is Rom. S'- '", where (a) 
•JcveutAa 0SOU Iv uixTv, (b) xveu[JLa XptffToO e'xstv, and (c) Xptaxbq ev 
Ci^Iv all express the same fact of experience. It is manifestly also the 
same experience for which Paul employs in Gal. 2^" the phrase ^f) Iv 
e^ol XpiaT6q and in 525 t^toixev xveujxaTt. Historically speaking, the 
sending of the Son and the sending of the Spirit are distinguished in 
early Christian thought, most markedly so in the fourth gospel (Jn. 3" 
7'' 16'; but note also that the coming of the Spirit is practically iden- 
tified with the return of the Son), but also in Paul {cf. the s^axeaTst^^ev 
of v.* with the same verb in this v.). The two terminologies, that of 
the Christ and that of the Spirit, have also a different origin, both, 
I indeed, having their roots largely in O. T., but being there and in later 
I Jewish thought quite distinct. But in the experience of the early 
I Christians the Christ who by his resurrection had become a spirit 
I active in their lives, and the Spirit of God similarly active, could not 
j be distinguished. Cf. Burton, Spirit, Soul, and Flesh, p. 189. Pre- 
cisely to what extent this experiential identification of the heavenly 
Christ and the Spirit of God has caused a numerical identification of 
them as personalities is difficult to say. Apparently the apostle Paul, 
while clearly distinguishing Christ from God the Father (see i Cor. 8« 
Phil. 2«-8, etc.) and less sharply distinguishing the Spirit from God 
(Rom. 56 S'- «• >• !<• »), is not careful to distinguish the Spirit and Christ, 
yet never explicitly identifies them. Cf. Wood, The Spirit of God in 
Biblical Literature, pp. 229-231. The choice of ih xvsOiJ.a toO ulou 
aixou for this passage in preference to any of its equivalents is due, on 
the one side to the necessity of distinguishing the fact referred to from 
the historic coming of the Christ (4^, which excludes rbv ulbv aixoO 

IV, 6 2 23 

and XptcTTov, and on the other to the desire to connect this experience 
closely with the gift of Christ, which excludes to •xvsGpLa or ih Ttveuna 
ToO 6eou. 

On elq xaq xapBc'ccq rj^xCiM, added to emphasise the transition from 
the objective sonship to the subjective experience, see Rom. 5= i Cor. 
2" Eph. 3!^ It is in the heart, as the seat of intellectual and spiritual 
life in general (i Cor. 2» Rom. g^ loi, etc.) and in particular of the niLOXal 
and spiritual life (2 Cor. 4" Rom. i"' "), that the Spirit of God operates. 
The use of the expression here shows that e^a'7i£c7Te[>.ev refers (not as 
the same word in v.* does) to a single historic fact (the day of Pente- 
cost, e. g.), but to the successive bestowals of the Spirit on individuals 
(cf. 3'), the aor. being, therefore, a collective historical aor. (BMT 39). 
On the translation of an aor. in such a case, see BMT 46, 52. On tjjxwv, 
undoubtedly to be preferred to Ut^wv, a Western and Syrian reading, see 
on V.'. 

Kpd^ov 'A/3 /5a iraTtjp. "crying, Abba, Father." The rec- 
_ognition of God as Father is the distinguishing mark of the 
filial spirit. The participle Kpd^ov agreeing with irvevixa as- 
cribes the cry to the Spirit of God's Son; yet it is undoubtedly 
the apostle's thought that it is the expression of the believer^ 
5,ltitiide also. For the Spirit that dwells in us dominates our 
liyes^ See chap. 2^0 525, and cf. Rom. S^^: eXd^ere Trvevfxa 
vloOea la^^ iv S Kpd^o}j.ev 'A/3j8a nrariqp. The use of Kpd^ov^ 
usually employed of a loud or earnest cry (Mt. 9^^ Acts 14^^ 
Rom. 9^7) or of a public announcement (Jn. y^^- 37)^ j^ the Lxx 
often of prayer addressed to God (Ps. 3^ 107^^), emphasises the 
earnestness and intensity of the utterance of the Spirit within 
us. Though the word upd^ov itself conveys no suggestion of 
joy, it can hardly be doubted that the intensity which the word 
reflects is in this case to be conceived of as the intensity of joy. 
Though to be free from law is to obtain adoption, sonship in 
its full realisation is more than mere freedom from law. The 
significance of such freedom lies, indeed, precisely in the fact 
that it makes it possible that a truly filial relation and attitude 
of man to God shall displace the legal relation that law creates, 
that instead of our looking upon God as lawgiver in the spirit 
of bondage and fear (Rom. 8^^) he becomes to us Father with 
whom we live in fellowship as his sons. See detached note on 
UaTtjp as applied to God, p. 391. 


'O xaTTQp, Greek equivalent of the Aramaic 'A^^&, xas, is a nomi- 
native form with vocative force. Cf. Rom. 8»5 Mk. 1436 Mt. ii=« Jn. 
20"; Bl. D. 147.3. The repetition of the idea in Aramaic and Greek 
form gives added solemnity to the expression, and doubtless reflects a 
more or less common usage of the early church (see Mk. i4'« Rom. S'^). 
On the origin of this usage, see Th. .y. v. 'A^^a, Ltft. ad loc, Sief. cd he. 
It is quite likely that the use of the Aramaic word was derived from 
Jesus, being taken up into the vocabulary of Greek-speaking Christians 
through the medium of those who, knowing both Aramaic and Greek, 
in reporting in Greek the words of Jesus used this word with a sort of 
affectionate fondness for the very term that Jesus himself had used to 
express an idea of capital importance in his teaching. This is more 
probable than that it was taken over into the Christian vocabulary 
from that of the Jewish synagogue in which the idea of God as Father 
had so much less prominent place than in the thought and teaching of 
Jesus. See Bous. Rel. d. Jud.'^ pp. 432-3, 434; Dal. WJ. p. 192. 
The attachment of the Greek translation b icaxTjp to the Aramaic word 
would naturally take place on the passage of the term into Greek- 
speaking circles. 

7. coare ovKeri el Sov\o<; aWa mo?- "So that thou art no 
longer a slave, but a son." In the possession of the Spirit 
of God's Son, assumed to be known as a fact of the experience 
of the readers (cf. 3^), the apostle finds confirmation of the 
eVre vIol of v.^, as there the sonship is said to be the ground 
for the bestowal of the Spirit. That the emphasis of sonship 
is still upon the fact of freedom from bondage to law is shown 
in the insertion of the negative ovKen SovXo^, and that those 
addressed were formerly in this bondage is impHed in ovKen. 
The change from plural to singular has the effect of bringing 
the matter home to each individual reader; the persons desig- 
nated remaining, of course, unchanged. Cf. 6^, and for classical 
examples, see Kuhner-Gerth, 371.5, b. 

el he mo?, kol K\r)pov6iio<^ ha Oeov, "and if son, then heir 
through God.*' That here as throughout the passage vto? 
means fio? Oeov needs no specific proof; it is sufficiently indi- 
cated in the expression rod vlov avrov in vv. ''• ^,, and the rela- 
tion of this expression to fto'?. This obviously suggests that 
kXt/pow/xo? means Kkrjpovoixo^ Oeov. Cf. Rom. 8^^: d he reKva^ 
Koi KXrjpovoiiOL' Kk-qpovop-OL pev Oeov, avvKkTjpovopoc he JvpicrTov. 

IV, 6-7 225 

To this conception the phrase Sia deov adds the thought, 
"made so by God," thus equivalent to Kara deXrj^a deov; cf. 
329^ KXrjpopofxoL Kar e7ra77eXm?^. The purpose of the addition 
is perhaps to remind the Galatians that their position as heirs 
is due to divine grace, not one of right or desert, but more 
probably to emphasise the certainty of their possession of it. 
The absence of the article before Oeov makes the noun not 
indefinite but qualitative, emphasising the divineness of the 
one through whom they were made heir. Cf. on deop, v.^. The 
reversion to the thought of the KXrjpovofXLa expressed in 3^^- ^^ 
shows that the apostle has not lost sight of his main purpose 
throughout this and the preceding chapter, viz., to convince 
the Galatians that it was not through law but through the 
retention of their freedom from it that they could obtain the 
blessings promised to the sons of Abraham, which the judaisers 
had held before their eyes as a prize greatly to be desired but 
obtainable only through circumcision. The appeal of the apos- 
tle is to retain the status they already possess. Cf. v.^, "ye 
are sons," and v.^, "how turn ye back?" That he should not 
here employ the term viol 'AjSpadiJ,, as in 3^, but KXrjpopofiOL^ as 
in 329, is natural, not only because KXi^povopiOL more distinctly 
suggests the idea of the blessing to be received, but also because 
after vloi^ meaning sons of God, sons of Abraham would have 
the effect of an anticlimax. KX-qpovojioi should, therefore, be 
taken here in the sense, heirs of God, and as such recipients 
of the blessing promised to Abraham's seed; this blessing has 
already been defined as justification, acceptance with God, 
possession of the Spirit. Cf. 3^-^''. It is, moreover, as present 
possessors of the KX'qpovojiia that they are KXrjpopojjLOi. That 
other blessings are in store for them is undoubtedly a Pauline 
thought (Rom. 5^1 8^^-23), and that the conception of the 
KXr]pov6fio<; easily lends itself to the presentation of this phase 
of the matter, that which has been received being thought of 
as simply the earnest and first-fruit of the full blessing (see 
Rom. 8^7-23 Eph. i^'*) is also true. But the Galatians already 
possess the promised Spirit, and the emphasis in this context is 
upon that which is already possessed, with no clear indication 
that the thought goes beyond that. 


Against the supposition — at first sight most natural — that the term 
as here used is intended to carry the thought back specifically to 
xXt]pov6[xo(; in v.', is the fact that xXrjpovotxoq is there applied to one 
who not having yet entered into possession of his yJkripoyo[i.ia is in the 
position of vtjttio? and BouXoq, precisely that position, therefore, which 
it is the purpose of this v. to deny; and, though the title xXTipovd^ioq 
carries with it the idea of future release from the status of ZouXoq, the 
contention of the apostle is here not that the Galatians will be, but 
already are, sons and no longer slaves. It is more probable, therefore, 
that by this word he reverts for the moment to the idea of x>.TQpov6[Aot 
in 3" (c/., also, s^^), heirs according to the promise made to Abraham, 
i. e., possessors of the blessing promised to Abraham and to his seed. 
This is not to take vCk-qpowiioq as meaning heir of Abraham, a predicate 
which the apostle never applies to Christians. They are indeed called 
"sons of Abraham," because it is to the seed of Abraham that the 
promise applies, but it is God who established the 8ta6T]XT) and makes 
the exaYYeXfa, and they to whom the promise is fulfilled are his 
x>.T)pov6tJ.ot. Cf. on 3IS and detached note on]%-q, p. 496. This 
also makes it evident that the term %kyipov6[i.oq is not used in its strict 
sense of heir, i. e., recipient of the property of another who has died, or 
prospective recipient of the property of another when he shall have 
died, but, tropically, possessor of a promised possession. 

The fact that x^Xr^povo^xoi here means heirs of God, and the deduc- 
tion of heirship from sonship, itself inferred from an act of adoption, 
uloeea{a, gives a certain colour of support to Ramsay's view that the 
StaG-oxT] of 31^- is not a covenant but a will, and specifically a will in- 
volving the adoption of a son. If the language of 31=2. were harmonious 
with these suggestions of the present passage, the latter would fall in 
with that passage as part of an illustration consistently carried through 
the whole passage. But (i) the possibility of interpreting this phrase 
in the way above suggested is not sufficient ground for setting aside 
the strong counter-evidence that by SiaeTjxT^ he means not a will, but 
a covenant. Even if the expression here employed could be shown to 
involve the idea of adoption by will and inheritance as an adopted son, 
this would only show that the apostle is now illustrating the spiritual 
relations which are the real subject of his thought by a different group 
of facts of common life from those which he employed in 31^- But 
(2) it is improbable that it is specifically an adoptive sonship that the 
apostle has in mind in e[ SI u\6q. For, though he represents the son- 
ship of the Galatians in common with other believers as acquired by 
adoption, yet the fact of adoption is nowhere emphasised, and in the 
actual spiritual realm that which is illustratively called adoption car- 
ries with it, as a consequence, the bestowal of the Spirit of God's Son, 
by which, it is implied, those who are sons come into like relation to 

IV, j-S 227 

God with that which the Son himself sustains. The conception of 
adoption, accordingly, falls into the background, leaving simply that 
of sonship, 

8. Description of the former condition of the Galatians 
as one of bondage to gods not really such, and ex- 
hortation to them not to return to that state (4^'^0- 

Again directly addressing the Galatians as in 3^, and as in 
v.^ characterising their former condition as one of enslavement, 
the apostle describes them as in bondage to gods that were not 
in reality such, and appeals to them, now that they have come 
into fellowship with God, not, as they threaten to do by their 
adoption of the Jewish cycle of feasts and fasts, to return to 
those WTak and beggarly rudimentary teachings under which 
they formerly w^ere, and expresses his fear that he has laboured 
over them to no purpose. 

^But at that time, not knowing God, ye were in bondage to the gods 
that are not such by nature. ^But now having come to know God, 
or rather having become known by God, how is it that ye are 
turning back again to the weak and beggarly rudiments, to which 
ye wish to be in bondage again? ^^Ye are observing days and 
months and seasons and years. ^'^I fear that in vain have I spent 
my labour on you. 

8. 'AX,\a ToTe }iev ovk eiSoref; 6eov iBcvXevaaTe rot? ^vcret 
jjiT) oixTi Beols' "But at that time, not knowing God, ye w^ere 
in bondage to the gods that are not such by nature." Doub- 
ling, so to speak, upon his course, the apostle reverts to the 
condition of the Galatians before they received his message, 
and in antithesis {aWd) to the description of them in v.^ as 
heirs through God, describes them as having been in that former 
time ignorant of God who is in reality such, and in bondage 
to the gods that by nature are not gods. The purpose of this v. 
appears in y.^, where he again dissuades them from returning 
to the state of bondage. That Paul conceived of the deities 
whom the Galatians formerly worshipped as real existences, is 
neither proved nor disproved by this sentence, in which he 
denies to them deity, 0ei6rr]<;, but neither affirms nor denies 


existence; nor by the phrase einrpoiroL^ koI oikov6ixol<; in v. 2, 
since that may be used only by way of rhetorical personification 
of the law and have no reference to the gods of the Gentiles 
{cf. on TO, (JToi'xda rod koo-^jlov, v.^) ; but that he did so conceive 
of them is rendered probable by the evidence of i Cor. 8^- « 
J019. 20 Col. 2^\ Cf. also Deut. 4^^ and see Hterature cited in 
special note on Ta aroLX^la tov Koajiov, p. 510. 

T6Te refers to the past time implied in oiJxiTt (v.-), when the Gala- 
tian Christians were still SouXoi; note the eBouXeuaaxe of this sen- 

E(B6Te(; is a perfect participle of existing state, •^■^ efBoxeq meaning 
"not possessing knowledge." How this state of ignorance came about 
is not here discussed, or whether it was partial or absolute. Cf. Rom. 

The omission of the article with 6s6v makes the word not indef- 
inite (as in Acts 12" i Cor. 8*), but, as in v.' and very often, quali- 
tative, referring definitely to the one God, but with an emphasis on 
his attributes as God, which is lacking when he is called h Osdq. 
For a similar use of Ged?, with strong emphasis on the qualities of 
deity, see Jn. i^^, Gebv ouSslq swpaxev xcoxoxs, where the contrast, 
however, is not between one in reality God, as compared with those 
not really such, but between God in the absolute sense, incapable of 
being directly known, and God as revealed in the person of the Son. 
For other examples of this indubitable, though often overlooked, 
qualitative use of personal appellations without the article, see Rom. 
1^1 : YvdvTsc; xbv Osbv oux wq Bebv eSoBo^av. Rom. 8" Gal. 3" 4H 5" 
Phil. 2>' I Thes. i^: execTpei|^aTe xpbq xbv Gsbv dtxb "zdy eSBwXwv Bou>.e6etv 
6etp XjOiYzi xal dcXigGtvcp. 2 Thes. 2\ Other examples more or less clear, 
but together clearly establishing the usage, are very numerous. See 
note on chap. 2«, pp. 88^., detached note on IlaTTjp as applied to God, 
p. 384, and Slaten, Qualitative Nouns in the Pa^ilme Epistles, pp. 64-68. 

'EBouXeuaaxs is a simple historical aorist, not inceptive, referring not 
to a point of time but to a period, BlfT' 38, 39, 41 Rem. 

$uffc<;, from 960), is properly that which belongs to a person or thing 
by virtue of its origin; then its essential character; used thus even of 
the divine nature, which is without origin, 2 Pet. i^ cpuaet fx-J) oiHat 
may be an adjective element limiting Geolc;, or o5at may be an adjec- 
tive participle used substantively, with Gsoiq as a predicate after it. 
In the former case the beings referred to are characterised as gods, 
but with the qualification that they are not so by nature, i. e., in real- 
ity; in the latter case they are not called Gsof at all, but are character- 
ised negatively only, as beings that by nature are not gods. Gram- 

IV, 8-9 229 

matically and contextually there is no ground of decisive choice 
between these, but i Cor. 8', showing that Paul could apply the term 
eeo{ to the gods of the Gentiles, though denying that it really belonged 
to them, favours the first interpretation. The comparison of Plato, 
Legg. X 904 A, ol xaxa v6[xov ovreq eeo(, perhaps suggests what the 
positive element of the apostle's thought was. He was speaking of 
"the gods of popular opinion," as Jowett translates Plato's phrase, 
Cf. I Cor. 8^, XeYO^Jievot 6eo(. 

On 06 with elSoxeq and [Aifj with oSat, see BMT 485; the choice of 
negatives, though doubtless unconscious, probably reflects the feeling 
that o6x elUxsq expressed a fact, Tolq ^uaet [i^ ouatv Geolc; a conception, 
a description of a class, but without implication of its existence or non- 
existence. The few instances in which Paul uses ou with an attributive 
participle are quotations from the Lxx, his otherwise regular habit 
being to use [i-q with such participles and with adverbial participles 
not involving a direct assertion (Rom. i^s 2^* 4" Gal. 6^). ou, with the 
possible exception of Col. 2i«, in effect negatives an assertion (1 Cor. 
4" 926 2 Cor. 48 12^). 

9. pvu Be yvovre^ Beov, yiaXkov hi yvoi(Td€VTe<; viro Oeov, 
''But now having come to know God, or rather to be known 
by God." Their coming to know God is manifestly through 
the apostle's preaching. Cf. i Thes. i^: ttw? eTreaTp^pare 7rp6? 
Tov deov awb rcov dhdiXoiv hovkeveiv dew ^mvtl, language 
which, as the evidence of this epistle shows, might have been 
addressed to the Galatians also. That jvccadepre^ as here 
used can not refer simply to knowledge in a purely theoretic or 
intellectual sense is evident, since the apostle must have regarded 
such knowledge as always, not simply now {vvi' in contrast with 
Tore)^ possessed by God. For the meaning required here, "hav- 
ing become objects of his favourable attention," cf. Ps. i^ 
Nah. 1 7 I Cor. 8^ Mt. f^, and on the thought of God receiving 
the Gentiles into a favour not previously enjoyed by them, see 
Rom. g^^f- ii^o. This fact respecting Gentiles in general the 
apostle conceived to be reahsed in respect to the Galatians in 
particular through his preaching the gospel to them in accord- 
ance with his commission as apostle to the Gentiles. The pur- 
pose of this added phrase, in a sense displacing the previous 
yvovrei, etc., is doubtless to remind the Galatians that it is 
not to themselves but to God that they owe their knowledge of 


him and escape from idolatry {cf. chap, i^: fierarLOecrOe airo 
Tov Ka\e(7avTo<i ujua? eV ^ctptri 'X^picTTov^ and Eph. 2*), and so 
to emphasise the folly and wrong of abandoning this advantage 
through another iTno-rpe^eLv. 

Though Ycvtoc7x.a) does not always retain its inchoative force (see 
Th. s. V.) even in the aorist, yet this is often clearly discernible {cf. 
Lk. 2418 I Cor. 1 21), and the aorist participle in particular always, ap- 
parently, retains this meaning, signifying either "having learned, hav- 
ing come to know," or ''knowing" (result of having come to know), not 
"having known." See Mt. 168 22I8 261" Mk. 6'8 15^ Lk. 9" Jn. 5" Acts 
238 Rom. i2i 2 Cor. 5=1 Gal. 2K By yvovxet; there is, therefore, affirmed 
the acquisition of that knowledge the former possession of which is 
denied in oux, efSoTsq. Of any other distinction between tllhizc, and 
yvovTeq, as, e. g., that the former denotes an external knowledge that 
God is, the latter an inner recognition of God, there is no basis in 
usage or warrant in the context. The absence of the article with Oedv 
is not without significance (cf. Rom. i", yvbvzzq Tbv 6e6v. i Cor. i-^: 
oix eyvo) b x6G[ioq . . . xbv 6e6v), being doubtless due to the same 
cause that led to the omission of the article in v.s {q. v.), viz., emphasis 
upon the qualities of deity in antithesis to the (puaet [li] oYzeq Geof. 
Cf. I Thes. i« quoted above, noting xbv 6e6v in the first mention of 
God, and Gsqi without the article when the word follows the mention 
of the idols and with emphasis on the qualities of true deity. One 
might imperfectly reproduce the ejEfect in English by reading with 
strong emphasis on the word God. But now having come to know [a] 
God (not those that are no real gods). 

MdXkov U, following a negative phrase, introduces and emphasises 
its positive correlate (Eph. 4^8 5"); following a positive expression it 
introduces an additional and more important fact or aspect of the mat- 
ter, not thereby retracting what precedes (probably not even in Wisd. 
82", certainly not in Rom. 8" i Cor. 14'. ^ 2 Mac. 6"), but so transferring 
the emphasis to the added fact or aspect as being of superior signifi- 
cance as in effect to displace the preceding thought. So clearly here, 
as in Rom. 8'^, etc. 

TTw? e7rtcrrpe</)ere irdXtv iirl ra aadeprj Kal TVTOi')(a (JTOL')(€la^ 
oh irakiv avoid ev hovKeveiv OeXere-^ "how is it that ye are turn- 
ing back again to the weak and beggarly rudiments, to which ye 
wish to be in bondage again ?" The question is rhetorical, in- 
tended to set forth the absurdity of the action referred to. On 
the use of ttw? in such questions, meaning "how is it possible 

IV, 9 231 

that," see chap. 21* Rom. 3^ 6^ Mt. 7^ 1226. 29^ et freg. The pres- 
ent tense presents the action as already in progress. (Observe 
that in the examples cited, when a theoretical possibility is 
spoken of the tense is a future or a form referring to the future, 
but in chap. 2^* it is a present, referring, as in this case, to some- 
thing in progress.) This corresponds with the representation of 
the situation in Galatia given in i^: davfjid^co ort . . . fieraTiSecrde. 
Cf. also deXere in next clause. The phrase ra dadevrj Kal Trrco^^a 
aTOL')(^e'La manifestly refers to what v.^ calls ra aroL'x^eia tov 
Koafjiov; see on that v., and detached note, p. 510. The present 
expression emphasises the ineffectualness and poverty of the 
old religious systems in contrast with the power and richness 
of the gospel. See chap. 5^- ^^-^4 Rom. i" 8^- *. It is, of course, 
that to which they were now turning that is specially in mind, 
yet the former heathenism, included under the (rrot;)^€ta by 
implication of the repeated iraXiv^ is also thereby stigmatised 
as aadevT] Kal ttccxci. Both were at bottom legalistic, without 
clear perception of ethical principles and destitute of dynamic 
to make possible the realisation of them in life. What the 
apostle says in Rom. 8^ of the law, vojjlo^^ is affirmed of it, not 
because of anything peculiar to it as distinguished from the 
still more imperfect ethnic systems, but because of that which 
was common to them both, and his usual term for the displaced 
system is not vo^xo';^ but w'^o? (see, e. g., chap. 3^- 10- n- Rom. 
320. 2ia^ etc.). The word deXere in the appended relative clause 
expresses forcibly the inclination of the Galatians to abandon 
the Pauline gospel. Cf. OeXovre;, v.^K 

AouXeuaai is attested by i^B only; all other authorities apparently 
read SouXduscv. The former is quite certainly a modification of the 
original text under the influence of xdXtv (i'vwOev, which naturally 
calls for an inceptive form. The scribe missing the reference of the 
present to a second period of enslavement, substitutes the aorist to 
express the idea of a return to bondage, xiXtv avwGev BouXeuaat 
would have furnished no temptation to change it. 

HdcXiv originally meaning "back" (return to a previous position; cf. 
L. & S. and Th. s. v. and reff. there) but more commonly, in later Greek, 
"again" (repetition of a previous action) is often used when the repe- 
tition involves return to a previous state or position (Mk. 2^ 31); but 


also (like the English "again") when the action is a return to a pre- 
vious state through reversal, not, strictly speaking, repetition. So in 
chap. I" Jn. iQis Rom. ii''. So also here, since there had been'no 
previous i%iaTpi(fBiv exl -ra . . . cTOtxela, but only an elvac uxb Tci 
axotxeta, and the contemplated eictaTpe<pstv was not a repetition of a 
previous act but a reversal of the i-Ki^ipiqiBiy izphq Tbv Gedv {cf. i Thes. 
i»), here described in Yvdvreq Gedv. Wieseler's statement, "Das 
icdtXtv, welches hier wiederum, nicht riickwarts, heisst, weist auf eine 
friihere Bekehrung (extaxpoipT^) hin, namlich auf die ihrem, v.* erwahn- 
ten Heidenthume gegeniiber in dem vuv M u. s. w. angedeutete Bekeh- 
rung von den Gotzen (eTctaTpo(p-f) dxb twv efBwXwv) zu Gott in Christo," 
escapes self-contradiction only by the expedient of supposing xdXtv 
to apply to e%iaipi(pzxs. only, not to extarpe^exs exl . . . axoixela, 
an interpretation which would require us to read: "How turn ye again, 
this time to the weak and beggarly rudiments ? " The view, moreover, 
in support of which he resorts to this difficult expedient, viz., that Paul 
does not include the former heathenism of the Galatians under tcc . . , 
cTotxeta compels him further to limit the effect of xaXtv avweev in 
the next clause to SouXeuetv, reading in effect, " to which ye desire to 
be in bondage, this constituting for you a second bondage." Such a 
harsh severance of verb and adverb in two successive clauses is not 
demanded by the usage of xdtXtv and is, in fact, self-refuting. The 
obvious and unescapable implication of the language is that the con- 
version to Ta . . . cTotxeta is a return to a state generically the same 
as the idol-worship under which they formerly were. Against this it is 
irrelevant to point out that exiaxpi^etv does not mean "return" but 
only "turn," since the idea of reversal is expressed in the adverb. The 
expression x(iXtv avwBev SouXsuscv is pregnant, the adverb suggesting 
a renewed enslavement and the present tense of the infinitive a con- 
tinued state; hence in effect again to become enslaved and to continue 
so, or to endure a second period of enslavement. SouXeuaai would 
probably be inceptive. xdXtv, then, in this case expresses repetition 
rather than, as in the preceding clause, reversal, though, as in many 
other cases (Mk. 21 31, etc.), the repetition involves also return to a 
former position. Cf. 5^. It is enforced by the nearly synonymous avco0ev 
"anew." It is probably an overrefinement to find in this use of the 
two words {cf. Wisd. ig*) anything more than emphasis, such as is 
often expressed in Greek writers by a^Qiq, &vioQzv, etc. 

10. rjfJLepa^ irapaTijpe'lade Kal iJLrjva<; Kal Kaipoxs kol evLav- 
Toik. "Ye are observing days and months and seasons and 
years." That the days, etc., referred to are those which the 
Jewish law required to be observed is made certain by the 

IV, 9~io 233 

unquestioned character of the influence to which the Galatians 
were yielding. See esp. v.^^. Compared with 5^-, in which 
it appears that the question of adopting circumcision was still 
pending, and 5^, which indicates that the Galatians had not yet 
been asked to adopt the whole law, this sentence indicates that 
the judaisers had pursued the adroit course of presenting to 
them at first a part only of the requirements of the Jewish law 
and had begun with those things that would be least repulsive. 
Having secured the adoption of the festivals, and perhaps the 
fast-days, of the Jewish cycle, they were now urging circum- 
cision. Whether, however, the feasts and fasts were all that 
the Galatians had adopted as yet, is not made clear, since the 
apostle may have mentioned these only as examples of their 
subjection to the law. But the silence of the letter about any 
statute of the law except circumcision, which they had not yet 
adopted, and the fasts and feasts, which they had, there being, 
for example, no mention in connection with the situation in 
Galatia of the law of foods, leaves no positive ground for sup- 
posing that any points except these had been raised. 

On xapaTTQp£tCT0e, "ye observe, keep religiously," cj. Jos. Ant. 3. 91 
(55): xapaTTQpeiv Taq ipSoixaSaq. 14. 264 (10"), xapaTTjpelv t-J)v twv 
aa^^ciTWV Tj^xlpav. Contra Ap. 2. 282 (39, Whiston 40): ouSe ev e0vo<; 
evGoc . . . xoXXa; Twvefq pptoctv^txlv ou vevofxtatJLivwvxapaTeTTQpTQTat. No- 
where in the Lxx does the word appear with this meaning, and in 
non-biblical writers instances have been observed only in Dion Cassius, 
38. 13, Ta ex. Tou oOpavou Y'Tv6;xeva xapaxTQpelv. It occurs here only in 
N. T. in this sense, TYjpsIv being used in Mt. 19" Jn. 8" Acts 15^ etc.; 
<J)UA.t4affecv in Mt. 1920 Lk. ii^s Acts 7^' Rom. 22* Gal. 6^^ etc. 

'H[i.dpaq probably refers primarily to the sabbath days, but includes 
also the feasts, which are observed each on a single day. 

Mri^aq, strictly "months," may be used by metonymy for monthly 
recurring events (cf. Isa. 66"). If used in the strict sense, the word 
probably refers to the seventh month (see Num., chap. 29), for, though 
there were feasts in other months, no other month was so occupied 
with celebrations that it itself could be said to be observed. But it is 
more likely that the reference is to the celebration of the appearance 
of the new moon which marked the beginning of the month, this being 
in a sense an observance of the month. See Num. ioi» 28"; cf. i Chron. 
23" Col. 2". 

Kaigouq, in itself indefinite as to either length or frequency of cele- 


bration, probably here refers to a class of celebrations not limited to a 
single day, thus to the great feasts, Passover, Tabernacles, etc. (see 
2 Chron. 8", ev toIi; aa^^i-zotq %cd ev toI<; [XYjalv xal ev xalq eopxatq, Tpelq 
xatpouq ToO IvtauTou, ev Tfj eopT^ twv (il,(t[Uiiv, ev "zf, eopTf) rtov e^BotxciSwv, 
ev -zfi eopxfj xojv axTQvdiv), or to these and the fasts of the fourth and fifth 
and seventh and tenth months. See Zech. S^'. 

'EvtauTo6q, "years," may refer to the year of Jubilee or the sabbati- 
cal year. So Ell. Ltft. et al., esp. Barton {JBL. XXXIII, ii8/.), who, 
referring it to the sabbatical year, founds on this interpretation an 
argument for the dating of the epistle in the year 54 or 55 a. d., this in 
turn carrying with it the conclusion that the letter was written to 
churches in North Galatia, so called. The doubt of Benzinger (Encyc. 
Bib. II 1 5 14) whether these year-long celebrations were ever actually 
observed is perhaps scarcely justified in view of i Mac. 6"'"; Jos. Ant. 
13. 234 (80, 14. 475 (16O; Bell. I. 60 (2*). But in view of the fact 
which the epistle clearly shows, that the Galatians had not j-^et under- 
taken to keep the whole law, not even having at all generally accepted 
circumcision (cf. on 4' 5'), it must be regarded as very improbable that 
among the requirements of the law already adopted was a custom eco- 
nomically so burdensome and socially so difl&cult as the sabbatical 
year. It is, therefore, much more probable that, as he speaks of the 
observance of the new moon as an observance of months, so by the 
observance of years he means the celebration of the beginning of the 
year, probably on the first of the month Tishri. Against this view 
Barton urges it as a fatal objection that since the Talmud includes 
New Year's Day among the great festivals and calls these b\^ a word 
equivalent to xatpof, therefore Paul's evtauxouq, if it refers to New 
Year's Day, has already been included in xacpouq (see Barton, op. cit., 
p. 120). But it is quite unsafe to argue that because the Talmud in- 
cludes New Year's Day among the great feasts, therefore Paul included 
it in the xaipo(. Moreover, non-exclusiveness of his terms is in itself 
not improbable. Formal exactness in such matters is not character- 
istic of Paul. It is, indeed, most likely that, as used here, [XYjvaq is 
included in ■^[lipaq, and evtauxoui; in xatpo6(; or i^iipaq, the four terms 
without mutual exclusiveness covering all kinds of celebrations of days 
and periods observed by the Jews. 

11. (jiojSovjJLai v/xa? fxt] xo;? elKr} KeKOirlaKa et? ujua?. "I fear 
that in vain have I spent my labour upon you," i. e., that the 
labour which I bestowed on you is to result in nothing. A 
paratactically added expression of the apostle's feeling in view 
of the tendency of the Galatians to adopt legalistic practices, 
which clearly indicates his estimate of the deadly character of 


legalism. Should they really come under its dominion, his 
labour would have been for naught. For the expression of the 
more hopeful feehng, between which and that of fear of the out- 
come expressed here the letter swings, see 5^°. 

'Y[iaq is best regarded as proleptically employed, not properly an 
object of (po^oij[xat, but anticipating the b[ in the subordinate 
clause. Cf. W. LXVI 5, and such N. T. examples as Mk. 12'" Acts 13" 
Gal. I". It is true that as a rule the object accusative anticipates 
the subject of the subordinate clause. But that this is not uniformly 
the case, see Kriiger, Gr. SpracJil. 61. 6«, and the example there cited: 
T-Jjv v^aov Ta^TT^v eqpo^ouvTO \x.^ e^ auTfji; xbv x6Xs(xov c(p(cFt xottovxai, 
Thuc. 4. 85. [jL-?j xexoTcfaxa is then an object clause after a verb of 
fearing. The indicative is employed because the fact spoken of is, as 
an event, already past, though the result is undecided or not yet 
known to the writer. See BMP 227, and cf. on chap. 2^. On 
cf. 3<. The meaning here is evidently "without effect." The perfect 
xexoxfaxa, referring to a past action and its existing result, is appro- 
priately employed, since it is precisely the result of his action that the 
apostle has chiefly in mind, zlq b\iaq is equivalent to a strengthened 
dative of advantage, "for you." 

g. An affectionate appeal to the Galatians to enter fully 
into their freedom from law, referring to their former 
enthusiastic reception of the apostle and affection 
for him, and expressing the wish that he were now 
with them and could speak to them in more per- 
than he had formerly used (4^2-20) _ 

Dropping argument, the resumption of w^hich in w.^^-^i is 
probably an after-thought, the apostle turns to appeal, begging 
the Galatians to take his attitude towards the law, referring to 
the circumstances under which he had preached the gospel to 
them, and the enthusiasm and personal affection with which, 
despite an illness which made him unattractive to them, they 
had received him and his message. He compares his own 
zealous pursuit of them with that of his opponents, justifying 
his by its motive, but expresses, also, the wish that he could be 
present with them right now and speak in a different tone 
from that, by implication harsher one, which he had employed 
on some previous occasion when he had " told them the truth." 


^^Become as I am {or have become), because I am as ye are, I 
beseech you, brethren. "Fe did me no wrong, but ye know thai 
because of an infirmity of the flesh I preached the gospel to you on 
that former occasion; ^*and that which was a temptation to you in 
my flesh, ye did not reject or despise, but ye received me as an angel 
of God, as Christ Jesus. ^Where, then, is that gratulation of your- 
selves? For I bear you witness that ye would, if possible, have 
plucked out your eyes and given them to me. ^^So that I have be- 
come your enemy by telling you the truth I ^''They zealously seek 
you, not honestly, but wish to shut you out that ye may seek them. 
^^But it is good to be zealously sought after in a good thing, always, 
and not only when I am present with you, ^^oh, my children, with 
whom I travail again in birth pangs till Christ be formed in you. 
^^But I could wish to be present with you now, and to change my 
tone ; because I am in perplexity in reference to you. 

12. Vivecrde o)? e7a>, on Kajco &)? v}J.ei<i^ aBe\(f)OL, Beojiai 
vjiwv. "Become as I am (or have become), because I am as 
ye are, I beseech you, brethren." With this sentence the 
apostle, under the influence, probably, of the fear expressed in 
v.^^, turns from argument to entreaty and appeals to the feel- 
ings of the Galatians. Cf. the similar manner of approach in 
3^-3, and notice here the affectionate a8eX(f>0L (cf. on i^O and 
the use of Beojiai, "I entreat." The entreaty itself is enigmati- 
cal and paradoxical. Yet its meaning can scarcely be doubtful. 
The apostle desires the Galatians to emancipate themselves 
from bondage to law, as he had done, and appeals to them to 
do this on the ground that he, who possessed the advantages of 
the law, had foregone them and put himself on the same level, 
in relation to law, with them. Thus while jLveade o)? iyo) 
addresses them as subject to law, or on the point of becoming 
so, ft)? v/zet? looks at them as Gentiles without the advantages 
of law. A similar thought is expressed less enigmatically in 
2i5. 16 (^cf. V.9) and in Phil. 3<^-, esp. v.«. Cf. also i Cor. 921. 

It affects the sense but little whether with x^y" we supply el[i.i or 
"{i-joyix (or sYevotiTjv); yiyova corresponds best with Y(vsa6e and the 
actual facts, since the apostle's freedom from law was the result of a 
becoming, a change of relations. On the other hand, zl\x.l corresponds 

IV, 12-13 237 

best with Baii, which must be supplied with b[i£i<; and better fits the 
parallelism, which is evidently intended to be paradoxical. The inter- 
pretation of Chrys. ct al., according to which t^^xtqv is supplied after 
xdcyo), giving the meaning, "because I was formerly under law as ye 
now are," is open to the two objections: (a) that, the reference to past 
time being essential to the thought, y][xtqv could hardly have been left to 
be supplied, and (b) that the appeal, to be effective, must be not sim- 
ply to the apostle's former state, which he has now abandoned, but to 
his present state or his abandonment of the former state. 

ovdiev lie r}hiKr)(jare' 13. oXhare he on hi audeveiav tt}? 
aapKo<; evrjyyeXLadiJLTju viuv to Tporepov, "Ye did me no wrong, 
but ye know that because of an infirmity of the flesh I preached 
the gospel to you on that former occasion." ovhev ^xe r/hiKriaaTe 
is in all probabihty an allusion to an assertion of the Galatians 
that they had done the apostle no wrong, it being equally 
their right to accept his message when he came and that of the 
later Christian teachers when they came; to which the apostle 
adroitly replies conceding that they did him no wrong in the 
first instance, and going on to remind them of their former gen- 
erous and affectionate treatment of him. In v.^^ he follows 
this up with the intimation that they are now doing him a 
wrong in counting him their enemy. The reference to the 
bodily weakness which was the occasion of his preaching to 
them had for its purpose in Paul's mind to remind them of their 
affectionate attitude towards him and to renew it. For the 
modern reader it has the added value of furnishing an interesting 
and valuable detail concerning the circumstances under which 
Paul first preached in Galatia. On this aspect of the matter, 
see the Introd., p. xxix. On the nature of the illness, see fine 
print below. Whether ro -Kporepov referred to the former of 
two occasions on which he had preached the gospel to them 
orally, hence of two visits to Galatia, was, of course, perfectly 
clear to the Galatians. For the modern reader this can only 
be definitely decided by proving, if it can be done, from sources 
outside this passage whether Paul had already been in Galatia 
once or twice. See below on to irporepov. 

OuSlv \}£ fjScx-^aaxe is open to several interpretations according as 
(a) TQScx-naaxe is taken in the sense (i) "to wrong," "to do injustice 


to one," or (ii) "to harm," "to injure"; (b) the aorist is understood tc 
refer to a distinctly past time, in contrast with the recent past or pres- 
ent, equivalent to the English past, or as covering the period up to 
the present, and so equivalent to the English perfect; (c) \i.i is under- 
stood to be emphatic or not, and if emphatic, as standing in implied 
antithesis, e. g., to u^iaq or Xptaxdv; (d) according as the sentence is 
or is not supposed to refer to a claim of the Galatians to the effect 
that they had not wronged or harmed him. Of the different views 
thus resulting, those that are at all probable may be stated as follows : 
(i) Ye did me (at that time) no injustice; it is now that you are unjust 
in regarding me as your enemy {cf. v.i«). The occasion of the state- 
ment is in this case not in anything that the Galatians have said, but 
in the apostle's own sense of having been wronged. (2) I grant that 
ye did me (at that time) no injustice. In this you are right. I can 
not grant that ye are not now wronging me in regarding me as your 
enemy. (3) Ye have not wronged me; it is Christ that ye have 
wronged. (4) Ye have not harmed me; it is yourselves that ye have 
harmed. Of these several views the second best accords with the 
context, and best accounts for the introduction of these otherwise 
enigmatic words. The context says nothing of their wronging Christ 
or injuring themselves, but does imply that they are now regarding 
Paul as their enemy, which would, of course, be felt by Paul as an 
injustice. The sentence is, moreover, more likely to have found its 
occasion in some word of theirs than to have originated with Paul him- 
self. Had the latter been the case, he would probably have added 
some adverb or phrase of past time {cf. v.^); Zi is slightly adversative: 
Ye did me no wrong, but rather when I preached, etc., ye received me, 

At' da6ivetav (cf. oO BLivd:[X£voi; St' daOivetav xXeOaat, quoted by 
M. and M. Voc. s. v., from a papyrus of 135 A. D.) expresses the occa- 
sioning cause of the euiQYYe>vtad[jnQv, not the means (St' daOevefaq) or 
limiting condition (ev dtaeeve((j:). It was a bodily weakness that gave 
occasion to his preaching to the Galatians, either by detaining him in 
Galatia longer than he had intended, or by leading him to go there 
contrary to his previous plan. Both here and in v." g&q^ is obviously 
to be taken in its physical sense, equivalent to a(o[xa; see on 3', and 
detached note on Jlveutxa and 2ap^, II 2, p. 493. Other senses of the 
word are plainly inappropriate to the context. The factors to be 
taken into account in considering what was the nature of the weakness 
are: (a) the phrase xetpaa[jLbv ufxlv sv xf) crapx,{ [xou (see below), which 
undoubtedly refers to the same thing here designated as da6ivetav 
iir]q aapxdq, tends to show that the latter was in some way offensive 
to the Galatians or calculated to lead to the rejection of his message, 
(b) v.>5 suggests that Paul's sickness was a disease of the eyes, obstrudh 

IV, 13 239 

ing his sight, (c) 2 Cor. 12', eSoGiQ [lot ax6Xo(J< xfj aapxl, may not im- 
probably be understood to refer to the same fact. But neither of 
these latter identifications are certain. Of the many explanations 
proposed, persecution, temptation to sensuality, spiritual trials, such 
as temptation to despair and doubt, wholly fail to meet the conditions. 
The language can refer only to some physical ailment hard to bear, 
and calculated to keep him humble and, in some measure, to repel 
those to whom he preached. Ltft. Lip, Dib. Gwt. pp. 46 j^., et al., 
favour epilepsy, Riickert et al. some affection of the eyes; Ramsay, 
reviving in part an ancient opinion, thinks it was fever with ac- 
companying severe headache (St. Paul, pp. 94 j^., and Com. on Gal., 
pp. 422/.). For fuller list of conjectures, see Ltft. pp. 186/., Stanley, 
Com. on Cor., pp. 547 jf. Ramsay's view could be sustained only by 
showing that fever was, in Galatia, regarded as an infliction of the 
gods, showing the sufferers to be under their special disapprobation. 
But that this was in any peculiar sense true of fevers is scarcely shown 
by anything that Ramsay advances. Cf. ut supra. The reference to 
a disease of the eyes, though favoured by v.'*, is weakened by the lack 
of any emphasis upon \i\L€i-j indicated by position or otherwise. Epi- 
lepsy fulfils the conditions, but no better, perhaps, than many other 
diseases. The precise nature of the apostle's suffering must be left 
undecided. No decisive inference can be drawn from this illness con- 
cerning the location of the Galatian churches. zu-T\-^'^zk\.Q6i<^-(iy is used 
here, as everywhere else in the epistle (i^. '• "■ !«• ") in the specific 
sense, to preach the gospel, to bring the good news of salvation in 

npoTspoq is a comparative adjective in frequent use from Homer 
down. xpdTEpov is employed as a temporal adverb from Pindar and, 
with the article, from Herodotus down. In the latter use it is usually 
the case that an event having happened twice {e. g., a place visited or 
a battle fought) or two periods of time being brought into comparison, 
and the latter having been specifically mentioned, xb xp6Tepov desig- 
nates the earlier one. The two occasions or periods may both be in 
the past: Hdt. 2"*; Thuc. i. 59', 3. 87«- "«, 5. 65'; Xen. Mem. 3. 8»; 
Hell. 5. 3."; Isoc. 59 c (4"), 151 d (7"); Gen. 13' 28i» Deut. 918 Josh. 10" 
III" I Kgs. i3« Dan. 3" i Mac. 3" 4" 5^ 6'. Or one may be past 
and the other present: Thuc. 6. 86*; Plato, Crat. 436 E; Rep. 522 A; Dem. 
437, 38. «, 47 48"; Deut. 220 Josh. 1415 1516 Judg. ii" 18". Or one may 
be past and the other future: Isa. i" Jer. 37 (30)" 40 izz)''' " i Mac. 
6". Occasionally the two events are not similar but contrasted. See 
exx. of this usage in Xen. An. 4. 41*; Neh. 13' Job 42" i Tim. i»». 
xp6Tepov without the article signifies in enumerations "first," im- 
plying also a second in the series (Heb. 7"); or "on a former occasion," 
without implying either repetition or contrast, though the context 


sometimes suggests that what was xpdTspov, "formerly," no longer 
existed at the time denoted by the principal verb. Isa. 41" Jn. 7" 
2 Cor. ii' Heb. 4'. In a few cases xb xp6Tepov seems also to be em- 
ployed in this way: Isoc. 70 (15"'), 354c (16"); Isa. 52*; Sus. 52; 
Jn. 6" 9». It is important to notice that when xb xpdxepov designates 
the former of two occasions or periods, the later one is always one 
which is distinctly referred to or implied in the context, never, so far 
at least as the above examples or any others that have been cited 
show, one which is itself implied only in that an earlier one is called 
xh xpdxepov, the former. In other words, in observed instances it 
implies no duality except that of an occasion mentioned in the context 
(which may be past, present, or future), and of the event to which 
-rb xpdxepov itself applies. Yet it is obvious that the knowledge of 
the readers might supply what is lacking in the context. While, there- 
fore, xh xpdxepov in this passage does not imply two previous visits, it 
does not exclude the possibility of them, despite the fact that we have 
no extant example of xpoxepov referring to the former of two occasions 
neither of which is otherwise referred to in the context. To this should 
be added the evidence of vv.i' and ^o (q. v.), slightly confirmed by i', 
that between his first visit to Galatia and the writing of the present 
letter Paul had communicated with the Galatians, either in person or 
by letter. There are, accordingly, three possibilities: (a) xh xpdxepov 
implies no comparison of occasions of preaching, but means simply 
"formerly." Against this is the apparent needlessness of the phrase, 
if this is all that it means. It is so self-evident that his preaching in 
Galatia was formerly, that the inclusion of the word in this sense is 
seemingly motiveless, (b) The apostle regarded the present letter as 
a reiteration of the gospel in its distinctive features, and referred to 
the one and only oral proclamation of the gospel as on the former 
occasion, as compared with the letter. Against this is the fact that 
on the hypothesis that this letter is considered a preaching of the 
gospel, and in view of the evidence of an intervening communication 
cited above, the present preaching was the third, which renders it 
improbable that the first would be said to be xh xpdxepov. Against 
it is also the fact that Paul and N. T. writers generally use euaYYeX(i^o;xat 
of oral preaching only. Yet there is nothing in the word itself to 
exclude a reference to publication in writing, and i) TP«^'^ • • • 
•Kpoeu-qyysXlaaxo of 3* is perhaps some evidence that Paul might use 
the simple verb in the same way. (c) It being known to the Galatians 
that Paul had preached to them orally twice, xh xpd-cspov self-evidently 
meant for them on the former of these two occasions. This takes the 
verb and xh xpdxepov in their usual sense, and though involving a use 
of xh xpdrepov with reference to the former of two events, knowledge 
of the second of which is supplied by the readers, not by the context — 

IV, 13-14 241 

a usage which is without observed parallel — is, on the whole, the most 
probable. Parallels would in the nature of the case be difficult to 
discover, since they could be recognised only by evidence not furnished 
in the context. It remains, however, that the significance of -rb 
xpoxepov depends on the question of fact whether Paul had actually 
preached twice in Galatia before writing this letter; xb icpoTspov itself 
does not prove him to have done so. See further in Introd. p. xlv. 

That ih xpdxepov implies two visits to Galatia is the view of Alf. 
Ltft. Sief. (Zahn, two or more) Bous., and many other modern inter- 
preters from Luther down. Sief. quotes Grot, and Keil for the second 
of the views stated above. Vernon Bartlet, in Expositor, Series V, 
vol. ID (1899), p. 275, explains xh icpoTspov as meaning "at the begin- 
ning," in the earlier part of his evangelising visit, and as suggesting 
that it was only the initiation of his work that was occasioned by his 
illness, the continuance of it being for other reasons. He supports 
this view by the contention that €(j(x^'^zkil,o\ia\ refers to the presen- 
tation of the gospel to a people who have not received it, and, there- 
fore, can not be used to cover two visits (a statement sufficiently refuted 
by Rom. 1^^ 15"). No instances of xb xpo-repov in this sense are cited, 
nor does it seem to be justified by usage. The view of McGiffert, 
Apostolic Age, p. 228, that xb -jcpdTspov refers to the eastward journey 
from Antioch to Derbe, the later, implied, journey being the return 
westward, does less violence to the usage of xb xp6xepov and euay- 
YeX(t;otJLat. But inasmuch as the letter is addressed to all the 
churches of the group, and the most eastern would on this theory have 
been visited but once, it is improbable that the apostle would have 
spoken of the journey up and back as involving two evangelisations 
of them. 

14. KoX Tov Teipauixov vfxcop iv rrj aapKi (jlov ovk €^ov6evi^(TaTe, 
ovhe e^eTTTvaare^ ''and that which was a temptation to you 
in my flesh, ye did not reject or despise." On vfioiv as objective 
genitive after ireipaaiiov cf. Lk. 2228. The whole phrase, tov 
TTupauiiov vfJLCdv iv Trj crapKL fxov, stands, as the following verbs 
show, by metonymy for some such expression as e/xe irupd^ovra 
viJid<; Bia rrjv aaBevaav tt}? aapKos fiov. For similar metonymy, 
see Ps. 2 2^4 {^^). ireLpaafiov is probably temptation rather than 
simply trial; there was something in the apostle's physical con- 
dition which tempted them to reject him and his message. 
i^eTTTvaare, not found in the Lxx and here only in N. T., is 
found in Greek writers from Homer down. 


Sief.'s attempt, following Lach. and Butt., to escape the difl&culty 
that xetpaa^xdv is not logically the object of e^ouOevTrjaaTe and e^stutG- 
oaxe by placing a colon after aapx£ [lou, thus making xetpaaixov the 
object of otSaTs, and e^ouOevrjaaTre the beginning of a new sentence, 
is extremely forced, and in view of Ps. 225< (=0 is quite unneces- 

Though in all other extant instances Ixxtuo) is used of a physical act, 
"to spit out," the impossibility of such a sense here and the fact that 
the similar compounds of tctOsiv {cf. dcicoiiT. Aesch. Bum. 303 : dTzoiziuetq 
Xdfouq. Aesch. Ag. 1192: dtir^icTuaav euvaq dSsXfpou) and other words 
of similar meaning (cf. Rev. 31s : [lAXkoi as £[daai ex toQ aTo^xaxoc; \iou) 
are used in the tropical sense, make it unnecessary to question the 
tropical meaning, "to reject," here. 

aX\a ft)? dyyeXov deov ehe^aaSe fie, w? XpLarbv "Irjaovv, ^'but 
ye received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus." dyye\o<; is 
commonly used by Paul not in its general sense of ''messenger" 
(Mt. ii^^Lk. 724-27 g52 ]y[]^_ i2 jas. 2'^''), for which he uses diro- 
(TToXo<; (2 Cor. S^^ Phil. 225), but an "angel," a superhuman being. 
Cf. i« 3" I Cor. 4^ 13I; M. and M. Voc. s. v. This is doubtless 
its sense here. That Paul was God's "messenger" is implied 
by the context, not the word. The use of 6eov without the 
article emphasises the qualitative character of the phrase, and 
brings out more strongly the dignity ascribed to Paul as God's 
representative. Cf. on v.^. The sentence, however, means 
not that they supposed him actually to be superhuman, but 
that they accorded him such credence and honour as they would 
have given to an angel of God. Note w? Xpiarbv 'Irjaovv and 
cf. Phm. ". ide^aaSe suggests the idea of welcome more dis- 
tinctly than would have been done by iXd(3ere or 7rape\d(3eTe. 
Cf. chap, i^' 12 32; yet see also 2 Cor. iiS where both verbs occur, 
o)? XpLCTTov 'Irjaovv is a chmactic addition. Cf. Rom. 8^8 Col. 
lis. 16. The force of <»? is the same as with dyyeXov. As to 
the relation of the apostle to Christ Jesus which makes such 
reception possible, see 2 Cor. 52°. 

The meaning of the sentence would not be materially different if 
(Syts^ov were taken in the not impossible sense of "messenger." Cf. 
2 Cor. 12', where ay-^ekoq SaTavdc is similarly ambiguous, the phrase 
referring figuratively to a bodily aflQiction of some kind. Yet, that in 

IV, 14-15 243 

both cases the word itself denotes a superhuman being is rendered prob- 
able by Paul's evident belief in such beings and his usual use of the 
word. See Everling, Die paulinische Angelologie und Damonologie, pp. 
59/. Dib. Gw/. pp. 45 /. 

15. TToO ovv 6 }iaKapi(J}xh viimv "Where, then, is thatgratu- 
lation of yourselves?" The question is rhetorical, implying 
that the gratulation has ceased, but without good reason. C/. 
Lk. 825 : TTou 97 TTicT-TL? Vjuwj'; and for instances with different 
implication, see Rom. 3" i Cor. i^" 12^^- ^\ o5i^ has the force 
of quae cum ita sint, referring to the facts stated in vv.^^. u^ 
viXMV is probably objective genitive after ixaKapiajio^, "declara- 
tion of blessedness," as is rov avSpwirov in Rom. 4^ Even if 
viXMV be taken as subjective genitive (Sief.), it would be neces- 
sary to understand it as referring to a gratulation of themselves, 
not of others, as is shown clearly by the following sentence 
introduced by Tap and referring to the enthusiasm of the Gala- 
tians in receiving Paul. On the use of the simple pronoun for 
the reflexive, see Rob. p. 681, and the examples in the imme- 
diately preceding and following sentences, ireLpaafxbv vj^cav and 
6^ddXiJL0v<; vfxcov. 

Ilou is the reading of S*ABCFGP 33, 104, 424**, 442, 1912 f g Vg. 
Syr. (psh. hard, mg.), Boh. Arm. Euthal. Dam. Hier. Pelag. Of these 
f Vg. Boh. (?) Arm. Hier. al. add eaxc'v after ouv. DKL al. pier, d Goth. 
Syr. (hard, txt.) Thdr. Mop. Sever. Chr. Thdrt. Thphyl. Oec. Victorin. 
Aug. Ambrst. al. read liq instead of xou. DFGK al. pier, d e Goth. 
Chr. Thdrt. Aug. Ambrst. add ^v after ouv. The choice is between 
TcoG ouv and t{<; o3v ■^v, the other readings being corruptions or con- 
flations of these. Internal evidence is indecisive. Mey. and, follow- 
ing him, Zahn prefer xiq ouv ^v. But the strong preponderance of 
external evidence requires the adoption of xoO o5v. The alternative 
reading is probably an unintentional clerical corruption, IIO being 
converted into TIS, and Y omitted to make sense. 

liaprvpoi yap vfuv otl ei dwarop tov^ 6(j)da\iJL0v<; viio)v i^o- 
pv^avre<; ehwKare px)i. "For I bear you witness that ye 
would, if possible, have plucked out your eyes and given them 
to me." A confirmation immediately of the assertion impHed 
in 6 ixaKapicTixh vixm but indirectly of the affirmation of their 


former favourable attitude, which began with ovdev rjhiKriaaTe 
M€, v.". That he dwells on this matter at such length and 
states it so strongly shows the apostle's strong desire to rein- 
state himself in the affections of the Galatians. The language 
escapes hyperbole only by the expression d hvvarov. The 
inference from the reference to the eyes that Paul's weakness 
of the flesh was a disease of the eyes, though slightly favoured 
by d hvvarov in preference, e. g., to d ava'yKoiov is very pre- 

'Ttxlv is not an indirect object denoting the person who receives the 
testimony (c/. Acts 158), but dative of advantage, denoting the one to 
whose credit witness is borne (c/. Acts 22^ Rom. lo" Col. 4"). eJ 
ouvtzTbv . . . IBtixaxi [xot is evidently a hypothesis contrary to fact, av 
being omitted. Cf. BMT 249 and Mt. 26^4 Jn. 9'' 15" 1911. On the 
mention of the eyes as the most precious members of the body, cf. 
Deut. 3210 Ps. 178 Zach. 2^, and on e^opuaato of the plucking out of the 
eyes, see Hdt. 8"': e^copu^e auTdiv 6 xax-^jp Touq 6(p6aX[JLoCiq Sta tt;v 
ahiriv Ta6TiQv (viz., for going to war against his command), and other 
exx. cited by Wetst., ad loc, also Lxx, Judg. 16" (A; B reads Ixx.6xtco); 
I Sam. ii2. Jos. Anl. 6. 69 (5O uses Ixxoxtw; Mt. 5'° 18^, e^atpdto. Of 
mention of the plucking out of one's eyes as an act of self-sacrifice no 
example other than the present has been pointed out. 

16. ware ix^po^ vixmv yeyova aXrjOevooj^ v/jl7v. "So that I 
have become your enemy by telling you the truth!" ixdp6<i 
must doubtless be taken not in the passive sense, "hated by" 
(so from Homer down; and probably in Rom. 5^0 ii^^), but in 
the active sense, "hostile to," "hater of," since in N. T. (Mt. 5"^ 
Rom. 1220, et freq.) and (according to Sief. ad loc, citing Dem. 
439^3 1121^2; Xen. An. 3. 2^; Soph. Aj. 554) in classical writers 
also, ix^pd^ with the genitive regularly has this active sense. 
The passive sense requires a dative expressed or understood. 
Xen. Cyr. 5. 4^°, etc. It follows that the phrase ix^po^ vixoiv 
expresses not the fact as Paul looked at it, but the view 
which the Galatians were taking or disposed to take; and the 
sentence is either a question asking (indignantly) whether [they 
hold that] he has indeed become hostile to them by telling the 
truth, or an exclamation expressing in ex^po^ viiSiv yeyova the 

IV, 15-16 245 

view which the apostle sadly recognises the Galatians are tak- 
ing of him, and in a\r]Bevodv v^xlv the cause to which he ascribes 
their hostihty. The latter explanation is the more probable, 
for ware does not elsewhere, in N. T. at least, introduce a ques- 
tion nor bear the weak sense (= ovv) which the interrogative 
interpretation requires, ware . . . vfxlu is, then, an inference 
from the facts stated in w."- ^^, and the further premise supplied 
by the apostle's conscience, that he has done nothing to pro- 
duce this effect except to tell them the truth. ''Since you, 
then, regarded me with such affection and now count me your 
enemy, this can only have come about through my telhng you 
the truth." The appropriate punctuation is, therefore, an ex- 
clamation point. 

The question when the truth-speaking referred to in dXTjGsiiwv took 
place is of considerable interest for the chronology of Paul's relations 
to the Galatians. That it can not have been on the occasion referred to 
in w."' 15 is plain from the force of -{i-^oya, which, denoting a present 
state the result of a past act of becoming, describes a change from 
a former condition, as well as by the manifest contrariety between the 
enmity expressed in IxOpoq and the friendly relations described in 
vv."-i6. Had it been alleged that Paul had really been on that first 
visit not their friend but their enemy in that he had taught them 
things which he affirms to be true, but which his opponents called false, 
which enmity they had only discovered through the subsequent 
teachings of the judaisers, that thought must have been expressed by 
some such phrase as eyevoiJL-nv kx^phq u^jlcov tw dXTjGeuetv, or supirjpLat 
(or etVO ^X^phq b]xG)y Sea xb a^vTjGeustv (or dXifjGeCiaat). Nor can the 
truth-speaking be that of this letter, since yi-^ova implies a result al- 
ready existing, and the Galatians had not yet read the letter. Zahn, 
indeed, proposes to take it as an epistolary perfect, referring to what 
the Galatians will say when the letter is read. But aside from the 
improbability that Paul would intimate to the Galatians that the 
effect of his letter would be to make them call him their enemy, the 
very existence of the epistolary perfect is doubtful (the usage described 
in Kiihner-Gerth, 384^, Gild. Syntax, 234 is not precisely this), and, if 
one may judge from the analogy of the epistolary aorist (BMT 44), 
would be confined to verbs of writing and sending. The natural infer- 
ence, therefore, is that the reference is to things said at a second visit 
or in a letter previous to this one. That the utterances here referred 
to were those spoken of in 1% or utterances made at the same time, is 
an obvious suggestion in view of the somewhat minatory tone of i". 


This, however, if accepted, would not decide whether the utterance 
was in person or letter (since xpoetp-^xa^xsv in i' can, just as well as 
X^yo), refer to a written statement), and the present verse contributes 
to the question whether Paul had made a second visit to Galatia only 
the probabiHty that there had been some communication from Paul 
to the Galatians between the evangelising visit and this letter. Cf. 
above on v." and below on v.'"'. 

17, ^r)\o?)(Jiv vjjid<; ov KaXw?, aWa eKKXelaai ujua? dikovaiv^ 
Xva avTov<; ^rjXovre. "They zealously seek you, not honestly, 
but wish to shut you out that ye may seek them." In contrast 
with his own frank truthfulness by which he risked incurring 
and actually incurred the suspicion of hostility to the Galatians, 
the apostle declares that they — his opponents, unnamed by so 
much as a pronoun but clearly enough referred to — are courting 
the favour of the Galatians, not honourably {cf. Heb. 13^^), i. e., 
not sincerely and unselfishly, but with selfish motive. That 
from which these opponents of Paul wish to exclude the Gala- 
tians is not stated; the context implies either (a) the privilege 
of the gospel, i, e., the sense of acceptance with God which 
those have who believe themselves to have fulfilled the divine 
requirements, or (b) the circle of those who hold the broader 
view, Paul and his companions and converts, who maintain 
that the Gentiles are accepted if they have faith and without 
fulfilling the requirements of the law. In either case, the effect 
of such exclusion would be that the Galatians would turn 
to the Jewish Christians for guidance and association, and 
the latter would be in the position of being sought after 
(^rjXovTe). The verb eKKkda at rather favours the former 
interpretation, since it is not natural to speak of one group of 
persons as shutting others out from another group; a verb mean- 
ing to ahenate, or to cause separation from, would be more 
probable. On ^rfKovre, see Bl.-D. 93; Bifr 198. Whether we 
have here an irregularity of form (^7)\ovt€ being thought of as 
subjunctive) or of syntax {^TjXovre being an indicative after 
tz^a) is not possible to determine with certainty. 

18. KdXbv de ^rjXovadai ev koXw irdvTOTe^ /cat /it) fiovov iv rm 
iraptlvai jue Trpo<^ vm<;, ''But it is good to be zealously sought 

IV, 17-18 247 

after in a good thing, always, and not only when I am present 
with you." Most probably a reference to his own persistent 
seeking after the Galatians, which he by imphcation character- 
ises as eV KaXo) in contrast with that of the judaisers, which was 
ov KaXft)?, and for the continuance of which, even while absent, 
he justifies himself by this statement, enforced by v.^^. This 
interpretation retains as the implied subject of the passive 
^rfkovadai the object of the active ^rfkovre in v. ^'^^, and best 
comports with the tone of v.^^ into which he passes from this v. 
apparently without break in thought. 

ZTjXouaOxt must be taken as a passive, no instance of the middle 
being found elsewhere, and there being no occasion for change from 
active to middle form, ev xaXq> defines the sphere in which alone xaXbv 
l^TjXoua0ac is true. icdivxoTe is in evident antithesis to the following 
phrase, xal [jlt] . . . xp6<; ufjiaq. The addition of this phrase, with its 
definite personal pronoun shows that xaXbv . . . xaX(p, though in form 
simply a general maxim, had in the apostle's mind specific reference 
to the existing situation, the relations of the Galatians to Paul and his 
opponents. The words might therefore mean, "I do not object to 
others as well as myself seeking to gain your friendship, so only they 
do it in a good thing, in the realm of that which is for your good." It 
is an objection to this interpretation that tJ--Q \).(>vqv . . . u^aq awk- 
wardly expresses the idea "by others as well as myself," and that such 
a disclaimer of desire on the apostle's part to monopolise the interest 
and affection of the Galatians does not lead naturally to v.''. The 
words may also be explained by taking Paul as the implied subject of 
t;TQ>.oua6at. 'Tt is a fine thing — I myself could desire — to be sought 
after, in a good thing — always, when I am away from you as well as 
vs^hen I am present." In this case the sentence is a thinly veiled re- 
proach of the Galatians for their fickleness in changing their attitude 
towards him, now that he is no longer with them. The change in im- 
plied subject of ?;T]XoDaOat without indication that the reference is now 
to the apostle himself is an objection to this interpretation, though not 
a decisive one; the apostle may have preferred to leave the reference 
somewhat veiled. But it is difiicult on this interpretation to account 
for ev xaXo), no such qualification being called for if the apostle is think- 
ing of the Galatians seeking after him. Probably, therefore, the inter- 
pretation first proposed is the true one. Bl is in that case adversative, 
marking an antithesis between the J^tjXouv of the judaisers, which he 
disapproves, and his own, which he justifies. 


19. reKva jjlov, ou? irakiv wbivoi fJi€')(pL<; o^ jjLopcfxjody Xpto-Jo? 
iv vfiiv. "oh, my children with whom I travail again in birth 
pangs till Christ be formed in you." Language of deep affec- 
tion and emotion, called forth by the previous words defending 
his right to continue his zealous efforts to hold the affection of 
his readers, and probably to be attached to the preceding v. 
The figure is after the fashion of the apostle, and extremely 
bold; TeKva addresses them in affectionate tone as his children, 
i. e., as those whom he has already begotten or borne; 01)9 
irdXiv adivcfi represents them as again in the womb, needing a 
second (spiritual) birth, and himself as a mother suffering again 
the birth pangs, which must continue till Christ be formed in 
them, i. e., until it be true of them as of him that Christ lives in 
them (220). 

Were it not for the U at the beginning of v."", v.^' would naturally 
be tasen as the beginning of a sentence and v.^o as its completion. 
The occurrcrnce of M, however, necessitates either connecting v." with 
V.18, as in WH., or assuming an anacoluthon at the beginning of v.^o, 
as in RV. The recarrence in v.^" of the expression xapslvat xpbq b'^q, 
used also in v. ^^ implies a close connection between these vv. and 
makes it improbable that v.i' begins a new line of thought, which is 
broken off at v.". The punctuation of WH. is therefore more prob- 
ably correct than that of RV. 

The figure of speech involved in co8{vo), though startling to modem 
ears, is unambiguously clear. The precise form of the thought ex- 
pressed in [xopcptoGfi is less certain. There are three possibilities: (a) In 
themselves the words not unnaturally suggest a reversal of the preced- 
ing figure, those who were just spoken of as babes in the womb, now 
being pictured as pregnant mothers, awaiting the full development of 
the Christ begotten in them. Such abrupt change of figure is not 
uncharacteristic of the apostle. In Rom. 7^ illustrating the relation 
of the believer to the law and to Christ by remarriage, following death, 
he makes the deceased one remarry, sacrificing illustration to the thing 
illustrated. In i Thes. 2^ if, as is probable, the true text is viQxtot, 
the apostle in the same sentence calls himself a child, and a mother, 
and a nurse, each term expressing a part of his thought, and in v." 
compares himself to a father. Nor is it a serious objection to this view 
of the present passage that the apostle has not elsewhere employed the 
figure of Christ being begotten in the believers. It would be easy to 
give examples of figures of speech employed by him but once, as, e. g., 

IV, 19 249 

in this very verse the comparison of himself to a mother in birth pangs. 
Nor does he shrink from the employment of equally bold figures taken 
from the same general sphere. See Rom. y\ where he speaks of the 
believer as married to Christ and as bringing forth fruit (children) to 
God, and i Cor. 41^ and Phm. ">, where he speaks of himself as the be- 
getting father of his converts. The word piop^wO^ (occurring nowhere 
else in Lxx or N. T.) is more consonant with this view than with any 
other. Cf. the use of the synonyms xXdaaw in Jer. i^, lupb tou [xe 
xXdaai as ev xotXt'i?, Rom. 9" i Tim. 21'. The only weighty objection 
to this understanding of the figure is that it is not in itself strikingly 
appropriate for the spiritual fact to which the apostle evidently refers, 
and that when elsewhere Paul speaks of Christ in the believer (chap. 2*0 
Col. I" etfreq.) the language conveys no suggestion of pregnancy, but 
in less materialistic fashion denotes the indwelling presence of Christ. 
Yet over against this objection is to be set the fact that this passage 
contains, what all the others lack, the word [xopcpwOfj, suggesting if not 
requiring the view that here the thought of the apostle takes on a 
different form from that which it has elsewhere, (b) It is perhaps 
not impossible that without reversal of figure the apostle thinks of his 
birth pangs as continuing till the child in the womb takes on the form 
of the begetting father, who is now thought of as being not Paul but 
Christ. The choice of [Ji.op9w0'n Xptaxbc; ev u^Tv rather than, e. g., h^zlz 
ev h\i.ot.ui\iJxit. XptJTOu [xoptptoGfiTe might in this case be due to the 
influence of the apostle's favourite form of thought expressed in the 
formula Xpta^bq ev u^xlv or the like, (c) The figure suggested by 
tijStvo) may be dropped altogether, tJ.lxP"^ °^ [xop^oiGfj referring figura- 
tively, of course, but without specific thought of the birth process, to 
that spiritual process, the full achievement of which is elsewhere ex- 
pressed by Xpcaxbq ev uixtv and like phrases. Of these three concep- 
tions of the apostle's figure of speech the first seems somewhat the 
most probable; yet there is no perfectly decisive evidence for either 
as against the others. The spiritual fact for which the figure stands 
is substantially the same in any case. The reactionary step which 
the Galatians are in danger of taking, forces upon the apostle the pain- 
ful repetition of that process by which he first brought them into the 
world of faith in Christ, and his pain, he declares, must continue till 
they have really entered into vital fellowship with Christ. 

Against the strong external evidence for xlxva, ^*BD*FG Eus., 
there is no clearly pre-Syrian witness for Tsxvta except Clem. Alex.; 
For i^^ACDb et cKLP al. pier, are predominantly Syrian. But combined 
with Clem, they probably mark the reading as of Alexandrian origin. 
The adoption of Tsxvt'a by WH. txt. (mg. xexva) is a departure from 
their usual practice {cf. WH. II p. 342), for which there seems no 
sufficient warrant in the evidence. 


20. TJdeXov de irapetvai vrpo? u/xa? apri^ Kal aWd^aL T7)V 
(^03vr)V juou, oTi airopovfJiaL ev vixiv. "But I could wish to be 
present with you now, and to change my tone; because I am 
in perplexity in reference to you." Moved by his deep sense 
of the unhappy situation in Galatia (v.^O? stirred by his strong 
affection for the Galatians (v.^^) and in doubt as to what the out- 
come might be (otl awopov/JLat ev vpXv)^ the apostle regrets for 
the moment the strong language which he had used when he 
told them the truth, and so gave occasion for its being subse- 
quently said that he had become their enemy (v.^«), and ex- 
presses the fervent wish, evidently regarded as impossible to 
be carried out, that he were even now {aprC) with them and 
could speak in a different tone from that which he had used on 
that other occasion. For an entirely similar instance of strong 
language subsequently for a time regretted, see 2 Cor. 7^ and 
for the letter to which he there refers, 2 Cor., chaps. 11-13. 

On ^]6eXov, cf. BMr 33; Rob. 885/. The wish is evidently regarded 
as impracticable, though not distinctly characterised as such by the 
language, ^pxc with more sharply defined reference to the present 
moment than vuv means "at this very moment." The clause oxt 
. . . ev u|xlv suggests for dtXXci^at x'fjv 9(i)viqv ^jlou the meaning "to 
change my tone according to the situation." But the absence of a 
limiting phrase such as v-ax' dvaYxalov is against this and necessitates 
understanding it to mean, "to modify my tone," i. e., to adopt a dif- 
ferent one; yet certainly not different from the immediately preceding 
language of strong affection: to express this wish would be unaccount- 
ably harsh. The reference can only be to a tone different from that, 
doubtless less considerate, manner of speech which he had used when 
he told them the truth (v."; cf. note on that v. and reference to i^- 
oTt dcxopoGaat, giving the reason for t^BeXov, etc., probably has chief refer- 
ence to xapelvai xpbc; b^aq; because of his perplexity about them, 
he wishes he were even now present with them, li is slightly adver- 
sative. Though justifying his attitude towards the Galatians when 
he was present with them as having been Iv xaXw (v. i«), he yet 
wishes that he could now speak in a different tone, (^xopouixai is middle 
(the middle and passive forms are thus used with nearly the same 
meaning as the active in Dem. 830', etc.; Sir. 18' Lk. 24^ Jn. 13" Acts 
25'" 2 Cor, 4'). ev u^JLlv means "in respect to you," as in 2 Cor. y^'. 

IV, 20 251 

lo. A supplementary argument based on an allegorical 
use of the story of the two sons of Abraham, and 
intended to induce the Galatians to see that they 
are joining the wrong branch of the family (421-31). 
Before leaving the subject of the seed of Abraham it occurs 
to the apostle, apparently as an after-thought, that he might 
make his thought clearer and more persuasive by an allegorical 
interpretation of the story of Abraham and his two sons, Ish- 
mael and Isaac, the one born in course of nature only, the other 
in fulfilment of divine promise. The two mothers he interprets 
as representing the two covenants, that of law and that of 
promise, and the two communities, that of the lineal descen- 
dants of Abraham, and that of those who walked in the footsteps 
of his faith. In the antagonism between the two sons, or their 
descendants, he finds a parallel to the persecution to which the 
Gentile Christians have been subjected at the hands of the 
Jewish Christians, and cites scripture to show that the former 
are rejected of God. The argument is in effect this: Would 
you be, as the judaisers have been exhorting you to be, sons 
of Abraham? Be so, but observe that of the Abrahamic family 
there are two branches, the slave and the free. We, brethren, 
whose relation to Abraham is spiritual, not physical, we are the 
sons not of the slave, but of the free. 

"^^Tell me, ye that wish to be under law, do ye not hear the law? 
^"^For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the maid 
servant, and one by the freeruooman. "^^But the son of the maid 
servant was born according to the flesh; the son of the freewoman 
through promise. ^Which things are allegorical utterances. For 
these women are two covenants, one proceeding from Mount Sinai, 
bringing forth children unto bondage, which is Hagar ^^{now 
Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia) and corresponds to the Jerusa- 
lem that now is. For she is in bondage with her children. ^^But 
the Jerusalem above is free, which is our mother. "^"^For it is writ- 
ten. Rejoice thou barren woman that bearest not, break forth and 
shout, thou that travailest not. For more are the children of the 
desolate than of her that hath the husband. ^^And ye, brethren, like 
Isaac, are children of promise. ^^But as then he that was born 


according to the flesh persecuted him that was born according to 
the Spirit, so also now. ^^But what saith the scripture? Cast out 
the maid servant and her son. For the son of the maid servant 
shall not inherit with the son of the freewoman. ^^Therefore, 
brethren, we are children, not of a maid servant, but of the free- 

21. Aeyere /xot, ol vtto vo^xov BeXovTt^; elvai, rov vofiov ovk 
uKovere; ''Tell me, ye that wish to be under law, do ye not hear 
the law?" The abrupt beginning reflects excited feeling, and is 
calculated to arrest attention. Cf. chap. 3^: rovro jiovov deXcj 
IxadfTiv CKJ) vixuiv. It had apparently only just occurred to the 
apostle that he might reach his readers by such an argument as 
that which follows. The address ol virb v6/jlov OeXovre; elvav 
impHes, as is indicated throughout the letter, that the Galatians 
have not adopted, but are on the point of adopting, the legalis- 
tic principle and practices. Cf. i« 3^ 411. 17. The Galatians are 
not VTTO vo/JLOV but virb voixov BeXovTe^ elvai. vtto vofiov evi- 
dently has the same meaning as in 3^2, v.'', and in Rom. 6^"- ^^; 
the word p6fj,o<; thus bearing the same sense which it has con- 
stantly in this and the preceding chapter, divine law viewed by 
itself as a legahstic system. See note on 3^^ and detached note 
on N0V09, V 2. c. On the other hand, top voixov in itself 
probably refers, as is indicated by 422, etc., to the 0. T. scrip- 
tures (detached note, V 3), which, they had been taught, con- 
tained that legalistic system which they were urged to accept. 

22. yeypaiTTaL yap otl 'A/5paa/x dvo ulou? ea'^ev, eva e/c 
r^? 7rat5t(7/C77? Kal eva e/c rrjs iXevdepas' "For it is written that 
Abraham had two sons, one by the maid servant, and one by 
the freewoman." See Gen., chaps. 16, 17. TaihuaKT)^ properly 
referring to a young woman, and denoting age, not status, be- 
came among the Greeks a term for a female slave (see L. & S.) 
and is frequently so used in the Lxx. 

23. aXX fX€v eK rrjs TraibtaKr^s Kara adpKa yeyevvrjTai, 6 
be eK Trjs iXevdepas di eVaTTeXms. "But the son of the 
maid servant was born according to the flesh; the son of the 
freewoman through promise." Kara adpKa^ "by natural gen- 
eration," in the ordinary course of nature {cf. Rom. i^ 9^ and 

IV, 21-24 2 53 

detached note on IlvevfJia and ^dp^, p. 492, 3 (a) under (rdp^), 
and 5t' eTraTTeXias, "through promise," are antithetical, not by 
mutual exclusion, but in the fact that, though Isaac was^ begot- 
ten and born Kara crdpKa, his birth was also 5t' cTraTTeXtas, and 
was significant because of this, while the birth of Ishmael was 
simply Kctra crdpKa. On the eTrayyeXla here referred to, see 
Gen. 15^ I7^^ and cf. chap. 2,'\ The perfect yeyevvrjTai is used 
in preference to the aorist iyevridr), because the writer is think- 
ing not simply of the historical fact but of the existing result 
of that fact, in the race of Ishmael's descendants and especially 
(for yeyepvnrai belongs in thought to both members of the 
sentence) in Isaac's descendants. 

WH. bracket \ih, omitted by B f Vg. Tert. Hil. Hier. Yet the 
concurrent omission of such a word by one Grk. ms. and a small group 
of Latin authorities seems to raise no serious question of its belonging 
to the text. Between Si' iiza-ryBkiaq (SAC 33, 442 al.) and Sia Tfjq 
iTza-cre'khQ (BDFGKLP al. pier. Or.) it is impossible to choose with 
confidence. Both readings are supported by good pre-Syrian groups. 
But the probability that Paul would have opposed to xaxd: acipxa a 
qualitative St' exa-j-ysXiac; rather than used the article in referring to 
a promise not previously mentioned seems to turn the scale in favour 
of Si' e%. 

24. aTLvd ecFTiv aXkriyopoviieva' " Which things are allegori- 
cal utterances." The present tense of the participle, the mean- 
ing of the verb as estabhshed by usage, and the facts respecting 
current views, combine to make the above the only tenable 
translation, the participle being interpreted as an adjective 
participle used substantively in the predicate. BA/T 432. 
The assertion pertains not to the original sense of the passage, 
what the writer meant when he wrote it, nor to the current or 
proper interpretation of the words, but to the character of the 
utterances as they stand in the scripture. Substantially the 
same thought might have been expressed by ariva rj ypa(j)r} 
aXkrjycpel in the sense, "which things the scripture says 
allegorically," the scripture being conceived of apart from the 
author of the scripture and as now speaking. 


The verb dcXk-qyopiio, a late Greek word not found in the Lxx, and 
here only in N. T., occurs first in Strabo i. 2', though iXkrifopio: 
occurs as early as Demosthenes. Classical writers used alvizi:o[iai, 
in the sense, "to speak in riddles" {cf. Jos. Ant. Proem. 24 (4), where 
abk'zo\iai and aXkrifopioi occur together), and ux6vota of an under- 
lying figurative or allegorical meaning: Xen. Symp. 3"; Plato. Rep. 
378 D; cf. Philo, Vita contempl. 28 (3). The meanings of iXkri-xogiui 
are as follows: 

1. To speak allegorically, to utter something which has another 
meaning than that of the words taken literally — the object of the 
verb or subject in the passive being the words uttered: Philo, Leg. 
alleg. II 5 (2): aTJkdi xai TaOra cpucrtxtoq dcXXiQYOpec. Mut. nom. 67 (9); 
Jos. Ant. Proem. 24 (4); Clem. Alex. Paed. I 45 (chap, vi); Porphyr. 
Anir. Nymph. 4. In the passive, to be spoken allegorically: Porphyr. 
Vila Pythag. 12; Origen, Cels. 4=8: 'HatoSq) efprjixeva Iv [xuOou axTjixaTt 
xepl T^q Yuvatx.b<; dcXXigYopetTat. Philo, Vita contempt. 29 (3 b) xoXXct 
\x.Yr\\x£.la TTJq Ev zolq iXXTjyopoutievotq IHaq dxsXncov. Execrat. 159 (7) 

2. To speak of allegorically, the object being not the words uttered 
or the thing actually mentioned, but that to which there is underlying 
reference. Philo, Leg. alleg. II 10 (4); Plut. Es. cam. Orat. i. ^*. 
In the passive, Philo, Cherub. 25 (8): tA jxev S-f) xepou^^t^ ^^^' ?va 
Tp6xov ouTox; dXX-r) Yopelxat. Clem. Paed. I 47 (chap, vi): ouTuq 
•KoXkaxdc, dXXTjYopelTat 6 X6yo<;. Paed. I 46 (chap. vi). With a 
double object, to call (a thing something) allegorically: Clem. Paed. I 
43 (chap, vi) : adpxa •fjpLlv ih icvEutxa ih aYtov dtXXTjYopst. In the pas- 
sive, Clem. Paed. II 62 (chap, viii): ol . . . dtxoaxoXot . . . x6Se<; 
dXXifjYopouvTat xupfou. Paed. I 47 (chap, vi) bis. 

3. To interpret allegorically, i. e., to draw out the spiritual meaning 
supposed to underlie the words in their literal sense: Philo, Leg. alleg. 
Ill 238. (85): Yva . . . dXXiQYopfiq — "xotslv Tcb epYa auiroO." Origen, 
Cels. i^': a^Ttaxac xoCiq TpoxoXoYOuvxag v.a\ aXk-q-^opouYzaq auT-^v. Philo, 
Vita contempl. 28 (3 a); Origen, Com. in Joan. 201". Cels. i^*; 4"; 

487- ^30. 368_ 

For dXk-qyopU in the sense "an allegory," "a thing to be understood 
allegoricaPy," see Philo, Leg. alleg. Ill 236 (84). 

The second of these meanings of the verb is excluded for the present 
passage by the fact that axtva evidently refers either to the persons and 
events just named or to the statements concerning them, not to their 
spiritual significates, which have not yet been named; whereas this 
meaning occurs only in reference to the spiritual significates. If, then, 
we take into consideration the two remaining and for this passage 
only possible significations and the possible usages of the present 
participle in predicate, there result the following possible interpre- 
tations of eaTiv aXX., those that are too improbable to deserve con- 

IV, 24 255 

sideration being ignored: (i) laxtv 6Xk-qyoQoo[X£yx may be, so far as 
usage is concerned, a periphrastic present of customary action, and 
mean (a) "are wont to be spoken allegorically"; but this is excluded 
by the fact that the subject refers to statements taken for substance 
from scripture, of which it might be said that they were spoken alle- 
gorically, but not that they are wont to be so spoken; or (b) "are wont 
to be interpreted allegorically"; but this is excluded by the context, 
for with this meaning the following clause introduced by y&p must be 
understood as containing the interpretation thus referred to; but this 
interpretation was certainly not the current Jewish one, and it is very 
improbable that a current Christian interpretation had yet sprung up, 
or, even if it had, that it would be such as that which follows; this is 
adapted to express and sustain Paul's own conception of things, and 
must be ascribed to him rather than supposed to be borrowed by him 
from a current view. The tempting modification of this, "are to be 
interpreted allegorically," would give excellent sense, but is not sus- 
tained by Greek usage, which would have required dXkriyopri-zicz; cf. 
Origen, Lam. Jer. 1^°. Such cases as Acts 15" 21' 2 Pet. 3" are only 
apparently vouchers for such a use of the participle, since, though they 
may be translated into English by "to be," etc., they really denote 
not propriety, but impending futurity. To the same effect is the in- 
terpretation of Mey. Sief., "which things have an allegorical sense"; 
which is sustained neither by any recognised force of the participle 
nor by specific instances of such a meaning of the passive of this verb. 
(2) ea-ctv dtXXT]Yopou;x£va may be supposed to be a periphrastic present 
indicative, meaning "are spoken allegorically," equivalent to f) YP<^<P'»i 
dcXXiQYopsl, the utterance being thought of as present because made 
by the ever-present scripture. Cf. Rom. 4': t( yd:? f) ypacpT?) Xifti; 
Rom. 10'; V." below, el freq., and in the passive, Heb. 7^^ £9' 8v ydcp 
XlysTat xauTa. But for this idea a periphrastic present would scarcely 
be used, the expression being, indeed, approximately "aoristic," neither 
progression nor customariness being distinctly suggested. (3) The 
participle may be a present participle for the imperfect, referring 
to an action, strictly speaking, antecedent in time to that of the prin- 
cipal verb (BMT 127; Mt. 220, etc.). But the pres. part, is apparently 
never used in this way when the fact referred to belongs definitely to 
time distinctly past in reference to the principal verb, as must be the 
case here if the utterance is thought of as past at all. (4) It may be a 
general present participle equivalent to a noun, and meaning "alle- 
gorical utterances" (BUT 123. 432 (a); MGNTG. p. 127); cf. Jn. 
I2«, xd: ^aXXo^va "the deposits"; Rom. 10" i Cor. 15" i Thes. 2" 
5" 2 Thes. i« Gal. 5% xeptxepLvdtievoq, "one who receives circum- 
cision"; 68- " Eph. 4^8 Rom. n^s i Thes. ji", 6 pu6ixevog, "the deliverer"; 
Philo, Leg. alleg. Ill 239 (85), Tv« xb XsY^ixevov . . . yevigxat. It is 


true that N. T. furnishes no example of a present participle applied in 
just this way to utterances of scripture, such utterances, when desig- 
nated by a participle used substantively, being always elsewhere ex- 
pressed by a perfect participle (xh elpTjixivov: Lk. 2^* Acts 2^* 13" 
Rom. 4I8; Tb YSYpa^piivov: Acts 13" 241* 2 Cor. 4" Gal. 3'" Rev. i') or 
by an aorist participle (xb ^yjOIv: Mt. i" and ten other passages in 
Mt.). Yet in view of the frequent occurrence of the present participle 
of other verbs with substantive force (see exx. above) and of such 
expressions as i] ypa^T) 'kiyei (Rom. 4', etc.), Xlyerac xauxa (Heb. 7"; 
sc. 6v Ypa<?7i), and •?) Ypcc?-?) i} Xlyouaa (Jas. 2"), and the apparent use of 
dXXiQYopou^sva with substantive force, meaning "allegorical say- 
ings," in Philo, Vita contempl. 29 (3 b) cited above, such a use here is 
not improbable, and, though grammatically more difficult than inter- 
pretation (i), must because of the contextual difficulties of the former 
be preferred to it. It is substantially identical with (2), but gram- 
matically more defensible; and is in substance the interpretation of the 
ancient versions and of the Greek interpreters. See Zahn, ad loc. 
The apostle is then speaking not of what the passage meant as uttered 
by the original writer, but of the meaning conveyed by the passage as 
it stands. In common with Philo before him, and the author of the 
Epistle to the Hebrews and Origen after him, he conceived of the 
scriptures as speaking in his own day; and since Paul elsewhere in 
this epistle and in Romans speaks without qualification of Abraham 
as a historical character, it is apparent that in this passage at least 
he ascribes to the scripture as now speaking a meaning distinct from 
that which it bore as originally written, regarding the latter as repre- 
senting historic truth,* the latter as conveying spiritual truth. The 
only question can be whether in this case he regarded the spiritual 
truth as really conveyed and vouched for by scripture, or only for the 
purposes of appeal to the Galatians adopted a current method of using 
scripture. The unusualness of this method of argument on his part 
perhaps favours the latter view; but the absence of anything in the 
language of this passage {e. g., xar' avGpwxov Xlyo)) to indicate that he 
is speaking otherwise than in accordance with his own convictions, 
together with such other instances as i Cor. 9* ^° io<, favours the former. 
* Against the strong evidence that Paul ascribed historicity to the O. T. narratives, includ- 
ing those here referred to, the word aAAij-yopov/xej/a can not be cited as valid evidence to the 
contrary. For though the word may often be used when the statements literally understood 
are regarded as not historically true, yet this is not involved in the meaning of the word. 
Cf. e. g., Origen. Cels. 4", where Origen, going beyond Paul and saying that the statements 
as originally uttered were allegorically spoken ()jA.A»)Y6p7jTai), yet implies also their historicity 
in their literal sense. Philo, also, though he often rejects the literal meaning as absurd and 
false [Somn. I 102 [17]), yet in other instances clearly accepts as historically true in their 
literal sense passages which he also interprets allegorically. {Mut. notn. 81 [12]). Cf. Bous. 
Rel. d. Judent.*, p. 185, "Er [der tiefere. allegorische Sinn] tritt neben den andern [deo Sinn 
des WortlautsI, nur in den selteneren Fallen hebt er ihn auf." 

IV, 24 257 

It is doubtful whether any stress can be laid on the fact that Paul 
uses the compound relative dtxiya rather than the simple a. The 
generic force of ccTcva, "which as other like things" (cf. Th. s. v. 2; 
MGNTG. p. 91 /.; Ell. ad loc.) is appropriate enough in this place, con- 
veying the thought that the predicate aXkr^-^ogod^ya applies not sim- 
ply to the passage or events just mentioned, but to others of Hke char- 
acter in O. T. But the use of the relatives in the Pauline letters seems 
to indicate both a preference for the longer form in the nom. plur. and 
an ignoring of the distinction between these and the shorter forms. 
Thus oTxtvsq occurs in Rom. i^s. s* 2^^ f^ 9^ 11* i6<' ^ i Cor. 31^ 2 Cor. S'" 
Gal. 2< 5^ Eph. 415 Col. 4" 2 Tim. 22. is Tit. i", while ot occurs in Rom. 
16' only; a?Ttve(; occurs in Phil. 4' i Tim. i^ 6% with no instance of czY; 
ocTtva occurs, besides the present passage, in Gal. 51' Phil. 3' Col. 2"; 
the only certain instance of a in nom. is Col. 2"^'^; in i Cor. 4« and Tit. 2^ 
it was probably felt to be accus.; in Col. 2" the reading is uncertain; 
in Eph. 5 < it is possibly an accus., but more probably a nom. If, then, 
the three cases of a in the nom. (probably or certainly such), viz. 
Col. 2i'- " Tit. 21, be compared with the instances of axiva, it will be im- 
possible to discover any difference in the relation of the relative clause 
to the antecedent that will account for the use of axiva in one group 
and a in the other. This is especially clear in Col. 2". 23, where of suc- 
cessive clauses in entirely similar relation to what precedes the former 
uses a and the latter axtva. There is even less reason for ascribing to 
tjtk; in vv."- '« any force different from that of the simple relative 
than in the case of artva here; for not only is it difficult to discover 
any of the logical relations sometimes intimated by the use of the 
compound relative, but Paul's uniform employment of T^xcq for the 
fem. sing. nom. forbids any argument based on his use of it here in 
preference to \ 

avrat yap eiaiv hvo haBriKai^ fiCa jiev cltto opovs ^lpci, "For 
these women are two covenants, one proceeding from Mount 
Sinai." With these words the apostle proceeds to give the alle- 
gorical interpretation of the persons and events referred to in 
yy 22. 23^ ^\ g_^ to point out what they mean when they are taken 
as allegorical utterances. From this point of view elaLV is to 
be interpreted as meaning in effect "represent," "stand for." 
Cf. Mt. 1338 Mk. 142*; Philo, Cherub. 23 (7): ylvercHOvvro 
ixev erepov tcov 'x^epov^lp, 97 e^WTaTco {a^aCpa). On hadrfKai^ 
here meaning "covenants," not "testaments," see detached 
note on AiadriKr}, p. 496. Of the two covenants here referred to, 
the first only is named, the phrase fJ^ia . . . StJ'a identifying it 


as the covenant involved in the giving of the law, a familiar 
idea, as is shown by Heb. 8^ (quoting Jer. 31^2) g* 2 Cor. 3 6- ^* 
Sir. 2423 Ps. Sol. lo^ The erepa diadr/KT] imphed in 5uo dLadrj- 
KaL and /xt'a is left unnamed, but is evidently that of 
which faith is the basal principle and which is referred to in 
3^^^^ as a covenant in contrast with the law, which is not there 
designated as a covenant. 

els hovXelav ytvvoiaa^ ''bringing forth children unto bond- 
age," i. e., bearing children destined to be slaves. The par- 
ticiple is adjective in force and timeless (BMr 123, 420). Ap- 
plied to Hagar the phrase designates her as one who, being a 
slave woman, bears children who share her status of slavery. 
As applied to the Sinai covenant it refers to the fact that they 
who came under this covenant were in the position of slaves as 
being in bondage to the law. Cf. 4^ The form of the expres- 
sion, yevpcbaa^ etc., is, of course, determined by the fact Ht- 
erally taken; there is nothing in the spiritual experience exactly 
corresponding to the child-bearing. 

It is assumed in O. T. that in general the offspring of a man's slaves 
were also his slaves. See Gen. 141^ 17^^- ". The status of the children 
which a slave concubine bore to her master is not definitely defined. 
The Genesis story of Hagar and Ishmael indicates that the slave mother 
remained a slave at least in cases in which she had been a slave before 
becoming her master's concubine, and that her son was not ipso facto 
the heir of his father (Gen. 211°), but suggests that the status of the 
son was at the option of the father. 

TJTLS edTLv "Ay ap, "which is Hagar." The clause is best 
taken as identifying. On the force of ^rts, see above on driva 
and on that of eVrtV^ see eiaii^^ above. This clause simply 
states that of the two women named above, Hagar represents 
in the allegory the covenant that proceeded from Sinai. 

25. TO de^Ayap ^iva opos iarlv eV rrj 'Apa^ia^ ''Now Hagar is 
Mount Sinai in Arabia." It is not the woman Hagar (rj "Ayap) 
of whom the statement is made, either as a historical person or 
as a character in the narrative to which he is giving an allegori- 
cal interpretation, but either the word, in which case iarlv 
affirms the equivalence of the two expressions "Ayap and ^lv^ 


opos (note the neuter article; cf. W. XVIII 3; Rob. 766), or, 
by association of opos after '^Lvd with both'^ATap and Stz^a, the 
mountain {cf. WH. vol. II, ad loc, citing as parallel cases 
Rom. 2282- 329). The clause accordingly imphes that Mount 
Sinai was sometimes, directly or by implication, called Hagar 
or something sufficiently similar in sound to be so represented 
in Greek. Whether the statement is from the apostle or, as is 
on the whole more probable, a gloss from the hand of a scribe 
(see below, in discussion of the text), its intent is to confirm the 
previously affirmed identification of Hagar with the covenant 
proceeding from Sinai. Such a double name of the mountain 
has from the historical point of view no real value, of course, 
as proving a relation between Hagar and the Mount Sinai cov- 
enant; still less as proving that the favour of God rests on 
the spiritual followers of Abraham's faith rather than on his 
physical descendants. But the statement is consonant with the 
allegorical method of interpretation which the whole paragraph 
illustrates. If it is a gloss, it is by that fact a parenthesis, and 
is probably so in any case. The use of 5e (rather than yap) is 
probably due to the fact that as a parenthesis it is felt to be 
additional and incidental rather than a part of the main argu- 
ment. Cf. Th. s. V. 6, and, as illustrating the approximation 
of 5e and 7 dp in meaning which led to their interchange, see i^^ 

The following are the readings of the first clause attested by ancient 
evidence : 

(a) xb yap Stva opoq Icj-rfv: J<CFG 33 (but 33* app. zhU) f g Vg. 
Arm. Aeth. Orig. (both Lat. tr. and Gr. as testified by Athan.; see 
Zahn, p. 296, citing Goltz.). Sah. reads: quae vero mons Sina est. 
Goth, omits fap. It is important to note, however, that 5< adds ov, 
reading: zh ydfe? Stvd: opoq eaiXv 6v ev x'n 'Apa^t'cjc, "For Sinai is a 
mountain, being in Arabia." But since without "Ayap there would 
be no occasion to insert ov, the probability is that "Ayocp has fallen 
out, and that the testimony of S is really in favour of the presence of 
"Ayap in the text, (b) xb ya? "Ayap Stva opo<; laxt'v: KLP 33** 
al. pier. Syr. (psh. et hard, txt.) Arm. Chrys. Theod. Mops. Thdrt. 
Thphyl. (c) xb ydtp "Ayap opoq iaziv: d. (d) xb Se "Ayap Stvct 3poq 
iaxb: ABD 31, 442, 436, 40 lect. Syr. (hard. mg.). Boh.: "Ayap S^ Iltvd: 
etc., some mss. omitting oi. 


Of these readings both the character of the witnesses to (b) and its 
apparently conflate character indicate that it is derivative; (c) is too 
slightly attested to be considered. Modern editors are divided be- 
tween (a) and (d), Westcott, Ltft., Zahn adopting (a), Hort, Ws. 
Sief. (d). The latter seems, on the whole, best supported. If the 
presence of ov in i< in effect makes that ms. a witness not against but 
for a text containing "Ayap {cj. Sief. ad loc), the external evidence is 
distinctly more favourable to (d) than to (a) ; and transcriptional prob- 
ability is likewise in favour of (d), since whether through the accidental 
omission of AEA, or through a feeling of the difficulty of this reading, 
(d) is easily susceptible of modification into (a) while there is nothing 
in the form or meaning of (a) to make its conversion into (d) likely. 

The difficulty of interpretation, especially the absence of definite 
evidence of any usage that would account for the identification of 
Hagar and Sinai, either as names or places suggests the possibility of 
an interpolation at this point. Bentley (Letter to Mill, p. 45 ; accord- 
ing to Ellis, Bentleii Crit. Sac, he afterwards changed his mind and 
adopted reading (a)) suggested that the words Stvd Zgoq eaxlv ev t^ 
'Apa^fcjc were a marginal gloss afterwards introduced into the text; 
and Holsten, Das Evangelium des Paulus, I. i, p. 171, et al., conjecture 
that the whole sentence xb Se . . . 'Apa^fqc is an interpolation. Cf. 
Clemen, Einheitlichkeit der Paulinischen Brief e, pp. 118/. 

Either of these conjectural emendations would remove the obscurity 
of the passage as representing the thought of Paul, and transfer the 
words to another writer who would perhaps feel no necessity for a 
better basis for this additional piece of allegorising than his own imagi- 
nation, or who may have heard Mount Sinai called "A-j-ap or the like. 
Of the two suggestions that of Holsten is the simpler and more prob- 
able, and, in view of the process bv which the Pauline epistles were 
collected and transmitted, not in itself improbable. See notes on 2>^^^ 
and 3". 

Precisely what the fact was of which the apostle thus avails himself 
(if he wrote the sentence) we do not with certainty know. It may 
have been that he was aware that the Arabians or certain tribes of them 
were called sons of Hagar (D"'1Jn, 'AYYaprjvof, Ps. 83 7; aiNnjn, 'Ayapigvof, 
I Chron. $^\ cf. Ltft. ad loc). Or he may have had in mind that there 
is an Arabic word, b^-gar, which may be reproduced in Hebrew as 
ijn and signifies "cliff, rock"; it is possible that the word may have 
been applied by the Arabs to that particular mountain which in Paul's 
day was regarded as the scene of the giving of the law. To this it is 
no serious objection that the name of the mountain was on this theory 
njn, while that of the woman was "ijn, for scientific exactness 
in such a matter is not to be expected of an ancient writer. In the 
absence of definite evidence, however, that the word "A-j-ap, or anything 

IV, 25 26i 

closely resembling it, was applied to a mountain also known as Stvi, all 
such suggestions must remain conjectures only. See Ltft,, detached 
note, pp. 197^. This fact has influenced Ltft. Wies. Zahn, et al., to 
adopt the otherwise inferiorly attested reading xb Ycip Scvd: 8po<; IgtIv 
^v ifi 'Apa^lq:, interpreting it, however, variously. Ltft. translates: 
"For Sinai is a mountain in Arabia," i. e., in the land of bondsmen 
themselves descended from Hagar, and finds in this statement a con- 
firmation not of riTnq eaxlv "Ayap, but of elq SouXefav yevvdaa. Zahn 
interprets "For Mount Sinai is in Arabia," i. e., not in the promised 
land, the possession of which is the central element of the divine prom- 
ise; from which it follows that the Sinai covenant does not involve the 
fulfilment of the promise, but, on the contrary, the enslavement of 
those to whom it is given. Both interpretations perhaps involve Paul's 
assuming a knowledge on the part of the Galatians hardly likely to be 
possessed by them; but the decisive reasons are against the text rather 
than against the interpretation. See textual note. Ell. and Sief. 
reading xb hk "Ayap understand the words ev x^ 'Apa^iqc as defining not 
the location of Mount Sinai, but the region in which the name Hagar 
is applied to Sinai. This would be entirely possible if, instead of 
6ax{v, Paul had written /.aXecxat (with the necessary change in the 
order of the words preceding opo<;), but of such a geographical expres- 
sion used in this sense in such a sentence as this no example is cited. 

(Tvvcrroix^l be rfj vvv 'lepouo-aX^/z, *'and corresponds to the 
Jerusalem that now is." Best understood as continuing tjtis 
eurXv "kyap after the parenthetical to he ''Ayap . . . ^kpa^ia. 
Yet the logical subject of (Jvvaroi'xf^l is rather "Ayap than ^tls 
(= jiia dLadrJKT])^ as SouXeuet ydp indicates. The words con- 
tinue the allegorical explanation of the O. T. passage, point by 
point. "The Jerusalem that now is" is manifestly used by 
metonymy for that Judaism of which Jerusalem was the centre. 

The military use of auvaxotxetv, "to stand in the same file" (Polyb. 
10. 23 (21)'') suggests that the two terms referred to are in the same 
column, on the same side of the parallehsm. Thus Ltft., who repre- 
sents the thought thus: 

Hagar, the bond woman. Sarah, the freewoman. 

Ishmael, the child after the flesh. Isaac, the child of promise. 
The old covenant. The new covenant. 

The earthly Jerusalem. The heavenly Jerusalem, 

But the language of the apostle (note the use of the singular number 
and the term-by-term parallelism) indicates that he is not simply put- 



ting things into two columns, one containing all that falls on the side 
of the bond and the other all that belongs to the free, but is pointing 
out the equivalents of the several elements of the narrative allegori- 
cally treated. If, then, it is necessary to take the word in the precise 
sense suggested by Polybius, the following would seem to be the dia- 
gram that would represent the thought, the items i, 2, 3, 4, at the 
head of the several columns representing the four elements of the nar- 
rative on which the apostle puts an allegorical interpretation, and the 
items below each of these representing the things for which they stand. 





Hagar, the bond 

Ishmael, born after 

Sarah, the freewo- 

Isaac, born according 

woman, bearing 

the flesh, born unto 

man (bearing free 

to promise. 

children unto bond- 






The covenant from 

The new covenant. 




The Jerusalem that 

The children of Jeru- 

Jerusalem that is 

The children of Jeru- 

now is. 

salem in bondage 


salem above, ac- 

to legalism. 

cording to promise, 

Yet it is doubtful whether our interpretation should be so strictly 
governed by the Polybius passage (which is itself not perfectly clear, 
and to which no parallel has been cited). The use of the verb in 
Musonius (c/. L. & S.) in a less technical sense, and the use of auaxoix^a 
in Aristotle (Mdaph. i. 5, 6 (986a"), et al.,) to denote the relation of the 
members of a correlative pair, such as "odd and even," "right and 
left," suggests that Paul here meant simply "is correlative to," "in 
the parallelism between narrative and its allegorical significance is the 
corresponding term." The statement of Sief. that this sense would 
require ivxtaxotxet is true only in the sense that if the apostle had 
had in mind two columns in one of which stood the terms of the narra- 
tive itself and in the other antithetically term for term their spiritual 
significates, he would probably have used ivTiarotxei. But the idea 
of correspondence, equivalence, calls not for t^vrcaTocxec but auvarotxet. 

8ov\ev€L yap tiera rcov reKvo^v avrrjs' "for she is in bond- 
age with her children": justification of the parallelism just 
affirmed between Hagar and Jerusalem. As Hagar, a slave, 
bore children that by that birth passed into slavery, so the 
Jerusalem that now is and her children, viz., all the adherents of 
legalistic Judaism which has its centre in Jersualem, are in 
bondage to law. 

IV, 25-26 263 

26. r} 5e avoi 'lepoucaX^iU ekevQepa luriv^ "But the Jerusalem 
above is free." Instead of a formally perfect antithesis, either 
the Jerusalem that now is, and the Jerusalem that is to be, or 
the Jerusalem on earth and the Jerusalem above, the apostle 
mingles the two forms. The same point of view from which 
the seed of Abraham are, not the Jews, but believers in Christ, 
makes the new Jerusalem not the Jevvish capital, but the com- 
munity of believers in Jesus the Christ, and the conception of 
that community as destined soon to take up its abode in heaven 
(i Thes. 4^^-) and as already hving the heavenly hfe {cj. Phil. 
32^^- Col. 3^-3) converts the Jerusalem that is to be, which would 
be the strict antithesis to the Jerusalem that now is, into the 
Jerusalem above (already existent). Heb. 12^^*^- (see esp. v.^-) 
presents a similar contrast between Mount Sinai as the place 
and symbol of the giving of the law, and the heavenly Jerusalem 
as representing the community of believers icj. v.^^), probably 
independently developed from the same root, not, of course, 
the source of Paul's expression here. The freedom referred to 
in iXevdepa is manifestly the same that is spoken of in 2^ 5^, and 
implied in antithesis to the dovKeia spoken of in 4^-^^ 

The conception of a restored and beautiful Jerusalem appears even 
in the O. T., Ezek., chaps. 40^. Zech., chap. 2 Hag. 2«'', and in other 
pre-Chnstian Jewish writings: Sir. 361'^ Tob. 13'''^ 14^ Ps. Sol. 17". In 
I Enoch go^s- " the displacement of the old house by a new one is pre- 
dicted (cf. Hag. 29). See Bous., Rel. d. Jtcd.\ p. 273; Charles, The 
Book of Enoch, note on 90". This conception of a new Jerusalem 
(though the precise phrase is apparently found first in Rev. 3" 21 2, cf. 
4 Ezr. 7" 13^8; Apoc. Bar. 32^, which, like the Apocalypse of John, were 
written after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 a. d.) doubtless fur- 
nished the apostle with the basis of his conception here expressed. 

rjTis eaTlv fxrJTrjp r}iiaiV "which is our mother." The form 
of expression is derived from the allegory of Hagar and 
Sarah; rjixuiv refers to believers in Christ in general; the idea 
literally expressed would be, of which (community) we are 
members. The addition of TrdvTOiv by TR. may perhaps be 
traced to Polyc. Phil, chap.- 3, or to the influence of Rom. 4^^ 
On the force of tjt is ^ see note on ar iva (v.^''). 


27. TeTPctTrrat yh.p " EvcfypdvdrjTL, arelpa rj ov TiKTovaa- 
prj^ov Kal ^orjGov^ 97 ovk wbCvovcra' otl woXka ra reKva Trjs 
ipi]p,ov fxaXXov rj rrjs ixovarjs rbv avbpa'* "For it is written 
Rejoice thou barren woman that bearest not, break forth and 
shout, thou that travailest not. For more are the children of 
the desolate than of her that hath the husband." The quota- 
tion is from Isa. 54^, and follows exactly the text of the Lxx 
(B«AQ), which neglects to translate the Hil, "rejoicing," 
"singing," of the Hebrew. In the prophet the words are prob- 
ably to be joined with 52^2; they are conceived of as addressed 
to the ideal Zion, bidding her rejoice in the return of the exiles, 
Yahweh leading {cf. 527-12). xhe barren woman is Jerusalem 
in the absence of the exiles, the woman that hath a husband is 
Jerusalem before the exile; and the comparison signifies that her 
prosperity after the return from exile was to exceed that which 
she had enjoyed before the captivity. There may possibly 
underlie the words of the prophet a reference to Sarah and 
Hagar as suggesting the symbolism of the passage {cf. 512), but 
there is no clear indication of this. The apostle, also, in quot- 
ing them may have thought of the barren woman as corre- 
sponding to Sarah, who till late in life had no child, and the 
woman that hath a husband to Hagar. But his chief thought 
is of the 0. T. passage as justifying or illustrating his concep- 
tion of a new redeemed Jerusalem whose glory is to surpass 
that of the old, the language being all the more appropriate for 
his purpose because it involved the same figure of Jerusalem as 
a mother, which he had himself just employed, unless, indeed, 
v.26 is itself suggested by the passage which was about to be 
quoted. There is a possible further basis for the apostle's use 
of the passage in the fact that its context expresses the thought 
that God is the redeemer not of Israel after the flesh, but of 
those in whose heart is his law {cf. 51I-8, esp. v. 7). But whether 
the apostle had this context in mind is not indicated. The ydp 
is doubtless confirmatory, and connects the whole statement 
with rjTis e(TTlv pi]TT]p r)}JL(ov. 

28. vp.eis de, adeXcfyou, Kara Ttraa/c iwayyeXias reKva iare- 
"And ye, brethren, Hke Isaac, are children of promise." With 


this sentence the apostle takes up his allegorical development 
of the O. T. narrative at a new point. Having in vv.^^. 23 
developed it with reference to the two women, which he has 
made to represent the two communities, and incidentally en- 
forced his thought by a quotation from the prophets, he now 
makes use of the sons, Isaac and Ishmael, and more pointedly 
applies his allegory to his readers. Note the address u/xets 5e, 
ade\(})OL. As Isaac was born in fulfilment of a promise, not in 
the usual course of nature, so Paul assures the Galatians, they 
also are children of promise, whose standing with God rests 
not on physical descent, but on the promise made to Abraham, 
which has already been interpreted as applying to all who have 
faith (3 7' «• 1°). 5e is continuative, introducing this element of 
the allegorical interpretation of the O. T. passage as an addi- 
tion to that of vv.24-27. 

As in 4^, evidence is very evenly divided between b^izlq . . . iaxi 
and T?i[xet<; . . . eafxlv. The former is attested by the group BDG, 
supported by S3, 424** Sah., the latter by SAC with the concurrence 
of LP f Boh. and Cyr. and the great body of the Syrian authorities. 
Transcriptional probability favours u^ielq . . . eaxe, the change of 
this form to the first person being more easily explicable as due to 
assimilation to vv. ". 31 than the reverse. b[i£lq is unobjectionable on 
grounds of intrinsic probability, such changes of person being charac- 
teristic of Paul; cf. 423-29. 

KwzSc in the sense ''like," "after the manner of," occurs not infre- 
quently in classic writers (L. & S. s. v. B. Ill 3) and in N. T. Cf. 
Eph. 4^* I Pet. ii« 4« Heb. 8'. The position of exayyeXtaq (gen. of 
characteristic) is emphatic. The term is qualitative, but the reference 
is undoubtedly to the promise already repeatedly referred to in the 
epistle (31s- IS- *!• «). Whose children they are, whether sons of God 
or sons of Abraham is not emphasised; but the context as a whole 
implies the latter. To take xixva as meaning children of the Jerusalem 
above (Sief.) is to insist upon a closeness of connection with v." which 
is not only not justified by anything in this v. but is practically excluded 
by the phrase xa-ua 'laadtx and vv.^ff- 

29. oKX wcTTvep Tore Kara adpKa yevvqSds ebCo^Ke tov 
Kara wuevfia, ovroos Kal vvv. "But as then he that was born 
according to the flesh persecuted him that was born according 
to the Spirit, so also now." The persecution which the Gentile 


Christians had suffered at the hands of the descendants of 
Abraham according to the flesh, the apostle adroitly converts 
to the purposes of his allegorical argument by pointing out 
that this fact had its analogue in the relations of Ishmael and 
Isaac. In speaking of the persecution of those who are accord- 
ing to the Spirit the apostle probably has in mind chiefly the 
persistent efforts of the judaisers to induce the Galatians to take 
on the burden of the law. Cf. y}^ i^ 510, cf. also 2,\ though 
as shown there that passage does not necessarily refer to per- 
secutions. That persecutions of a more violent nature and at 
the hands of Jews {cf. i Thes. 2^^' i^) are also in mind is possible 
but not probable. The persecution of Isaac probably refers to 
Gen. 219, and the traditions that had gathered about it, but 
the apostle may also have had in mind the mutual hostility of 
the nations supposed to have descended from the two brothers. 

The adversative dXXd introduces a fact which is on the face of it in 
contrast with the preceding statement. 6 xara adpxa is, of course, in 
the literal sense Ishmael. Cf. on v.". In the allegorical interpretation 
it stands for those who are descendants of Abraham, but do not walk 
in the footsteps of his faith. The Lxx of Gen. 21 « reads xac^ovra 
[xexd: 'laadx tou ulou eauTi^<;, On the possibiHty that this represents 
an original Hebrew different from our present Hebrew, and on the 
rabbinic expansion of the incident, see Ltft. ad loc. The Talmud 
(Beresch. Rabb. 531^) says: "Dixit Ismael Isaaco: Eamus et videamus 
portionem nostram in agro; et tulit Ismael arcum et sagittas, et jacu- 
latus est Isaacum et prae se tulit, ac si luderet." (Quoted by Wies. 
ad loc.) For xaxd xveOfxa we should naturally expect xkt' iTCayysXfav 
(3") or IC ixayyeXiaq (v.^'). The introduction of TcveOtJia might natu- 
rally be explained as a substitution of the giver of the promise for the 
promise. But while Paul speaks of the Spirit as the content of the 
promise (3"), he is not wont to speak of the promises or prophecies as 
given by the Spirit (cf Mk. 123"), and in the absence of such usage it 
seems necessary to suppose that the phrase stands in the clause by a 
species of trajection from the clause which expresses the second element 
of the comparison, ouxtoq xa\ vuv. The full sentence would have read 
waxep ydp . . . eSc'wxe xbv xaxd exayYcXtev, ouxwg xal vuv 6 xaxot adpxa 
Tbv xaxd xveu[xa. Cf. Rom. 8'. That xveufxa is in the apostle's vocab- 
ulary the usual antithesis to adp^ (cf 3* 51". i? 53 Rom. 8*^) may 
also have had some influence. If the phrase be thought of strictly 
with reference to Isaac it must be explained by the fact that the orom- 

rv, 29-31 267 

ise pertaining to Isaac involved also the ultimate bestowal of the 
Spirit. Cf. 31^ But see also Philo, Leg. alleg. Ill 219 (77): 'Icadx 
ey^vvYjaev 6 xuptoq. 

30. aWa TL \eyei rj ypacfyrj; ""E/CySaXe rrjv TraihiaKrjV koltov 
vlov avrrjs, ov yap ixrj KkrjpovojJLrfdti 6 vlbs rrjs TraihiUKqs fxera 
Tov vlov rrjs i^evdepas." "But what saith the scripture? 
Cast out the maid servant and her son: for the son of the maid 
servant shall not inherit with the son of the freewoman." As 
over against the fact that the Gentile Christians arc children of 
promise he set in contrast the fact of their persecution, so over 
against this last he introduces with a\\d the language of scrip- 
ture concerning the persecutor. The quotation is from Gen. 
21^°, and follows the Lxx except that it omits ravriqv 
after iraihCdKrjv and substitutes t^s iXevOepas for fJiov 'Icraa/c 
at the end. The language is that of Sarah to Abraham, but 
probably neither this fact nor the statement of v.^^ ^h^t Qod 
said to Abraham, "In all that Sarah saith unto thee, hearken 
unto her voice," has anything to do with Paul's use of this 
passage here. From the point of view of the allegorical inter- 
pretation every scripture is significant; cf. under v.^^ Alle- 
gorically interpreted the expulsion of Ishmael points to a 
rejection of the children of Abraham according to the flesh in 
favour of the sons of Abraham by faith. 

31. 5lo, adeK(fx)i, ovk ecFjiev TraibidKr^s reKva aXXa rrjs 
iXevdepas. "Therefore, brethren, we are children not of a 
maid servant, but of the freewoman." The omission of the 
article before TraiStV/CT^s gives to the term a qualitative empha- 
sis: "not of a slave woman"; while the article inserted before 
iXevdepas makes this expression refer specifically to the free 
mother Sarah, and to that which in the allegorical interpreta- 
tion corresponds to Sarah, the Christian community or church. 
Translated into terms more directly expressing the spiritual 
fact the sentence means that we who have faith belong not to 
a community or nation that is in bondage to the legal statutes 
(cf. vv.^-^°), but to that community of believers whose relation 
to God is that of sons, having the spirit of sonship, not of bond- 


age (vv.^' ^). Taken in its connection it constitutes a brief 
statement of the doctrine of the rejection of Israel according to 
the flesh which is expounded at length in Rom., chaps. 9-1 1. 
That the conclusion is derived from an allegorical argument in 
no way diminishes its value as a disclosure of Paul's thought, 
the allegory being itself resorted to for the very purpose of pre- 
senting his thought more convincingly to his readers. Cf. on 
v.2^ The validity of the argument itself as a piece of exegesis 
depends, of course, upon the validity of the allegorical method 
in general and its applicability to this passage in particular. 
Its postulates are that the 0. T. story of Isaac and Ishmael 
bears a meaning which is to be derived from it by reading it as 
an allegory, and that Isaac represents the spiritual seed of 
Abraham, viz., those who, by faith like Abraham's, come into 
filial relation to God like that of free sons to a father, Ishmael 
standing for those whose relation to Abraham is simply that of 
natural descent. Whether Paul himself accepted these prem- 
ises and ascribed a corresponding validity to his argument, or 
only meant by such an argument to bring his thought before 
his readers in a form which would appeal to them, is, as said 
above, not wholly clear. Presumably he did conceive that the 
argument had some real value; though in view of his use of 
scripture in general it can scarcely be doubted that it was for 
him not determinative of his view, but only confirmatory of an 
opinion reached in some other way. On TraihCaKr]^ cf. v.^^. 

This verse is so evidently by its very terms — note xat5t(7/C7;s, 
iXevdepas, etc., occurring in the preceding verses but not after 
this point — the conclusion of the allegorical argument intro- 
duced in V.21, that it is surprising that it should ever have been 
thought of otherwise. So, e. g., Meyer. It is a matter of less 
consequence whether v.^^ is an inference from v.^" or the sum- 
mary of 21-30^ gut since from v.^", even if the premise, "we 
as Christians correspond to Isaac" (cf. Sief.), be supphed, the 
natural conclusion is not "we are children of the free," but, "we 
as children of the freewoman are heirs of the promise"; it is 
more probable that we should take this sentence as the summa- 
tion of the whole allegorical argument (cf. the use of 5to in 

IV, 31 269 

2 Cor. 12^° I Thes. 5") and as expressing the thought which 
the apostle wished by this whole paragraph to impress upon 
the minds of the Galatians. 


I. Exhortations directly connected with the doctrine of 
the letter (5^-6^). 

{a) Appeal to the Galatians to stand fast in their free- 
dom in Christ {s"-^"). 

Having in i"-22^ defended his own independent right to 
preach the gospel to the Gentiles uncontrolled by any others, 
even those who were apostles before him, and in chaps. 3, 4 
having answered the arguments of his opponents in favour of 
the imposition of legalism upon Gentile Christians, the apostle 
now passes to fervent exhortation of his readers not to sur- 
render the freedom which they have in Christ Jesus. 

^With this freedom Christ set us free: stand, therefore, and be not 
entangled again in a yoke of bondage. "^Behold, I, Paul, say to you 
that if ye shall be circumcised, Christ will be of no advantage to 
you. ^And I protest again to every man that receiveth circumcision 
that he is bound to do the whole law. ^Ye have severed your rela- 
tion to Christ, ye who are seeking to be justified in law. Ye 
have fallen away from grace. ^For we, by the Spirit, by faith, 
wait for a hoped-for righteousness. ^For in Christ Jesus neither 
circumcision availeth anything nor uncircumcision, but faith work- 
ing through love. "^Ye were running well; who hindered you from 
obeying truth ? ^This persuasion is not from him that calleth you. 
^A little leaven is leavening the whole lump. ^°/ have confidence, 
in the Lord, respecting you that ye will take no other view than this; 
but he that troubleth you shall bear his judgment, whoever he may 
be. ^^And I, brethren, if I am still preaching circumcision, why 
am I still being persecuted ? Then is the stumbling-block of the 
cross done away with. ^H would that they who are disturbing you 
would even have themselves mutilated. 


1. TT] eKevOepia r)}xa<^ Xptcrros rfKevdepcjiaev ari^Kere ovv kolX 
fjLT) TTokiv ^vyw hov\eia<i eVe\;eo-^e. "With this freedom Christ 
set us free: stand, therefore, and be not entangled again in a 
yoke of bondage." With this reading of the text (see textual 
note below) these words are not to be attached to 4^^ (so Zahn, 
e. g., reading rj iXevdepLo), but constitute an independent sen- 
tence in which, the allegory of 421-31 being left behind, the apostle 
expresses himself in language akin to that of 44-11. 'pj^^ gg^- 
tence, without connective particle ovp or ycip to mark its rela- 
tion to what precedes, constitutes a transition paragraph of 
itself, on the one side a summary of 421-31 (but without its alle- 
gorical terminology) if not also of chaps. 3, 4 as a whole, and 
on the other an introduction to the exhortations of chap. 5. 
The article before eKevdepCa is restrictive, referring to that 
freedom from the law with which the whole epistle from 2^ on 
has dealt; see esp. 322-25 49. 31 Qn Xpt(7r6? r)\evdepcoaev cf. for 
substance of thought 31^ 4^. The sentence is, in fact, an epitome 
of the contention of the whole letter. 

The variations of the textual evidence are so complex as to m?,ke 
clear exposition of them difficult. The chief variations may be set 
forth as follows: 

I. Respecting the words immediately accompanying eXeu6ep((jt: 

1. Tfi eXsu6ep((? (without v following): XABCD*HP 31, 33, 442, 

al. Sah. Arm. Syr. (hard.) Euthal. Thrdt. Dam.; iji ydp eX.: 
Boh.; Iv Tfj: Chr. 

2. Tfj eXeuGepfqc V- D^^^'^K.L, the great body of cursives, Syr. 

(psh. et hard.) Marc. Chr. Cyr. Thdrt. Thphyl. Oec. al. 

3. V i'kzuQepicf: FG d f g Vg. Goth. Tert. Or. Victorin. Hier. 

Ambrst. Aug. 
II. Respecting the position of iiixa^: 

1. eXeuOep. ■^[mq Xp.: i<*ABDFGP 31, $3, 3^7, 2125, some 

mss. of the Vulg. Goth. Cyr. Dam. 

2. IXeuGsp. Xp. -^uiaq: S'CKL, most of the cursives, Chr. Thrdt. 

Tert. Victorin. Hier. 

3. Xp. ifjXeuOeptoaev TfjiJ-aq: Thphyl. (so Ltft.). 
III. Respecting oiJv : 

1. After IXeuOept'?: C^KL and many cursives, Marc. Dam. 

Thphyl. Oec. 

2. After aTTjxsxe: t<ABCFGP S3, io4, 33^, 424**, 442, 191 2, 

f g Goth. Boh. Sah. Eth. Arm. Bas. Cyr. Or '"t- Victorin. Aug. 

V, I 271 

3. Omit in both places: D d 263, 1908, Vg. Syr. (hard.) Thdrt. 
Chr. Dam. 
The weight of external evidence thus strongly favours xf) e>v6u6ep{(? 
■fi[Laq XpiQihq rikeuUgoiceV aTY)X£Te ouv, and the originality of this 
reading is confirmed by the fact that it accounts for all the rest. It is 
adopted by Ln. Tdf. Alf. WH. Sief. Those who have preferred 
another reading (Ell. Ltft.: xf) aeu6ept(}c v; Zahn: v £Xeu6ep{c?) have 
done so on the ground of the syntactical difficulty of ifl e>^eu0epf(? as a 
limitation of TjXeuOipwaev. But this construction, though unusual, 
does not seem to be impossible (see exegetical notes). On the other 
hand, Hort's suggestion that Tfj is a primitive error for ex' (cf. v. ", 
sTc' sXeuOepft? ixXxiQ-qiz) has much to commend it. The only choice is 
between xf) IX. -fjix., etc., which is undoubtedly the parent of all the 
other existing readings, and ex' iX. ■i]\x. as the unattested original of the 

The dative xfj eXeuOepf? is to be explained as a dative of instrument 
(not intensive as in Lk. 2215, ext0u;jn'(jc exeeu'^Tjcra, and Jas. 5^^ xpoaeuxfj 
xpoasu^xo, in which case the noun, being quahtative, would be with- 
out the article), but descriptive, "by (bestowing) the freedom (spoken 
of above) Christ made us free"; cf. Jn. 12^3, xoiw Savaxw i^p-eXXev 
(ixo9vY)axeiv. To this view the article is no objection: cf. i Thes. 3^ 
TcaaT] XXI X^F? V xoiipo[iey, where the relative v limiting xafpo[Aev has all 
the definiteness of xfi X^P?- Or i^ "^^.y be a dative of destination {cf. 
Acts 22": xpoexetvavaiJTbv lolqV^aaiv: "They stretched him out for the 
thongs" with which he was to be scourged). The meaning would then 
be: " For the freedom (above spoken of) Christ set us free." The latter 
interpretation is favoured somewhat by v.^% and perhaps by the ab- 
sence of any exact parallel to such a use of verb and cognate noun 
with the article as the former view supposes; while against it is the 
unusualness of such a dative as it supposes (even Acts 22" is not quite 
certain) and the probability that Paul would have expressed this idea 
by dq eXeuGepi'av {cf. Rom. 5^). On the whole the former construc- 
tion is the more probable, if xfj be the correct reading. It is, perhaps, 
still more likely that Paul wrote ex' (see textual note above), in which 
case the meaning would be substantially that of the dative denoting 

I1ty]-/.(j3, a post-classical word, derived from zair]%a, has with Paul 
the meaning not simply "to stand" (as in the gospels), but with inten- 
sive force, "to stand firm." Cf. 1 Cor. 1613 Phil, i" 41, etc. xdXtv 
recalls the fact that as Gentiles they had been in slavery, and classes 
the burden of Jewish legalism with that of heathenism. Cf. 4' and 
notes there. The omission of the article with ^oyG) SouXeiaq gives to the 
phrase a qualitative force, and though the reference is clearly to the 
yoke of legalism, is appropriate after xdXtv because the new yoke 


which he would have them avoid is not identical with that previously 

'Evix^oBe — a frequent classical word, "to be held in," "to be en- 
snared," is in the present tense, denoting action in progress, not prob- 
ably because Paul thinks of them as already entangled (so that the 
expression would mean "cease to be entangled"), but because he is 
thinking about and warning them against not only the putting of 
their necks into the yoke, but the continuous state of subjection which 
would result therefrom. 

2. '156 iyco IlaOXos Xey^ t'M^^ o'^t eaj^ TrepLrefjivrjade Xptcrros 
v^JLds ovdev wcjieKrjaeL. "Behold, I, Paul, say to you that if ye 
shall be circumcised, Christ will be of no advantage to you." 
The acceptance of circumcision is, under the circumstances 
then existing in the Galatian churches, the acceptance of the 
principle of legalism, the committal of the Galatians to a rela- 
tion to God wholly determined by conformity to statutes and 
leaving no place for Christ or the development of spiritual life 
through faith in him and spiritual fellowship with him. This 
is the position which the apostle has taken throughout the 
letter {cf. 2^^^- 3^2)^ 'pj^g possibility of any compromise between 
the two conceptions of religion he does not consider, but points 
out the logical outcome of the adoption of the principle of legal- 
ism, which he conceives to be involved in the acceptance of cir- 
cumcision. Though circumcision is mentioned here for the 
first time in direct relation to the Galatians, the manner in 
which it is spoken of in this paragraph and in 6^^-^^ (confirmed 
by the implications of chap. 3) makes it certain that it was this 
rite especially that the opponents of Paul were urging the 
Galatians to adopt, or at least that on this the contest was at 
this moment concentrated. Though the sentence is intro- 
duced without T«p, the purpose of it is evidently to enforce 
the exhortation of v.^ Its separation from that v. in a dis- 
tinct paragraph is justified only by the double relation which 
it sustains on the one hand to 4^^ • ^^, and on the other to this 
and the following sentences. 

The first three words of this sentence, none of them strictly neces- 
sary to the thought, serve to give emphasis to the whole statement 

V, 1-2 273 

that follows. As an exclamation Paul elsewhere employs not TSe, 
but foou; see i Cor. 15" Gal. i^", et al.; TSe in Rom. 11" and tSexe in 
Gal. 6^1 are proper imperatives with limiting object. For other in- 
stances of ero), emphatic, see 112 21^. 20 412 510, n 6" et freq. For Iyw 
liauXoq, see i Thes. 2i« 2 Cor. io» Eph. 3' Col. i"; see also Col. 4'' 
2 Thes. 31". The intent of the words here is doubtless, as in most of 
the above instances, to give to what he is about to say all the weight 
of his personal influence. 

The form of the conditional clause lav xspcTeixvTjcrOe, referring to a 
future possibility, reflects the fact that the question whether they will 
be circumcised is still pending. Cf. 1 «. The use of the present tense, 
at first thought surprising, indicates that the apostle is not thinking 
of circumcision as a simple (possible future) fact, or result accom- 
plished, but of the attempt or decision to be circumcised, the verb 
being substantially conative in force; see note on i^psaxov in ii". What 
the apostle says is not that to be or to have been, as a matter of fact, 
circumcised would render Christ of no avail to them (see the contrary 
stated in v.^, but that their seeking or receiving circumcision under 
the circumstances under which it is being urged upon them would 
do so. Observe the use of the present tense, also, in v.^ 6^2, u i Cor. 71*. 
The aorist in 2^, on the other hand, was necessary because of the resul- 
tative force of the whole phrase. The view of Alford, that the present 
tense "implies the continuance of a habit, 'if you will go on being 
circumcised,' " though grammatically unobjectionable, is excluded by the 
fact that circumcision could be thought of as a habit, not in respect 
to individuals, but only as concerns the community; in which case it 
would follow that Paul's thought was that if the community continued 
the already existing practice of circumcision, the community would 
have no benefit from Christ; whereas, on the contrary, v ^\ confirmed 
by the apostle's constant teaching concerning justification, shows that re- 
lation to Christ pertains to the individual, not to the community. 
Alford's explanation, moreover, fails to account for the present tense in 
xsptxetJ-vo^lvw, and is, therefore, probably not applicable to xeptTiti-vijjOe. 
The language, therefore, furnishes no basis for the conclusion that the 
Galatians had already begun the practice of circumcision. 

On ouSsv wtpclTjjec, cf. Jn. 6" Rom. 2"^^ i Cor. 13^ There is no 
ground for assuming an exclusive reference to any specific point of 
future time, as to the parousia or the judgment. The absence of any 
specific reference to these events, such as is expressed in Rom. 2"- i^, 
or implied in Rom. i4"'-'=', makes it natural to assume that the future 
dates from the time indicated in the subordinate clause; and this is 
confirmed by the use of the aorists xa-nQPYTjOrj-re and i^ziziaa-zz in v.*, 
which see. 


3. fiapTvpoiJLai be iraKiv iravrl avOpcowcc irepirejJLVoiievcp on 
6(peLKeTr}S ecrrlv o\ov rov pofiov iroLrjaaL. "And I protest 
again to every man that receiveth circumcision that he is bound 
to do the whole law." Joined to v.^ by be, this sentence sup- 
plements that one by a further reason why the Galatians should 
not receive circumcision. Not only do they thereby lose any 
advantage which the relation to Christ would confer, but they 
assume a heavy burden. The acceptance of circumcision is in 
principle the acceptance of the whole legalistic scheme. The rea- 
sons that can be urged in favour of circumcision apply equally 
to every statute of the law. That Paul points out this logical 
consequence of circumcision implies that the judaisers had not 
done so. They were now urging the Galatians to accept cir- 
cumcision as the rite by which they could become sons of Abra- 
ham and participators in the blessings of the Abrahamic cov- 
enant {cf. chap. 3 passim) ; they had already persuaded them to 
adopt the cycle of Jewish festivals (4^°), perhaps as serving to 
mark them off from their heathen compatriots, perhaps because 
of the appeal w^hich these observances would make to the Gala- 
tians. On the question whether the judaisers had imposed or 
endeavoured to impose upon their consciences any other require- 
ments of the law, see on 4^^ It is certain only that the Gala- 
tians had adopted the festival cycle, that they were undecided 
concerning circumcision, and that the judaisers had not pro- 
posed to them to undertake to keep the whole law. 

MapTupo^at without obj. ace. signifies, not "to call to witness" (so 
with obj. ace. in Soph. Eur. d al.), but "to affirm," "to protest" 
(Plato, Phil. 47C.; Jos. Bell. 3. 354 (8=); Acts 20^8 26" Eph. 41^, 
differing from ^jLapTuplw in that it denotes a strong asseveration, not 
simple testimony. 

IldXiv, "again," can not be understood as referring either to the 
content of w."^, of which this is regarded as a repetition (Ltft.), for the 
two verses, though related, are not identical in thought; or to any 
previous passage in this epistle, since there is none in which this state- 
ment is made; nor can it be taken as marking this verse as a second 
[juzpTupfa, of different content from the former one, for in that case it 
would have preceded the verb, as in Mt. 4^ 533 Rom. 151"' ''. It must, 
therefore, refer to a statement previously made to the Galatians, and 
in that case probably to a statement made on the occasion referred to 

V, 3-4 275 

in 4i« (dtXT]9s6a>v) and i^ Cf. notes on these passages and 5". The 
present passage thus furnishes some confirmatory evidence that Paul 
had either visited the Galatiani or written to them since the visit 
spoken of in 41^; since definitely anti-legalistic instruction at that time 
before the legalistic influence had been exerted among them is improb- 
able, though not, indeed, impossible. 

The words xavxl ivepwxcp xepcTe[xvo[jLeva) mean not, "to every one 
who has been circumcised" (which would call for the perfect 
xepiTST^vrjixevq) or aorist xsptT^JLTjOevn), but "to every man that 
receives circumcision." Cf. BMT 124. The warning is addressed 
not to the man who has already been circumcised but (like eav 
xsptTritJLVQaGe, v.^) to the one who is contemplating circumcision. 

'0<fzCkixriq is one who is under obligation, one who is bound, 6(ps(Xet, 
to do a certain thing; here in effect one who binds himself; for the obli- 
gation is, as the context shows, one which he ought not to assume. 
Cf. contra Rom. i'^ 

"OXov xbv v6[xov refers to the whole body of 0. T. statutes, legalisti- 
cally interpreted. See detached note on No^Ji-oq, V 2. (c), p. 457. For a 
Gentile to receive circumcision is to commit himself logically to the 
whole legalistic system. The clear implication of the sentence is that 
the believer in Christ is under no such obligation. The freedom of the 
believer in Christ is not simply from the law's condemnation of him 
who does not obey its statutes, or from the law as a means of justi- 
fication, but from the obligation to render obedience to these statutes. 
The Galatians are not simply not to seek justification by circumcision; 
they are not to be circumcised; they are not to do the whole law. 

4. KarrjpyridrjTe awb l^piarov otrives ev vopo) biKaLOvade, 
"Ye have severed your relation to Christ, ye who are seek- 
ing to be justified in law." KaTrjpyrjdrjTe cnrb XpLarov repeats 
in effect the 'KpLcrros vixas ovhev a)(f)eX^(T€i of v.^, and like that 
verse expresses forcibly the apostle's thought that the adop- 
tion of legalism is the repudiation of Christ. The two methods 
of obtaining righteousness are incompatible. He who turns to 
one foregoes the other. Notice the direct address to the Gala- 
tians, much more impressive than a statement of a general 

Some Syrian authorities and Boh. read toQ XptJ-roj, but XpuxoO 
is sustained by practically all pre-Syrian evidence, SBCD al. On 
Paul's usage of XptaToq and 6 XgiGxoq, cf. detached note on The Titles 
and Predicates of Jesus, p. 395. 


*Ev v6[jL(p evidently has the same meaning as in 3" {q. v.), "in the 
sphere of" (more specifically, "on the basis of") "legal obedience to 
statutes," thus equivalent to e^ epywv vd^xou in 2i«, etc. ScxatoOaee 
is conative. The present can not mean " are {i. e., have been) justified "; 
and a progressive present proper, "are in the process of being justi- 
fied" is excluded by the fact that Paul thinks of justification not as a 
process but an act, and more decisively by his repeated assertion that 
no man is actually justified in law (chap. 3" Rom. 320). 

There is no reason to regard the assertion of this sentence as hypo- 
thetical; it must rather be understood as referring to persons among 
the Galatians who, having accepted the legalistic principle, were seek- 
ing justification in law (c/. 41"). Only, in view of i« 51- ", etc., it can 
not be supposed to designate the Galatians as a whole, or in view of 
V.2, be understood as necessarily implying that they have carried their 
legalism to the extent of being circumcised. Wherever in the epistle 
the apostle speaks of circumcision, it is as of a future possibility to be 
prevented. This excludes not the possibility of some having already 
been circumcised, but the general adoption of circumcision; but there 
is no positive indication that any have accepted it. 

KaTapyso), properly meaning "to make ineffective," is used in Rom. 
^^• «, and here in the passive with dxo, meaning "to be without effect 
from," "to be unaffected by," "to be without effective relation to." 
The explanation of the idiom as a brachylogical expression for 
xaTTjpYTQGTQTe v.a\ IxwpfaGTjxe (Ltft., Sief., et al.), and the comparison 
of Rom. 9' and 2 Cor. 11' as analogous examples, are scarcely defensi- 
ble; for while in these latter instances the expressed predicate applies 
to the subject independently of the phrase introduced by dtxo, and the 
verb denoting separation is simply left to be supplied in thought, this 
is not the case with xaxapYelaOac ax6. The idiom is rather to be ex- 
plained as a case of rhetorical inversion, such as occurs in Rom. 7^, 
eOavaTcoOYjxe xcp v6[X(;), where consistency with both preceding and fol- 
lowing context would require 6 v6[xo<; lOavaxwOTj u[xlv. Cf. the Eng- 
lish expression, "He was presented with a gift," for "A gift was pre- 
sented to him." The use of the aorist tense, denoting a past event 
viewed as a simple fact, has, in contrast with the present StxatoOaOs 
a certain rhetorical force; as if the apostle would say: "Your justifica- 
tion in law. which is but an attempt, has already resulted in separation 
from Christ as a fact." The English perfect best expresses the force 
of an aorist in such cases as this, when the event belongs to the imme- 
diate past {cf. ^MT 46, 52). 

rrjs xapt-Tos i^eweaaTe. "Ye have fallen away from grace." 
The article with x^P^'''^^ marks the word as referring specifi- 
cally to that grace of God or of Christ which was the distinctive 

V, 4-5 ^77 

element of the gospel which Paul had preached to the Gala- 
tians. Cf. t.\ and special note on Xapts. Grace, by virtue of 
which God accepts as righteous those who have faith, itself ex- 
cludes, and is excluded by, the principle of legalism, according 
to which the deeds of righteousness which one has performed 
are accredited to him as something which he has earned. Cf. 
312 Rom. 45 116. They, therefore, who are seeking justification 
by the way of legaHsm have fallen away from, abandoned, the 
divine grace. Logically viewed, the one conception excludes 
the other; experientially the one experience destroys the other. 
One can not with intellectual consistency conceive of God as 
the bookkeeping God of legaHsm and at the same time the 
gracious God of the Pauline gospel, who accepts men because 
of their faith. One can not live the life of devotion to the keep- 
ing of statutes, which legahsm calls for, and at the same time a 
life of faith in Jesus Christ and filial trust in the God of grace. 
This strong conviction of the incompatibility of the two con- 
ceptions, experientially as well as logically, is doubtless grounded 
in the apostle's own experience. Cf. 2^\ 

The verb Ixxc'^to) in classical writers from Homer down, signifying 
"to fall out of," with various derived significations, is probably used 
here, as usually when limited by a genitive without a preposition, with 
the meaning, "to fail of," "to lose one's hold upon" (ttj? x^P'-^o'^ bemg 
a genitive of separation), not, however, here in the sense that the 
divine grace has been taken from them (as in Jos. Antiq. 7- 203 (9O, 
tbq Sv ^aatXefaq lxxea(;)v), but that they have abandoned it. Cf. 
2 Pet. 31^: 9uXdeaa£aee Yva [l^i . . . IxxIcnQxe xoO fSc'ou cjTTQptY^oa. 
For to affirm that their seeking justification in law involved as an 
immediate consequence the penal withdrawal of the divine grace (note 
the force of the aorist in relation to the present StxatouaOe; cf. above 
on xGCT-npy-neTj-ce) involves a wholly improbable harshness of concep- 
tion. On the form l^sxeaaTe cf. Win.-Schm. XIII 12. 

5. r)ixeis ^ap irvevfJiaTL e/c TTto-recos eKirida diKaLoavvrjs cnreK- 
dexoiJ^eda. "For we by the Spirit, by faith, wait for a 
hoped-for righteousness." ^M^ts is emphatic, we in contrast 
with all who hold to legalism. irvevfxaTi is used without the 
article, hence quahtatively, but undoubtedly with reference to 
the Spirit of God. Cf. the similar usage in 3^ 5^^- ''• '', and see 


special note on Uvevfxa and ^dp^^ p. 491. The contrast with 
the flesh which in s^^' ^^' ^^ is expressed is probably here latent. 
He who seeks divine acceptance by law is in reality relying 
upon the flesh. See Rom. f^-8\ We, on the other hand, 
depend not on flesh but on the Spirit. The word Suatocrwr; 
is best understood in its inclusive sense, having reference both 
to ethical character and to forensic standing. It is this which 
is the object of the Christian's hope and expectation (Phil. 39- ^o). 
Cf. detached note on At/catos, etc., VI B. 2, p. 471, and the 
discussion there of this passage. Observe also the expression 
di ayaTTjs evepyovixevq in v.^ as indicating that the apostle is 
here including the ethical aspect of righteousness. The whole 
sentence introduced by ydp is an argument e contrario, confirm- 
ing the assertion of v.^ by pointing out that we, i. e., we who 
hold the gospel of grace, look for the realisation of our hope of 
righteousness, not in law, eV voixo^^ but on the one side by the 
Spirit of God and on the other through faith. 

IIveu^aTc is probably a dative of means, limiting dcxexBexoiAeOa, or, 
to speak more exactly, the verb of attaining implied in dxsxoexdtAeOa, 
the thought being, "By the Spirit we expect to attain," etc. ex. 
•jcfaTEwq also denotes means, the phrase being complementary to 
xveu[xaTt, and expressing the subjective condition of attaining eXx. 
8tx., as xveufxaTt denotes the objective power by which it is achieved. 

' A.-Kzv.lixy^di, used only in N. T. (Paul, Heb. and i Pet.) and in 
considerably later writers {cf. Nageli, Wortschalz, p. 43; M. and M. 
Voc, s. V.) signifies "to await with eagerness," dtx6 apparently inten- 
sifying the force given to the simple verb by ex, "to be receiving from 
a distance," hence "to be intently awaiting." 

The interpretation, "by a Spirit which is received by faith," the 
phrase xv5.u[j.aTc ex xfoxecoq thus qualitatively designating the Spirit 
of God, is neither grammatically impossible (cf. Rom. 8'*, xveuixa 
ulobealxq. Eph. i^', ■7cveij[JLa GO<ploLq xal dxoxaXu^^ewq. Rom. 3", 
IXaaTTQptov Std xfaxeox;, none of which are, however, quite parallel 
cases), nor un-Pauline in thought (cf. 31^: Yva t-Jjv IxayyeXfav tou 
xveu'j-aToq Xd^corxev Sid TTjq x^jxewq). Yet the nature of the relation 
which this interpretation assumes between xveu^juzxi and ex xftrxewq 
is such as would probably call for xveu(jLaTt T(p ex xfaxewq (cf. 2^\ 
xfjTst . . . T^ TOO uloQ TOO GeoLi), while, on the other hand, the suc- 
cession of co-ordinate limitations is not uncharacteristic of the apostle; 
cf. Rom. 3". 

V, 5-6 2 79 

'EXxfBa, as is required by d%ey,Ux6[ieQa, is used by metonymy for 
that which is hoped for. Cf. Col. i^ Tit. 2'' Heb. 6^'. The genitive 
StxatoauvTjq may be considered as an objective genitive, if the whole 
phrase be supposed to be taken by metonymy — "a hope of righteous- 
ness," standing for "a, hoped-for righteousness," or a genitive of de- 
scription (appositional genitive) if the metonymy be thought of as 
affecting the word IXxt'Sa alone. In either case it is the righteousness 
which is the object both of hope and expeetation. On the combination 
eXx. dtxexSex. cf. Tit. 2^^, xpoaSexotJ^evo^ '^^^ [xax.aptav eXxi'Sa. Eur. 
Alcesi. 130: vOv Bs ptou t{v' ex' IXxfBa xpoaBix^^at- Polyb. 8. 21% xalq 
xpoaBexw[J>-evai'; sXxt'atv (cited b}' Alf. ad loc). 

6. eV yap Xplctto) 'Itjaov oure irepLTOiJLri tl tcr^uet ovre 
aKpol^voTT la^ aX\d -wiaris h' aydirrjs evepyov}xevr]. "For in 
Christ Jesus, neither circumcision availeth anything, nor 
uncircumcision, but faith working through love." For the 
disclosure of the apostle's fundamental idea of the nature 
of religion, there is no more important sentence in the whole 
epistle, if, indeed, in any of Paul's epistles. Each term and 
construction of the sentence is significant. eV Xpto-rw 'It^ctoO 
(the bracketing of 'Irjcrov by WH., because of its omission by 
B. Clem., seems scarcely justified) limits lo-%u€t. It is not 
precisely equivalent to rots eV Xpto-ro) "Ir^aov, but means, 
rather, ''on that basis which is created by Christ Jesus"; nearly 
equal, therefore, in modern phrase, to "in Christianity," "on 
the Christian basis." With to-%i)et (from ^schylus down, " to 
have strength," "to be able," "to avail") is to be supplied, not 
hiKaiovv ("is able to justify"; cf. Acts d^""), which would be to 
limit the thought more narrowly than the context would war- 
rant, but ets kKaLoavPTjp , as suggested by the preceding sen- 
tence, and in the inclusive sense of the term as there used. By 
the omission of the article with Trepiroixrj and all the following 
nominatives, these nouns are given a qualitative force, with 
emphasis upon the quality and character of the acts. This 
might be expressed, though also exaggerated, by some such 
expression as, "by their very nature circumcision," etc. The 
phrase 5t' ayaTrjs evepyovp-evr) furnishes a most significant 
addition to the word Triaris, which has filled so large a place 
in the epistle thus far. For not only has he not previously in 


this epistle used the word aydirr], but, though often using each 
alone in other epistles (for ttiVtis, see Rom. 1^^322, etc.; and 
for aydiTT}, see esp. i Cor., chap. 13) he has nowhere else in any 
of his letters brought the two words into immediate connec- 
tion. The relation between the two terms, which is here ex- 
pressed but not perfectly defined by ivepyoviievr) hd^ "opera- 
tive, effective through," "coming to effective expression in," is 
made clearer by a consideration of the nature of the two re- 
spectively, as Paul has indicated that nature elsewhere. Faith 
is for Paul, in its distinctively Christian expression, a committal 
of one's self to Christ, issuing in a vital fellowship with him, by 
Avhich Christ becomes the controlling force in the moral life of 
the behever. See esp. 2^0 and cf. detached note on Ilto-rts and 
Hto-reuco, V B. 2. (e), p. 482. But the principle of Christ's life 
is love (see 2^0, rov ayaTrjaavros, etc.; Rom. 5^-^ S^^-^s). Faith 
in Christ, therefore, generates love, and through it becomes 
effective in conduct. See also v.22, where first among the ele- 
ments which life by the Spirit (which, as v.^ indicates, is the 
life of faith) produces is love; and on the moral effect and ex- 
pression of love, see especially i Cor., chap. 13. On the mean- 
ing of aydwT], see on v.^^ That the apostle added the words 
di aydTTTj^i evepyovfxevr) instead of writing ttlcttls or ^ xtcrris 
alone is probably due to his having in mind, even here, that 
phase of the matter which he discusses more fully in vv."^-; 
cf. Rom. 31-", and 32° for similar brief anticipations of matters 
to be more fully discussed later. Anticipating the objection 
that freedom from law leaves the life without moral dynamic, 
he answers in a brief phrase that faith begets love and through 
it becomes operative in conduct. 

The whole sentence affirming the valuelessness alike of cir- 
cumcision and of uncircumcision for the Christian life, and 
ascribing value to faith and love, shows how fully Paul had 
ethicised and spiritualised his conception of religion. That he 
says not simply irepiTOjir] ovhev la'^va^ but ovre irepLTOfirj 
. . . ovT€ aKpo/3v(7TLa naturally impHes not only that he is 
opposed to the imposition of circumcision upon the Gentiles, 
but that he repudiates every conception of religion which makes 

V, 6-7 28i 

physical conditions of any kind essential to it. The sentence, 
therefore, in no way contradicts vv.^' ^, since the latter declare 
to the Galatians that if they accept a physical rite as religiously 
essential, they thereby repudiate the principle of the religion 
of Christ. He could have said the same thing about uncircum- 
cision had he been addressing men who were in danger of 
adopting this as essential to religion. Indeed, this he does say 
in I Cor. y^^- ^^: irepLTeTfirjfjievos tls iK.\7]d7]; ijlt) iinaTdadoj. 
The doctrine of that passage as a whole is identical with the 
teaching in this letter. For though in v.^^ rtjprjdLS ivroKSiv 
deov, "a keeping of divine commandments," fills the place 
occupied here by Tiaris di aydwrjs ivepyovfiej^r), v." here 
shows that these two expressions are at bottom not antithetical 
but in effect equivalent. 

'laxuw, from ^schylus down, in the sense "to have strength," "to 
be able," "to avail" is rare in Paul, but not infrequent in other N. T, 
writers. It is used as here in the third of the above-named senses in 
Heb. 9", and with similar meaning in Mt. 5'^ Note the construction 

'EvspyouEA^vY] is to be taken, in accordance with the regular usage 
of evepyeiaOai in Paul, as middle, not passive, and as meaning "oper- 
ative," "effective": Rom. 7^ 2 Cor. i« 4'= Eph. 320 Col. i^^ i Thes. 21' 
2 Thes. 2" Jas. 51^; see also Polyb. i. 13"; Jos. Anl. 15. 145 (53). The 
active, on the other hand, is used of persons: i Cor. i2«' " Gal. 2^ 3' 
Eph. !"• 20 22. That the preposition Sta denotes not antecedent cause 
but mediate agency, the object of the preposition being that through 
which the Tziaziq becomes effective, is made practically certain not on 
grammatical grounds, but because of the nature of the two attitudes 
expressed by xtaxtq and dy^xr] as conceived of by the apostle. See 
above in the larger print. See note on Sia under i' and cf. 2 Cor. i«, 
where a similar relation is expressed by ev. Since xtaxiq is without 
the article, the participle, though anarthrous, may be attributive, 
"which works"; but 220 suggests that to express this thought Paul 
would have written izbxiq tj iyepfou[iivri, and makes it likely that 
£vepYou;x£VT; is adverbial, expressing means or cause. 

7. 'Erpe;\;€re /caXws- tls vfxds iveKo^ev oKr^deia iirj weudeadaL; 
"Ye were running well; who hindered you from obeying truth? " 
As in 4^^, the apostle breaks off argument to make an appeal to 
the feelings of his readers by reminiscence of the former conduct 


of the Galatidns before they fell under the influence of the 
judaisers. It is to this time obviously that the imperfect 
cTpe^eTe refers, tis vfids^ etc., is not a question for informa- 
tion but of appeal. 

On the use of running as a figure for effort looking to the achievement 
of a result, see 2^ Rom. gi* i Cor. g^^ 2« Phil. 2'" 31* 2 Thes. 3'. It is 
probable that in all cases the apostle has in mind the figure of running 
a race, as expressly in i Cor. g'*'*^ evxoxxa) is used by Hippocrates 
in the sense "to make an incision," but with the meaning "to hinder" 
first in Polybius. Here, if the figure is that of a race, the word suggests 
a breaking into the course, getting in the way, or possibly a breaking 
up of the road. That Paul uses the aorist (resultative) rather than 
the present (conative) indicates that he is thinking of what his oppo- 
nents have already accomplished in their obstructive work. The 
present infinitive, xet9ecj0at, on the other hand, is progressive, so 
that the meaning of the whole expression is, "who has succeeded in 
preventing you from continuing to obey truth?" and the implication 
is that, though they have not fully adopted the views of Paul's oppo- 
nents, they have ceased to hold firmly to that which Paul taught them. 
xec'OeaOai is difficult to render exactly into English. "Believe" ex- 
presses rather less, "obey" rather more, than its meaning. It de- 
notes not merely intellectual assent, but acceptance which carries with 
it control of action; cf. Acts 5'«' "• "; Rom. 2*. On the construction 
of xe(8£a6ac (inf. with [xtj after verbs of hindering), see BMT 402, 483; 
Bl.-D. 42g. The omission of the article with dX-q^zitf gives to it 
a qualitative force, and shows that, though what the apostle has in 
mind is doubtless the same that in 2' and 2^* he calls ■f) dXifjOeta xoG eu- 
ayyeXcou, he desires to emphasise the quality of his message as truth, 
thus conveying the implication that they are turning from something 
that is true to something that is false. Cf. for similar anarthrous use 
of (k'k-qQeKx Rom. g' 2 Cor. 6^ Eph. 4^1. Some authorities insert the 
article here (omitted by i<*AB). Evidently some scribe, recognising 
that the reference was to the truth of the gospel, stumbled at the qual- 
itativeness of the expression. 

8. rj Treia fxovT] ovk e/c tov koKovvtos vjias. "This persuasion 
is not from him that calleth you." The restrictive article with 
ir€i(j}jLovr) makes it refer definitely to that persuasion just 
spoken of, viz., the persuasion no longer to hold (his message 
which is) truth. By rov koKovvtos Paul means God. On the 
meaning of the term and its reference to God, see on i^; and on 

the omission of deov, see on 2^ y. The negative statement car- 
ries with it the positive intimation that the influence which is 
affecting them is one that is hostile to God, an intimation 
which is definitely expressed in v.'. 

Usia[ioYq may be either active (Chrys. on i Thes. i'; Just. Mart. 
Apol. 531) or passive (Ign. Rom. 3' Iren. Haer. 4. 33'), and it is impos- 
sible to tell in which sense Paul thought of it here. The passive sense 
involves the thought of a persuasion actually accomplished, the active 
an effort. It was, of course, the latter, but ev^xotj^sv shows that in 
Paul's thought it was in a sense the former, also. On the tense and 
modal force of xaXoOvxoc; (general present; adjective participle used 
substantively), see BAIT 123, 124, 423, and cf. 1 Thes. 2^' s''- 

9. fiLKpa ^viJirj 6\ov TO (f)vpaij.a Iviiol. "A Uttle leaven is 
leavening the whole lump." The occurrence of exactly the 
same words in i Cor. 5^ and the way in which they are there 
used indicate that they were a proverbial saying, referring to 
the tendency of an influence seemingly small to spread until it 
dominates the whole situation. In i Cor. T^^M^J refers to the 
immoral conduct and influence of the incestuous man, and 
jivpaixa represents the Corinthian church, whose whole moral 
life was in danger of being corrupted. Here, over against the 
negative statement of v.^, this verse states the true explanation 
of the situation, viz., that the doctrine of the necessity of cir- 
cumcision, insidiously presented by a few, is permeating and 
threatening to pervert the whole religious life of the Galatian 
churches. ^v}ioi is probably not to be taken as a general 
present (as in i Cor.) but as a present of action in progress. 
It agrees with all the other evidence of the epistle in indicating 
that the anti-PauHne movement had as yet made but Uttle, 
though alarming, progress. 

On Tb qjupati-x t;uiJ.oI, cf. Exod. 12", and on leaven as a symbol of 
an evil influence (of good, however, in Mt. 13" Lk. i^^'^- "), see Ltft. 

10. eyo) TreVot^a ds vfias ev Kvpio) otl ovdh aK\o (jypoprj- 
cere' "I have confidence, in the Lord, respecting you that 
ye will take no other view than this." With the abruptness 


which characterises the whole passage, the apostle turns sud- 
denly from the discouraging aspects of the situation to an 
expression of hopeful confidence. The use of iyco emphasises 
the personal, subjective character of the confidence. "I, at 
least, whatever others think." ets vjjias designates the persons 
in reference to whom (Th. els B. II 2 a) the confidence is felt; 
eV KvpLw defines the Lord, i. e., Christ, not precisely as the 
object of trust but as the one who constitutes the basis or 
ground of confidence (Th. iv, I 6 c; cf. 2^ and 2^^ and notes on 
these passages) . The whole passage is marked by such abrupt- 
ness of expression and sudden changes of thought that the 
words ovdev aX\o may mean in general no other view of the 
true nature of religion or the true interpretation of the gos- 
pel than that which Paul had taught them. Most probably 
they refer directly to the opinion just expressed by Paul in v.^. 
In that case the sentence is an expression of confidence that the 
Galatians will share his conviction that the influence exerted by 
the judaisers is, in fact, a leaven (of evil) coming not from God 
but from men, and threatening the religious life of the whole 
community of Galatian Christians. 

The constructions employed by Paul after xixoiOa are various: (a) 
iizi, with a personal object (2 Cor. i' 2' 2 Thes. 3*), and sv with an 
impersonal object (Phil. 33- *), designating the object of confidence, 
that which one trusts; (b) ev with a personal object (Phil. 2-* 2 Thes. 3* 
and the present passage) designating the ground on which confidence 
rests; (c) elq with the accusative occurring in the present passage, 
without parallel elsewhere; in accordance with the not infrequent use 
of elq in other connections, the preposition is to be explained, as 
above, as meaning "in respect to." To take elq u^? as denoting 
the object of faith (Butt. p. 175) is without the support of other exam- 
ples with this verb, or of the preposition as used with other verbs; 
for while the accusative after xiaxeuo) elq denotes the object of 
faith, this construction is practically restricted to use in respect to 
Christ (cf. detached note on ritaxeuw, p. 480), and furnishes no ground 
for thinking that xixotOa elq would be used with similar force in 
respect to other persons. 2 Cor. 8", xsxo[0Y)j£t xo>.>si^ -rfj eiq b[xaiq, is 
indecisive both because it contains not the verb but the noun, and 
because it shares the ambiguity of the present passage. 

The expression ev xupfcp occurs in the Pauline epistles approximately 

V, 10 28s 

forty times. That it means "in Christ," not "in God," is rendered practi- 
cally certain by these considerations: (a) of ev Xptaxw, or Iv tw Xptaxq), 
or ev Xptaxcp 'I-qaoii there are about eighty instances, and in many of 
these the connection of thought is closely similar to those in which 
ev xupt(j) is employed, (b) In seven cases (Rom. 6'« 141^ i Cor. 15" 
I Thes. ji 41 2 Thes. i^ 3'^) y-upup after ev is defined by a preceding or 
following 'I-ojoG, XptuTqJ, or both together, as referring to Christ, and 
in these instances, also, the connection of thought is similar to that in 
which ev xupiw alone occurs, (c) ev Oew and ev tw Getp occur but rarely 
in Paul (Rom. 21' 511 Eph. 3" Col. 3' i Thes. i^ 2« 2 Thes. i>), and in 
two of these instances (i Thes. i^ 2 Thes. lO, ^vith 0e(p is joined xupftp 
in such ways as to show that ev xuptw refers to Christ. Against these 
strong considerations there is only the fact that in general xuptoq 
without the article refers to God, 6 x6pto<; to Christ. But the force 
of this general rule is diminished by the further fact that in set phrases, 
especially prepositional phrases, the article is frequently omitted with- 
out modification of meaning. Cf, detached note on IlaTT^p as applied 
to God, p. 387. On oiSelq &Xkoq cf. Jn. 15" Acts 4"- 

6 5e Tapdaaccv viias ^aardaei to KpL^a, oans iav y. "but 
he that troubleth you shall bear his judgment, whoever he may 
be." In itself Tapdaacov might refer to a particular individual 
identified or unidentified, and the troubling might be present, 
past, or future. But the indefinite relative clause, oans iav fj, 
referring to the future {BUT 303, 304; a present general sup- 
position is excluded by the future jSaaTacreL, and a present par- 
ticular by the subjunctive ^) requires us to take rapdaao^v as 
designating not a particular individual mentally identified, but 
as referring to any one who hereafter may disturb them. The 
article is distributive generic, as in 3^2, u j^. ^is. Doubtless 
this is but another way of referring to those who are spoken 
of in i^ Tives eicnv ol rapdaaovres vfxds, Kal BeKovres ixe- 
Taarpexpai to euayyeXtov tov ')(^pi(JTov, and in v." as ol 
avacFTaTovvTes vidds. Only their conduct is, for rhetorical 
effect, referred to not as a fact but as a future possibiHty, as in 
i^ and an indefinite singular takes the place of a definite plural. 
TO Kpifia undoubtedly refers to the judgment of God, which 
carries with it by implication the consequent punishment. 
Cf. Rom. 22' 3 38^ and esp. Rom. 13^. How or when the punish- 
ment will be experienced the sentence does not indicate; there 


is nothing to show that the apostle has especially or exclusively 
in mind the messianic judgment (Rom. 2^^). 

Baaxa^w, used by classical writers from Homer down, occurs also 
in the Lxx, Apocr., and Pat. Ap. It is found in N. T. twenty-seven 
times. In all periods, apparently, it is employed both in a literal 
sense of bearing a burden (Mk. 141' Jn. 191') and other similar senses, 
and metaphorically of mental processes. In N. T. it occurs several 
times in the sense ''to endure": Jn. i6'2 Acts i5>'' Rom. 151. Cf. also 
Gal. 62' «• 1'. Of bearing punishment it occurs here only in N. T., but 
also in 2 Kgs. i8i<. 

11. 'Eycb 8e, a8ek(j)0i^ el irepironi^v ert Krjpvaaco, ti en 
8l(oko fxai; "And I, brethren, if I am still preaching circumcision, 
why am I still being persecuted?" Still another abrupt sen- 
tence, probably occasioned by the fact that they who were 
troubling the Galatians were using as one of their weapons a 
charge that the apostle was still, when it suited his purpose, 
preaching circumcision. As evidence of the falsity of the 
charge, Paul appeals to the fact that he is being persecuted, 
implying that it was for anti-legalism. The use of ert with 
K7)pv(j(J02 implies that there was a time when he preached cir- 
cumcision. The reference is doubtless to his pre-Christian 
life, since we have no information that he ever advocated cir- 
cumcision after he became a Christian. On the reasons for 
holding that 1^° furnishes no evidence of a period of conformity 
to the views of the judaisers in the matter, see notes on that 
passage. What basis there was for the charge that he was 
still advising circumcision, and whether the charges referred 
to the circumcision of Gentiles or of Jews— doubtless there 
was something to give colour to it — may perhaps be inferred 
from I Cor. y^^, if we may assume that even before writing 
Galatians he had said or written things similar to that passage. 
On Acts 1 63, see below. 

The conditional clause ef . . . xTjpisjw, though having the form 
of a simple present supposition, evidently expresses an unfulfilled con- 
dition {BUT 245; cf. 2" 318 Rom. 4= Jn. 18"), while the apodosis takes 
the form of a rhetorical question, meaning, "I should not be perse- 
cuted." On the possible uses of stc, cf. on ii". Despite the seeming 
parallelism, the two words ext can hardly both be temporal. To 
make both mean "still as in my pre-Christian days," is forbidden by 

V, lO-ll 287 

the fact that he was not in those days persecuted for preaching cir- 
cumcision. To make both mean "still as in my early Christian days," 
is forbidden by the improbability that he was then preaching circum- 
cision and the certainty (implied in the sentence itself) that if he had 
been he would not have been persecuted. If both are temporal, the 
meaning can only be, If I am still as in my pre-Christian days, preach- 
ing circumcision, why do they, having learned this, continue that per- 
secution which they began supposing that I was opposed to circum- 
cision? Simpler and more probable than this is the interpretation of 
the first ext as temporal, and the second as denoting logical opposition; 
c/., e. g., Rom. 3^ The sentence then means: "If I am still preaching 
circumcision, why am I despite this fact persecuted?" 

The bearing of this passage on the historicity of the statement of 
Acts 16' with reference to the circumcision of Timothy belongs, rather, 
to the interpretation of Acts than here. If the event occurred as there 
narrated and became the occasion for the charge to which Paul here 
refers, why he made no further reply than to deny the charge, and that 
only by implication, can only be conjectured. Perhaps knowing that 
the Galatians and his critics both knew that he had never objected to 
the circumcision of Jews, and that the only question really at issue 
was the circumcision of Gentiles who accepted the gospel, he judged 
it unnecessary to make any reply other than an appeal to the fact that 
they were persecuting him. 

dpa KaTr)pyr}Tai to (jKcivhoXov row aravpov. "Then is the 
stumbhng-block of the cross done away with." /. e., if circum- 
cision may be maintained, the cross of Christ has ceased to be 
a stumbKng-block. rb (TKcivhaKov rod (Travpov is that element 
or accompaniment of the death of Christ on the cross that 
makes it offensive (i Cor. i^^), viz., to the Jews, deterring them 
from accepting Jesus as the Christ. This offensiveness, the 
apostle imphes, lay in the doctrine of the freedom of believers 
in Christ from the law. Whatever else there may have been 
in the fact of Jesus' death on the cross to make the doctrine of 
his messiahship offensive to the Jews, that which above all else 
made it such was the doctrine that men may obtain divine 
acceptance and a share in the messianic blessings through faith 
in Jesus, without circumcision or obedience to the statutes of 

* Cf. the words of Chrysostom quoted by-Alford ad loc: " For even the cross which was a 
stumbling-block to the Jews was not so much so as the failure to require obedience to the 
ancestral laws. For when they attacked Stephen they said not that he was worshipping the 
Crucified but that he was speaking against the law and the holy place." 


It is natural and reasonable to suppose that this sentence reflects 
Paul's own pre-Christian attitude, when his own zeal for the law made 
him a persecutor of Christians (ii"- »^ Phil. 3«). Had it been something 
else than its anti-legalism that chiefly made the Christian movement 
oflfensive to him, he could not have made this statement, since in that 
case the removal of this element would have left the doctrine of the 
cross offensive to those who still occupied the position which he main- 
tained in his pre-Christian days. And this fact in turn confirms the 
evidence of the Acts that even in its early days the Christian movement 
had an anti-legahstic element. The implication of the sentence is 
that, in his judgment, had Christianity been content to remain Jewish- 
legalistic, it might have won the Jews, or at least have maintained a 
respected standing among Jewish sects. The conflict between the 
Christianity of Paul and that of the ultra-legalists, was radical. The 
former sought to reach the nations at the risk of becoming offensive 
to the Jews; the latter would win the Jews at the sacrifice of all other 
nations. With this view of Paul the testimony of the book of Acts 
is in harmony, both in its indication of the large number of Jews who 
attached themselves to the legalistic Christianity of James and the 
Jerusalem church, and in the bitter offensiveness to them of the anti- 
legalism of Paul. See esp. Acts, chaps. 15 and 21 15-22. 

Ltft. understands the sentence as ironical (cf. 4^^), meaning: "Then 
I have adopted their mode of preaching, and I am silent about the 
cross." But this ascribes to xaxTjpYTQ-uat an improbable meaning, and 
to the whole sentence a more personal reference than the language 

On the use of apa with the indicative without Sv in an apodosis 
shown by the context to be contrary to fact, cf. 2" i Cor. 151^ where 
the protasis is expressed and the condition is in form that of a simple 
supposition, and i Cor. 1518, where as here the protasis is implied in 
the preceding sentence. 

12. "0(f)e\ov Kal awoKoxpovr ai ol avaaraTovures vjias. "I 
would that they who are disturbing you would even have them- 
selves mutilated." ol avaararovvres are evidently the same 
who are directly referred to in i^ as ol rap da govt es vfid<;, and 
hypo the tically in Tapdaao^v of v.^'^. cnroKoypovr ai is clearly 
shown by usage (see exx. below) and the context to refer not, 
except quite indirectly (see below), to a withdrawal from the 
Christian community, or any other Hke act, but to bodily 
mutilation. In the bitterness of his feeling, the apostle ex- 
presses the wish that his opponents would not stop with cir- 

V, II-I2 289 

ciimcision, but would go on to emasculation. There is possibly 
a tacit reference to the emasculation of the priests of Cybele, 
with which the Galatians would doubtless be familiar and, 
quite possibly, in the apostle's mind, at least, though he could 
hardly have expected his Galatian readers to think of it, to the 
language of Deut. 23^ (see below). The whole expression is 
most significant as showing that to Paul circumcision had be- 
come not only a purely physical act without religious signifi- 
cance, but a positive mutilation, like that which carried with it 
exclusion from the congregation of the Lord. It is not im- 
probable that he has this consequence in mind: ''I wish that 
they who advocate this physical act would follow it out to the 
logical conclusion and by a further act of mutilation exclude 
themselves from the congregation of the Lord." CJ. Phil. 3^, 
where he applies to circumcision as a physical act the deroga- 
tory term KaraTOfXTj, "mutilation." To get the full significance 
of such language in the mouth of a Jew, or as heard by Jewish 
Christians, we must imagine a modern Christian speaking of 
baptism and the Lord's Supper as if they were merely physical 
acts without spiritual significance; yet even this would lack the 
element of deep disgust which the language of Paul suggests. 

On dvaaxaTow, meaning "to disturb," see M. and M. Voc. s. v. 
ocpsXov, a shortened aorist indicative for wcpe)vOv, "I ought," has 
in N. T. the force of an interjection, "would that." Used by classical 
writers generally with the infinitive, it occurs in Callimachus (260 B. c.) 
with a past tense of the indicative; so also in the Lxx (Ex. 16' Num. 
143, etc.) and elsewhere in N. T. (i Cor. 4* 2 Cor. iii Rev. 3") of a 
wish probably conceived of as unattainable. It occurs with the future 
here only, probably with the intent of presenting the wish rhetorically 
as attainable, though it can hardly have been actually thought of as 
such. BMT 27. Rem. i-. 

'AxoxoxTsaOac with an accusative of specification, to: yevvTQxtxa, 
expressed, or unexpressed but to be supplied mentally, refers to a 
form of emasculation said to be still common in the East. See Deut. 
23' (1); o'j-/. stjE^XeujovToct OXaBi'aq ouSe axoxexo^xpLevoq ziq s.y.y.\r]Gix\> 
Kupt'ou. Epict. Diss. 2. 20'': ol ix%OY.£XO'^[t.iyoi xaq ye xpo0u[xca^ xaq 
Tcjv dvBpdiv dxox64'aaOai ou ouvavxac. Philo, Sacrif. 325 (13); Leg. alleg. 
Ill 8 (3); Dion. Cass. 79". ~Cf. Keil and Delitzsch on Deut. 23^: 
"nri~i'i:«£3 [Lxx OXaStac] literally 'wounded by crushing,' denotes one 



who is mutilated in this way; Vulg. eunuchus attritis vel amputatis 
testiculis. ■iddb' nnp [Lxx uT:oy.exo[i\iiwq] is one whose sexual mem- 
ber was cut oflf ; Vulg. abscisso veretro. According to Mishnah Jebam. 
VI 2, 'contusus ^^1 est omnis, cuius testiculi vulnerati sunt, vel 
certe unus eorum; exsectus (nnr), cujus membrum virile praecisum 
est.' In the modern East emasculation is generally performed in 
this way. (See Toumefort, Reise, ii, p. 259 [The Levant, 1718, ii. 7] 
and Burckhardt, Nubien, pp. 450, 451.)" 

(b) Exhortation not to convert their liberty in Christ 
into an occasion for yielding to the impulse of the 
flesh (5^3-26) _ 

In this paragraph the apostle deals with a new phase of the 
subject, connected, indeed, with the main theme of the letter, 
but not previously touched upon. Aware that on the one side 
it will probably be urged against his doctrine of freedom from 
law that it removes the restraints that keep men from im- 
morality, and certainly on the other that those who accept it 
are in danger of misinterpreting it as if this were the case, he 
fervently exhorts the Galatians not to fall into this error, but, 
instead, through love to serve one another. This exhortation 
he enforces by the assurance that thus they will fulfil the full 
requirement of the law, that they will not fulfil the desire of 
the flesh, nor be under law, and by impressive lists, on the one 
hand of the works of the flesh, and on the other of the products 
of the Spirit in the soul. 

"For ye were called for freedom, brethren. Only convert not 
your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love be 
servants one of another. ^'^For the whole law is fulfilled in one 
word, even in this, Thou shall love thy neighbour as thyself. ^^But 
if ye are biting and devouring one another, take heed lest ye be con- 
sumed by one another. ^^But I say. Walk by the Spirit and ye 
will not fulfil the desire of the flesh. ^"^For the desire of the flesh is 
against that of the Spirit, and the desire of the Spirit against that 
of the flesh; for these are opposed to one another, that whatsoever 
ye will ye may not do. ^^But if ye are led by the Spirit, ye are not 
under law. ^^Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are 
fornication, uncleanness, wantonness ; "^Hdolatry, witchcraft; enmi- 

V, 12-13 291 

ties, strife, jealousy, angers, self-seekings, parties, divisions, ^^envy- 
ings; drunkenness, carousings, and the things like these; respect- 
ing which I tell you beforehand, as I have {already) told you in ad- 
vance f that they ivho do such things will not inherit the kingdom oj 
God. ^"^But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, long-suffering, 
kindness, goodness, faithfulness, ^^ gentleness, self-control. Against 
such things there is no law. '^'^And they that belong to the Christ, 
Jesus, have crucified the flesh with its disposition and its desires. 
"^Hf we live by the Spirit, by the Spirit also let us walk. ^^Let us 
not become vain-minded, provoking one another, envying one 

13. 'T/x€ts yap eV eKevdepla eKKijdrjTe, ade\(j>OL' "For ye 
were called for freedom, brethren." Like v.^ this sentence is 
transitional. It belongs with what precedes in that it gives a 
reason (ydp is causal) for v.^^, but even more significantly in that 
it is an epitome of the whole preceding argument of the epistle 
in behalf of the freedom of the Gentile. But it belongs with 
what follows in that it serves to introduce a wholly new aspect 
of the matter, the exposition of which begins with p.6vov. 
vfiels, immediately following vfJids of v.^^^ is emphatic. "Ye, 
whom they are disturbing, for freedom were called." 

On ext, expressing destination, see Th. B. 2 a 1^; i Thes. 4^ Phil. 41". 
eXeu0ept'(j: manifestly refers to the same freedom that is spoken of in 
v.i, but being without the article is qualitative. On i'/.X-qQ-qze, cf. on 
Toij y.a\ouYioq vJ and more fully on i^ On dSsXipot, see on i^K 

ixovov iJLr) Trjv eKevBeplav els a(f)Op}ii]v ry aapKi^ "Only con- 
vert not your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh." 
jiovov^ used also in i^^ 2 10 Phil, i^^, to call attention not to an 
exception to a preceding statement, but to an important addi- 
tion to it, here introduces a most significant element of the 
apostle's teaching concerning freedom, which has not been pre- 
viously mentioned, and which occupies his thought throughout 
the remainder of this chapter. On this word, as on a hinge, the 
thought of the epistle turns from freedom to a sharply con- 
trasted aspect of the matter, the danger of abusing freedom. 
So far he has strenuously defended the view that the Gentile is 


not under obligation to keep the statutes of the law, and though 
he has not referred specifically to any statute except those that 
pertain to circumcision, food, and the observance of days 
and seasons, he has constantly spoken simply of law, or the 
law, without indicating that his thought was limited to any 
portion or aspect of it. To men who have been accustomed to 
think of law as the only obstacle to free self-indulgence, or to 
those who, on the other hand, have not been accustomed to 
high ethical standards, such language is (despite the contrary 
teaching of w.^- ^) easily taken to mean that for the Christian 
there is nothing to stand in the way of the unrestrained indul- 
gence of his own impulses. Of this danger Paul is well aware 
{cf. Rom. 6^*^- Phil. 31^^- Col. 3^^), and beginning with this v. 
addresses himself vigorously to meeting and averting it. The 
word (^dp^, previously in this epistle a purely physical term, is 
used here and throughout this chapter (see vv. ^^' ^^' ""- ^4) in a 
definitely ethical sense, "that element of man's nature which 
is opposed to goodness, and makes for evil," in which it appears 
also in Rom., chap. 8; see detached note on Tlvev}ia and ^dp^ 
II 7, p. 493, and the discussion following 7. For fuller treat- 
ment, see Burton, Spirit, Soul, and Flesh, chap. VI, pp. 186, 
191 ^. Of any physical association with this ethical sense of the 
term there is no trace in this passage. 

The article before eXeuOspiav is demonstrative, referring to e>veu6epfa 
of the preceding clause, and through it to that of 51 and the implication 
of the whole context. On the omission of the verb with [jltq, cf. \i.^ 
Vofys V-^^ouc,, Aristoph. Vesp. 1179; tx-f) Tpi^dfci; Irt, Soph. Anlig. 575; 
[JLT] [jLoi [jLup{ouc;, Dem. 45" (cited by Alf.); Hartung, Partikdn II 153; 
Devarius, Dc Particidis, Ed. Klotz, II 669; W. LXIV 6; Mk. 14'. Note 
also the omission of the verb after [xovov, in 2^°. What verb is to be 
supplied, whether e'xsTe, xotecTe, TpixsTS {cf. Sief. Ell. et al.), 
Qxgicfzxs. or ixeTajxpecpsTS (Rev. ii^ Acts 2i»' 20)^ or some other, is not 
wholly clear. The thought is probably not "use not this freedom for, 
in the interest of," but "convert not this freedom into." On the use 
of zlq, cf. Jn. 16*0: -fj XuTZ^ utJLwv zlc, xapav YeviQcrs-rat, and Acts 2"' ". 
dt(pop;x-q, properly the place from which an attack is made (Thucydides, 
Polybius), is used also figuratively by Xenophon, et al., with the mean- 
ing, "incentive," "opportunity," "occasion." In N. T. it occurs in 
the Pauline letters only (Rom. ;» 2 Cor. 5" 11" i Tim. 51*) always in 

V, 13-14 293 

this latter meaning, and in the same phrases as in Isocrates and Demos- 
thenes: d?opti^v Xa^elv, Isoc. 53 A; Rom. 7*' "; <i<popti.^v BiBdvat, 
Dem. 54619; 2 Cor. 5" (c/. L. and S.). It is best taken here in the 
sense of "opportunity." t^ aapxi is a dative of advantage limiting 
&cfop[iriy. The article is probably generic, as clearly in v.", and the 
term is at least semi-personified. 

dXXa 5ia TTJs aydirrjs dov^evere oXXtj^ols' "but through love 
be servants one of another." This is the apostle's antidote 
ahke to the harmful restrictions of legalism and the dangers of 
freedom from law: love, expressed in mutual service. On what 
he means by ayd-Kt), see on v.^ and detached note on 'kyaTif), 
p. 519 The phase of love here emphasised is clearly that of 
benevolence, desire for the well-being of others, leading to efforts 
on their behalf, bov\ev(^i, generally meaning ''to yield obedi- 
ence to," "to be in subjection to" (see 4'- '), is evidently here 
employed in a sense corresponding to that which hovKos some- 
times has {cf. on i^"), and meaning "to render service to," "to 
do that which is for the advantage of." Having urgently dis- 
suaded the Galatians who were formerly enslaved to gods that 
are not really gods from becoming enslaved to law (4^ 5^), he 
now, perhaps with intentional paradox, bids them serve one 
another, yet clearly not in the sense of subjection to the will, but 
of voluntary devotion to the welfare, of one another. CJ. Rom. 
J 214-21 J415 J Cor. II25-33. See also Mk. g^^ IO''^ where, however, 
hioLKovos, not SoOXos, is used. The present tense of hovKevere 
reflects the fact that what Paul enjoins is not a single act of 
service, nor an entrance into service, but a continuous attitude 
and activity. 

'AXXi as often {cf. Rom. i^i 2", etc.) introduces the positive correla- 
tive of a preceding negative statement or command (German, sondern). 
The article before dcyaxT]^ is demonstrative, either referring to v.«, or, 
perhaps, in view of the distance of this v., to that love which is char- 
acteristic of the Christian life. Cf. 1 Cor. 13' 14^ Rom. 12'. 8t(i, as in 
lio. xiigiioq, lis, marks its object as the conditioning cause, that the 
possession of which makes possible the action of the verb, rather than 
as instrument in the strict sense. Cf. note on Sta in i^. 

14. yap Tas vo^ios iv evl \6yco TeirXrjpcoraL, eV to) 
" 'AyaTT]aeis tov ttXtjcflov aov cos aeavrov^ "For the whole 


I law is fulfilled in one word, even in this, Thou shalt love thy 
neighbour as thyself." A striking paradox. Having devoted 
practically all his effort up to this point, directly or indirectly, to 
dissuading the Galatians from coming into bondage to the law 
by undertaking to obey its statutes, he now gives as the reason 
for their serving one another that thus they will fulfil the whole 
law. But the paradox is itself most instructive; for it shows 
that there was a sense of the word "law" according to which it 
was essential that its requirements be fully met by the Chris- 
tian. Cf. Rom. 84. The explanation of the paradox lies partly 
in the diverse senses of the word "law," and the fact that the 
apostle employs it here not, as heretofore in the epistle, of its 
legahstic element, or of law legalistically interpreted, but of 
divine law conceived of as consisting in an ethical principle (see 
detached note on No^uos, V 2. (d), p. 458); partly, but to a less 
extent, in the difference between keeping statutes in slavish 
obedience and fulfilling law as the result of life by the Spirit. 
Cf. vv. 6' 1^ The apostle's statements become intelligible and 
consistent only when it is recognised that he held that from the 
whole law as statutes, from the obligation to obey any of its 
statutes as such, men are released through the new revelation 
in Christ; and that, on the other hand, all that the law as an 
expression of the will of God really requires, when seen with 
eyes made discerning by experience, is love, and he who loves 
therefore fulfils the whole law. Statutes he will incidentally 
obey in so far as love itself requires it, but only so far, and in 
no case as statutes of the law. Cf. the apostle's bold apphcation 
of this principle even to chastity in i Cor. 6^'^, showing that in 
Paul's view even when things prohibited by the law were also 
excluded by love, it was on the latter ground, not the former, 
that they were to be avoided by the Christian. 

The precise meaning of this sentence turns in no small part on the 
meaning of xsxX-rjptoTat, on which diverse interpretations have been 
put. It has been interpreted above as meaning ''is fully obeyed." 
This interpretation demands substantiation. -KXrigbui, a classical word, 
from ^schylus and Herodotus down, means properly "to fill," "to 
make full"; its object is, therefore, a space empty or but partly filled. 

V, 14 295 

In this sense it occurs rarely in N. T.: Mt. 13*8 Lk. y Jn. xiK Em- 
ployed tropically it signifies: i. "to fill," "to fulfil," the object being 
thought of under the figure of a receptable or empty vessel. It is used 
(a) with a personal object and means, " to fill," " to supply abundantly" : 
Acts 13" Rom. I"; (b) with an impersonal object, originally at least 
pictured to the mind as a receptacle to be filled, an empty form to be 
filled with reality; thus of a promise, prophecy, or statement of fact, 
"to satisfy the purport of," "to fit the terms of": Mt. i" el freq. in 
Mt. Acts ii« 31*, etc.; of commands and laws, "to satisfy the require- 
ments of," "to obey fully": Rom. 8< 138, probably also Mt. 51^; of 
needs, "to satisfy": Phil. 419. When the object is a task or course of 
action it means "to complete," "fully to perform": Mt. 3" Lk. 71 
Acts 12" 1426 Col. 41^. 2. When the object is thought of as something 
incomplete, and requiring to be filled out to its normal or intended 
measure, its meaning is "to complete," "to make perfect": Mk. i'^ 
Jn. 78 1511 i62<. In Rom. 8* 138 Paul uses the word as here with vo^aos, 
and quite unambiguously in the sense, "fully to obey"; this fact 
creates a strong presumption in favour of that meaning here. The 
use of the perfect tense, also, which might seem to favour the meaning 
"to make perfect" (the sentence in that case meaning, "the whole 
law stands complete, made perfect, in the one word," etc.) is suffi- 
ciently explained by tccxXt)?(ox.£v in Rom. 138: 6 ya? ayaxoiv Tbv sTspov 
v6txov x£xX-r)ow/.sv, "he that loveth his neighbour stands in the position 
of having fulfilled law, is a fulfiUer of law," the tense in both sentences 
being a gnomic perfect (BliT 79). The present sentence then means, 
"The whole law stands fully obeyed in (obedience to) one word," etc. 
So Luther's translation (though freely expressed) : " Alle Gesetze werden 
in einem Worte erfiillet"; Stage's German version: "Das ganze Gesetz 
findet seine Erfiillung in dem einen Worte"; so also Ell. Ltft. Sief., et al. 
The meaning (2) "is completed," though entirely possible in connection 
with such a word as v6[jloc, is practically excluded here (a) by xaq in 
6 %aq \6[xoq, indicating that the apostle is speaking, not of the law as 
incomplete, but as already complete, and (b) by the evidence of Rom. 8< 
138 in favour of "fulfil." The meaning "is summed up" (so Weizs., 
"geht in ein Wort zusammen," and Stapfer, "se resume d'un seul 
mot") is also appropriate to the context and harmonious with xaq, and 
repeats the thought of Paul in Rom. 13'. But it is opposed by the evi- 
dence of Rom. 138. 3, where Paul using both xXtq?6o) and avaxe^aXacdw 
clearly distinguishes them in meaning, using the latter in the sense 
"to sum up" and the former to mean "fulfil," "obey fully," and by 
the fact that x)vT]?6tL) is never used in the sense which this interpretation 
requires either in N. T., the Lxx, or in any Greek writer so far as 
observed. Sief. cites thirteen of the older commentators and trans- 
lators who take xsxATjpwrat in the sense of dvaxscpocXatouTat. An 


examination of nine of the ablest of these authorities shows no lexi- 
cographical basis for the position taken. The strongest, though en- 
tirely untenable, reason given is a comparison of xsxXTjpwTat here with 
dvaxe^aXatoGxac in Rom. 13^ whereas the proper comparison is with 
xexXiQpwxev in Rom. 138. 

The position of xaq between the article and the noun vdixoq is un- 
usual; if a distinction is to be drawn between the more usual x5; b 
v6[j.o<; and the form here emplo3^ed, the latter expresses more clearly 
the idea of totality, without reference to parts. See Butt., p. 120; 
Bl.-D. 275. 7; Acts 19^ 20I8 27"; I Tim. ii«. The context makes it clear 
that the reference is to the law of God; but clearly also to the law of 
God as revealed in O. T., since it is this that has been the subject 
of discussion throughout the epistle. See detached note on No[xoq, 
V 2. (d), p. 459. 

Aoyoq, meaning "utterance," "saying," "reason," etc., always has 
reference not to the outward form or sound, but to the inward content; 
here it evidently refers to the sentence following. Cf. Mt. 26" Lk. 7'^ 

The sentence dyaxfjastq . . . asauxov is quoted from Lev. 191s, following 
the Lxx. dyaxTjJscq clearly refers specially to the love of benevolence 
(see detached note on 'Ayaxaw and 'AyaxT]). In the original passage, 
^^'^^ ^>:7.'?,'?^^,^% n, though in itself capable of being used colourlessly 
to denote another person without indication of the precise relationship, 
doubtless derives from the context ("Thou shalt not take vengeance, 
nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt 
love thy neighbour as thyself") a specific reference to fellow Israelites. 
This limitation of the command, as, of course, also those passages 
which enjoin or express a hostile attitude to non-Israelites or to per- 
sonal enemies (Deut. 23'-^ 251^-19 Ps. 4110 69"-28 log'-'s), the apostle 
disregards, as he does the specific statutes of the law, such, e. g., as 
those requiring circumcision and the observance of days, which he 
conceived to be no longer valuable and valid. His affirmation is to be 
taken not as a verdict of mere exegesis, summing up with mathematical 
exactness the whole teaching of O. T., and giving its precise weight 
to each phase of it, but as a judgment of insight and broad valuation, 
which, discriminating what is central, pervasive, controlling, from what 
is exceptional, affirms the former, not introducing the latter even as a 
qualification but simply ignoring it. It is improbable that he drew a 
sharp distinction between portions of the law, and regarded those which 
were contrary to the spirit of love or not demanded by it as alien 
elements intruded into what was otherwise good; at least he never in- 
timates such a discrimination between good and bad parts of the 
law. Rather, it would seem, he looked at the law as a whole, as one 
might view a building many parts of which taken alone are without 

V, 14-16 297 

form or comeliness, yet which as a whole is wholly beautiful. Its 
total meaning was to him love; and this was the law of God; the 
parts as such had for him no authority. 

15. €L 5e aXXrJXous daKvere Kal KaredBiere, (3\e7reTe jjlt] vt 
aX\'^\cov ava\<jodrjT€. "But if ye are biting and devouring one 
another, take heed lest ye be consumed by one another." The 
form of the conditional clause and the tense of the verbs imply 
that the apostle has in mind a condition which he knows to be, 
or thinks may be, even now existing. It would but slightly 
exaggerate this suggestion to translate, "If ye continue your 
biting and devouring of one another." What the condition 
was to which he referred neither the passage nor the context 
discloses; most probably it was strife over the matters on 
which the judaisers were disturbing them. 

The verbs Sdxvw, x,aTea6ca), dvaXfuxw (all of common use in classical 
writers, the first two from Homer down, the third from Pindar down) 
suggest wild animals engaged in deadly struggle. The order is cli- 
mactic, the first and second by virtue of their respective meanings, 
the third in relation to the other two by virtue of their tenses, 8dx.vexe 
and y.aTec0t'sTe being conative presents and devaXwGi^Ts a resultative 

16. Aeyco 5e, Trvev/JLarL TreptTrareTre Kal einBv}xicLv aapKos 
ov fxr} reKea-qre. "But I say, Walk by the Spirit and ye will 
not fulfil the desire of the flesh." The use of the phrase Xe^co 
5e, not strictly necessary to the expression of the thought, 
throws emphasis upon the statement thus introduced. Cf. 
3I' 41 52 Rom. 10^8. 19 iji, 11 j^8 I Cor. lo^^ 2 Cor. ii^^. By 
TTvevjiaTi Paul undoubtedly refers to the Spirit of God as in 
v.^ So also (jdp^ manifestly has the same ethical meaning as 
in v.i^ (See detached note on livevixa^ HI B. i. (c), p. 491, and 
^ap^ 7, p. 493.) TrepiiraTelTe is a true imperative in force, 
while also serving as a protasis to the apodosis ov jjlt) reXearjTe. 
BMT 269. The tense of the imperative denoting action in 
progress is appropriately used of that which the Galatians were 
already doing; cf. 3^ 5^ Over against the danger spoken of in 
v.i^ and the possible suggestion of the judaisers to the Gala- 


tians, or the fear of the Galatians themselves, that without the 
pressure of the law constraining them to do right they would 
fall into sinful living, Paul enjoins them to continue to govern 
their conduct by the inward impulse of the Spirit, and emphati- 
cally assures them that so doing they will not yield to the 
power within them that makes for evil. The type of life which 
he thus commends to them is evidently the same which in 
vv.^' ^ he has described in the words, "For we by the Spirit, by 
faith, wait for the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus 
neither circumcision availeth anything nor uncircumcision, but 
faith working through love"; in 2^^ in the words, "It is no 
longer I that Hve but Christ that liveth in me, and the life that 
I now live in the flesh, I live by faith, faith upon the Son of 
God"; and which is described below in v.^^ in the words, "If 
ye are led by the Spirit," and in v.2% "If we live by the Spirit." 
On the identity experientially of life by the Spirit, and the life 
of Christ within, see p. 222. 

The word xeptxaxio), which Paul uses in this epistle here only, is of 
frequent occurrence in his other writings. Occurring in the synoptic 
gospels exclusively, and in the Gospel of John, Revelation, and Acts 
almost exclusively, in the literal sense, it appears in Paul and the 
epistles of John exclusively in the figurative sense, with the meaning 
"to live," "to conduct one's self." See, e. g., Rom. 6* S* 2 Cor. 10'. 
This idea is very frequently expressed in Hebrew by "iSn and is 
occasionally reproduced in the Lxx by xeptxaxio) (2 Kgs. 20' Prov. 
820 Eccl. ii«), but far more commonly by xopeuw (Ps. i^ 26i- >i etfreq.). 
As compared with the parallel expressions in (ayeaOe) and in v.«a 
(t!,(I);i.ev), xspcxaxslTs emphasises the outward life, conduct, as against 
surrender of will to the divine guidance (v.i*), and participation in moral 
life through mystical union (v."). 

The absence of the article with xv£U[xaTt and with both IxtOu^jiiav 
and aapx6q emphasises the contrast in character between the Spirit- 
controlled type of life and that which is governed by impulse of the 
flesh. Cf. 3', though the meaning of the word adc?^ is different there. 
On the different senses in which the words xv£0:jLa and aap? are set in 
antithesis to one another, see detached note on nveOij,a and Sdtp^, p. 494. 

TeXio), a word common in Greek writers, from Homer down, signi- 
fies, as its relation to xiXoq suggests, "to bring to an end," "to com- 
plete," "to perfect"; hence of a task, promise, and the like, "to fulfil." 
In N. T. it means: i. "to finish"; 2. "to perform," "execute," 

V, i6 299 

"fulfil"; 3. "to pay." It is manifestly used here in the second sense, 
extOup-ta aap-Ktq being conceived of as a demand, which, the apostle 
affirms, they will not fulfil, ou jjl-?) xeXsaTrjxe is equivalent to an em- 
phatic promissory future {BMT 172) expressing, not a command, but 
a strong assurance that if they walk by the Spirit they will not, in fact, 
fulfil the flesh-lust, but will be able to resist and conquer it. For 
though o'j [XT) with a subj. is occasionally used to express prohibition 
in classical writers, Lxx, and N. T. (GMT 297, BMT 167), yet both 
the general situation, which requires that the Galatians shall not so 
much be commanded as assured of the safety of the course enjoined 
in xsptxaTslxc, and the immediate context (vv. i^- 1») favour an asser- 
tive and predictive sense rather than the rarely occurring imperative 

'ETCt0u;j.ta and extGu^xsco, both occurring in classical writers from 
Herodotus down, properly express desire of any kind (exi — 6u[x6<;, 
"heart for," "impulse towards"). In classical writers excQu^xi'a means 
"desire," "yearning," "longing": Hdt. i"; Thuc. 6. 13I; with object, 
gen. :Thuc. 2. 52^; Antipho, 115". See also Aristot. i?Ae/.^ (i369a5): 
&jTe xavra ocja xpaTTOuatv dvaYxiQ xpdixTeiv Si' aktczq exrd:, Sta t6xt)v, 
8t« cpuatv, Sia ^tav, Sc' eOoq, Std: Xoyta^xov, Sea Ouix6v, St' extOuyifav 
. . . (1369b), Si' IxcOufJiiav Se xpiTTexai oja ^ai'vsTai •fjSla. The de- 
sires that are related to the senses (in this general sense, sensual) 
Plato calls <x\ xaxA -zh adi'^a IxiOutxi'at (Phaed. 82 C). Cf. Diog. Laert. 
VII I" (no). In the Lxx and Apocr. i-xiOuixix occurs frequently, 
being used of desire shown by the context to be good (Ps. 37"), or evil 
(Prov. 1 2 12), or without implication of moral quality (Deut. 12 is. 20. 21), 
When it is employed of evil desire this is either indicated by some term 
of moral quahty, as in Prov. 1212, or as in Sir. 5= iS'". "^ by such a lim- 
itation as aou or xapSias aou, the evil lying in the element of selfish- 
ness or wilfulness; when sexual desire is referred to, this idea is not at 
all in the word but in the limitations of it (Sir. 2o<). In 4 Mac. 
exi6u[xiai is a general term for the desires, which the author says can 
not be eradicated, but to which reason ought not to be subjected; in 21 
it is used of sexual desire defined as such by the limiting words; only 
in I' does it stand alone, apparently meaning evil desire, perhaps sex- 
ual, being classed with yoLGXpv^ocpfia, gluttony, as one of the feelings 
(xi:6T]; cf. on %xQr}\).a, v.-*) that are opposed to sobriety (aaxppoauvT)). 
exiOuixiw in classical writers is likewise a term without moral impHca- 
tion, signifying "to desire." In the Lxx and Apocr., also, it is a 
neutral term, being used of desire for that which is good (Ps. ii9'"'' " 
Isa. 582 Wisd. 6'0, of desire which it is wrong to cherish (Ex. 20^7 Prov. 
2i26), and without moral implication (Gen. s'^^" 2 Sam. 23^^). The 
same is true of the verb in N. T.'; it is used of good (Mt. i3>' i Tim. 3O 
or evil desire (Rom. 7^ 13') according to the requirements of the con- 


text. It is clearly without moral colour in the present passage. The 
noun also, as used in N. T., carries in itself no moral implication 
(Lk. 2 2i' I Thes. 2" Phil. i"). When it is used of evil desire this quality 
is usually indicated by a limitation of the word, or by such limitation 
combined with the larger context (Jn. 8" Rom. i" Col. 3^ etc.). And 
though there appears in N. T. a tendency (of which there are perhaps 
the beginnings in Sir. and 4 Mac. also) to use ztci^o-mx for evil desire 
without qualifying word (see Rom. 7'- * Jas. i'^), it remains for the most 
part a word of neutral significance without distinctly moral colour. The 
idea of sensuality conveyed by the word "lust" as used in modern 
English belongs neither to the verb extOua^to nor to the noun exc0u[jn'a 
in themselves, and is, indeed, rather rarely associated with them even 
by the context. In the case of the noun the implication of evil (not 
necessarily sensuality) is beginning in N. T, times to attach itself to 
its use. 

17. T) yap CFap^ iiTiduiJLel Kara rod irvevidaTos, to 5e iwevfjia 
Kara r?}? aapKos, ravra yap aXX^JXcts aPTiKeirai, Iva jjlt) a 
eav deXrjre ravra iroirfre. "For the desire of the flesh is 
against that of the Spirit, and the desire of the Spirit against 
that of the flesh; for these are opposed to one another, that 
whatsoever ye will ye may not do." yap is confirmatory and 
the whole sentence a proof of the statement of v.^^, that walking 
by the Spirit will not issue in subjection to the fiesh. (rdp^ 
and (JapKos evidently have the same meaning as crapKos in v.^'', 
but for the qualitative use of that verse the apostle substitutes 
a generic use of adp^ with the article, by w^hich the force for 
evil is objectified. So also irvevjia and irvevixaros retain the 
meaning of irvevixari in v.^^, save that by the use of the article 
they become definite, pointing directly to the Spirit of God, 
rather than referring to it quahtatively as in v.^^ ravra yap 
. . . avTiKeir ai is probably not simply a repetition in general 
terms of r] yap . . . rrjS aapKos, in which case it adds nothing 
to the thought. More probably the first part of the v. having, 
consistently with the point of view of v.^^, spoken of Spirit and 
flesh as mutually antagonistic forces, there is at ravra yap a 
change in point of view, these and the following words referring 

\ to the conflict which takes place between these two in the soul 
of which neither is in full possession, as proof of their mutual 

I antagonism. To the thought of the whole v. there is an approx- 

V, i6-i7 301 

imate parallel in the antithesis between Satan and the Spirit 
in Mk. 323-27, xhe use of einSviiel with <jdp^ and its antithesis 
to TTvevixa in a personal sense involves a rhetorical personifica- 
tion of o-ap^, but not a conception of it as actually personal. 

On the question precisely what TaGxa . . . dvTt'xstTat means, and 
whether Yva . . . xo-.fiTs depends on this or the preceding clause, in 
which is also involved the question whether y^:? after Tauxa is explan- 
atory or confirmatory, and whether the clause introduced by it is paren- 
thetical, the following data are to be considered: 

1. There is no sufficient warrant in the usage of the period for taking 
?v(5c in a purely ecbatic sense, and tva . . . xotfj-re as a clause of 
actual result. Nor can this clause be regarded as a clause of con- 
ceived result {BMT 218), since the principal clause refers not to a 
conceived situation (denied to be actual, as in i Thes. 5S or asked 
about as in Jn. 92, or affirmed as necessary as in Heb. 10'"), but to one 
directly and positively affirmed. Nor are any of the other sub-telic 
usages of Tva clauses possible here; apparently it must be taken as 
purely telic. This fact forbids taking a ed:v UX-qzz as referring to the 
things which one naturally, by the flesh, desires, and understanding 
the clause as an expression of the beneficent result of walking by the 
Spirit. Cf. also Rom. y'S where similar language is used of a state 
regarded as wholly undesirable. 

2. This clause also excludes understanding the whole verse as refer- 
ring to a conflict between the flesh and the Spirit as forces in them- 
selves, without reference to any experience of the reader. 

3. On the other hand, to interpret the first clause, tj yap • • • aapxo? 
in an experiential sense makes TaOxa . . . avTt'xstTac a meaningless 
and obstructive repetition of the preceding statement. 

It seems best, therefore, to understand the sentence from ^ ya? to 
aapxoq as referring to the essential contrariety of the two forces as 
such. This contrariety the apostle adduces as proof (rap) of the 
statement of v.i" (they will not come under the power of the flesh by 
coming under the Spirit, for the two forces are of precisely opposite 
tendency), and in turn substantiates it by appeal to their own experi- 
ence, the reference to their experience being intimated by the use of 
the second person in the telic clause. The change in point of view 
from essential contrariety to that of experience is, then, at xauxa yap, 
yip being not explanatory but confirmatory. 

What condition that is in which the internal conflict described in 
v.i"^ ensues is suggested (a) by uxb voixov of v." (see notes below), 
itself apparently suggested by the thought of v.i"'; (b) by reference 
to Rom. 6", where, after urging his readers not to continue in sin, the 
apostle abruptly introduces the expression uxb v6'aov in such a way as 


to show that, though he has not previously in this chapter spoken of 
the law, he has all the time had in mind that it is under law that 
one is unable to get the victory over sin; (c) by comparison of Rom. 
7'*-8S in which the apostle sets forth the conflict which ensues when 
one strives after righteousness under law, and from which escape is 
possible only through the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus, free- 
ing one from that other law which, though it can command the good, 
can not achieve it. 

"Iva . . . xotfjTs as a pure final clause is to be understood not as 
expressing the purpose of God, this conflict being represented as a 
thing desired by him (for neither is the subject of the sentence a word 
referring to God, nor is the thought thus yielded a Pauline thought), 
nor of the flesh alone, nor of the Spirit alone, but as the purpose of 
both flesh and Spirit, in the sense that the flesh opposes the Spirit that 
men may not do what they will in accordance with the mind of the 
Spirit, and the Spirit opposes the flesh that they may not do what 
they will after the flesh. Does the man choose evil, the Spirit opposes 
him; does he choose good, the flesh hinders him. 

18. €L be TPevjjiaTL dyeaOe, ouk iare virb pofxop. "But if ye 
are led by the Spirit, ye are not under law." In this sentence 
the apostle harks back for a moment to the point of view of the 
first part of the chapter, w.^-^, complementing the statement of 
v.^6, that to walk by the Spirit does not involve subjection to 
the flesh, by the assertion that to be led by the Spirit is not to 
be under law. Clearly, therefore, Hfe by the Spirit constitutes 
for the apostle a third way of life distinct both on the one hand 
from legalism and on the other from that which is characterised 
by a yielding to the impulses of the flesh. It is by no means a 
middle course between them, but a highway above them both, 
a life of freedom from statutes, of faith and love. The intro- 
duction of the statement at this point may be due to a desire, 
even in the midst of the warning against the danger of convert- 
ing freedom into an occasion to the flesh, to guard his readers 
against supposing that he is now really retracting what he has 
said before, and turning them back to legalism disguised as a 
life under the leading of the Spirit. This was an entirely pos- 
sible danger for those to whose thought there were only the 
tw^o possibilities, restraint by law or no restraint. Or perceiv- 
ing that what he had said in v.^^ about the contrariety of the 

V, 17-19 S^^ 

Spirit and the flesh and the struggle in which those find them- 
selves in whom both Spirit and flesh are still working, might 
seem to justify a doubt whether to walk by the Spirit after all 
assures one the victory over the flesh, and having in mind that 
it is in the case of those who are under law that the conflict is 
thus indecisive, he answers the doubt by saying, "But this does 
not apply to you who walk by the Spirit; for if ye are led by 
the Spirit ye are not under law." There seems no decisive 
ground of choice between these two explanations of the occa- 
sion of the sentence; its meaning remains the same in either 
case. TTvevixari is here, as in v.^^ the Holy Spirit, quaHta- 
tively spoken of. That the term is nevertheless distinctly in- 
dividual is shown by the connection with the verb dyecrde^ 
which, though practicaUy synonymous with the Treptxaretre 
of v.^^ emphasises the voluntary subjection of the will to the 
Spirit, as xeptxaretre on the other hand makes prominent the 
conformity of conduct to the guidance of the Spirit, and ^(ofxev 
in V.25 the intimate and vital nature of the relation of the Chris- 
tian to the Spirit. Cf. Rom. 8": oaoi yap TrvevfxarL deov 
ayovTai, ovroi viol deov elaiv. The conditional clause ex- 
pressing a present particular supposition conveys a suggestion, 
as in TrepiTraretre, of continuance of action in progress, "If ye 
are continuing to be led by the Spirit." vtto v6ij,ov is undoubt- 
edly to be taken, as elsewhere in the epistle {cf. 3^3 4*' s. 21)^ as 
referring to that legalistic system from which it is the apostle's 
aim to keep his readers free. To understand the word in the 
ethical sense in which it is used in v.^^ would immediately bring 
the statement into conflict with the plain implication of vv.^^- ^'^. 
Any other sense than one of these two is wholly foreign to the 

19. (I^apepa 5e eariv Ta epya rrjS aapKos, "Now the works 
of the flesh are manifest." Having in v.^'^ affirmed the mutual 
antipathy of Spirit and flesh, the apostle now reverts to that 
statement (5e is resumptive), and explicates it by enumerating 
the respective manifestations of the two, doubtless having in 
mind, as he writes this sentence, the content not only of vv.^o- 21, 
but also of VV.22- 23. The purpose of both enumerations is, of 


course, the same as that of the whole paragraph from vv. ^^-^s, 
viz., to enforce the exhortation of v.^^^, not to convert their lib- 
erty into an occasion to the flesh, but to rule their lives by love, 
which is itself to be achieved by living by the Spirit. This the 
repellent catalogue of vices is well calculated to do. 

$avcp6^ (c/. I Cor. 3I' 14", etc.) signifies "open, evident," so that any 
one may see, hence, " well-known. " The appeal is to common knowl- 
edge. e?ya is probably to be taken in the active sense, deeds, rather 
than in the passive, products; for though the latter sense is occasionally 
found, I Cor. ^^*' '^ (sing.), Acts 7" (plur.), yet Paul always uses spya 
(plur.) in the active sense. The term as here used may be associated in 
his mind with the epya vo'^xou so often spoken of in the epistle. For that 
he regarded life under law as tending to produce sinful deeds is clear 
from Rom. 6^* 7''". Yet xa epya xfig japxoq is not here equivalent to 
Ipya v6;xou; for by the latter phrase he designates not such evil deeds 
of sensuaHty, violence, etc., as are here enumerated, but the deeds of 
obedience to statutes which fall short of righteousness because they 
lack the inner spirit of faith and love, xopvst'a, etc., could not be 
called epya vo^ou in Paul's sense of this term. 

aTivd ianv iropveia^ aKaOapaua, aaeXyeua, 20. etScoXo- 
Xarpca, ^ap/xa/ct'a, e)(dpaL, epcs, ^f/Xos, OufiOL, ipiOiai^ du^oo'Ta- 
cr/at, atpeVets, 21. 0^oVot, /jLedai, km/jlol, Kal to, 6}ioLa tovtols, 
'which are fornication, uncleanness, wantonness; idolatry, 
witchcraft; enmities, strife, jealousy, angers, self-seekings, par- 
ties, divisions, envyings; drunkenness, carousings, and the 
things like these." The words in this list of vices fall into 
four groups, indicated by the punctuation of the translation. 
The first group includes three sins in which sensuality in the 
narrower sense is prominent; the second includes two that are 
associated with heathen religions, the third group contains eight 
in which the element of conflict with others is present; the 
fourth consists of drunkenness and its natural accompaniments. 

After exQpat, some authorities (CKL. al pier.) maintain the plural 
to the end of the list, reading epstq and i^f)Xot, and after fOovoi add 
96vot. This text Sd. adopts. The text above is that of SB, sup- 
ported by other pre-Syrian authorities (varying somewhat in the case 
of each word), and is clearly the original. 

On axtvoc, see note on 4=*, p. 257. axtva eaxtv may mean "of which 
class are" (so Ell. and substantially Ltft.), but the evidence is by no 

V, 19-21 305 

means decisive for this meaning in general, and in this passage it is 
the less probable because the idea "with others of the same class" 
supposed to be conveyed by the compound form is expressed in the 
words xal xa 8[Aoca TouTotq in v.". 

Ilopveta, rarely used in the classics (the lexicons give exx. from Dem. 
only) but frequent in the Lxx and in N. T., probably signified origi- 
nally "prostitution" {cf. xopvYj, "a prostitute," probably related to 
xipvT]^, "to sell [slaves]," prostitutes being commonly bought slaves), 
but in biblical writings, (i) "unlawful sexual intercourse" (icopvo.; in 
the classics usually meant one guilty of unnatural vice) whether in- 
volving violation of marriage or not: Gen. 38" Hos. i'' Mt. 5" Acts 
1^20, 29^ etc., and (2) tropically, "the worshipping of other gods th?ai 
Jehovah": Hos. 5^ Isa. 57 ^ Ezek. 1615 Jn. 8^^ (?) Rev. 2^1 921, etc. Here 
evidently, in the literal sense, "fornication." On the prevalence of this 
vice among Gentiles, and the tendency even in the Christian church 
to regard it as innocent, see i Cor. 5'' 1° 6»2ff-, and commentaries on 
the latter passage, esp. Mey.; i Thes. 4^^-. 

'Ax.a0apat'a, employed in Hippocrates and Plato of the uncleanncss 
of a sore or wound, and in Demosthenes of moral depravity, is used in 
the Lxx either of ceremonial impurity. Lev. 5^ et freq. (so in 2 Chron. 
295. i«, or perhaps in the more literal sense, "dirt"), as in Pap. Oxyr. 
Vni 1 1 28^5, or of "moral impurity," "wickedness," with no special 
emphasis on sexual vice: Prov. 6i« (Lxx); i Esdr. i^' Ezek. 9', etc. In 
N. T. once only of physical filth, or of that which is ceremonially defil- 
ing, Mt. 232' (yet even here as a figure for wickedness); elsewhere of 
moral impurity. The latter instances are all in Paul (Rom. i" 6'', etc.) 
and seven out of the nine stand in association with •jcopvet'a or other 
word denoting sexual vice. It is probable, therefore, that in the pres- 
ent instance also the apostle has in mind especially sins of the flesh 
in the narrower sense, dy.aOapjta being a somewhat broader term 
even than xopvet'a. Cf. Eph. 5', icopvsi'a 6e xal dxaOapat'a xaaa. 

'AaeXysia, of doubtful etymology, is used by Greek authors with the 
meaning "wantonness," "violence"; so in Plato, Isaeus, Demosthenes, 
Aristotle. In Polyb. 2>7- 2* the addition of the words xspl -zaq 
aiji[ IxcOu^taq makes it refer especially to lewdness, yet 
djeXYsca itself means simply "wantonness." It is not found in the 
Lxx (canonical books), and in the Apocr. only in Wisd. 142s and 
3 Mac. 2-5, in the former passage with probable reference to sensuality, 
lewdness; in the latter without indication of such limitation. In N. T. it 
occurs in Mk. 7^2 without restriction to sensual sin, in i Pet. 4' 2 Pet. 
22. 7. 18^ without decisive indication of this limitation. Cf. Trench, 
Synom. § XVI, who gives further evidence that daeXyeta is not exclu- 
sively "lasciviousness," but "wantonness," "unrestrained wilfulness." 
Yet in view of Paul's association of it elsewhere with words denoting 


sensuality (Rom. i3»' 2 Cor. 12-' Eph. 419) and its grouping here with 
xopvefa and dcxaeapata, it is probable that it refers here especially to 
wantonness in sexual relations. Like ixaOapata, less specific than 
•jcopvsfa, and referring to any indecent conduct, whether involving 
violation of the person or not, ijiXyeta differs from dxaOapafa in 
that the latter emphasises the grossness, the impurity of the conduct, the 
former its wantonness, its unrestrainedness. Lightfoot's distinction: 
"A man may be dyMo^gioq and hide his sin; he does not become iaeXyTji; 
until he shocks public decency" seems scarcely sustained by the usage 
of the words. iusXyeca is, indeed, unrestrained, but not necessarily 
public, and dcxaOapjia carries no more suggestion of secrecy than 
djayeta. Cf. Eph. 4I'. 

EfSwXoXa-rpta, not found in classic writers or in the Lxx, occurs in 
N. T. (i Cor. iQi^ Col. 3^ I Pet. 4') and thereafter in ecclesiastical 
writers. Greek writers did not use etScoXov with specific reference to 
the gods of the Gentiles or their images, and the term e^SwXoXaxpfa 
apparentlv arose on Jewish soil. eiStoXov, signifying in the Lxx and 
N. T. either the image of the god (Acts 7" Rev. g^") or the god repre- 
sented by the image (i Cor. 8*' '' iC), e^StoXoXaxpfa doubtless shared 
its ambiguity, denoting worship of the image or of the god represented 
by it. 

4>ap[jLaxta [or -eb], a classical word occurring from Plato down, is 
derived from <pdp[xaxov, which from Homer down denotes a drug, 
whether harmful or wholesome. 9ap[j.ay.(a signifies in general the use 
of drugs, whether helpfully by a physician, or harmfully, hence poison- 
ing. In Demosthenes, Aristotle, Polybius, and the Lxx it is used of 
witchcraft (because witches employed drugs). In Isa. 47' it is a s}^- 
onym of IxaotSif), enchantment (cf. also Philo, Migr. Ahr. ?>2,, 85 (15); 
I Enoch, chap. VIII, Syn.). In the Lxx the word is uniformly em- 
ployed in a bad sense, of witchcrafts or enchantments: of the Egyp- 
tians (Exod. 71'. «), of the Canaanites (Wisd. 12^, of Babylon (Isa. 
47'- '''). So also in N. T. passages. Rev. 9^1 (WH. text yxpfxaxdiv, mg. 
9appLaxta>v, as also Tdf.); 18" (the latter referring, like Isa. 479- ", 
to Babylon), and in the present passage, the reference is to witchcraft, 
sorcery, magic art of any kind, without special reference to the use of 
drugs. The meaning " poisoning " (Demosthenes, Polybius) is excluded 
here by the combined evidence of contemporary usage and the asso- 
ciation with efScoXoXaxpia. On the prevalence of witchcraft and its 
various forms, see Acts 8«ff- i3»ff- igi'ff- 2 Tim. 3"; Ltft. ad loc; B'ble 
Dictionaries, under " Magic, " and literature cited there and in Ltft. 

"Ex9pat, a classical word, from Pindar down, occurs frequently in 
the Lxx and N. T. Standing at the beginning of the third group it 
gives the key-note of that group. It is the opposite of dtyaTCT), denoting 
"enmity," "hostility," in whatever form manifested. 

V, I9-20 307 

"Epi<;, a classical word, of frequent occurrence from Homer down; 
in Homer of "contention," "rivalry," "strife for prizes," also "fight- 
ing," "strife"; after Homer "strife," "discord," "quarrel," "wran- 
gling," "contention." It occurs in Ps. 139" (B); Sir. 28" 40^- «, in the 
latter two passages in an enumeration of the common ills of life. The 
nine N. T. instances are all found in the epistles ascribed to Paul, 

Zrikoq occurs in classical writers from Hesiod down; by Plato and 
Aristotle it is classed as a noble passion, "emulation," as opposed to 
(p06vo<;, "envy"; but in Hesiod is already used as equivalent to cpBovcq. 
In the Lxx used for r\i<p_, but with considerable variety of mean- 
ing. The common element in all the uses of the word is its expression 
of an intense feeling, usually eager desire of some kind. In the Lxx 
and N. T. three meanings may be recognised: (i) "intense devotion 
to, zeal for, persons or things" (Ps. 69", quoted in Jn. 2^% i Mac. 2^8 
Rom. io« 2 Cor 7' Phil. 3«); (2) "anger," perhaps always with the 
thought that it arises out of devotion to another person or thing (Num. 
25"!^ Ezek. 23" Acts 5^^ 13" Heb. 10", the last a quotation from the 
Lxx); (3) "jealousy," the unfriendly feeling excited by another's pos- 
session of good, or "envy," the eager desire for possession created by 
the spectacle of another's possession (Cant. S« Eccl. 4* 9« Rom. 13" 
I Cor. 3' Jas. s^*' ^O- In the present passage it is clearly used in the 
last-named sense. 

0uijl6<;, a classical word in frequent use from Homer down, signifying 
"breath," "soul," "spirit," "heart" (as the seat of emotion, both 
the gentler and the more turbulent, and as the seat of thought) , " tem- 
per," "courage," "anger." It occurs very frequently in the Lxx, 
translating various Hebrew words, and in the Apocr. (over three hun- 
dred times in all). Its meanings are (i) "disposition" (Wisd. 7"); 
(2) "courage" (2 Mac. 7"); but in the great majority of cases both in 
Lxx and Apocr. (3) "anger," occasionally in the expressions tj 6py^ 
Tou 8utJLoij and 6 Qu-^hq ttj; Spyf]?; it is ascribed both to God and to 
men.* In N. T. the Apocalypse uses it (a) in the meaning "wrath"; 
with reference to the wrath of God in i4i''- 1^ is^- '' i6^- ^' 19^* (in 161' and 
1915 in the phrase b Qw^hq ir]q dpy^q); of the rage of Satan in 1212, and 
(b) with the meaning, "ardour," "passion," in the expres