Skip to main content

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

See other formats 


•  ^;S 


A  CRITICAL  AND  EXEGETICAL 
COMMENTARY 

ON 

THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  GALATIANS 

BY 

ERNEST  DE  WITT  BURTON 


The  International  Critical  Commentary 

A  CRITICAL  AND 
EXEGETICAL  COMMENTARY 

ON 

THE   EPISTLE 
TO   THE   GALATIANS 


BY 

ERNEST  DE  WITT  BURTON 

PROFESSOR   OF   NEW   TESTAMENT   INTERPRETATION   IN   THE 
UNIVERSITY   OF   CHICAGO 


EDINBURGH 
T.    &    T.    CLARK.    38    GEORGE    STREET 


PRINTED    IN    GREAT    BRITAIN    BY 
MORRISON      AND      GIBB      LIMITED 

FOR 

T.    &    T.    CLARK,    EDINBURGH 

NEW    YORK  :      CHARLES    SCRIBNER'S    SONS 


First  Edition 1921 

Latest  Reprint 1962 


MAY  IS  ^964 

Tht;  Rights  of  Translaiion  and  Reproduction  are  Reserved 


TO    MY   WIFE 
FRANCES    MARY    BURTON 

WHOSE    FELLOWSHIP    OF    SPIRIT    IN   THIS    TASK 
HAS    BEEN    CONSTANT 


PREFACE 

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. 


vm  PREFACE 

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. 


CONTENTS 


PAGE 

ABBREVIATIONS xi 

INTRODUCTION— 

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 

COMMENTARY i 

APPENDIX 363 

INDEXES— 

I.    English  Words,  Subjects,  and  Authors 523 

II.    Greek  Words  and  Phrases 53^ 

III.    Biblical  Passages,  Not  in  Galatians,  Discussed  in 

This  Commentary 54o 


ABBREVIATIONS. 

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 
Theology. 

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

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

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

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 
BGU.= 


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, 
1828-77. 

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


xu 


ABBREVIATIONS 


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. 

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 
DCB. 

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, 
1911. 


ABBREVIATIONS 


GMT  =  Gildersleeve,  Basil  L.,  Syn- 
tax of  the  Moods  and  Tenses 
of  the  Greek  Verb.  Revised 
and  enlarged.  Boston, 
1889. 

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- 
erature. 

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

JfpT.  =  Jahrbuch  fiir  protestantise ne 
Theologie. 

Just.  Mart.  =  Justin  Martyr.  Ca. 
ISO. 

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- 
94. 

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. 


XIV 


ABBREVIATIONS 


ms.,  mss.  =  manuscript,  manu- 
scripts. 

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- 
1910. 

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 
1898-1919. 

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- 
vieiv. 

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, 
1914. 

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

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, 
1895. 


ABBREVIATIONS 


XV 


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, 
1918. 

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 

DCB. 
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 
period. 

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

u.  s.  =  lit  supra,  as  above. 

Vg.  =  Vulgate,    text   of   the   Latin 

Bible. 
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 
Appendix. 


XVI 


ABBREVIATIONS 


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

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

ZhTh.=  Zeitschrift  fiir  historische 
Theologie. 


ZntW.  =  Zeitschrift  fiir  die  neutesta- 

mentliche  Wissenschaft. 
ZwTh.  =  Zeitschrift  fur  wissenschaft- 

liche  Theologie. 
ZkWkL.  =  Zeitschrift  fiir  kircJdiche 

Wissenschaft  und  kirchliches 

Leben, 


INTRODUCTION 

I.  GALATIA  AND  THE  GALATIANS 

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/. 

xvii 


XVlll  INTRODUCTION 

as  etymologically  distinct,  but  the  people  as  ethnographically 
identical. 

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 
Galatians. 

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. 


INTRODUCTION  XIX 

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  /. 


XX  INTRODUCTION 

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  y.ai 

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. 


INTRODUCTION  XXI 

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. 


II.    WHERE  WERE  THE  GALATIAN  CHURCHES? 

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. 


XXU  INTRODUCTION 

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- 


INTRODUCTION  XXlll 

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. 


XXIV  INTRODUCTION 

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. 
1910 

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. 


INTRODUCTION  XXV 

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" 


XXVI  INTRODUCTION 

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 


INTRODUCTION  XXVll 

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. 


XXVIU  INTRODUCTION 

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 


INTRODUCTION  XXIX 

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 


XXX  INTRODUCTION 

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. 


INTRODUCTION  XXXi 

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. 


XXXU  INTRODUCTION 

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. 


INTRODUCTION  XXXIU 

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.^, 


XXxiv  INTRODUCTION 

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. 


INTRODUCTION  XXXV 

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 


XXXVl  INTRODUCTION 

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. 


INTRODUCTION  XXXVll 

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 


XXXVlll  INTRODUCTION 

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. 


INTRODUCTION  XXXIX 

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 


Xl  INTRODUCTION 

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 
legitimacy. 

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 


INTRODUCTION  xli 

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. 


Xlii  INTRODUCTION 

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 


INTRODUCTION  xliii 

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 
people. 

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 
also. 

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. 


Xliv  INTRODUCTION 

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. 

III.    THE  TIME  AND  PLACE  OF  WRITING. 

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. 


INTRODUCTION  xlv 

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 


xlvi  INTRODUCTION 

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 


INTRODUCTION  xlvii 

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 


Xlviii  INTRODUCTION 

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 


INTRODUCTION  xllX 

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- 


INTRODUCTION 

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; 


INTRODUCTION  K 

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 


Hi  INTRODUCTION 

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 
necessary. 


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. 


INTRODUCTION  liii 

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". 


IV.    OCCASION  AND  PURPOSE  OF  THE  LETTER. 

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/. 


liv  INTRODUCTION 

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 


INTRODUCTION  Iv 

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 


Ivi  INTRODUCTION 

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 
Gentiles. 

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 


INTRODUCTION  Ivii 

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. 

V.    THE  QUESTIONS  AT  ISSUE. 

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^ 


Ivi'i  INTRODUCTION 

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, 


INTRODUCTION  lix 

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 


IX  INTRODUCTION 

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 


INTRODUCTION  ki 

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" 


Ixii  INTRODUCTION 

{  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, 


INTRODUCTION  Ixiii 

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 


Ixiv  INTRODUCTION 

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. 


INTRODUCTION  IxV 

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. 

VI.     GENUINENESS  AND  INTEGRITY. 

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, 


Ixvi  INTRODUCTION 

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 


INTRODUCTION  kvii 

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 
circumstances. 

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 


Ixviii  INTRODUCTION 

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

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. 


INTRODUCTION  Ixix 

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 
Paul. 

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

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. 


IXX  INTRODUCTION 

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 
followers. 

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 


INTRODUCTION  kxi 

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. 


Ixxii  INTRODUCTION 

VII.    ANALYSIS  OF  THE  LETTER. 

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"-". 


INTRODUCTION  Ixxiii 

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 
319-22. 

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 
48-11. 

9.  Affectionate  appeal  to  the  Galatians  to  enter  fully 

into  their  freedom  from  law,  referring  to  their 


Ixxiv  INTRODUCTION 

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^^. 

VIII.     THE  TEXT. 

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 


INTRODUCTION  Ixxv 

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 
list: 

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, 
1904. 

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 


Ixxvi  INTRODUCTION 

Codex    Claromontanus.    Hence    not    cited    in    the 
evidence. 

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 


INTRODUCTION  Ixxvii 

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, 


kxviii  INTRODUCTION 

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, 
Rome. 

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

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

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- 


INTRODUCTION  Ixxix 

and  Hort  ascribe  to  these  groups  in  the  Pauhne  epistles  in 
general. 

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. 


IXXX  INTRODUCTION 

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 


INTRODUCTION  kxxi 

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 


kxxii  INTRODUCTION 

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. 


IX.    BIBLIOGRAPHY.* 

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 
commentary. 

I.     COMMENTARIES. 

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. 


INTRODUCTION  Ixxxiii 

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, 
1613. 

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. 


Ixxxiv  INTRODUCTION 

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 
editions. 
♦Jowett,  Benjamin,  The  Epistles  of  St.  Paid  to  the  Thessalonians,  Galatians, 
and  Romans.    London,  1855.     Edited  by  L.  Campbell,  London,  1894. 


nsTTRODUCTION  Ixxxv 

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, 
1859. 

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 
1863. 

Kamphausen,  Adolph  Herman  Heinrich,  in  Bunsen's  Bibelwerk.  Leipzig 
1864. 

*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, 
1881. 

Schaff,  Philip,  in  A  Popular  Commentary  on  the  New  Testament.  New  York, 
1882. 

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. 


Ixxxvi  INTRODUCTION 

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, 
1890, 

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. 

II.    TREATISES. 
I.  The  Destination  of  the  Epistle. 

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

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

1871. 
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. 


INTRODUCTION  Ixxxvii 

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, 

1906. 
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. 


Ixxxviii  INTRODUCTION 

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. 

III.    THE  TEACHING  OF  THE  EPISTLE. 

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, 

1888. 
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. 


INTRODUCTION  Ixxxix 

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., 

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

1903. 
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, 

1904. 
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, 

1907. 
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. 


THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  GALATIANS. 


I.    INTRODUCTION  (i^-^o). 

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 


2  GALATIANS 

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 


4  GALATIANS 

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. 


6  GALATIANS 

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  .  .  . 
dvBptoxou. 

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 
apostles. 

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, 


5  GALATIANS 

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 


lO  GALATIANS 

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, 


12  GALATIANS 

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). 


14  GALATIANS 

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 
law. 

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. 


1 6  GALATIANS 

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. 
2 


1 8  GALATIANS 

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 
epistle. 

^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. 
Ltft.). 

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)  ti.lv  xal  auxbq  xg&xo^at  %dX  t-})v 
YvtdiiTjv  iJLeTaTfOe^jLac :  "I  myself  am  changing  and  altering  my  opinion;" 


20  GALATIANS 

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." 


22  GALATIANS 

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),  0  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  0  to  the  whole  pre- 
ceding sentence  is  awkward  and  improbable.  Following  immediately 
upon  gxspov  zuayyiliov,  and  agreeing  with  it  in  gender  and  number,  0 
could  scarcely  be  taken  by  the  reader  otherwise  than  as  referring  to 
this  expression.  If  Paul  had  intended  0  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. 


24  GALATIANS 

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  0  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, 


26  GALATIANS 

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^oii.ai  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 


28  GALATIANS 

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 


30  GALATIANS 

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  v.ai  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'*  0  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  3.re  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 


32  GALATIANS 

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- 
nitely. 

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 
3 


34  GALATIANS 

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, 


35 


II.     PERSONAL    PORTION    OF    THE    LETTER. 

THE    GENERAL   THEME    ESTABLISHED    BY   PROVING    THE 

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 


36  GALATIANS 

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 


3^  GALATIANS 

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 


39 

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 


40  GALATIANS 

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.  ■ 


13-17 


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 


42  GALATIANS 

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 
fathers. 

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 


44  GALATIANS 

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 


4^  GALATIANS 

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[i.at,  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 


48  GALATIANS 

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  0  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 
4 


50  GALATIANS 

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 


52  GALATIANS 

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 


54  GALATIANS 

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 


^6 


GALATIANS 


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). 


58  GALATIANS 

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. 


6o  GALATIANS 

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 
apostles. 


62  GALATIANS 

(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 
gospel. 

^^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 
me. 

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 


64  GALATIANS 

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 
5 


66  GALATIANS 

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 


68  GALATIANS 

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 
apostles. 


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 


7©  GALATIANS 

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 
different. 

KaX  aveOejxrjv  auTot?  to  evayyeXiov  0  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. 


72  GALATIANS 

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 


74  GALATIANS 

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  0  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 


76  GALATIANS 

{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. 


78  GALATIANS 

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. 


So  GALATIANS 

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 


vv. 


7-9 


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.  0  ?  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 
6 


82  GALATIANS 

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 
reached. 


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- 


S4  GALATIANS 

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 


86  GALATIANS 

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[j.aq  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- 


SS  GALATIANS 

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- 


90  GALATIANS 

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. 


92  GALATIANS 

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 


94  GALATIANS 

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 


96  GALATIANS 

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 
7 


98  GALATIANS 

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 


lOO  GALATIANS 

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, 


I02  GALATIANS 

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, 


I04  GALATIANS 

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 


Io6  GALATIANS 

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 


Io8  GALATIANS 

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  (TvvvnoKpivofi.ai.,  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 


no  GALATIANS 

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 


1 1 2  GALATIANS 

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 


114  GALATIANS 

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. 
127/. 

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 
Antioch. 


Il6  GALATIANS 

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- 
ference. 

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- 


ilS  GALATIANS 

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 
admit. 

^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'^:  x.al  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, 


I20  GALATIANS 

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". 


122  GALATIANS 

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 


124  GALATIANS 

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 
cause. 


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 


126  GALATIANS 

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.  S.pa,  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  S.pa,  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. 


128  GALATIANS 

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 
9 


130  GALATIANS 

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 
conclusion. 

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 


132  GALATIANS 

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 
law. 


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*. 


134  GALATIANS 

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 


136  GALATIANS 

^  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 


138  GALATIANS 

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. 

0  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 
faith. 

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 


I40  GALATIANS 

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 


141 

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 


142  GALATIANS 

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. 


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 
THE  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). 

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. 


144  GALATIANS 

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- 
10 


146  GALATIANS 

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 


148  GALATIANS 

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. 


ISO 


GALATIANS 

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; 


152  GALATIANS 

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 
(3«-')- 

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 


154  GALATIANS 

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 


156  GALATIANS 

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". 

SONS  OF  ABRAHAM. 

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 


15S  GALATIANS 

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 
^€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 


l6o  GALATIANS 

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, 
II 


1 62  GALATIANS 

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 
aorist. 

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^ 


164  GALATIANS 

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.^°. 


1 66  GALATIANS 

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   0  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- 


167 

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 


1 68  GALATIANS 

O.  T.  for  both  doctrines,  see  on  vJ",  and  more  fully  in  fine  print 
below. 

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  v.io,  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.  !•». 


lyo  GALATIANS 

»*■ 

[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 
men. 

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 


172  GALATIANS 

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? 
v.pe\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 


174  GALATIANS 

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. 


176  GALATIANS 

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 
(315-18). 

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 
12 


178  GALATIANS 

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.  R.am.  Zahn,  ERV.mg.  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 


l8o  GALATIANS 

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 


181 


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- 
filled. 

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,  0  ^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 


152  GALATIANS 

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  0  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 


184  GALATIANS 

'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 


1 86  GALATIANS 

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 
law. 

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. 
0  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." 


1 88  GALATIANS 

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. 


19^  GALATIANS 

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  y.al  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 


192  GALATIANS 

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  0  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. 


193 

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 

13 


194  GALATIANS 

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 


195 

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 


196  GALATIANS 

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 


19^  GALATIANS 

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^ 


200  GALATIANS 

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." 
0  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 


202  GALATIANS 

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 


204  GALATIANS 

\  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 


2o6  GALATIANS 

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 


2o8  GALATIANS 

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  0  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: 
14 


2IO  GALATIANS 

''  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- 


212  GALATIANS 

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  y.al  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[ji.lv(i)v  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 
old.* 

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 

oty.ov6[jLOs. 

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- 
istrators." 


214  GALATIANS 

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 


2l6  GALATIANS 

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, 


2l8  GALATIANS 

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. 


2  20  GALATIANS 

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 


22  2  GALATIANS 

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  0  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  0  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. 


524  GALATIANS 

'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. 
15 


2  26  GALATIANS 

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  At.ac%r]%-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 


2  28  GALATIANS 

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- 
tence. 

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 


230  GALATIANS 

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,  0  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  0  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 


232  GALATIANS 

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- 


234  GALATIANS 

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 


235 

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[i.aq  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  dv.fi 
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." 


236  GALATIANS 

^^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 


238  GALATIANS 

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, 
etc. 

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 
Christ. 

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 


240  GALATIANS 

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. 
16 


242  GALATIANS 

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- 
sary. 

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 


244  GALATIANS 

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- 
carious. 

'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". 


246  GALATIANS 

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. 


248  GALATIANS 

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. 


250  GALATIANS 

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 


252  GALATIANS 

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- 
woman. 

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  0  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. 


254  GALATIANS 

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 


256  GALATIANS 

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 
17 


258  GALATIANS 

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^ 


259 

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. 


26o  GALATIANS 

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- 


262 


GALATIANS 


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. 


(I) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

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- 

bondage. 

children). 

age. 

(a) 

{a) 

The   covenant   from 

The  new  covenant. 

Sinai. 

(J) 

ih) 

The   Jerusalem   that 

The  children  of  Jeru- 

Jerusalem    that     is 

The  children  of  Jeru- 

now is. 

salem   in   bondage 

above. 

salem    above,    ac- 

to legalism. 

cording  to  promise, 
free. 

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.^''). 


264  GALATIANS 

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 


265 

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  0  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 


266  GALATIANS 

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- 


268  GALATIANS 

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. 


IV.    HORTATORY  PORTION  OF  THE  LETTER  (51-6^0) 

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. 


270  GALATIANS 

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 
former. 

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 
destination. 

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 


2  72  GALATIANS 

which  he  would  have  them  avoid  is  not  identical  with  that  previously 
borne. 

'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. 


2  74  GALATIANS 

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 
principle. 

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. 


276  GALATIANS 

*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 


278  GALATIANS 

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 


28o  GALATIANS 

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 
there, 

'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 


282  GALATIANS 

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 


284  GALATIANS 

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  0  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  0  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 


286  GALATIANS 

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 
Moses.* 

*  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." 


288  GALATIANS 

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 
warrants. 

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  0  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 

"19 


290  GALATIANS 

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 
another. 

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 


292  GALATIANS 

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.  0    yap    Tas    vo^ios    iv    evl    \6yco    TeirXrjpcoraL,    eV    to) 
"  'AyaTT]aeis  tov  ttXtjcflov  aov  cos  aeavrov^     "For  the  whole 


294  GALATIANS 

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 


296  GALATIANS 

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'^ 
etc. 

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 
aorist. 

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- 


295  GALATIANS 

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  v.is  (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 
force. 

'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/.  i.io^  (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- 


300  GALATIANS 

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 


302  GALATIANS 

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 
context. 

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 


304  GALATIANS 

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[Kxxi7.aq  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 


3o6  GALATIANS 

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  expression  b  Qu[ihq  -zr^q 
xopvet'aq  auT^;  in  148  18'.  Elsewhere  in  N.  T.  it  means  "anger": 
of  men  in  Lk.  4^8  Acts  19=8  2  Cor.  1220  Gal.  5=0  Eph.  4"  Col.  3* 
Heb.  II";  of  God  in  Rom.  2'  only.  As  compared  with  dpyn,  Q\j[i.6q 
denotes  an  outburst  of  passion,  bpy-q  a  more  settled  indignation;  in 
accordance  witti  which  distinction  0u[x6q  tends  to  be  used  of  the  repre- 
hensible anger  of  men,  Spyrj  of  the  righteous  wrath  of  God.     Yet  the 

*  The  apparent  Lxx  u->e  of  0vfj.6^  in  the  sense  of  poison  (Deut.  32"-  "  Ps.  57  (58)'  Job  2oi« 
Am.  6")  almost  certainly  arises  from  infelicitous  translation  of  the  Hebrew  rather  than  from 
a  usage  of  the  Greek  word  in  that  sense. 


3oS  GALATIANS 

distinction  is  not  steadfastly  maintained,  as  appears  from  the  facts 
above  stated,  and  especially  from  the  occurrence  of  the  expressions 
Gunbq  dpyfjq  and  6pji}  %[x.ou.  The  meaning  of  the  word  in  the  present 
passage  is  its  most  common  one  in  biblical  writers,  "anger,"  "passion- 
ate outburst  of  hostile  feeling." 

'EpcGi'a  (of  uncertain  etymology,  but  having  no  relation  to  eptq  and 
doubtful    relation    to  sptov,  wool)  is  cognate    with    Ip'.Qoq,    "a  day- 
labourer,"  "a  wage-earner"  (from  Homer  down),  specifically  -J)  IptOog, 
"a  woman  weaver,"  Dem.  1313s;  in  this  sense  in  the  only  Lxx  instance, 
Isa.  3812.     IpcOt'a  first  appears  in  Aristotle,  when  it  means  "canvassing 
for  office"  (Pol.  5.  2'  [1303  bi"])  but  by  Plesychius  and  Suida^  is  defined 
as  "working  for  hire."     In  Polyb.  10.  25 ^  the  verb  eptOsuoixat,  used 
also  by  Aristotle  in  the  passage  just  quoted,  means  "  to  seek  the  political 
co-operation  of,"  "to  inveigle  into  one's  party,"  but  in  Tob.  2"  still 
means  "to  labour  for  wages,"  or  more  probably  "to  spin."     In  Philo,  II 
555    (Mangey)    aveptOcUToq   is    used    in    connection    with    d?tX6vscxo? 
(■fiys[xovta  S'  a(fiX6yz:y.oq  y.al  dvept6euToq  6?0i?)  [i6vt]),  apparently  mean- 
ing  "without   self-seeking."      It   is   thus   evident   that   though   the 
extant  examples  of  the  noun  are  relatively  few  (more  in  N.  T.  than 
in  all  previous  literature  so  far  as  noted),  yet  the  word  had  a  long  his- 
tory and  probably  bore  side  by  side  both  its  original  meaning,  "work- 
ing for  wages,"  and  its  derived  sense,  referring  to  office-seeking.     The 
paucity  of  other  examples  gives  to  the  N.  T.  instances  a  special  value 
for  lexicography.     When  these  are  examined  it  appears  that  in  none 
of  them  is  either  the  literal  sense  or  precisely  the  Aristotelian  sense 
of  office-seeking  possible.      It   remains,   therefore,  to   seek   a  mean- 
ing cognate  with  the  meanings  elsewhere  vouched  for  and  consonant 
with  the  context  of  the  N.  T.  passages.     Examination  of  the  passages 
from  this  point  of  view  suggests  two  meanings:    (i)  "self-seeking," 
"selfishness."      (2)  "factiousness,"  "party  spirit."      The  former    of 
these  is  easily  derivable  from  the  original  sense,  "working  for  wages," 
and  is  appropriate  to  the  context  of  all  the  examples  (Rom.  2'  2  Cor. 
12"  Phil,  ii'  2'  Jas.  3".  18  et  h.L).     The  second  is  cognate  with  the 
Aristotelian  sense,  "office-seeking,"  and  is  appropriate  to  some  of  the 
passages  (2  Cor.  1220  Phil,  ii^  2'  d  h.L),  less  so  to  the  other  passages, 
and  distinctly  inappropriate  to  Rom.  2«.     Respecting  this  last-named 
passage  it  should  be  observed  (a)  that  there  is  nothing  in  the  context 
to  suggest  the  meaning  "party  spirit";  (b)  that  the  term  denotes  what 
is  for  the  apostle  the  very  root- vice  of  all  sin;  it  is  certainly  more  prob- 
able that  he  found  this  in  selfishness,  the  antithesis  of  the  all-inclusive 
virtue,  love,  than  in  so  specialised  a  form  of  selfishness  as  party  spirit; 
(c)   that   the  expression    toI;   Se  e^   IptBtaq   ixetOouat   t^   dXTjGst?    in 
effect   repeats   the    idea    of    twv   ttPjv   iXT]0£tav   sv   i8tx((jc   xaTex6vT(i)v 
(Rom.  ii«),  and  that  this  phrase  neither  in  itself,  nor  by  its  further 


V,      20  309 

explication  in  the  context,  refers  specifically  to  party  spirit,  but  does 
by  its  contextual  definition  refer  to  the  self-willed,  self-seeking  spirit. 
We  seem,  therefore,  justified  in  deciding  that  sptOt'a  in  N.  T.  means 
"self-seeking,"  "selfish  devotion  to  one's  own  interest";  that  this 
is  a  possible  meaning  for  all  the  instances;  but  that  "party  spirit"  is 
in  some  passages  a  possible  alternative.  In  the  present  passage  the 
use  of  the  plural  might  seem  to  favour  the  second  meaning,  or,  rather, 
the  corresponding  concrete  sense,  factions.  But  there  is  no  evidence 
to  show  that  the  word  had  such  a  concrete  sense,  and  both  the  mean- 
ing of  the  word  Ipya  (v.^')  and  the  use  of  other  abstract  terms  in  this 
passage  in  the  plural  (to  designate  various  instances  or  manifestations 
of  the  kind  of  conduct  expressed  by  the  noun)  deprive  this  argument 
of  any  force.  The  position  of  eptOt'at  between  Qu[iol  and  StxoaTaatat 
is  consistent  with  either  meaning;  if  epcGt'at  means  self-seekings,  this 
is  naturally  followed  by  terms  denoting  those  things  to  which  such  self- 
seekings  lead,  ^ixoa-:(xaiai  and  alpsasiq;  if  it  means  efforts  to  advance 
one's  party,  actions  inspired  by  party-spirit,  it  stands  as  the  first  in  a 
group  of  three  nearly  synonymous  terms.  On  the  whole  the  prepon- 
derance is  slightly,  though  only  slightly,  in  favour  of  that  meaning 
which  is  for  the  N.  T.  as  a  whole  best  established,  "self-seeking," 
"selfishness." 

Acxoaxaata,  a  classical  word,  used  by  Herodotus  and  Solon  in  the 
sense  of  "dissension,"  by  Theognis,  meaning  "sedition,"  is  not  found 
in  the  Lxx;  occurs  in  Apocr.  in  i  Mac.  3^3  only,  with  the  meaning  "dis- 
sension"; is  found  in  N.  T.  here  and  Rom.  16''  only,  in  both  cases  in 
the  plural  and  without  doubt  meaning  "dissensions." 

Aifpsatq,  in  classical  writers,  has  two  general  meanings,  one  asso- 
ciated with  the  active  meaning  of  the  cognate  verb,  alplco,  hence  "a 
taking,"  "capture"  (Hdt.),  the  other  with  the  meaning  of  the  middle, 
alploixat,  hence  "choice,"  "plan,"  "purpose,"  "preference"  (Find, 
.^sch.  Hdt.  etc.).  So  in  the  Lxx,  meaning  "free  will,"  "choice." 
In  late  Greek,  after  Plato  and  Aristotle,  there  arises  the  meaning 
"philosophic  tendency,"  "school,"  "party."  So  in  Dion.  Hal.,  Sext. 
Emp.,  but  also  in  Jos.  Bell,  21"  (8^,  "^olq  Ss  l^TjXo'jatv  tt?)v  czYpsatv  auxdiv 
(the  Essenes).  In  Arrian's  report  of  the  teachings  of  Epictetus  aXpeaiq 
and  xpoat'peats  are  used  of  the  soul,  doubtless  as  that  in  which  the 
power  of  choice  lies.  Cf.  M.  and  M.  Voc.  s.  v.  In  N.  T.  it  is  always 
associated  in  meaning  with  the  middle  of  the  verb,  and  usually  signifies 
a  body  of  people  holding  a  chosen  set  of  opinions;  thus  without  re- 
proach, of  the  Sadducees,  Acts  5>';  of  the  Pharisees,  Acts  15^  26=;  of  the 
Christians,  spoken  of  as  Nazarenes,  Acts  24^.  As  a  term  of  reproach, 
denoting  a  group  or  sect  reprehensibly  departing  from  the  general  body, 
it  occurs  in  Acts  24".  In  i  Cor.  iii'  and  2  Pet.  21  it  seems  to  signify, 
rather,  "difference  of  opinion,"  "division  of  sentiment,"  than  con- 


3IO  GALATIANS 

cretely  "party,"  "sect."  The  abstract  meaning  is  also  (c/.  above  on 
epte{ai)  more  appropriate  to  the  present  passage.  The  meaning 
"heresy,"  a  doctrine  at  variance  with  that  of  the  general  body,  is  not 
found  in  N.  T.  or  in  Patr.  Ap.  (see  Ign.  Trail.  6^;  Eph.  6';  cf.  Zahn  on 
the  former  passage)  unless  possibly  in  Herm.  Sim.  9.  23'  and  probably 
not  here.  Cf.  also  Kiihl  on  2  Pet.  2^  in  Meyer-Weiss. «  In  Just.  Mart. 
Apol.  268;  Dial.  35';  Iren.  Haer.  i.  iiS  it  is  probably  still  used  in  the 
sense  of  "sect,"  or  "division,"  as  a  term  of  reproach.  It  clearly 
means  "heresy"  in  Mart.  Pol.  Epil.  i  (Ltft.  2),  which  is,  however,  of 
considerably  later  date. 

<I>e6vo^,  a  classical  word  from  Pindar  and  Herodotus  down,  means 
"ill-will,"  "malice,"  "envy"  (cf.  under  "Qrikoq  above);  not  in  Lxx;  in 
Apocr.,  Wisd.  2"^*  6"  i  Mac.  818  3  Mac.  6';  always  in  a  bad  sense,  "  envy." 
So  also  in  N.  T.  (Mt.  27I8  Mk.  151"  Rom.  i^',  etc.)  except  in  Jas.  4', 
where  it  is  used  tropically,  meaning  "eager  desire  for  (exclusive)  pos- 
session of,"  and  is  ascribed  to  the  Spirit  of  God.  In  the  present  passage 
it  can  not  be  sharply  distinguished  from  "Q^koq.  If  the  words  are  to 
be  discriminated,  "Qqkrtc,  would  signify  "jealousy,"  (p66vot  "envyings." 
The  plural  denotes  different  acts,  or  specific  forms  of  envious  desire. 

MdOat  and  xd)[jLot  fall  in  a  class  by  themselves.  ]xi%ri  occurs  in  classic 
writers  from  Herodotus  and  Antipho  down,  meaning,  (i)  "strong 
drink,"  (2)  "drunkenness,"  and  with  the  same  meanings  in  the  Lxx 
(in  Hag.  i«  apparently  meaning  "satiety"  rather  than  "drunkenness"). 
In  the  Apocr.  and  N.  T.  it  occurs  in  the  second  sense  only,  xw^oq  (of 
doubtful  etymology)  occurs  in  classic  writers  from  Homer  down,  mean- 
ing "revelling,"  "carousing,"  such  as  accompanies  drinking  and  festal 
processions  in  honour  of  the  gods,  especially  Bacchus;  it  is  not  found  in 
the  Lxx;  occurs  in  the  Apocr.  in  Wisd.  14"  2  Mac.  6S  and  in  N.  T.  in 
the  same  sense  as  in  classical  writers;  in  Rom.  13''  it  is  associated  as 
here  with  [i-i^ri,  in  i  Pet.  4',  with  olvotpXuyfa,  "drunkenness." 

For  a  similar  catalogue  of  vices,  see  Corpus  Hermeticum  XIII  (XIV) 
7,  in  Reitzenstein,  Poimandres,  p.  342;  Mead,  Thrice  Greatest  Hermes, 
Vol.  II,  p.  224.  For  a  discussion  of  Gentile  morals,  see  L.  Friedlander, 
Darstellungen  aus  der  Sittengeschichte  Roms,  8th  ed.,  4  vols,,  Leipzig, 
1910;  E.  T.  from  7th  ed.,  New  York,  1909,  1910;  de  Pressense,  The 
Ancient  World  and  Christianity,  Bk.  V,  Chap.  II,  §  II,  pp.  424-432; 
Dollinger,  The  Gentile  and  the  Jew,  London,  1862.  For  the  same  kind 
of  material  in  the  form  of  a  connected  story,  see  Becker,  Gallus;  Walter 
Pater,  Mariiis  the  Epicurean;  Bottiger,  Sahina.  References  to  Gentile 
authors  are  to  be  found  in  de  Pressense  and  Becker,  and  with  especial 
copiousness  in  Friedlander's  great  work. 

a    irpoXeyoo    v}ilv    Kadoos    Trpoeiirov    otl    ol     ra     TOLavra 
Tpdaaovres  ^aaiKeiav  deov  ov  KKrjpopofjL'^aovcnu.  ^'respectino- 


V,      20-2I  $11 

which  I  tell  you  beforehand,  as  I  have  (already)  told  you  in 
advance,  that  they  who  do  such  things  will  not  inherit  the 
kingdom  of  God."  To  the  list  of  the  works  of  the  flesh,  cal- 
culated by  their  very  quality  to  deter  the  Galatians  from  follow- 
ing its  impulses,  Paul  adds  the  weighty  statement  which  he 
had  already  made  to  them  on  some  previous  occasion  that  such 
things  exclude  one  from  participation  in  the  kingdom  of  God. 
By  ^aaCkeiav  deov  the  apostle  doubtless  means  the  reign  of  God 
which  is  to  be  inaugurated  on  the  return  of  Christ  from  the 
heavens  and  the  resurrection  of  the  dead.  Cf.  i  Cor.  is^o-  ^^ 
with  I  Thes.  i^*^  4"-  ^^  The  phrase  used  without  the  article 
with  either  noun  is  qualitative  and  emphasises  the  ethical 
quality  of  the  order  of  things  for  which  the  phrase  stands  and 
the  incongruity  between  it  and  ol  ra  roiavra  wpaG-aopres;  thus 
suggesting  the  reason  for  their  exclusion.  Cf.  i  Cor.  6^'  1°  15^^ 
in  all  of  which  the  phrase  is  as  here  anarthrous.  This  qualita- 
tive force  can  be  imperfectly  reproduced  in  English  by  the 
translation,  "shall  not  inherit  a  kingdom  of  God,"  but  at  the 
cost  of  obscuring  the  definite  reference  of  the  expression. 

xaOtiq  (without  xat)  is  the  reading  of  S*BFG  f  Vulg.  (am.  fu. 
demid  al.)  Syr.  (psh.)  Eth.  Goth.  Tert.  Gyp.  Aug.  al.  xat  is  added  by 
^''ACDKLP  al.  omn.  ^^d.  d  e  g  tol.  Syr.  (hard.)  Boh.  Arm.  Mcion. 
Clem.  Chr.  Euthal.  Thdrt.  Dam.  Iri°t.  Hier.  Ambrst.  Both  read- 
ings are  pre-Syrian  but  xai  on  the  whole  seems  to  be  a  Western  corrup- 
tion adopted  by  the  Syrian  text,  occasioned  by  the  natural  impulse  to 
emphasise  the  comparison  between  xpoXeyo)  and  xpoelxov.    Cf.  i  Thes. 

4*- 

"A  is  doubtless  accusative  as  8v  clearly  is  in  Jn.  S^^,  ov  b[i.eiq  Xijzze 
8tc  6eb<;  uulwv  eartv,  but  in  precisely  what  relation  Paul  meant  to  set 
it,  when  he  wrote  it,  it  is  impossible  to  say,  for  the  reason  that  after 
xaOo)?  xposiTCQv  he  has  reproduced  the  thought  of  a  in  to:  TotaGxa  and 
given  it  a  new  construction.     Cf.  Ell.  ad  loc. 

npoXsyd)  might  consistently  with  the  usual  force  of  xpo  in  composi- 
tion and  the  classical  usage  of  this  word  mean  either  "foretell"  or 
"forth  tell,"  "tell  publicly."  But  the  fact  that  in  all  the  instances  in 
which  Paul  uses  it  (2  Cor.  13'  i  Thes.  3*  and  here,  the  only  N.  T.  in- 
stances) the  object  of  the  verb  is,  in  fact,  a  prediction,  and  the  inappro- 
priateness  of  the  meaning  "  tell  publicly  "  (for  the  meaning  "  tell  plainly  " 
there  seems  no  evidence)  make  it  quite  certain  that  its  meaning  here 
is  "to  predict." 


3 1 2  GALATIANS 

0\  xpdaaovTeq  is  a  general  present  participle  with  the  article,  meaning 
"those  that  are  wont  to  practise." 

Td  TocaGxa  means  either  "the  things  previously  mentioned  being  of 
such  quahty  as  they  are,"  or  "the  class  of  things  to  which  those  named 
belong.''  Cf.  i  Cor.  5^  Rom.  i«  2^.  3  Eph.  5",  and  for  xotauxa  without 
the  article,  meaning  "things  like  those  spoken  of,"  Mk.  7^3  Jn.  gi" 
Heb.  8'.     See  Kuhner-Gerth  465.  5;  Butt.  124.  5;  Bl.-D.  274. 

The  considerations  that  necessitate  taking  the  phrase  ^aat^elav, 
e-ou  here  in  its  eschatological  sense  are  the  following:  (i)  The  apostle 
undoubtedly  looked  for  a  personal  visible  return  of  Christ  from  the 
heavens  and  expected  the  resurrection  of  the  righteous  dead  in  con- 
nection therewith,  i  Thes.  ii"  415-".  (2)  In  1  Cor.  15^"  he  speaks  of 
inheriting  the  kingdom  of  God  in  connection  with  the  resurrection  of 
men,  and  in  such  way  as  to  show  clearly  that  the  inheritance  of  the 
kingdom,  as  thought  of  in  that  passage  at  least,  is  achieved  through 
the  resurrection.  It  is  natural  to  suppose  that  the  expression  has  the 
same  meaning  in  the  other  passages  in  the  same  epistle  (6^.  'o)^  there 
being  nothing  in  the  context  to  oppose  this  meaning.  In  i  Thes.  2^2 
the  eschatological  significance  is  most  probably  though  not  quite  cer- 
tainly present.  There  are,  indeed,  a  number  of  passages  in  Paul  in 
which  the  kingdom  of  God  is  spoken  of  with  so  distinct  emphasis  on 
its  ethical  quality  and  with  such  absence  of  eschatological  suggestion 
that  it  must  be  questioned  whether  he  uniformly  gave  to  the  phrase 
eschatological  significance.  See  Rom.  14'?  i  Cor.  4^0.  It  is  probable, 
therefore,  that  the  apostle  thought  of  the  kingdom  of  God  both  as 
present  and  as  future,  in  the  latter  case  to  be  inaugurated  at  the  return 
of  Christ.  But  the  considerations  named  above  are  sufficient  to  show 
clearly  that  it  is  the  future  kingdom  that  is  here  in  mind,  while  it  is 
also  clear  that  he  intended  to  emphasise  the  ethical  quality  of  the 
kingdom,  which  is,  of  course,  essentially  the  same  whether  present  or 
future. 

22.  o  Se  Kap7rb<;  rod  TTPevf^aTO^;  iartv  aydirr]^  X^P^y  ^i-PWVy 
fxaKpodvfXLa,  xPV^^'^ottj'; ,  ayaOoyavvt},  Trto-rt?,  23.  TrpavTr]<^^ 
iyKpcireLa-  ''But  the  fruit  of  the  Spirit  is  love,  joy,  peace,  long- 
suffering,  kindness,  goodness,  faithfulness,  gentleness,  self-con- 
trol." This  sentence  continues  the  argument  for  the  mutual 
contrariety  of  flesh  and  Spirit  begun  in  v.^^.  By  the  attractive- 
ness of  the  members  of  the  series  beginning  with  ayaTrr],  Paul 
appeals  to  the  Galatians  to  follow  the  leading  of  the  Spirit,  as 
by  the  repulsiveness  of  the  vices  named  in  vv.  ^^-^i  he  had 
sought  to  deter  them  from  yielding  to  the  impulses  of  the  flesh. 


V,      21-22  $13 

Be  is  slightly  adversative,  introducing  the  fruit  of  the  Spirit  in 
antithesis  to  the  works  of  the  flesh.  KapTro?,  used  in  i  Cor.  9^ 
in  its  hteral  sense  (as  also  2  Tim.  2^),  is  elsewhere  in  the  letters 
of  Paul  employed  in  a  figurative  sense  only  (Rom.  i^^  Phil,  i^^ 
4^7,  etc.).  The  choice  of  the  word  here  in  preference  to  epya 
(v. ^9)  is  perhaps  partly  due  to  the  association  of  the  word  epya 
with  the  phrase  epya  vojxov  (see  epya  alone  used  in  this  sense, 
Rom.  327  42  911  116)^  partly  to  his  preference  for  a  term  which 
suggests  that  love,  joy,  peace,  etc.,  are  the  natural  product  of  a 
vital  relation  between  the  Christian  and  the  Spirit.  Observe 
the  word  ^wjiev  in  v.^^  and  cf.  2'^^.  The  use  of  the  singular 
serves  to  present  all  the  experiences  and  elements  of  character 
in  the  ensuing  list  as  a  unity,  together  constituting  the  result 
of  living  by  the  Spirit.  Yet  too  much  stress  can  not  be  laid  on 
the  singular,  since  Paul  always  used  it  when  employing  the 
word  in  its  figurative  sense. 

On  the  importance  of  the  distinction  in  the  apostle's  mind 
between  0  Kapirb^  rod  irvev/xaTO'?,  and  ra  ^aptV/Aara  (tov 
irvevfiaro';)  or  rj  cl>avep(ocn<;  tov  7rv€VfJLaro<i,  see  detached  note 
on  Uvevfia  and  '^dp^,  p.  489,  and  Gunkel,  Die  Wirkungen  des 
heiligen  Geistes,  pp.  62-97,  esp.  77/.  The  two  Hsts,  the  present 
one  and  that  of  i  Cor.  12^-^1,  contain  but  one  common  term, 
TTtcTTi?,  and  this  is  undoubtedly  used  in  a  different  sense  in 
the  two  passages.  Under  the  terms  %apiV/xaTa  TrvevfiaTCKa 
and  (^avepoicTL^  tov  jrvevp^aTO^  the  apostle  includes  those  ex- 
traordinary experiences  and  powers  which  were  not  necessarily 
evidential  of  moral  character  in  those  in  whom  they  appeared, 
but  because  of  their  extraordinary  character  and  of  their  asso- 
ciation with  the  acceptance  of  the  gospel  message,  the  word  of 
God  (i  Thes.  2^^),  were  regarded  as  effects  and  evidences  of  the 
presence  and  activity  of  the  Spirit  of  God.  These  are  all  ex- 
ternal and  easily  recognisable;  note  the  term  (pavep(oaL<;  in 
I  Cor.  12^  Under  the  term  6  KapTro^  tov  wvevixaTo^,  on  the 
other  hand,  are  included  those  ethical  qualities  and  spiritual 
experiences  which  were  not  popularly  thought  of  as  evidences 
of  the  Spirit's  presence,  but  which,  to  the  mind  of  Paul,  were 
of  far  greater  value  than  the  so-called  x^P^^H'^'^^-     See  i  Cor., 


314  GALATIANS 

chaps.  12-14,  esp.  1221,  chap.  13,  and  14^  Thus  while  retaining 
the  evidently  current  view,  which  found  in  the  gift  of  tongues 
and  prophecy  and  power  to  heal  disease  evidence  of  the  Spirit's 
presence  (see  also  Gal.  3^),  he  transferred  the  emphasis  of  his 
thought,  and  sought  to  transfer  that  of  his  disciples,  from  these 
things  to  the  internal  and  ethical  qualities  which  issue  in  and 
control  conduct. 

Whether  the  terms  listed  in  vv."-  "  fell  in  the  apostle's  mind  into 
definite  classes  is  not  altogether  clear.  dydTCTg,  evidently  meaning  love 
towards  other  men  (c/.  vv."-  ^*),  stands  in  a  sense  in  a  class  by  itself, 
and  is  probably  thought  of  as  the  source  from  which  all  the  rest  flow. 
Cf.  v.^*  and  i  Cor.,  chap.  13,  and  note  the  parallelism  of  i  Cor.  i^*'^ 
with  the  list  here,  especially  [j.a/.po6u[x(a  with  (jLanpoOuixei  (v.'*),  X9fl<^'^^- 
TTjt;  with  xprjuzeuB'zoi.i  (v/),  xfaxn;  with  iz&yzo.  xtaxeuet,  xdivTa  eXxftiei, 
TzicYta  uxo[JLivet  (v.'');  xpauTTjq  with  ou  9U!3toijTat,  oux,  dtaxiQtxovel  (v.^). 
Of  the  two  terms  x<xp&  and  efpir'jVT),  the  first  certainly,  and  the  second 
probably,  refers  to  experiences  enjoyed  rather  than  to  transitive  atti- 
tudes towards  others;  the  remaining  terms,  except  the  last,  have 
special  reference  to  the  relations  of  those  who  walk  by  the  Spirit  to 
others,  in  a  measure  antithetical  to  e'xOpa;  .  .  .  Gu^j-oi  in  the  list  of 
works  of  the  flesh;  i-fy.p&xeia,  though  belonging  also  in  this  list,  seems 
to  stand  in  special  antithesis  to  the  last  two  terms  of  the  preceding 
list,  [iIQai,  xw'txot. 

'AydxTQ,  though  in  itself  capable  of  denoting  the  adoration  of  and 
devotion  to  God,  is  probably  to  be  taken  here  in  accordance  with  the 
suggestion  of  v.'*,  and  Paul's  general  usage  (2  Thes.  3^  is  the  only 
clear  instance  of  iy'^''^^  '^^  the  Pauline  letters  used  of  the  love  of  men 
towards  God),  as  referring  to  that  love  of  man  for  man,  which  resting 
upon  appreciation  of  value  is  chiefly  characterised  by  desire  to  benefit. 
See  detached  note  on  'Ayaxaw  and  'Ay6cxr],  p.  519. 

Xapi:,  in  use  by  classical  writers  from  Homer  down,  and  about  fifty 
times  in  the  Lxx  and  Apocr.,  is  employed  in  the  Lxx,  Apocr.  and 
N.  T.  rarely  of  a  fierce  and  cruel  joy  (3  Mac.  41"  5"  6";  cf.  also  Jas.  4'), 
but  most  frequently  of  joy  that  has  a  religious  basis,  grounded  in  con- 
scious relationship  to  God  (Ps.  30'!  Prov.  29*  Sir.  i'^  Rom.  14^'  15'' 
Phil,  i^'  «  etc.). 

On  eJpiQVTfj,  see  detached  note,  p.  424.  Its  meaning  here  is  probably 
the  same  as  in  Rom.  51,  "tranquillity  of  mind"  (based  on  the  conscious- 
ness of  right  relation  to  God).  For  though  the  idea  of  harmony  with 
God  is  possible  here,  it  is  an  unusual  meaning  in  Paul,  and  there  is 
nothing  specially  to  suggest  it  here;  the  idea  of  spiritual  well-being  is 
not  in  itself  inappropriate,  yet  it  is  unlikely  that  the  apostle  would 


V,    22  s^5 

use  the  word  in  so  general  a  sense,  standing  as  it  does  here  between  the 
more  specific  terms,  x^pa  and  [xax.po6u[x(a;  the  meaning,  "peace  with 
men,"  is  appropriate  in  connection  with  either  x^9<^  (<^f-  Rom.  i4''>  ^^) 
or  with  ti-axpoOutifa,  but  is  open  to  the  objection  that,  elpTQvtj  in  that 
case  expressing  a  relation  to  men,  as  do  also  dyaxTj  and  ^a/,po6u;j.ca, 
xapa  stands  quite  alone,  the  only  non-transitive  word  in  the  group. 
On  e(p/)VTQ  denoting  tranquillity  of  mind,  and  associated  with  yiocpic,  cf. 
Rom.  15":  6  Se  Oebq  xrjq  eXxt'Soq  xXirjpclicjat  b'^aq  %ac-qq  x^9^'^  '^'^^  efpiQVTQq 
Iv  Tq>  ictaTsuccv.  On  peace  as  produced  by  the  Spirit,  cf.  Rom.  i«,  xb 
Yo:p  (ppovTQtxa  to'j  xvsu^xaToq  I^w-J)  xstl  efpTQviQ,  though  eipiQVTj  perhaps  has 
here  the  more  general  sense  of  "spiritual  well-being";  and  Rom.  5*'*, 
where  hope  of  the  glory  of  God,  the  sequel  and  accompaniment  of 
peace  in  the  sense  of  tranquil  assurance,  is  the  result  of  the  love  of 
God  shed  abroad  in  the  heart  by  the  Spirit  of  God. 

MatxpoOuiJLta,  found  first  in  Menander,  fourth  century  B.  C,  occurs 
rarely  in  non-biblical  writers,  and  but  five  times  in  the  Lxx  and  Apocr. 
It  has  always  the  same  general  meaning,  that  which  its  etymology  sug- 
gests, viz.,  "steadfastness  of  soul  under  provocation  to  change,"  the 
specific  meaning  differing  according  as  that  which  is  endured  is  thought 
of  impersonally,  and  the  word  signifies  simply  "endurance,"  "stead- 
fastness," or  personally,  so  that  [AaxpoOuixta  includes  forbearance,  en- 
durance of  wrong  or  exasperating  conduct  without  anger  or  taking 
vengeance.  Hence  (a)  "patience,"  "persistence,"  "steadfastness." 
So  in  Plut.  Lucidl.  2,2'  2>3^;  Isa.  57"  i  Mac.  8<  Col.  i"  2  Tim.  310  Heb.  6'- 
Jas.  51°;  (b)  "forbearance,"  endurance  of  wrong  without  anger  or 
avenging  one's  self,  "long-suffering"  (i)  of  God  and  of  Christ  towards 
men:  Rom.  2*  9"  i  Tim.  ii«  i  Pet.  3="  2  Pet.  3'^;  (ii)  of  men  towards  one 
another:  Prov.  25^5  Sir.  5"  2  Cor.  6"  Eph.  4'  Col.  3^2  2  Tim.  3"'  4«.  In 
the  present  passage  the  word  is  probably,  in  accordance  with  Paul's 
usual  usage  and  the  context,  to  be  taken  in  the  last-named  sense,  viz., 
forbearance  towards  men  whose  conduct  is  calculated  to  provoke  to 
anger. 

Xp-rjcjTdTTQq,  from  Euripides  down,  signifies  in  classical  writers,  of 
things,  "excellence,"  of  persons,  "goodness,"  "honesty,"  "kindness." 
In  later  Greek  writers,  especially  in  Plutarch,  who  uses  it  often,  it  occurs 
sometimes  in  the  general  sense,  "goodness,"  "excellence"  of  character 
(Plut.  Phil,  el  Tit.  3);  but  more  frequently  in  the  specific  sense,  "kind- 
ness" {Cat.  Maj.  5':  Ti?)v  X9'^'^'^^'^f]'^^  '^'hl  oixsttoauvYj?  xXaxuTepov  t6- 
xov  6pa)[JLev  ext>va[ji.^4:vouaav.  It  is  joined  with  9tXoaTopyta  m  Agis  17^ 
with  cp'.XavOpwxt'a  in  Dejnetr.  50';  Dem.  el  Cic.  3=).  In  the  Lxx  it 
translates  3Vj  or  other  forms  from  this  root,  and  is  used  meaning 
"goodness,"  Ps.  14''  ';  "prosperity,"  Ps.  io6-';  but  most  frequently 
"kindness,"  as  in  Ps.  21'  6810.  In  the  Ps.  Sol.  {s^^-  »«•  "•  "  8"  g"  18') 
it  uniformly  means  "kindness";  so  also  in  Patr.  Ap.  (Clem.  Rom.  9'; 


3l6  GALATIANS 

2  Clem.  155,  etc.).  This  is  also  the  constant  meaning  in  N.  T. 
(Rom.  2*  II"  etc.),  except  in  Rom.  312,  a  quotation  from  Ps.  14'. 

'AyaewauvTj  appears  first  in  the  Lxx  (usually  translating  nnia)  and 
like  xp-qa-coT-qq  signifying  "goodness,"  "righteousness"  (Ps.  38"  52'), 
"prosperity"  (Eccl.  s^°-  ">  etc.)  and  "kindness"  (Judg.  8«  gi"  Neh. 
9«'  «).  It  is  not  found  in  Ps.  Sol.,  which  use  StxacoauviQ  for  "right- 
eousness," "good  character,"  and  xp-qj-vdzriq,  sXsoq,  and  eXsTQtxoauvTj 
for  "kindness,"  "mercy."  In  N.  T.  it  occurs  in  Paul's  epistles  only 
(Rom.  i5'<  Eph.  5'  2  Thes.  i"),  always  apparently  in  the  general  sense, 
"goodness."  Ltft.'s  distinction  between  xp-qo'zoTrjq  and  iya6wa6v7), 
that  the  latter  is  more  active,  differing  from  the  former  somewhat  as 
heneficeniia  from  benevolentia,  would  naturally  explain  the  occurrence 
of  the  word  in  this  series  and  at  this  point,  but  is  unsustained  by  any 
other  evidence.  It  seems  necessary  to  choose  between  taking  it  in  the 
wholly  general  sense  of  "goodness,"  and  making  it  entirely  synonymous 
with  xp-f}a'z6zriq,  "kindness."  The  few  other  instances  of  the  word  in 
N.  T.  and  the  improbability  that  the  apostle  would  exactly  repeat  in 
dcy.  the  idea  already  expressed  in  xPf]^"^-,  are  in  favour  of  the  meaning 
"goodness,"  even  though  by  this  interpretation  the  word  refers  less 
distinctly  to  conduct  towards  others  than  either  the  preceding  or  fol- 
lowing term. 

Ili(jziq  is  evidently  not  employed  here  as  in  chap.  3  to  denote  that 
attitude  towards  truth  which  is  the  fundamental  element  of  religion, 
whether  of  the  O.  T.  or  N.  T.  type,  nor  as  in  v.«  of  this  chapter,  to 
signify  the  acceptance  of  the  gospel  message  concerning  Jesus  and  the 
committal  of  one's  self  to  him  for  salvation.  For  faith  as  there  used 
is  the  basal  principle  of  the  life  of  one  who  lives  by  the  Spirit  (cf.  220 
5»,  and  the  discussion  under  4«  of  the  relation  between  Christ  and  the 
Spirit  as  factors  in  Christian  experience),  while  the  faith  that  is  here 
spoken  of  is  a  product  of  the  Spirit  of  God  in  the  soul.  It  is,  therefore, 
either  (a)  "faithfulness,"  "fidelity,"  as  in  Mt.  23"  Rom.  3'  Tit.  2i»; 
or  (b)  "faith"  in  the  specific  form  of  belief  in  the  power  and  willing- 
ness of  God  to  work  through  men,  as  in  Rom.  12'-  "  i  Cor.  12'  13".  But 
since  the  other  words  in  this  group  refer  to  matters  of  distinctly  ethical 
and  religious  character,  and  there  is  nothing  in  this  context  to  suggest 
a  reference  to  that  specific  form  of  faith  that  enables  one  to  work 
miracles  (which,  indeed,  Paul  classifies  rather  with  the  xapt'cExaTa  than 
with  those  distinctly  ethical  qualities  here  spoken  of),  it  is  practically 
certain  that  xc'ax'.q  here  means  "faithfulness,"  "fidehty,"  and  espe- 
cially in  relation  to  one's  fellow  men.  So  Bengel  (constantia,  fidelitas), 
Ltft.  Sief.  Weizs.  (Treue),  Segond  (fidelite).  The  suggestion  of  Alf. 
"faith  towards  God  and  man,"  and  that  of  Ell.,  "trustfulness,  faith  in 
God's  promises  and  mercies  and  loving  trust  towards  men,"  find  no 
support  in  the  usage  of  the  word.  On  the  usage  of  xfartq  in  general, 
see  detached  note  on  Ili<ziiq  and  ITtaTeuco,  p.  475. 


V,      22-23  317 

TipaoxTjq,  of  which  xpauTig^  is  a  later  form  of  identical  meaning,  is 
used  by  Plato,  Isocrates,  and  Aristotle,  Polybius  and  Plutarch.  It 
signifies  in  Greek  writers,  "mildness,"  "gentleness  in  dealing  with 
others":  Plato,  Rep.  558A;  Symp.  197D.;  Aristot.  Rhet.  2.  31  (1380  aO; 
Plut.  Frat.  am.  18;  see  more  fully  in  Cremer,  on  xpauq.  Unlike 
xa-Ksivoq,  which  was  frequently  if  not  usually  a  term  of  reproach, 
"mean,"  "abject,"  xpaoq  and  icpadxTjc;  were  in  Greek  writers  terms 
of  commendation.  In  the  Lxx  •::paij<;  is  usually  a  translation  of  ir; 
(only  rarely  of  'y'_),  which  signifies  "one  who  is  humble  in  disposition 
and  character,  one  who  is  submissive  under  the  divine  will"  rather 
than  as  the  English  translation  "meek"  might  suggest,  submitting 
without  resistance  to  the  wrongs  of  men.  See  BDB,  5.  v.;  Driver, 
article  "Poor"  in  HDB,  Paterson,  article  "Poor"  in  Encyc.  Bib., 
and  Gray,  Com.  on  Numbers,  at  12'.  In  a  few  passages  the  Lxx 
translate  "^y;^  by  icpauq  and  in  one  of  these,  Zech.  9',  evidently  use  it 
m  the  meaning  "gentle,"  "considerate."  The  use  of  xpaijTTjc;  in  the 
Lxx  (Ps  45*  132')  adds  little  light,  but  in  the  Apocr.  it  is  used  both  of 
a  "submissive,  teachable  spirit  towards  God"  (Sir.  i"  45^)  and  of 
"modesty,"  "consideration,"  "gentleness  towards  men"  (Esth.  3"  Sir. 
3I"  48  36-8),  and  in  Sir.  10=8  perhaps  to  denote  an  attitude  which  may 
manifest  itself  towards  both  God  and  man  (cf.  Ps.  45*).  In  Patr.  Ap. 
also  the  word  regularly  signifies  gentleness  towards  men  (Clem.  Rom. 
21'  30*  61';  Ign.  Trail.  3"  4.^,  etc. — the  ascription  of  xpauTi^q  to  God  in 
his  relation  to  men  in  Ep.  ad  Diogn.  7*  is  quite  exceptional).  In  N.  T. 
■Kpauq  occurs  in  Mt.  11"  21^  (the  latter  from  Zech.  9'),  meaning  "gen- 
tle," "considerate";  in  Mt.  5^  (from  Ps.  S7^^)  probably  with  the  same 
meaning  as  in  O.  T.,  "submissive  to  God's  will";  in  i  Pet.  3^, 
meaning  "gentle,"  "modest."  xpauxiQ;  in  Jas.  1='  is  used  of  an  atti- 
tude towards  God,  "teachableness,"  "submissiveness  to  his  will";  else- 
where of  a  relation  to  men  (i  Cor.  4"  2  Cor.  10'  Gal.  6'  Eph.  4'  Col.  3" 
2  Tim.  2^5  Tit.  3^  Jas.  3I'  i  Pet.  31^),  and  signifies  " consider ateness," 
"gentleness."  Among  N.  T.  writers,  therefore,  only  James  and  to  a 
limited  extent  Mt.  show  the  influence  of  the  Hebrew  \j>^,  all  the 
other  instances  showing  simply  the  common  Greek  meaning  of  the 
word.  If  the  two  ideas  were  blended  into  one  in  the  usage  of  the 
writers  of  the  N.  T.  period,  that  thought  must  have  been,  negatively, 
the  opposite  of  the  arrogant,  self-assertive  spirit;  positively,  recogni- 
tion and  consideration  of  others:  towards  God,  submissiveness,  towards 
men  considerateness  and  gentleness.  But  it  is  doubtful  whether  the 
word  did  not  rather  stand  for  two  similar  but  distinct  ideas,  and  in 
Paul's  mind  for  the  idea  of  gentleness  (tov/ards  men)  only.  On  xtaxtq 
in  association  with  xpauTiQ^  cf.  Sir.  i"  45";  Plerm.  Mand.  12.  31. 

'Eyxpaxeta  appears  in  Greek  literature  first,  so  far  as  observed,  in 
Plato,  who  uses  it  in  the  phrases  eyxpaxeia  lauxou,  Rep.  390B,  and 


3i8  GALATIANS 

■JjSovcJv  T'.vtov  -/.al  £xcOuti.t(Jv  eyxpccTstx,  Rep.  430E.  The  adjective 
lyxpaTTQc;,  used  in  Soph.,  meaning  "possessing  power,"  "strong,"  ap- 
pears in  Plato  and  Xenophon  (under  influence  of  Socrates?)  as  a  moral 
term:  Plato,  Phaed.  256B;  Xen.  Mem.  i.  2^,  etc.  Neither  eyx.paTT](; 
nor  eyy.pdcTsia  appear  in  the  Lxx,  but  both  are  found  in  the  Apocr.; 
the  adjective  in  the  sense  "having  mastery,  possession  of"  (Tob.  6' 
Wisd.  S'^i  Sir.  6"  15'  2 75"),  once  absol.  meaning  "continent"  (Sir.  26"); 
the  noun  apparently  with  the  meaning  "continence,"  "self-control" 
(Sir.  18"  18'",  where  it  stands  as  a  title  prefixed  to  a  series  of  exhorta- 
tions not  to  follow  one's  lusts,  ext6u[xtat,  or  appetites,  dpe^stq,  and 
4  Mac.  5").  The  adjective  occurs  in  N.  T.  in  Tit.  i*  only,  in  reference 
to  the  qualifications  of  a  bishop.  The  verb  sYxpaTsuo^ai  is  used  in 
I  Cor.  79  of  control  of  sexual  desire,  and  in  g^',  limited  by  xdvxa,  with 
reference  to  the  athlete's  control  of  bodily  appetites.  In  Patr.  Ap. 
syxpaTsta  occurs  frequently,  always  in  a  moral  sense,  but  without 
special  reference  to  any  class  of  desires  or  impulses.  See  esp.  Herm. 
Vis.  3.  8'':  oq  dv  oi3v  dxoXouGiQatj  aur^  (sYxpaxettjc),  [jiaxAptoq  •^iyzxat.  sv  xf^ 
"Cfsifi  auToQ,  Sxt  xdvTWv  xcov  xovT^poiv  epytov  dcp^^srat,  xtaxeucov  Stt  edv 
dt^i^TjTat  xdaTQq  IxiOu'^tai;  xovigpa?  x.7^Tjpovou.T)cet  ^wi^v  aJwvtov.  Usage 
thus  indicates  that  eyxpdcTsca,  signifying  prop,  "control,"  "mastery," 
acquired  the  meaning  "self-control,"  "mastery  of  one's  own  desires 
and  impulses,"  but  without  specific  reference  to  any  particular  class 
of  such  desires.  The  position  of  the  word  here  corresponding  to  that 
of  [xsOtq,  /.io[xot  in  the  list  of  the  works  of  the  flesh,  suggests  a  special 
reference  in  this  case  to  control  of  the  appetite  for  drink  and  of  the 
consequent  tendency  to  unrestrained  and  immodest  hilarity.  But 
this  parallelism  does  not  warrant  the  conclusion  that  the  apostle 
had  exclusive  reference  to  this  form  of  self  control. 

Kara  tcov  rotovTOiv  ovic  ecmv  vo/jlo^;.  "Against  such  things 
there  is  no  law."  Without  doubt  an  understatement  of  the 
apostle's  thought  for  rhetorical  effect.  The  mild  assertion 
that  there  is  no  law  against  such  things  has  the  effect  of  an 
emphatic  assertion  that  these  things  fully  meet  the  require- 
ments of  the  law  {cf.  v.^*).  The  statement  as  it  stands  is  true 
of  law  in  every  sense  of  the  word,  and  w/xo?  is  therefore  to  be 
taken  in  a  very  general  sense;  yet  probably  Paul  is  thinking 
only  of  divine,  not  of  divine  and  human  law.  See  special  note 
onNdAio?,V2  (b),p.  456,butc/.V4,p.459.  The  absence  of  the 
article  probably  marks  the  noun  as  indefinite  (not,  as  usually 
in  Paul,  qualitative);  consistently  with  the  rhetorical  figure  he 
thinks  of  a  conceivable  plurality  of  divine  laws  and  denies  that 


V,    23-^4  319 

there  is  any  law  against  such  things.  This  would  have  been 
expressed  with  emphasis  by  the  words  ea-riv  ovBeU  voixo^  {cf. 
I  Cor.  6^  Rom.  8^,  but  it  is  a  part  of  the  rhetoric  of  the  sen- 
tence not  to  use  an  emphatic  form.  Cf.  Rom.  2^^  322.  On  Kara, 
"against,"  see  on  v.^^  tmv  Toiovroyv  is  probably  generic,  de- 
noting the  class  of  which  ayaTrr]  .  .  .  iyKpareia  are  examples 
as  against  the  class  denoted  by  ra  TocavTa  in  v.^i.  Cf.  on  that  v. 
24.  ol  be  Tov  ')(^piaTov  ^Irjaov  rrjv  adpica  earavpayaav  <tvv 
Tol<i  Tra6rjiJ,a<TLV  Kal  rats  eVt^u/xtat?.  "and  they  that  belong 
to  the  Christ,  Jesus,  have  crucified  the  flesh  with  its  dispositions 
and  its  desires."  rod  ;)^pto-roO  Tr/doi)  is  a  possessive  genitive 
(cf.  3^9  I  Cor.  3-3  152^),  and  ol  .  .  .  'Irjaov  are  those  who  are 
in  Christ  Jesus  (v.<^),  who  walk  by  the  Spirit  (v.")  and  are  led 
by  the  Spirit  (v.^^;  cf.  Rom.  8^.  10).  rrjv  ddpaa  has  the  same 
meaning  as  the  crdp^  of  vv.^^-  ^^^  ",  the  force  in  men  that  makes 
for  evil,  and  iaravpojaav  refers  to  the  act  by  which  they  put 
an  end  to  the  dominion  of  that  force  over  their  conduct  {cf. 
Rom.  60.  The  addition  of  o-u;^  rot?  .  .  .  eiriBvp^Lai^i  emphasises 
the  completeness  of  the  extermination  of  this  evil  force,  in  that 
not  only  its  outward  fruits  are  destroyed,  but  its  very  dispo- 
sitions and  desires  put  to  death.  Combined  with  v.23  to  which 
it  is  joined  by  6e  continuative,  the  sentence  conveys  the  as- 
surance that  they  who  are  of  Christ  Jesus,  who  live  by  the 
Spirit,  will  not  fail  morally  or  come  under  condemnation,  since 
the  fruits  of  the  Spirit  fulfil  the  requirements  of  law,  and  the 
deeds  of  the  flesh,  which  shut  one  out  of  the  kingdom  of  God, 
they  will  not  do,  the  flesh  and  its  desires  being  put  to  death. 

The  unusual  combination  tou  xg\cio\J  'IyjjoG  (found  elsewhere  only 
in  Eph.  3»)  is  not  to  be  regarded  as  the  compound  XotaTou  'ItqjoG  with 
the  article  prefixed,  there  being  no  previous  instance  nearer  than  v.« 
of  Xp'.JToq  'iT^joGq  alone,  to  which  the  demonstrative  article  might 
refer;  it  is,  rather,  the  titular  ttoj  xQ^q-zo'j,  the  Christ,  with  'iTjcroG  in 
apposition.  It  is  probably  otherwise  in  Eph.  3',  the  reference  there 
being  to  the  closely  preceding  z"".  See  detached  Note  on  Titles  and 
Predicates  of  Jesus,  III  3.  On  the  omission  of  'iTjaoG  by  some  Western 
authorities,  see  textual  note  on  2>^ 

The  aorist  eaxauptoaav,  since  it  affirms  crucifixion  of  the  flesh  as  a 
past  fact  in  the  experience  of  all  who  are  of  the  Christ,  but  assigns  the 


320  GALATIANS 

act  to  no  specific  point  of  time,  is  best  translated  by  the  English  per- 
fect. On  the  use  of  the  word,  see  note  on  axaupoq  and  aiaupooi,  31.  The 
verb  is  used  figuratively  in  N.  T.  here  and  in  6^*  only;  but  cf.  2'°: 
Xptaxo)  auvsaTocupw^Aat.  Rom.  6«:  b  xaXaioq  tj[jl(I)v  avOpcoxoq  auveaTaupwB-rj. 
Col.  35 :  vsxpwaars  ouv  to:  [liX-q  xa  sxl  T^q  yi^q,  xopvdxv,  etc.  The 
choice  of  axaupoo)  in  preference  to  other  verbs  signif>ang  "to  put 
to  death  "  suggests  that  it  is  the  death  of  Jesus  on  the  cross  which  has 
impelled  us  to  slay  the  power  within  us  that  makes  for  unrighteous- 
ness. Cf.  Rom.  6«-ii  and  the  notes  on  2^°,  where,  however,  a  somewhat 
different  use  is  made  of  the  figure  of  crucifixion. 

On  the  meaning  of  xaGTjtxaaiv,  see  below,  and  on  iTzSw^ianq,  see  v.". 
The  article  with  both  words  is  restrictive,  and  serves  to  mark  the 
xaeT3[i.a  and  ext8u[jLta  as  those  of  the  axp^  just  spoken  of  above;  for 
these  words  are  in  themselves  of  neutral  significance  morally,  and  it 
could  not  be  said  of  the  dispositions  and  desires  generally  that  they 
that  are  Christ's  have  put  them  to  death.  On  this  use  of  the  article, 
where  the  English  would  require  a  possessive,  which  is  rather  rare  in 
N.  T.,  see  Kuhner-Gerth,  461.  2;  G.  949;  Butt.  127.  26;  Mt.  17"  Gal.  6« 
(ih  y.Qcuxri[i.c  and  tov  exspov),  and  the  exx.  of  xbv  xXtjjl'ov  there  cited. 

UiQ-qiix  (xaaxw)  occurs  in  classical  writers  from  Soph,  down,  usually 
in  the  plural.  Its  meanings  are:  (a)  "an  experience  in  which  one  is 
passive,  rather  than  active,"  distinguished  therefore  from  xot-r^txa  and 
epyov:  Plato,  Soph.  248C;  or  "experience"  in  general  without  emphasis 
on  the  element  of  passivity:  Hdt.  i^":  xa  U  t^-ot  izocQ-qiix-zoc  eovxa 
dx^iptxa  [iccQri'^anx  yeyovs:  "It  is  through  my  unpleasant  experiences 
that  I  have  learned";  so,  probably,  also,  in  Plato,  Rep.  51  iD.  (b)  "a 
painful  experience,  a  misfortune,  disaster":  Soph.  0.  C.  361;  Thuc.4. 48'; 
so  in  particular  of  a  sickness,  Plato,  Rep.  439D.  (c)  "a  disposition, 
tendency,  or  characteristic,  in  which  the  person  himself  is  passive,"  so 
in  contrast  with  (xdOTj^a:  Xen.  Cyr.  3.  i":  xaOTQaa  apa  x^q  tJ^ux'Os  au  liyeiq 
elvat  a(09poCTuvTQv,  tojxep  Xuxirjv,  ou  [i&QriJ.a:  "You  maintain  then  that 
sobriety  (discretion)  is  a  passive  quality  of  the  soul,  like  grief,  not  a 
thing  that  one  learns."  Then,  also,  v/ithout  special  emphasis  on  the 
element  of  passivity;  hence  "disposition,"  "propensity,"  "impulse." 
The  earliest  clear  instances  of  this  usage  are  apparently  in  Aristot. 
Poet.  62  (1449  b");  Rhet.  2.  22i«  (1396  b");  Metaph.  4.  14"  (1020  b'^. 
(d)  of  material  bodies,  "magnitude,"  etc.,  "incident,"  "property," 
"accident":  Aristot.  if c/a/'A.  i.  2^  (982  bi«).  Respecting  the  relation 
of  xiOoq  and  xiOiQaa,  Bonitz  maintains  that  in  Aristotle's  use  there  is 
no  certain  difference  of  meaning  {Index  Arist.  554  a^*  sqq.;  they  are 
apparently  synonymous  in  Eth.  Eud.  2'  [1221]);  while  Bernays,  Arisio- 
teles  iiher  Wirkimg  dcr  Tragodic,  pp.  149,  194-6,  holds  that  rMoq  is 
the  condition  of  one  who  is  xiaxf^''',  and  denotes  an  emotion  unexpect- 
edly breaking  forth  and  passing  away;  xaOTjixa,  on  the  other  hand,  is 


V,    24-25  321 

the  condition  of  one  who  is  xaOYjtixo^,  and  denotes  an  inherent  quality 
which  is  liable  at  any  time  to  manifest  itself;  in  short,  that  xa6o<;  is  an 
emotion  (passion),  xc5:6T]pia  a  disposition. 

Down  to  Aristotle,  at  least,  %6L'd-{]-^oL  seems  clearly  a  neutral  term, 
morally.  Cf.  his  list  of  forty-two  xaGr]  (  =  xa6T][ji,aTa  in  Eth.  End.  2' 
[1220/.]).  Aristotle  includes  I'Xsoq  and  96^0!;  under  both  xczOoq  {Eth. 
Nic.  2'  (4)  [1105  b.  passim])  and  xa6T);j.a  {Poet.  6'  [1449  b^']),  and  with- 
out implying  {contra  Cremer)  that  these  are  evil. 

na0T][xa  is  not  found  in  the  Lxx.  xaOoq  occurs  in  Job  30"  Prov.  255" 
in  the  sense  of  "pain,"  "discomfort."  It  is  frequent  in  4  Mac,  where 
it  signifies  "feeling,"  "emotion,"  of  which  the  writer  (under  Stoic 
influence?)  says  the  two  most  comprehensive  classes  are  pleasure  and 
pain  (i"),  and  under  which  he  includes  desire  and  joy,  fear  and  sorrow, 
excitement  (0u;x6q),  haughtiness,  love  of  money,  love  of  glory,  conten- 
tiousness, gluttony  {i'^^^'),  sexual  desire  (2^),  yet  also  the  love  of  life 
and  fear  of  pain  (6";  cf.  preceding  context,  71"),  as  well  as  the  admirable 
love  of  brothers  one  for  another  (141)  and  of  a  mother  for  her  children 
(i5<'  ").  All  these,  the  writer  maintains,  it  is  the  function  of  reason 
and  piety  not  to  uproot,  but  to  control  {3-"%  etfreq.).  It  is  clear,  there- 
fore, that  xaGoq  is  for  this  writer  neither  distinctly  sensual  nor  utterly 
evil. 

The  three  N.  T.  instances  of  xdOoq  (Rom.  i^s  Col.  3^  i  Thes.  4^) 
seem  to  indicate  that  for  Paul  xaOoq  signified  passion  in  a  bad  sense, 
and  especially  perhaps  sensual  passion,  for,  though  always  shown  by 
the  context  to  refer  to  gross  sensual  passion,  in  only  one  case  is  it  felt 
necessary  to  add  a  defining  word  to  indicate  this  limitation  of  meaning. 

In  N.  T.  xaO-rj^a  is  used  fourteen  times  (Rom.  S^*  2  Cor.  i^,  etc.) 
with  the  meaning  "suffering";  it  refers  to  that  of  Christ  and  of  others; 
and  this  is  also  the  meaning  in  the  only  two  passages  in  which  it  occurs 
in  Patr.  Ap.:  Clem.  Rom.  2';  Ign.  Smyrn.  5^  In  Rom.  7^,  xa.  xa0-^[i.cjTa 
Twv  dpLapx'.cov  Tcc  Std;  toG  vo^jlou,  and  the  present  passage,  the  meaning 
is  evidently  akin  to  the  meaning  (c)  in  classical  usage.  Nor  is  there  any 
clear  evidence  that  warrants  us  in  going  beyond  the  Aristotelian  mean- 
ing. Apparently  xd0Tf)iJLa  means  for  Paul  " disposition,"  or  "propensity," 
rather  than  an  outbreak  of  feeling,  and  is  in  itself  morally  neutral;  the 
moral  quality  being  in  Rom.  7'^  expressed  by  twv  daapTtdiv  and  here 
by  the  article,  which  has  the  efi:ect  of  an  added  tyj;  aapxoq.  Ths 
words  xdGiQixa  and  xdOoq  are  therefore  further  apart  in  N.  T.  than 
in  earlier  Greek,  possibly  under  the  influence  of  the  honourable  use  of 
x3:0T];j.a  in  reference  to  the  sufferings  of  Christ  and  his  fellow  men. 

25.  el  ^(Ofxev  wvevfiaTi,  irvevixari  kol  crrot^coyuey,  "If  we 
live  by  the  Spirit,  by  the  Spirit  let  us  also  walk."  The  condi- 
tional clause  (a  present  particular  supposition)  like  that  of  v.^^ 


22  2  GALATIANS 

refers  to  a  present  possibility,  presumably  a  reality.     The  apos- 
tle assumes  that  they  live  or  intend  to  live  by  the  Spirit,  and 
exhorts  them  to  make  this  manifest  in  conduct.     The  phrase 
^rjp  TvevfjLaTL,  which  he  has  not  previously  used,  he  nevertheless 
assumes  will  be  understood  by  his  readers  and  taken  as  sub- 
stantially synonymous  with  those  already  employed  (w.^^-  '^\  cf. 
v.^  and  220).     The  thought  expressed  by  ^o^ixev  irvtvixari  is  sub- 
I  stantially  the  same  as  that  of  Ti?  e^  e/ioi  Xpicrrd?,  irvev^a  and 
'XpicfTo^i  being  for  the  apostle  synonymous  from  the  point  of 
view  of  experience.     See  on  4'-     Of  the  three  expressions,  t^v^v- 
juart  TreptTraretre  of  v.^^  irvevimTL  dyeade  of  v.^^  and  T^M^^ 
irvevixari  here,  the  first  emphasises  conduct,  the  second  con- 
formity of  will  to  the  Spirit's  leading,  and  the  third  vital  spiri- 
tual fellowship,  mystical  union.     Assuming  that  they  are  in 
such  fellowship,  he  bases  on  it  an  exhortation  to  the  first-named, 
conduct,  expressing  this,  however,  by  the  word  aroix^^ixev  (see 
below)  instead  of  using  TTepnraTelv  as  in  v.^^     That  he  should 
exhort  men  who  live  by  the  Spirit  to  do  the  things  which  it  is 
the  very  nature  of  life  by  the  Spirit  to  produce  {cf.  vv.^^s-)  is 
not  uncharacteristic  of  the  apostle,  who  constantly  combines 
the  conception  of  morality  as  the  product  of  a  divine  force 
working  in  men  with  the  thought  of  the  human  will  as  a  neces- 
sary force  in  producing  it.     Cj.  Phil.  i^^.  13  Rom.  6^-^  and  6122-. 

On  xvEu^JLccTi  cf.  on  v.^^;  the  dative  is  a  dative  of  means.  The  noun 
being  anarthrous  is  qualitative.  There  is  much  difference  of  opinion 
on  the  question  whether  aTocxwixsv,  conveying  the  figure  of  walking 
{cf.  xsptTcaTsTxe  in  v.^O  in  a  row,  refers  chiefly  to  external  conduct  in 
contrast  with  inner  life,  t;o)ti.£v  (so  Philippi,  Ell.  Ltft.  Sief.),  or  having 
as  its  basal  meaning  "to  stand  in  a  row,"  refers  to  conformity,  agree- 
ment (so  Dalmer  and  Cremer,  following  Buddeus).  The  lexicographi- 
cal evidence  is  hardly  decisive,  but  the  N.  T.  exx.  favour  the  view 
that  QTotx^iv  sometimes,  at  least,  suggested  the  figure  of  walking 
(Rom.  41^  or  of  walking  in  a  straight  line,  and  meant  "to  act  accord- 
ing to  a  standard,"  "to  behave  properly"  (Acts  21").  But  in  chap. 
6>«  Phil.  3'"  either  this  meaning,  or  the  meaning  "to  conform  to," 
would  be  suitable.  For  the  present  passage  this  meaning,  "to  walk 
(in  a  straight  line),"  "to  conduct  one's  self  (rightly),"  is  distinctly  more 
appropriate;  the  apostle  in  that  case  exhorting  his  readers  who  claim 


V,   25-26  323 

to  live  by  the  Spirit  to  give  evidence  of  the  fact  by  conduct  controlled 
by  the  Spirit.  The  thought  is  similar  to  that  of  i  Cor.  lo^^  and  Phil, 
3U 


26.  M^  jLVcofxeda  Kevodo^OL,  aWi]Xov<;  TrpoKaXovjJLevoi,  aXX?;- 
Xot?  (j)6ovovvTe?.  "Let  us  not  become  vain-minded,  provoking 
one  another,  envying  one  another."  This  sentence,  following 
the  preceding  without  connective,  expresses  negatively  one 
element  or  consequence  of  that  which  is  positively  expressed 
in  Tvev/JLaTL  aroix^ixev.  Walking  by  the  Spirit,  let  us  not  put 
false  estimates  on  things,  and  thus,  on  the  one  side,  provoke  or 
challenge  our  fellows  to  do  things  they  hesitate  to  do,  or,  on 
the  other,  envy^  our  fellows  who  dare  to  do  what  we  do  not 
venture  to  do.  The  two  parts  of  the  exhortation  doubtless 
have  reference  to  two  classes  in  the  churches  of  the  Galatians. 
Those  who  fancied  that  they  had  attained  unto  freedom  and 
were  in  danger  of  converting  their  freedom  into  an  occasion  to 
the  flesh  (v.^^),  whose  KevoBo^ia  took  the  form  of  pride  in  their 
fancied  possession  of  liberty  to  act  without  restraint,  would 
be  tempted  to  challenge  (irpoKoKeladai)  their  more  timid  or 
more  scrupulous  brethren,  saying,  e.  g.,  "We  dare  do  these 
things  that  the  law  forbids;  are  you  afraid  to  do  them?"  On 
the  other  hand,  the  more  scrupulous  would,  while  not  quite 
daring  to  follow  in  the  footsteps  of  these,  yet  be  tempted  to 
regard  this  spurious  liberty  of  their  fellow-Christians  as  a  thing 
to  be  desired,  and  to  look  at  them  with  env}^,  wishing  that  they 
felt  the  same  freedomx.  Cf.  the  similar,  though  not  quite  identi- 
cal, situation  more  fully  reflected  in  i  Cor.,  chap.  8,  where  the 
apostle  addresses  especially  those  who  with  conceit  of  knowl- 
edge act  regardless  of  the  wefl-being  of  their  more  timid  or 
more  scrupulous  brethren;  and  that  set  forth  in  Rom.,  chap.  14, 
where,  however,  the  relation  of  the  two  parties  is  not  as  here, 
that  one  challenges  and  the  other  envies,  but  that  one  despises 
and  the  other  judges.  As  in  those  cases  the  apostle  prescribes 
Christian  love  as  the  corrective  of  the  divisive  evils,  so  here  he 
prescribes  walking  by  the  Spirit,  the  fruit  of  which  is  love,  joy, 
peace,  etc. 


324  GALATIANS 

The  relation  of  this  verse  to  what  precedes  and  to  what  follows  is 
similar  to  that  of  v.i  to  its  context;  it  is  the  conclusion  of  what  pre- 
cedes and  the  introduction  to  what  follows.  Yet  it  is  the  former  con- 
nection that  is  closest,  and  the  greater  paragraph  division  should  be 
made,  not  as  in  WH.,  Stage,  Zahn,  between  vv.^*  and  »,  or  as  in  Mey. 
Weizs.  Stapfer,  between  vv."  and  ^o,  but  at  the  end  of  the  chapter, 
as  in  AV.  Tdf.  Ell.  Ltft.  Segond,  Sief.  ERV.  ARV.  make  a  paragraph 
both  her2  and  at  the  beginning  of  v.  ^^ 

The  dative  (kXkrfkoiq  before  98ovoOvTe<;  is  attested  by  J^ACDEG^KL 
al.  pier.  Clem.  Euthal.  Thdrt.  Dam.  On  the  other  hand,  BG*P  al.  25 
Clem.  Chr.  Thdrt.  cod.  Oec.  read  aXXriXou;.  The  latter,  despite  its 
strong  support,  is  so  contrary  to  known  usage  that  it  must  be  supposed 
to  be  a  corruption  under  the  influence  of  the  preceding  aXkrjXouq. 

KsvoBo^ofi  (like  its  cognates  xevoSo^t'a  and  xevoSo^ew)  is  a  word  of 
later  Greek,  appearing  first  in  Polyb.  3.  !•;  27.  6",  where  it  is  associated 
with  dXai;tov,  then  in  this  passage,  the  only  N.  T.  instance,  and  in  Did. 
3',  where  to  be  (pcXdpyupoc;  or  x£v68o^o(;  is  said  to  lead  to  theft: 
tIxvov  t^ou,  \j.ii  yfvou  (];eucrTiQq,  exstBYj  65irjY£t  xh  t]jeuaiJ,a  dq  T-f)v 
xXoxTQV,  [i-q^k  <pi\(kpyupQq  [xtjBe  v-ewZo^oq'  ex.  Yctp  toutwv  axdvxwv 
xXoxal  yeyvibvzoci.  xsvoBo^t'a  is  more  frequent,  occurring  in  Polyb. 
3.  81';  Wisd.  14";  4  Mac.  2"  8».  '*;  Philo,  Mut.  nom.  96  (15);  Leg. 
ad  Gaium,  114  (16);  Phil.  2»;  Clem.  Rom.  35^;  Ign.  Philad.  ii;  Magn. 
II';  Herm.  Mand.  8';  Sim.  8.  9';  Galen,  Tuend.  valetud.  6  (quoted  by 
Zahn,  following  Wetstein),  (pt.'kozi[i.Uq  t^v  6vo[xai;ouatv  ol  viiv  "EXXrjve? 
xevoBo^tav. 

In  several  of  these  passages  xevoSo^c'a  is  associated  with  dXocQo^ia, 
"boastfulness."  Suidas  defines  it  as  [xaTata  ziq  xcpl  laurou  oXriaiq. 
But  usage  shows  that  this  definition  is  not  quite  comprehensive  enough. 
The  noun  and  the  adjective  are  evidently  closely  related  in  meaning, 
and  xsvoSo^oq  means  "glorying  in  vain  things,"  "setting  value  on 
things  not  really  valuable,"  whether  possessed,  or  supposed  to  be  pos- 
sessed, or  desired.  It  is  the  almost  exact  antithesis  of  ato^pcov  and 
CTa)(ppovt5v,  which  mean  "seeing  things  as  they  are,  estimating  them  at 
their  true  value"  (cf.  Rom.  12').  The  English  word  "vain"  expresses 
the  meaning  of  xsvoSo^oc;  approximately,  but  as  commonly  used  refers 
more  especially  to  pride  in  petty  possessions  and  less  distinctly  sug- 
gests the  desire  for  vain  things  not  yet  possessed.  "Vain-minded,"  if 
we  might  coin  an  English  word,  would  translate  xevoSo^oq  exactly.* 

rXpoxaXio),  though  not  found  in  the  Lxx,  Ps.  Sol.  or  Patr.  Ap., 
in  the  Apocr.  only  in  a  variant  reading  in  2  Mac.  8",  and  here  only  in 
N.  T.,  occurs  in  classical  writers  from  Homer  down.     It  is  evidently 

*  The  verb  KevoSo^eut  seems  to  have  taken  on  a  somewhat  more  general  meaning  than  the 
noun  or  the  adjective,  signifying  to  hold  a  baseless  opinion  (of  any  kind) .  See  4  Mac.  5'  8"; 
Mar.  Pol.  10'. 


V,  26-vi,  I  325 

used  here  in  the  meaning  common  in  Greek  writers,  "  to  call  forth," 
"to  challenge." 

4>0ov£(i),  likewise  not  found  in  the  Lxx,  and  in  the  Apocr.  in  Tob. 
4'.  i«  only,  not  in  Ps.  Sol.,  in  Patr.  Ap.  2  Clem.  15^  only,  here  only 
in  N.  T.,  is  like  xpo^-xX.  a  common  classical  word  from  Homer  down. 
Cf.  on  <j)66voq,  v.-\ 

(c)  Exhortation  to  restore  those  who  fall,  and  to  bear 
one  another's  burdens  (6^-^). 

Mindful  of  the  danger  that  not  all  those  who  purpose  to  live 
by  the  Spirit  will  always  Hve  thus,  the  apostle  appends  to  the 
injunction  of  52^  an  exhortation  to  those  who  live  by  the  Spirit 
to  restore  any  who  fall,  adds  exhortations  to  mutual  burden- 
bearing,  and  reminds  them  that  each  man  has  a  burden  of  his 
own. 

^Brethren,  if  a  man  be  nevertheless  overtaken  in  a  transgression, 
do  ye  who  are  spiritual  restore  such  a  one  in  a  spirit  of  gentleness, 
considering  thyself  lest  thou  also  be  tempted.  ^Bear  ye  one  another's 
burdens,  and  so  fulfil  the  law  of  the  Christ.  ^For  if  any  one  think- 
eth  himself  to  be  something,  when  he  is  nothing,  he  deceiveth  him- 
self. '^And  let  every  man  prove  his  own  work,  and  then  shall  he 
have  his  ground  of  glorying  in  respect  to  himself,  and  not  in  respect 
to  his  fellow.     ^For  each  man  shall  bear  his  own  burden. 

1.  'ABe\(j)OL,  eav  koI  rpoXrjiJicj^dr]  avOpcoiros  ev  riVL  irapairTO)- 
liari,  viseXs  ol  TrvevixaTiKol  KarapTi^ere  rov  toiovtov  ev  Trj^eu/xart 
TvpavrriTO'^,  aKoiroiv  aeavrou,  ijlt)  Kal  av  TeLpaadrj<;.  "Brethren, 
if  a  man  be  nevertheless  overtaken  in  a  transgression,  do  ye 
who  are  spiritual  restore  such  a  one  in  a  spirit  of  gentleness, 
considering  thyself  lest  thou  also  be  tempted."  This  sentence 
is  closely  connected  with  the  thought  of  chap.  5.  Recognising 
the  possibility,  too  sadly  proved  by  experience,  that  one  who 
has  chosen  the  hfe  by  the  Spirit  may  nevertheless  fall  into  sin, 
the  apostle  exhorts  those  members  of  the  community  who  have 
not  thus  fallen  to  care  for  him  who  has.  Despite  the  use  of 
avBpoiTTo^  instead  of  ahe\<^6^  {cf.  i  Cor.  5^0  the  reference  is 
clearly  not  to  an  outsider  but  to  a  member  of  the  Christian 
community. 


326  GALATIANS 

Zahn,  following  Hofmann,  connects  dSsX^ot  with  5",  So  also  Ws. 
533X901  at  the  end  of  a  sentence  is  not  impossible  (see  v.i')  and  at  the 
very  beginning  of  a  sentence  is  rather  infrequent  (3 15  Rom.  iqi  i  Cor. 
14"  Phil.  313),  a  position  near  the  beginning  being  much  more  com- 
mon than  either  (i>i  4'=  5",  etfreq.).  But  a  position  at  the  end  of  such 
a  sentence  as  S'^  remote  from  any  pronoun  referring  to  the  persons 
addressed  {cf.  6i«;  Phm.^;  also  Gal.  412),  and  after  a  series  of  distinct 
phrases,  is  extremely  awkward,  and  unparalleled  in  Paul.  It  is  safe 
to  affirm  that  if  dSsXcpof  had  been  intended  to  form  a  part  of  v.=«  it 
would  have  stood  before  SclX-qXouq,  and  that  standing  where  it  does  it 
must  be  taken  with  what  follows  it,  as  in  s''  and  other  examples  above. 

'E&y  (or  eI)  xai  may  be  used  either  (a)  to  introduce  a  concessive  clause 
(2  Tim.  25,  and  numerous  instances  of  el  /.at),  i.  e.,  a  condition  unfavour- 
able to  the  fulfilment  of  the  apodosis,  in  spite  of  which  the  apodosis  is 
or  will  be  fulfilled;  or  (b)  when  a  second  hypothesis  similar  to  a  preced- 
ing one  is  introduced,  and  /.at  therefore  means  "also";  cf.  Lk.  iii* 
2  Cor.  II";  or  (c)  when  xcxt  is  intensive,  putting  emphasis  on  the  imme- 
diately following  word  (Lk.  i4=0,  or  suggesting  that  the  hypothesis  is 
in  some  sense  extreme;  thus  in  i  Cor.  y'l.  =«  it  stands  in  a  protasis  refer- 
ring to  a  condition  which  the  apostle  has  in  a  preceding  sentence  said 
ought  never  to  occur;  its  force  may  be  reproduced  in  English  by  an 
emphatic  form  (if  she  do  depart,  i  Cor.  7";  if  thou  dost  marry,  728). 
Cf.  also  I  Pet.  3".  The  first  use  is  excluded  in  the  present  case  by  the 
fact  that  the  clause  as  a  whole  is  not  oppositional;  without  the  xapaicxwixa 
there  would  be  no  occasion  for  a  xaxapxi^etv.  The  second  is  excluded 
by  the  fact  that  there  is  no  preceding  similar  supposition,  to  which  this 
could  be  additional.  The  third  possibility  alone  remains,  and  the 
intensive  force  of  xaf  is  doubtless  intended  to  apply  to  the  whole 
clause.  The  meaning  thus  yielded  perfectly  fits  the  context  and  con- 
stitutes an  almost  perfect  parallel  to  the  use  of  el  -aolI  in  i  Cor.  y^K  As 
there  the  apostle,  having  forbidden  the  wife  to  depart  from  her  hus- 
band, goes  on  to  say:  but  if  (nevertheless)  she  do  depart  (sav  Be  xal 
Xwpca0f));  so  here,  having  in  5"  bidden  his  readers  walk  by  the  Spirit 
(aroix^tv  xvcu;j.aTO  and  in  526  enforced  this  exhortation  by  negative 
injunctions,  he  now  deals  with  the  case  of  one  who  should  nevertheless 
fail  to  obey  this  injunction,  saying  in  effect:  "If  now  one  shall  never- 
theless disregard  the  injunction  to  walk  by  the  Spirit  and  be  overtaken 
in  a  fault,  it  is  for  those  who  have  obeyed  the  injunction  (xveuii-axcxof 
=  aTotxo!JvT£<;  xv£U[xaTt)  to  restore  such  a  one." 

npoXafx^avo),  used  by  classical  writers  from  Sophocles  down  in  a 
variety  of  meanings,  does  not  occur  in  the  Lxx,  and  in  Apocr.  is  found 
only  in  Wisd.  17"  and  as  v.  I.  in  i7>i.  In  the  latter  it  means  "to  antici- 
pate, to  forecast."  In  17'^,  et  le  yap  yewpybc;  ^v  ziq  .  .  .  xpoXTjixipGelq 
[sc.    al(p\iZ[(i>    Y.cd    dxpoaSox-^Tw     96^(0 — cf.  v.>5]    ttJv    hua&Xuxiov    e'txevev 


VI,   I  327 

dtvcScyxTjv,  it  means  "to  overtake,"  "to  come  upon,"  or  "to  take  un- 
awares" (not,  however,  "to  detect").  See  also  Jos.  Bell.  5.79  (2^:  8tb 
v.(x\  TOTS  ■xpoXT](p8ivT£';  ol  'Pw^aiot  Tal<;  lix^oXal!;  elxov  (cited  by 
Sief.),  where  the  passive  clearly  means  "to  be  taken  by  surprise."  In 
N.  T.  it  occurs  in  i  Cor.  ii^S  where  it  means  "to  take  beforehand"; 
in  Mk.  I4S  where  it  means  "to  anticipate,  to  forestall"  {cf.  also  Ign. 
Eph.  3=,  the  only  instance  in  Patr.  Ap.);  and  in  the  present  passage,  for 
which  no  meaning  is  so  probable  as  that  which  is  vouched  for  Wisd. 
171^;  Jos.Sc//.  5.79  (20,viz.,  "to  take  by  surprise,"  "  to  seize  unawares  " 
(so  Sief.)*  If  the  word  "overtake"  be  employed  in  translation  it 
should  be  understood  in  that  sense.  The  meaning  "  to  detect,  to  dis- 
cover one  in  an  act"  (Ell.  Alf.  Ltft.  Th.  and  not  a  few  others),  though 
not  an  improbable  derivative  from  the  meaning  "to  take  by  surprise," 
is  not  attested  by  any  observed  instance  and  is  not  required  by  this 
context.  When  with  this  interpretation  of  xpo>..  is  combined  the  view 
that  y.a(  throws  its  emphasis  on  x?oX.,  giving  the  meaning,  "If  one  be 
even  detected  in  a  fault,  etc.,"  it  yields  a  thought  wholly  inharmonious 
with  the  context.     See  above  on  d  %aL 

IlapaxTwiia,  a  late  word  meaning  literally  "a  fall  beside,"  but  used 
by  Polybius,  in  whom  the  first  observed  instances  occur,  in  a  figurative 
sense,  "a  false  step,  a  blunder,"  is  used  in  the  Lxx  for  various  words 
meaning  "sin,"  and  with  similar  force  in  Apocr.  In  N.  T.  it  is  used 
in  the  synoptic  gospels  in  speaking  of  forgiveness,  and  in  the  Pauline 
epistles,  Rom.  4"  5'*-  ",  etc.  Between  biblical  and  non-biblical  usage 
there  seems  little  difference,  except  that  in  the  biblical  writers  it  has 
a  more  strictly  ethical  sense.  The  exx.  in  Paul  show  that  the  word 
retained  for  him  the  suggestion  of  its  etymological  sense,  "a  falling 
beside,  a  failure  to  achieve"  (see  esp.Rom.  ii"- 1^),  and  it  is,  therefore, 
probable  that  in  the  present  passage  there  is  an  intended  antithesis 
to  aTotx'iuLEv  "walk  in  a  straight  line,  conform  to  a  standard."  Iv  is 
figuratively  spatial,  meaning  "in  the  midst  of,"  "in  the  act  of,"  Cf. 
I  Thes.  22  and  Th.  s.  v.  I.  5. 

01  %vE\j[L(x'ziy.oi  here  evidently  refers  to  those  who  in  obedience  to  the 
instructions  of  vv.i^-''*,  live  by  the  Spirit,  walk  by  the  Spirit,  as  against 
those  who,  faiUng  to  do  so,  are  still  following  the  exteu[x(a  xfiq  aapxoq 
(cf.  I  Cor.  3*:  oux.  T)Buvri9T3V  XalriaM  i)[J-tv  0)q  xv£U[AaTixotq  <iXk'  wq 
aapxtvotq),  or  as  against  both  the  latter  and  those  who  are  living  uxb 
v6[JLov  (cf.  4.i«).  On  xveu^JLaTtxoq  in  general,  see  Th.  s.  v.  and  Burton, 
Spirit,  Soul,  and  Flesh,  p.  204. 

KicxapTt^w,  found  in  classical  authors  from  Herodotus  down,   and 

♦The  passages  cited  for  the  meaning  "to  overtake"  (as  of  one  pursuing  a  fugitive)  by 
Meyer,  do  not  show  it.  Xen.  Cyr.  5. 19;  7-  7;  Theophr.  H.  pi.  8.  i';  Polyb.  31.  23';  Diod.  Sic. 
17.  73  all  show  the  meaning  "to  get  the  start  of,"  "to  outdistance"  (used  of  the  pursued,  not 
of  the  pursuer)  quite  the  opposite  of  "overtake."  Tn  Strabo  16.  4"  fin.  the  meaning  is  "  to 
seize  beforehand"  or  possibly  "to  anticipate,"  as  in  i  Cor.  11". 


328  GALATIANS 

not  infrequently  in  the  Lxx,  Apocr.,  and  Patr.  Ap.,  has  in  general  three 
meanings:  (i)  "to  repair,"  "to  restore"  (to  a  former  good  condition): 
Mk.  I'';  (2)  "to  prepare/'  "to  fit  out":  Heb.  lo-':  (3)  "to  perfect'- 
Heb.  132'.  Here  evidently  used  in  the  first  sense,  ethically  understood. 
On  t6v  TotoOxov  (this  man,  being  such),  cj.  on  toc  TotaOxa,  521. 

Of  the  phrase  ev  xveuixaTc  xpauTYjToq  two  interpretations  are  possi- 
ble: (a)  xveutxa  may  refer  to  the  Holy  Spirit  qualitatively  spoken  of  as 
in  vv.>«'  '8.  26.  in  that  case  xpatJxirjToq  is  a  genitive  of  connection  denot- 
ing the  effect  of  the  presence  of  the  Spirit  {cf.  xveutia  uloGeataq, 
Rom.  8>0,  and  ev  marks  its  object  as  the  sphere  in  which  the  action 
takes  place  and  by  which  its  character  is  determined,  as  in  i  Thes.  i' 
I  Cor.  123  etfreq.  Cf.  4",  and  note  that  xpatjxiQq  is  named  in  5"  among 
those  qualities  which  are  the  fruit  of  the  Spirit.  Observe,  also,  the 
connection  in  that  case  with  xveutAaxcxof,  the  intimation  being  that 
those  who  possess  the  Spirit  shall  by  virtue  of  that  possession  and  the 
gentleness  which  it  creates,  restore  the  oflfender.  (b)  xvcu[i.a  xpauTT)TO(; 
may  denote  a  human  spirit,  characterised  by  gentleness,  xpauTTjroq 
being  a  genitive  of  characteristic,  and  Iv  marking  its  object  as  that 
with  which  one  is  furnished  and  under  the  influence  of  which  the  action 
takes  place.  See  Rom.  7^,  ev  xatvoTTQxt  xveu^axoq,  but  esp.  i  Cor.  4": 
ev  pi:pS(p  eXOw  xpbq  u[xa<;  tj  ev  dyaxiQ  xve6[xaxt  xe  xpauxTjxoq;  in  view 
of  these  passages,  the  latter  of  which  is  so  closely  parallel  to  the  pres- 
ent, the  second  interpretation  is  probably  to  be  preferred.  On  the 
meaning  of  xpauxrjxoq,  see  on  5".  The  emphasis  is  here  evidently  upon 
the  quality  of  considerateness. 

2x0X60),  a  classical  word  from  Homer  down,  signifying  "to  look  at," 
"to  observe,"  is  used  in  N.  T.  in  Lk.  ii«,  meaning  "to  take  heed," 
and  by  Paul  in  Rom.  161'  2  Cor.  4I8  Phil.  2<  31?,  always  with  a  direct 
object  in  the  accusative  and  in  the  sense  "to  consider,"  "to  observe," 
"to  give  heed  to";  for  what  purpose,  whether  to  avoid,  or  to  promote, 
or  to  honour,  lies  entirely  in  the  context.  Cf.  Esth.  8'^  2  Mac.  4^;  Clem. 
Rom.  sii;  Mar.  Pol.  i^.  The  change  to  the  singular  after  the  plural 
dBeX(po{,  common  also  in  classical  writers  (Kiihner-Gerth,  371.  5  b)  serves 
to  make  the  exhortation  more  pointed.  Cf.  the  similar  change  of 
number  in  4«'  ^ 

M9)  xal  au  xetpaaGfj?  may  be  (a)  a  clause  of  purpose  after  dxoxwv 
ceauxdv  (Butt.  p.  242),  or  (b)  an  object  clause  after  oxoxdiv  as  a  verb  of 
effort  (BAfr  206),  aeauxdv  being  in  that  case  proleptic  and  pleonastic 
(see  I  Cor.  161*),  or  (c)  a  clause  of  fear,  the  verb  of  fearing  to  be  sup- 
plied in  thought  {^MT  225).  The  last  is  the  most  probable,  for  it  is 
against  (a)  that  the  purpose  of  ctxoxwv  as  here  referred  to  is  manifestly 
not  so  much  to  avoid  falling  into  temptation  as  to  render  one  consid- 
erate in  dealing  with  those  who  do  so  fall;  and  against  (b)  that  Paul 
elsewhere  constantly  uses  <TKo%iixi,  not  as  a  verb  of  effort,  but  in  the 
sense  "to  consider,  observe." 


VI,     1-2  329 

nctpdi;o)  (from  Homer  down;  occurring  frequently  in  the  Lxx,  Apocr., 
and  occasionally  in  Patr.  Ap.),  meaning  properly  "to  try,"  "to  test," 
in  whatever  way  or  for  whatever  purpose,  is  often  used  in  N.  T.  (not 
so  in  the  Lxx  or  Apocr.)  in  the  sense  "to  solicit  to  sin"  (note  especially 
the  title  of  Satan,  6  x£tpd:t;wv:  Mt.  4'  i  Thes.  3=;  cf.  i  Cor.  7O,  and 
sometimes  pregnantly  carrying  with  it  the  implication  of  yielding, 
also.  So  in  i  Cor.  7^,  and  so  here  also,  since  that  which  is  feared  is 
manifestly  not  temptation,  but  the  sin  which  is  likely  to  result  from  it. 


2.  'AXXtJXw;^  Ta  /3dp7]  ^aard^ere^  Kal  ovtcos  avair\'r]p6)aaTe 
Tov  voixov  Tov  ^picrroO.  "  Bear  ye  one  another's  burdens,  and  so 
fulfil  the  law  of  the  Christ."  The  reference  of  ra  ^dprj  is  clearly 
to  that  especially  which  is  spoken  of  in  the  preceding  verse,  viz., 
the  burden  of  temptation  and  possible  ensuing  sin.  This  bur- 
den they  are  to  share,  each  bearing  the  other's.  Yet  the  prin- 
ciple that  underlies  the  injunction,  and  so  in  a  sense  the  injunc- 
tion itself,  applies  to  burdens  of  any  kind.  The  position  of 
aK\rj\o)v  makes  it  emphatic.  On  the  force  of  voixov^  see  de- 
tached note  NoVos,  V.  2.  (d),  p.  459.  On  tov  ^pto-roi),  see  de- 
tached note  on  The  Titles  and  Predicates  of  Jesus,  p.  395,  and 
concluding  discussion  under  B,  p.  398.  See  also  i^  Col.  3^^.  By 
"  the  law  of  the  Christ"  Paul  undoubtedly  means  the  law  of  God 
as  enunciated  by  the  Christ;  just  as  the  law  of  Moses  (Lk.  2^3 
Acts  133^)  is  the  law  of  God  as  put  forth  by  Moses.  By  the 
use  of  the  official  term  tov  'x^piarov  in  preference  to  '\r](Tov 
or  even  XptcroO,  the  authoritative  character  of  the  promulga- 
tion is  suggested.  It  is  clear  also  that  the  apostle  conceived 
of  the  law  put  forth  by  the  Christ  as  consisting  not  in  a  body  of 
statutes,  but  in  the  central  and  all-inclusive  principle  of  love; 
though  whether  in  his  present  reference  to  that  law  he  had  in 
mind  its  content,  or  thought  simply  of  the  law  of  God  set  forth 
by  the  Christ,  can  not  be  decided  wath  certainty.  Whether  he 
is  here  thinking  of  this  law  as  having  been  promulgated  by 
Jesus  while  on  earth  and  known  to  him,  Paul,  through  the 
medium  of  those  who  followed  Jesus  before  his  death,  or  as 
communicated  through  his  Spirit,  there  is  likewise  no  wholly 
decisive  indication.  If,  as  seems  probable,  the  former  is  the 
case,  this  is  one  of  the  few  passages  in  which  the  apostle  refers 


330  GALATIANS 

to  teaching  of  Jesus  transmitted  to  him  through  the  Twelve 
or  their  companions.  Cf.  i  Cor,  f^g^'ii'^^i  Thes.  41^-1^  (?) 
5^(?). 

WH.  read  dvaxXTj^ciaaTs  with  ^ACDKLNP  al.  pier.  Syr.  (hard.) 
Arm.  Clem.  Bas.  Ephr.  Didym.  Ath.  Chr,  Euthal.  Thdrt.  Dam. 
Following  BFG  d  f  g  Vg.  Syr.  (psh.)  Boh.  Eth.  Goth.  Procl.  Marc. 
Thdrt.  cod.  Tert.  Gyp.  Victorin.  Hier.  Aug.  Ambrst.  al.  Tdf.  adopts 
dvaTr>.T3?o[)j£Te.  Neither  external  nor  internal  evidence  is  decisive,  but 
the  preponderance  of  the  latter  seems  in  favour  of  — aaxe.  The  fut.  is 
probably  due  to  the  natural  tendency  to  convert  the  second  imperative 
into  a  promissory  apodosis. 

The  words  ^a?oc  and  ^acTaliw  are  common,  both  in  classical  and 
later  Greek.  ^j.goc,  is  used  in  a  great  variety  of  applications,  both 
literally  and  metaphorically;  in  N.  T.  always  metaphorically,  and 
either  of  what  is  desirable  (2  Cor.  41'),  or  of  what  is  hard  to  be  borne 
(Acts  15"  Rev.  2-0.  the  context  alone  indicating  the  specific  nature 
of  that  which  is  referred  to.  On  ^aax^^w,  see  on  $'"•  The  reference 
here  is  evidently  not  simply  to  endurance  (enforced  and  reluctant,  as 
in  s^o),  but  to  a  willing,  helpful,  sympathetic  sharing  of  the  burden 
(cf.  Rom.  151),  the  element  of  willingness,  etc.,  lying,  however,  in  the 
context  rather  than  in  the  word  itself. 

'AvaTcXT;p6(i),  found  in  classical  writers  from  Euripides  down,  is  used 
in  the  Lxx  and  N.  T.  as  a  somewhat  stronger  term  for  -itX-npow,  both 
literally  and  tropical'y.  Cf.  note  on  xAiQpoto,  5>*.  Here,  evidently, 
with  a  force  similar  to  that  in  Mt.  131*,  it  means  "to  satisfy  the  require- 
ments of."  See  ex.  of  its  use  with  reference  to  a  contract  in  M.  and  M. 
Voc.  s.  V.  On  ouTwc,  meaning  "in  this  way,  by  the  conduct  just 
enjoined,"  cf.  Mt.  3'^  But  there  must  be  supplied  in  thought  some 
such  expression  as  "in  the  matter  of  another's  burden,"  since  mutual 
burden-bearing  is  evidently  not  the  full  content  of  the  law  of  the 
Christ. 

3.  €l  <yap  8oK€L  Tt?  elvat  tl  jj-rjoev  wv^  (fipevairara  eavrov 
"For  if  any  one  thinketh  himself  to  be  something,  when  he  is 
nothing,  he  deceiveth  himself."  Introduced  by  ydp  this  sen- 
tence gives  a  reason  for  the  injunction  of  v. 2^,  aX\rj\ojv  ra  jSdpr] 
/3acrra^€r€,  and  imphes  that  conceit,  thinking  one's  self  to  be 
something  more  than  one  really  is,  tends  to  make  one  unwilling 
to  share  another's  burden.  Conceiving  ourselves  to  have  no 
faults,  we  have  no  sympathy  with  those  who  have  faults  and 
refuse  to  make  their  shortcomings  any  concern  of  ours. 


VI,    2-3  331 

On  the  expression  ooxsTv  elvai  tc,  cf.  on  2«.«.  Of  the  two  meanings 
v/ith  which  usage  shows  the  expression  to  have  been  used,  the  context 
makes  it  evident  that  it  bears  one  in  2^  and  the  other  here,  meaning 
there  "to  be  esteemed  of  importance  (by  others),"  here  "to  esteem  one's 
self  to  be  of  importance."     Note  the  bearing  of  (ppsva-xaTi?  sauTov. 

On  the  use  of  \yr\lh  wv  with  5oxstv  dvaf  tc,  cf.  Plato,  Apol.  41E, 
Ictv  Soxtojt  Tt  elvat,  [JLrjSev  ovreq.  The  participle  wv  is  concessive, 
expressing  a  condition  which  is  adverse  to  Boxsl,  etc.,  equivalent  to 
e?  [XYjBsv  kail.  Otherwise  stated,  the  conditional  clause  and  the  par- 
ticipial phrase  together  are  equivalent  to  et  8oxet  xiq  elvat  xi  xal 
[jLTjoev  ecTTt,  in  which  the  combination  of  the  two  elements  is  causal- 
conditional.  On  the  combination  of  causal  and  concessive  conditional 
elements,  see  comment  on  i^.  In  such  cases  [atq  is  the  regular  negative, 
both  in  classical  and  later  Greek.  'QMT  485.  Against  the  connection 
of  wv,  a,s  a  causal  participle,  with  the  apodosis  (ppsvaxaTqc  (Zahn)  the 
negative  \iA]  is  not  decisive,  but  the  implied  affirmation  that  no  man  is 
anything  and  that  any  man  who  thinks  himself  to  be  something  de- 
ceives himself,  imports  into  the  sentence  a  harshness  of  judgment  that 
is  not  warranted  by  the  context  or  the  apostle's  other  utterances.  Cf. 
esp.  Rom.  i2=ff-  Phil.  2^^-. 

cE>p£vaxaTci(o  appears  here  for  the  first  time  in  extant  Greek  literature 
and  here  only  in  N.  T.  It  is  not  found  in  the  Lxx,  Apocr.  or  Patr. 
Ap.,  but  first  after  Paul,  so  far  as  noted,  in  Galen,  Ilesych.  (L.  &  S.) 
and  eccles.  and  Byzant,  writers  (Th.).  ippsvaxaTTji;  is  found  in  Tit.  i'", 
[xaTatoXdyot  xal  cppcvaxa-rac,  "vain  talkers  and  deceivers,"  which  is 
quoted  in  the  longer  recension  of  Ign.  Trail.  6.  This  noun  appears 
also  in  a  papyrus  (Grenfell,  An  Alexandrian  Erotic  Fragment,  Oxford, 
1896,  p.  2)  said  by  Grenfell  to  be  not  later  than  100  a.  d.  The  Greek 
of  the  passage  is  obscure,*  but  the  word  ^psvaxaTiQq  applied  by  a 
woman  to  her  former  lover  seems  clearly  to  mean  "deceiver,"  not  as 
Blass  affirms  (Bl.-D.  119.  2),  "one  who  deceives  his  own  mind,"  "con- 
ceited." The  noun  is  not  found  in  the  Lxx,  Apocr.  or  Patr.  Ap.  On 
the  meaning  of  the  verb,  cf.  Jas.  i-«,  axa-roiv  xapSc'av  eauxou  an;',  such 
compounds  as  c^^zvo9>zk-{i\q  (heart-charming).  cppsvoxXoxo^t  i.hcart- 
stealing,  deceiving),  vo^oStSczaxxXoq,  eTcpoBtoaaxaXeiv,  etSwXoXaxpta, 
elBcoXoXaxpstv  (Hermas,  cited  by  Bl.-D.  119.  2),  which  indicate  that  it 
means  to  deceive  the  mind,  and  that  it  differs  from  aizczoibi  in  that  it  is 
more  intensive,  as  dxc.xi^v  xapBc'itv  lauxoO  is  a  stronger  expression  for 


*  (Tvvoii-qyov  exw  to  ttoKv  irvp  to  ev  TJj  \pvxfi  (lov  KO-Lottevov  ravra.  /u.e  aSixei,  TauTa  fj.e 
h^vvd  o  4'P^vaTraTYi';  6  irp'o  Tov  jue'ya  4>f>ovMV,  Kal  6  Trjv  KVTrpt,v  ov  (/xi^u.ei'o?  elvaL  Tov  epav  /xoi 
aiTtai'  (or  TTOtrjTpto,;'  or  ju.eraiTtai') ,  ovk  (or  dv)  i]veyKe  XCav  rriv  (or  Trairw;')  TV\ovcTay 
aSLKLav- 

t  <^pei'o/3Aa/3j}s,  exceptionally  among  such  compounds  of  (ftpriv  is  passive,  "  injured  in  under- 
standing, insane." 


332  GALATIANS 

self-deception  tharx  dxa-rdiv  sauTov.     There  is  the  less  reason  for  taking 
the  verb  as  itself  reflexive  in  that  it  is  here  accompanied  by  eauT6v. 

4.  TO  be  epyov  eavTov  boKijia^eroi  c/cacrrc?^  koI  Tore  et? 
iavTov  jiovov  to  Kav')(T)iia  e^ei  kol  ovk  els  top  erepov^  "And 
let  every  man  prove  his  own  work,  and  then  shall  he  have  his 
ground  of  glorying  in  respect  to  himself  and  not  in  respect  to 
his  fellow."  This  sentence  being,  like  v.^,  a  command,  6e  joins 
it  not  to  V.3  (ovv  would  in  that  case  have  been  the  appropriate 
particle),  but  to  v.^,  or,  better,  to  vv.^-  3  taken  together.  The 
self-deceived  man  may  boast  of  his  superiority  to  the  man  who 
has  fallen  into  a  fault,  not  perceiving  his  own  real  condition. 
He  has  in  reality  ground  of  glorying  only  in  respect  to  his  fellow 
and  his  shortcomings.  But  the  man  who  tests  himself  has  his 
ground  of  glorying,  whatever  that  be,  in  respect  to  himself. 
Cf.  Mt.  7^-\ 

WH.  bracket  Ixa^Toq  on  the  basis  of  its  omission  by  B  Sah.  But  the 
omission  is  so  easily  explainable  as  in  both  cases  a  wholly  inadvertent 
error,  that  even  the  measure  of  doubt  expressed  by  the  bracket  seems 
hardly  justifiable. 

On  the  use  of  epyov,  meaning  "what  one  achieves,  the  result  of  one's 
eflort,"  cf.  I  Cor.  s^^'^^-  e^turou  is  here,  as  usually  in  N.  T.,  emphatic. 
Cf.  I  Cor.  135  2  Cor.  iqi^. 

AoxtfjLaJ^o),  a  frequent  word  in  classical  writers  from  Herodotus  down, 
in  the  Lxx,  and  in  N.  T.,  occurs  in  Paul  in  the  three  senses:  (a)  "to 
test,"  "to  discriminate":  i  Thes.  2*^  5";  (b)  "to  approve":  Rom.  14"; 

)  "to  think  best":  "to  choose":  Rom.  i"  (so  also  Jos.  Ant.  2. 176  [7^]). 
j.Iere  clearly  in  the  first  sense.     Cf.  esp.  i  Cor.  ^^''■^-  11". 

T6Te,  though  doubtless  temporal,  "then,  when  he  shall  have  tested 
his  own  work,"  has  nearly  the  force  of  (2pa,  as  in  s^K  Cf.  i  Cor.  4*. 
A  protasis  may  be  mentally  supplied,  "if  his  work  shall  be  proved 
good,"  or  Tb  xauxTl^i-a  may  mean  in  effect,  "his  ground  of  glorying, 
whatever  that  be,"  the  implication  in  such  case  being  that  he  who 
examines  himself  will  not  fail  to  find  something  of  good  in  himself. 
On  zlq,  meaning  "in  respect  to,"  see  Rom.  4"  2  Cor.  io»«  {cf.  vv."-  1% 
where  ev  is  used  in  a  similar  relation,  but  expressing  strictly  basis  or 
ground  of  boasting)  Phil.  i^.  Note  the  emphatic  position  of  e(<; 
lau-rbv  [xivov  at  the  beginning  of  the  sentence  with  its  correlative 
elq  Tbv  Ixepov. 

Ka()Xf][*-'x,  found  in  Pindar,  but  not  observed  elsewhere  in  classical 
writers,  occurs  not  infrequently  in  the  I^xx  and  Apocr.,  but  not  in 
Ps.  Sol.;  in  N.  T.  in  Heb.  3«  and  ten  times  in  Paul;  in  Patr.  Ap.  in 


VI,   3-5  333 

Clem.  Rom.  34^  only,  probably  under  the  influence  of  Heb.  3*.  It  is 
in  itself  a  less  opprobrious  term  than  the  English  word  "boast,"  refer- 
ring rather  to  exultation,  gratulation,  without  the  implication  of  the 
English  word  that  it  is  excessive  or  unjustified.  Though  sometimes 
used  in  the  active  sense,  "boasting,  glorying"  (thus  in  the  proper 
sense  of  v-aux-qoiq,  as  xcz6x"']at«;  in  turn  is  used  in  the  sense  of  xauxT][Aa 
in  2  Cor.  1'=  and  probably  in  Rom.  151O)  a-s,  for  example,  in  2  Cor.  51', 
and  probably  in  i  Cor.  5"  Phil,  i"  {contra  Mey.  Ell.,  who  maintain 
that  xo:6xTj[xa  never  has  this  sense),  yet  in  the  present  passage  stand- 
ing as  the  object  of  2^et,  it  naturally  demands  the  more  common  and 
proper  meaning,  "ground  of  glorying."  Cf.  Rom.  4^  2  Cor.  i",  etc. 
The  use  of  dq  sauTov  in  preference  to  sv  lauxcp  {cf.  Rom.  15^'  2  Thes. 
I*  and  note  above  on  dq  eauxdv)  favours,  indeed,  the  meaning  "glory- 
ing," since  slq  lauxdv  can,  strictly  speaking,  limit  only  the  element  of 
glorying,  y.auxriaiq,  which  is  involved  in  %a(ixr]\i'0:,  "ground  of  glory- 
ing." Yet  such  a  limitation  of  an  element  of  a  word  of  complex  mean- 
ing is,  of  course,  possible,  and  there  is,  therefore,  no  sufficient  reason 
for  departing  from  the  proper  sense  of  ■K(x{)xri[ia,  especially  as  e^st  also 
calls  for  the  thought,  "ground  of  glorying."  The  article  with  xa6xTr)[xa 
is  restrictive,  "his  ground  of  glorying."  It  emphasises  the  idea  ex- 
pressed by  ^jLovov.  He  is  to  have,  not  "a  ground  of  glorying  in  respect 
to  himself,"  but  "his  (only)  ground  in  respect  to  himself  alone." 

Tbv  Ixepov  is  understood  by  Ell.  as  meaning  "the  other  one  with 
whom  he  is  contrasting  himself";  and  this  interpretation,  making  the 
article  restrictive,  but  only  as  designating  the  individual  who  belongs 
to  an  imaginary  situation  presented  to  the  mind,  not  one  definitely 
named  in  the  context,  is  not  impossible  {cf.  Lk.  11"  is*-  «  Jn.  1621). 
But  Rom.  21  138  I  Cor.  46  6^  lo^^'  "  14"  Phil.  2*  show  clearly  that 
6  'izepoq  was  used  in  the  sense  of  "fellow,  neighbour"  {cf.  the  similar 
use  cf  Tov  xXtjciov  in  Mk.  12"  Acts  7"  Rom.  131"  Jas.  4>2).  On  the 
other  hand,  in  quotations  from  the  Lxx  of  Lev.  ig'*,  aou  is  always 
present,  Mk.  12",  etc.,  the  article  having  the  generic  indefinite  force, 
i.  c,  making  the  noun  refer  not  to  the  whole  class  (as,  e.  g.,  in  Mk.  2"), 
but  to  any  member  whatever  of  the  class.  See  illustrations  of  this 
latter  use  in  the  cases  of  xbv  xXtjafov  without  aou  cited  above,  and 
in  Mt.  151  Acts  10"  Gal.  4',  et  freq.  The  two  interpretations  difTer 
only  in  that  if  the  article  is  restrictive  the  reference  is  to  the  particular 
imagined  wrong-doer  with  whom  one  compares  himself;  if  it  is  generic 
the  statement  is  more  general;  one's  glorying  pertains  to  himself,  not 
to  his  (7*.  e.,  any)  fellow.  The  usage  of  b  Uxepoq  and  b  -jcXTjafov,  a 
synonym  of  b  Uxepoq,  favours  the  latter  view. 

5.  eKaaTo<;   yap   to   idiop   i^opTLOv   (3aaTci<T€L.      "For    each 
man  shall  bear  his  own  burden."     Between  (^opruov  (used  by 


334  GALATIANS 

Greek  writers  from  Aristotle  down,  in  the  Lxx,  Apocr.  and 
in  N.  T.;  in  Acts  27^°  of  a  ship's  cargo;  elsewhere,  Mt.  11^°  23^ 
Lk.  11*^  and  here,  figuratively  of  a  task  to  be  accomplished  or  a 
burden  borne  by  the  mind)  and  ^dpr]  (v.  2)  no  sharp  distinction 
can  be  drawn.  Starting  with  the  exhortation  to  bear  one 
another's  burdens  (of  sin),  the  apostle,  having  enforced  this  by 
the  warning  against  self-deception  through  conceiving  that  it 
is  only  the  other  man  that  has  such  burdens  to  bear,  and  having 
bidden  each  one  test  himself,  now  argues  for  the  necessity  of 
such  testing  by  the  affirmation  that  every  man  has  his  own 
burden,  i.  e.,  of  weakness  and  sin.  The  paradoxical  antithesis 
to  v.2a  is  doubtless  conscious  and  intentional.  Cf.  Phil.  2^2.  i3_ 
It  is  the  man  who  knows  he  has  a  burden  of  his  own  that  is 
willing  to  bear  his  fellow's  burden. 

On  TStoq  as  an  emphatic  possessive  instead  of  lauxoij  or  oUsloq,  see 
Bl.-D.  286;  MNTG  87  /.     pxffxdaEc  is  a  gnomic  future;  BMT  69. 

2.  Exhortations  having  a  less  direct  relation  to  the  prin- 
cipal subject  of  the  epistle  (6^-^°). 

Having  dealt  with  the  several  aspects  of  the  situation  which 
the  judaisers  had  created  in  Galatia  by  their  criticism  of  the 
gospel  as  preached  by  Paul,  the  apostle  now,  as  in  most  of  his 
epistles,  but  more  briefly  than  usually,  adds  exhortations  hav- 
ing to  do  with  the  general  moral  and  religious  life  of  the  churches. 
Dealing  first  with  the  support  of  teachers,  which  he  urges  on 
fundamental  grounds,  he  exhorts  them  to  persistence  in  doing 
good  work,  and  specifically  in  doing  good  to  their  fellows,  espe- 
cially their  fellow-Christians. 

^And  let  him  that  is  taught  in  the  word  share  with  him  that 
teacheth  in  all  good  things.  "^Be  not  deceived;  God  is  not  mocked: 
for  whatsoever  a  man  soweth  that  shall  he  also  reap;  ^because  he 
that  soweth  to  his  own  flesh  shall  of  the  flesh  reap  corruption,  but 
he  that  soweth  to  the  spirit  shall  of  the  Spirit  reap  life  eternal. 
^And  let  us  not  be  weary  in  doing  that  which  is  good;  for  in  due 
season  we  shall  reap,  if  we  faint  not.  '^^As  therefore  we  have  oppor- 
tunity, let  us  do  that  which  is  good  towards  all,  but  especially 
towards  those  who  are  of  the  household  of  the  faith. 


VI,   5- 


)35 


6    Kot^co^eiTco  5e  6  Kar'nxov^evo^  rov  Uyov  tQ>  KaT7)X0vvri 
h  TaaiP  ayadol^.     "And  let  him  that  is  taught  in  the  word 
share  with  him  that  teacheth  in  all  good  things."     The  thought 
of  mutual  burden  bearing,  more  or  less  present  throughout 
vv '-'  perhaps  suggests  the  theme  of  this  v.,  but  no  more  than 
suggests  it;  the  subject  is  new,  having  no  direct  relation  to  the 
topic  of  the  epistle  as  a  whole.     Cf.  for  a  similar  example  of  pas- 
sage to  a  new  division  of  the  subject,  yet  with  superficial  con- 
nection with  what  immediately  precedes,  Rom.  6^«-.     On  the 
use  of  ae'  at  the  beginning  of  a  new  division  of  the  subject,  see 
Rom.  11^3  j(,i7, 25 1  Cor.  7''  S\    The  expressions  0  KaTrjxovfievo^ 
and  T«  KarrjxovvrL,  occurring  in  a  letter  so  early  in  the  apostolic 
age  as  this  one,  furnish  interesting  and  instructive  evidence  how 
soon  religious  teaching  became  an  element  of  the  life  of  the 
Christian  community.    The  fact  that  those  who  receive  m- 
struction  are  called  upon  to  contribute  to  the  support  of  the 
teacher  shows  that  such  teaching  in  all  probability  was  net 
undertaken  merely  as  a  voluntary  and  relatively  light  avocation 
(comparable  to  the  work  of  a  modern  Bible-class  teacher)  but 
occupied  in  preparation  for  it  and  the  work  itself,  if  not  the 
teacher's  whole  time,  yet  enough  so  that  it  was  necessary  to 
compensate  him  for  the  loss  of  income  which  he  thus  sustained. 
In  short,  it  is  a  class  of  paid  teachers  to  which  this  verse  refers. 
The  article  with  both  KarrixoM^o,  and  with  Kar^x^vpri  is,  of 
course,  generic  indefinite,  designating  any  member  of  the  class; 
cf  on  rov  erepov,  v.\    On  the  teaching  class  in  the  early  church, 
cj  I  Thes.  s''  I  Cor.  12^8  Eph.  4^'  i  Tim.  5^^     On  its  existence 
in  the  second  century,  see  Dobschutz,  Christian  Life  in  the  Prim- 
itive Church,  pp.  345/.;  Harnack,  Expansion  of  Christianity,  pp. 
333-366.     On  the  subject  of  such  teaching,  see  below  on  top 
^oyov. 

Ell  Ltft.  Zahn,  Tdf.  Weizs.  ERV.  and  ARV.  dissociate  this  verse 
from  the  preceding  by  a  paragraph  at  this  point,  and  connect  it 
with  the  following.  Stage,  Eous.  and  Segond  put  v.«  by  itself.  WH. 
join  v.«  with  what  precedes,  making  a  half  paragraph  at  the  end  of  v.^ 
Weymouth  a  full  paragraph.  The  last-named  view  makes  this  sen- 
tence an  appended  remark  on  a  subject  not  closely  connected  with 


336  GALATIANS 

what  precedes;  the  second  isolates  it  both  from  what  precedes  and 
what  follows.  Neither  view  is  so  probable  as  that  which  finds  the 
suggestion  of  the  sentence  in  what  precedes  and  its  further  enforce- 
ment in  vv.^'  «.  Thus  interpreted,  the  whole  passage  becomes  continu- 
ous and  intelligible.     See  below  on  vv.'-  «. 

Kotvwvito,  used  by  classical  writers  from  Euripides  down,  in  the  Lxx, 
Apocr.  N.  T.  and  Patr.  Ap.,  means  in  general  "to  share,"  i.  e.,  "to 
be  a  partner  in"  (a  thing)  or  "with"  (a  person).  The  name  of  the 
person  with  whom  one  shares  is  in  the  dative,  if  expressed;  the  thing 
in  the  genitive,  in  the  dative,  or  after  a  preposition.  See,  e.  g.,  Plato, 
Rep.  453A,  xotvtovelv  Ttvi  elq  axavra,  "to  be  a  partner  with  one  in 
respect  to  everything";  Polyb.  31. 26',  xotvwvslv  xivt  xepf  -rtvoq. 
Sir.  13':  6  xotvwvtbv  ux£pT)9dva)  6[JLotci)6T)a£Tai  auTw.  Most  commonly 
the  emphasis  is  upon  the  receptive  side  of  the  partnership  or  fellow- 
ship, i.  e.,  the  subject  is  chiefly  receptive.  Thus  in  Rom.  15=^,  d  ya? 
Tolq  xvcu;xaTtxoIq  auxoiv  exoivtovYjaav  Ta  IOvt),  i  Tim.  5"  Heb.  2i< 
I  Pet.  413  2  Jn.  11.  Yet  the  active  aspect  may  also  be  emphasised,  as 
in  Rom.  I2>',  xalc,  xpeiaiq  twv  dyt'wv  xotvovoOvrsq.  Barn.  19': 
/.otvcov-^astq  cv  xatJiv  T(p  xXt)5i'ov  cou,  y.a\  oux  epsiq  t'Sta  elvat"  e(  ydp 
ev  T(p  dipOapTCj)  xotvtovof  ears,  xoctp  [lakXov  ev  Tolq  96apTot<;,  with 
which  cf.  Did.  4*.  In  Phil.  41^  the  verb  itself  is  clearly  mutual  or 
neutral  in  meaning,  though  with  the  emphasis  on  the  side  of  giving: 
o'jSe[x(a  [JLOt  exxX-rjata  exotvwvTjasv  dq  Xoyov  Soaecoq  v.a\  X-qii-f^iediq  bI 
[xil  u[iBlq  [xovoi.  It  seems  probable,  indeed,  that  the  word  itself  is 
always,  strictly  speaking,  neutral  in  meaning,  as  is  the  English  verb, 
"share,"  and  the  noun,  "partner."  It  is  the  context  alone  that  indi- 
cates which  aspect  of  the  partnership  is  specially  in  mind.  In  the 
present  passage  the  chief  determinative  element  is  the  phrase  ev  xdacv 
dyaBocq.  If  this  referred  exclusively  to  spiritual  goods,  xotvwveito 
would  have  reference  to  the  receptive  side,  if  to  material  goods,  to 
impartation.  Since  it  is  apparently  an  inclusive  term  (see  below) 
referring  to  both  spiritual  and  material  good,  xotvcDvscTO)  is  best  taken 
as  in  Phil.  4^^  as  referring  to  a  mutual,  reciprocal  sharing,  wherein  he 
that  was  taught  received  instruction  and  gave  of  his  property.  Yet 
in  view  of  the  context,  it  must  be  supposed  that  here,  as  also  in  Rom. 
14'^;  Phil.  4";  Barn.  19s,  the  emphasis  is  upon  the  impartation  (of  mate- 
rial good).  See  esp.  the  extended  argument  in  Wies.  Though  taking 
the  verb  as  intransitive.  Ell.  Alf.  Ltft.  suppose  the  reference  here  to 
be  exclusively  to  the  element  of  giving.  Zahn  takes  a  similar  view. 
Mey,  and  after  him  Sief.,  on  the  other  hand,  suppose  receiving  only 
to  be  referred  to. 

KaTTQxew  occurs  first  in  extant  literature  in  Philo,  Leg.  ad  Gahim,  198 
(30),  xaTTjx-OTac  Ik  oxc,  "he  was  informed  that";  then  in  N.  T.  Lk.  1* 
Acts   i8'=  2i2'.  24  Rom.  218  I  Cor.  141^  et  h.l.;   in  Jos.  Vit.  366  (65): 


VI,    6  337 

xal  auToc  ce  izoWd:  xaxYj^Tjaw  twv  ayvoou'tJLlvwv:  "I  will  myself  inform 
you  of  many  things  hitherto  unknown";  and  in  later  writers,  Plutarch, 
Sextus  Empiricus,  Diogenes  Laertius,  Lucian,  Porphyry;  see  Wetstein 
on  Lk.  i^  But  the  simple  verb  Tjxew,  "to  sound"  (intrans.  and  trans.), 
is  found  in  Hesiod,  Herodotus,  Euripides,  etc.;  and  this  fact,  together 
with  the  existence  in  the  Philo  passage  of  the  meaning  "to  inform," 
which  must  have  been  developed  from  the  literal  sense  "to  sound 
down,"  and  the  use  of  the  noun  xaTTj^TQatc;  in  the  sense  of  "instruc- 
tion" at  least  as  early  as  the  third  century  b.  c.  make  it  probable  that 
x.aTY)X£co  is  much  older  than  the  earliest  extant  example.  The  clue 
to  its  meaning  is  found  in  the  use  of  ■Kaii}XQoiq,  which  appears  in 
Hippocr.  28"  (L.  &  S.)  in  the  expression  xaTTjx^^'?  tStwxewv,  with 
reference  to  the  oral  admonition  of  the  physician  to  his  patient  (so 
Cremer);  and  in  a  passage  of  Chrysippus  (240  b.  c.)  preserved  in  Diog. 
Laert.  VII  i.  53  (89)  (quoted  by  Wetstein  on  Lk.  i"):  StaaTpsqjscOac 
Ss  xb  Xoyt/.bv  l^djov,  xoxs  [xev  Bca  xaq  xdiv  e^toOsv  xpaytxaxsidiv  xiOa- 
vdxTjxaq-  xoxe  Be  Sta  x"f]v  /.axr]XT}(Ttv  xwv  auvovxwv:  "And  if  a  reason- 
ing creature  is  astray,  this  is  sometimes  because  of  the  allurements 
of  external  things,  sometimes  because  of  the  teaching  of  his  compan- 
ions." Here  the  word  clearly  means  "instruction,"  or  "expression  of 
opinion."  Cicero  also  uses  it  in  ad  Ait.  XV  12  (quoted  by  Cremer) :  Sed 
quid  aetati  credendum  sit,  quid  nomini,  quid  hereditati,  quid  xaxr^xTiaet, 
magni  consilii  est.  In  N.  T.  the  verb  has  the  two  meanings:  (a)  "to 
inform":  Acts  21".  2^;  (b)  "to  teach":  Acts  1823  Rom.  2^^,  etc.  The 
primary  meaning  of  the  word  and  its  usage,  though  not  wholly  decisive, 
suggest  that  it  referred  chiefly,  if  not  exclusively,  to  oral  instruction. 
Cf.  the  derivative  English  words  "catechism"  and  "catechetical." 
Concerning  the  history  of  the  word,  especially  its  later  ecclesiastical 
usage,  see  v.  Zezschwitz,  System  der  christl.  Katechetik. 

Tbv  >.6yov,  an  accusative  of  content,  denotes  the  substance  of  the 
instruction  communicated  by  the  teacher.  Paul  uses  6  Xdyoq  (absol.) 
of  his  own  message  in  i  Thes.  !«  Col.  4',  but  more  commonly 
characterises  it  as  a  message  of  God  (i  Thes.  2"  Col.  i^^  Phil,  i"), 
or  according  to  its  content  (i  Cor.  V«  2*  2  Cor.  519  Eph.  i"). 
It  is  undoubtedly  to  be  taken  here  as  an  inclusive  term  for  the 
Christian  message.  It  is  in  the  nature  of  the  case  that  the  in- 
struction given  by  the  local  teachers  must  have  been  in  large  part 
that  which  Paul  had  communicated  to  them.  The  elements  that 
entered  into  this  body  of  teaching  can  not  be  defined  accurately  and 
exhaustively,  but  probably  included:  (a)  the  doctrine  of  a  living  and 
true  God  as  against  the  worship  of  idols  (see  i  Thes.  i^  Gal.  48-  ^*);  (b) 
those  narratives  of  the  life  of  Jesus  and  those  elements  of  his  teach- 
ing which  were  to  Paul  of  central  significance,  especially  his  death, 
resurrection,  and   return  (i   Cor.   ii^ff.   i^i-s  i  Thes.  i"  s'^-);   with 


33^  GALATIANS 

which  was  joined  (c)  the  teaching  concerning  the  way  of  salvation 
which  had  its  basis  in  these  facts  (see  the  passages  cited  above) ;  (d) 
the  fundamental  principles  of  Christian  ethics  (i  Thes.  4'ff-  s^).  To 
what  extent  the  O.  T.  scriptures  (in  the  Lxx  version)  were  put  into 
the  hands  of  the  converts  or  their  teachers  and  made  the  basis  of  their 
instruction,  is  more  difficult  to  determine  with  accuracy.  That  the 
apostle  did  not  refer  them  to  these  scriptures  as  throughout  an  author- 
itative guide  for  the  Christian  life  is  clear  from  the  fact  that  his  own 
teaching  respecting  the  law,  in  particular  respecting  circumcision,  un- 
clean foods,  and  the  Sabbath,  was  not  in  accordance  with  the  statutes 
of  the  O.  T.  law.  Yet,  on  the  other  hand,  the  early  acceptance  of 
O.  T.  in  the  Christian  church  as  sacred  scripture,  and  the  apostle's 
own  frequent  use  of  it  and  reference  to  it  in  writing  to  his  churches 
(Rom.  I"  etfreq.),  makes  it  evident  that  in  his  own  day  O.  T.  was 
already  an  important  factor  in  the  life  of  most  of  the  churches  founded 
by  him.  The  fact  that  there  are  no  express  quotations  from  0.  T. 
in  I  and  2  Thes.  suggests  the  possibility  that  the  use  of  O.  T.  in  Gen- 
tile churches  was  due  to  judaising  influence  rather  than  to  the  apostle. 
Yet  the  evident  connection  between  his  fundamental  idea  of  God 
(i  Thes.  1 9)  and  O.  T.,  and  the  favourable  attitude  which,  despite 
his  practical  rejection  of  its  authority,  he  assumes  towards  0.  T. 
in  general  (cf.  Rom.  712  g«,  etfreq.),  and  his  frequent  use  of  it  in  argu- 
ment, make  it  probable  that  while  his  message  was  distinctly  Christian, 
having  its  authority  not  in  the  book  but  in  his  interpretation  of  his- 
torical facts  as  learned  through  human  experience,  yet  he  saw  in  0.  T. 
an  invaluable  aid  to  the  development  of  religious  life,  and  as  such 
commended  it  to  his  converts.  If,  then,  the  X6yo<;  of  the  teachers 
was  based  on  that  of  Paul,  it  contained  elements  derived  from  O.  T., 
yet  was  distinctly  Christian  in  content,  including  historic  fact,  Chris- 
tian doctrine,  and  Christian  ethics. 

'Ev  xdtfftv  dyaBoc?  is  probably  to  be  taken  as  referring  to  both  spiri- 
tual and  material  good.  Cf.  1  Cor.  9"  Rom.  15";  Bam.  19';  Did.  4'. 
For  iyaOde,  meaning  material  good,  see  Lk.  1218  i6«;  spiritual  good, 
Mt.  1254.  58,  the  latter  a  particularly  instructive  example,  since  it  refers 
not  precisely  to  good  conduct  but  to  good  thoughts  and  words,  as 
does  the  present  passage  if  it  designates  that  which  the  teacher  imparts. 
The  idea  of  good  conduct  Paul  usually  expressed  by  the  singular  ih 
i-faUy  (Rom.  2'o  128. "  133b  j^ie  j6i9  j  Thes.  51^;  cf.  the  similar  use  of 
Tb  xaX6v  in  5"  and  in  v.'  below)  or  epyov  dyaOdv  (Rom.  2M3'  2  Cor.  9* 
Phil.  i«).  The  neuter  plural  occurs  in  the  Pauline  letters  in  the  phrase 
epya  ifocQii  in  Eph.  210  i  Tim.  210,  and  without  eoya,  but  with  the 
article  in  Rom.  3*  only,  where  it  signifies  things  that  are  (spiritually) 
advantageous.  The  Pauline  usage,  therefore,  furnishes  no  decisive 
or  weighty  evidence  for  or  against  either  the  material  or  the  spiritual 


VI,   6-S  339 

sense  here;  and  in  view  of  the  common  Greek  usage  illustrated  in  the 
passages  from  the  gospels  quoted  above,  the  word  xaatv,  and  the 
inclusive,  mutual  sense  of  xotvwveo),  it  seems  probable  that  the 
phrase  is  intended  to  cover  both  the  spiritual  good  which  the  teacher 
has  to  impart  and  the  material  good  which  he  is  to  receive.  The 
thought  is  then  akin  to  that  of  Rom.  15",  the  exhortation  being  to 
those  that  are  taught  to  be  partners  with  their  teachers  in  all  goods, 
giving  to  those  who  teach  them  of  that  which  they  themselves  possess, 
as  they  receive  what  the  teachers  have  to  impart.  See  esp.  Wieseler's 
full  discussion.  Consistently  with  their  respective  interpretations  of 
xoivwvsiTw  Ell.  Alf  Ltft.  Zahn  take  it  of  material  good  only,  Mey. 
and  Sief.  of  spiritual  good. 

7.  M^  Tr\avd(T9ey  6e6^  ov  iivKTripi^erai-  o  yap  eav  GTvelprj 
dvdpo^Tos,  TovTO  fcal  depLcrei.  8.  on  6  (TTeipoiv  els  Trjv  adpKa 
eavTov  €K.  Tri<^  aapKos  depiaei  4>9opdv^  6  be  cFTreipoiv  els  to 
TTvevixa  eK  rov  iwevp-aTOS  Bepiaei  ^CDrjv  aloyviov.  "Be  not 
deceived;  God  is  not  mocked:  for  whatsoever  a  man  soweth 
that  shall  he  also  reap;  because  he  that  soweth  to  his  own  flesh 
shall  of  the  flesh  reap  corruption,  but  he  that  soweth  to  the 
spirit  shall  of  the  Spirit  reap  Kfe  eternal."  With  M^  ir^ai^dade 
(cf.  similar  use  of  these  words  in  i  Cor.  6^  15^^*  Jas.  i^^)  the 
apostle  introduces  the  statement  of  a  general  principle,  which 
serves  primarily  to  enforce  the  exhortation  of  v.*^  by  bringing 
the  specific  matter  there  referred  to  under  a  great  general  law. 
To  the  apostle's  thought  the  attitude  of  the  Galatians  towards 
their  teachers  is  but  a  specific  example  of  their  attitude  towards 
life  in  general.  If  they  are  unreceptive  to  spiritual  teaching, 
and,  undervaluing  it,  are  unwilhng  to  support  their  teachers, 
preferring  to  spend  their  money  on  themselves,  they  are  sow- 
ing to  (for  the  benefit  of)  their  own  fleshly  natures,  and  the 
harvest  will  be  corruption.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  recognising 
their  need  of  teaching  and  its  value,  they  are  of  receptive  mind 
towards  those  who  are  able  to  instruct  them  and  willingly  con- 
tribute of  their  goods  that  such  teaching  may  continue,  they 
are  sowing  to  (for  the  benefit  of)  the  spirit,  and  the  harvest 
will  be  eternal  life.     For  similar  instances  of  a  seeming  dis- 

*  It  is  probably  only  accidental  coincidence  that  in  these  other  Pauline  instances  of  firj 
n\ava.a0e  the  error  against  which  he  warns  his  readers  is  substantially  the  same  as  here, 
viz.,  overvaluation  of  the  material  side  of  life,  with  danger  of  the  loss  of  eternal  life. 


340  GALATIANS 

parity  in  importance  between  the  duty  enjoined  and  the  con- 
sideration appealed  to  to  enforce  it,  see  Phil.  2'-''  i  Cor.  ii^^-^^ 
Yet  these  verses  are  probably  not  simply  for  the  enforcement 
of  v.^  The  apostle  may  also  have  desired  to  bring  this  prin- 
ciple before  his  readers  for  its  own  sake.  Having  in  w.^-^ 
brought  before  his  readers  certain  specific  applications  of  the 
teaching  of  s^^-^S  thus  narrowing  the  horizon  from  the  general 
contrast  between  hfe  according  to  the  flesh  and  life  by  the 
Spirit,  he  now,  reversing  the  process,  restores  the  broader  view 
with  which  he  began. 

nXavdw,  a  classical  word,  used  from  Homer  down  in  a  literal  sense, 
(a)  active,  "to  cause  to  wander,"  passive,  "to  wander,"  "to  go 
astray,"  and  (b)  in  various  figurative  senses,  is  used  in  the  Lxx,  Apocr. 
and  N.  T.  both  literally  and  figuratively,  but  most  commonly  in  an 
intellectual  and  moral  sense,  "to  turn  aside  from  truth,"  "to  deceive," 
"to  lead  into  sin."  In  Paul  it  always  means  "to  deceive"  (i  Cor.  6« 
15";  cf.  2  Tim.  31*  Tit.  3^).  It  is  somewhat  frequent  in  Patr.  Ap.:  Ign. 
Eph.  161 :  [iri  xXavaffOe,  dtBsX?©^  [lou'  ol  olxoyGopoi  ^aatXsfav  eeou  ou 
x}.Tipovo[i.T)aouatv.     See  also  Mag.  8>;  Philad.  3'. 

0c6q  without  the  article,  though  infrequent  as  subject  nominative, 
sometimes  occurs.  It  is  always  (see  2«  and  textual  note  there),  as  in 
oblique  cases  also,  qualitative,  emphasising  the  divine  attributes,  and 
designating  not  simply  the  being  God,  but  God  as  divine.  This  is 
undoubtedly  the  force  here.  God,  because  he  is  God,  not  man,  is  not 
mocked. 

MuxT-r)ptXw  {cf.  [iuxxi]g,  nose),  though  not  found  in  the  extant  texts 
of  classical  writers,  is  shown  by  a  passage  in  Poll.  Onom.  2"  to  have 
been  used  by  Lysias.  (xuxx-opiaixdq  is  also  found  in  Menand.  Incert. 
402.  Both  verb  and  noun  are  frequent  in  the  Lxx,  and  occur  in  the 
Apocr.  In  N.  T.  the  verb  alone  occurs  and  in  this  passage  only. 
If  taken  in  its  usual  sense,  "to  turn  up  the  nose,"  "to  ridicule,''  or 
in  the  tropical  meaning,  "to  ignore"  (as  perhaps  in  Prov.  15O,  it  is 
necessary  to  supply  " with  impunity"  (Ell.).  But  even  with  this  addi- 
tion the  meaning  thus  obtained  is  not  appropriate  to  the  context. 
That  of  which  the  apostle  speaks  is  not  a  ridicule  of  God  which  he 
will  not  leave  unpunished,  but  an  outwitting  of  God,  an  evasion  of 
his  laws  which  men  think  to  accomplish,  but,  in  fact,  can  not.  It 
seems  necessary,  therefore,  to  suppose  here  an  easy  metonymy  (he 
who  is  outwitted  being  thereby  made  ridiculous)  for  "outwit,  evade." 
Cf.  for  a  similar,  though  not  identical,  metonymy  (cited  by  Eisner,  ad 
loc),  Cicero,  Ep.  ad  Diver sos,  XV  19*:  Scis  quam  se  semper  a  nobis 
derisum   putet.     Vereor,   ne   nos   rustice   gladio   velit  dvri^uxxtjpfaat. 


VI,    7-8  341 

The  present  is  gnomic,  and  the  implication  is  that  what  does  not  hap- 
pen can  not  happen.  The  application  of  the  statement  is  in  what 
follows:  It  is  vain  to  expect  to  outwit  God  by  reaping  a  harvest  differ- 
ent from  that  which  one  has  sown.  Cf.  Polyc.  Phil.  5.  i:  sEBoxeq,  ouv, 
Stc  6eb<;  ou  [xuxxTf5ptt;£T«c,  dcpstXotxev  (k^ioic,  x^q  evxoXfiq  auxoO  xal  So^tq? 
xepixaxelv. 

The  figure  of  sowing  and  reaping  for  conduct  and  its  results  is  a 
frequent  one,  occurring  in  Plato,  Phaedr.  260C;  Arist.  Rhet.  3.  3* 
(1406  b, »");  (c/.  alsoDem.  280"'  ;  b  ydp  xb  cKigita  xapczaxwv,  ouxoq  xwv 
(p6vxo)va'(:xto(;:  "For  he  that  furnished  the  seed  is  responsible  for  what 
grows";  Prov.  22*  Hos.  8'  lo"'-  Job.  4':  Sir.  7';  Test.  Xll  Fat.  Lev. 
i3«;  Philo,  Conf.  ling.  21  (7);  Lk.  ig^'  i  Cor.  g"  2  Cor.  g«.  Note 
esp.  the  last  two  passages,  b  axetpwv  is  best  taken  as  a  general  present 
participle,  referring  to  any  member  of  the  class  described  by  the  par- 
ticiple. On  the  use  of  the  article,  cf.  on  xbv  exepov  v.''  and  b  xaxrixoO- 
[xevoq  v.«.  Though  the  antithesis  between  aap^  and  xv£0[xa  recalls, 
probably  intentionally,  the  same  terms  used  antithetically  in  S^^'^S 
the  words  are  probably  not  used  here  in  precisely  the  same  sense 
as  there.  Had  the  apostle  wished  to  reproduce  the  idea  of  the  earlier 
passage,  he  must  have  written  simply  dq  aapxa  or  elq  x:f)v  adgxcc. 
The  addition  of  sauxou,  the  force  of  dq  marking  the  adp^  as  the  end, 
that  unto  which  the  action  takes  place  (see  below),  not,  as  in  s^-i', 
that  from  which  the  tendency  to  evil  proceeds,  and  the  connection 
with  v.\  all  indicate  that  aap^  is  here  not  "that  in  man  which  makes 
for  evil"  {cf.  on  5"),  but  has  reference  to  the  body,  the  physical  element 
of  man.  Cf.  chap.  3'  Rom.  2^8  i  Cor.  5^  2  Cor.  7',  where  a&pq  in  this 
physical  sense  stands  in  antithesis  to  xveOtxa,  and  chap.  4.^*  2  Cor.  411 
Eph.  215  529  Col.  I--,  where  limited  by  a  possessive  genitive  it  has  this 
sense.  He  who  will  not  share  his  goods  with  the  religious  teacher, 
withholds  them,  it  is  assumed,  that  he  may  spend  the  more  on  the 
gratification  of  bodily  appetites  in  food,  drink,  and  the  like.  Thus  he 
sows  unto  his  own  flesh,  spends  effort  for  the  (supposed)  benefit  or 
gratification  of  it.  The  position  of  exuxou  is  emphatic  (Bl.-D.  283)  and 
the  word  itself  conveys  an  essential  element  of  the  thought;  to  seek  the 
physical  well-being  of  others  would  be  an  act  of  quite  different  moral 
quality  and  effect  from  devotion  to  the  gratification  of  one's  own  phys- 
ical desires.  The  sentence  is  not,  then,  a  repetition  of  the  self-evident 
proposition  of  v.'  in  the  specific  form  that  if  one  sow  evil  he  will  reap 
evil,  but  the  assertion  that  if  one  devote  himself  to  the  things  of  his 
body  (which  is  not  in  itself  evil)  rather  than  to  those  of  the  spirit,  if 
he  prefer  the  lower  to  the  higher,  such  a  course  issues  in  corruption. 
Ltft.  interprets  zlq  as  meaning  "into,"  thus  making  the  aap^  the  soil 
in  which  one  sows  seed.  This  is  not  seriously  to  be  objected  to  on 
the  ground  urged  by  Ell.  that  N.  T.  usage  would  in  this  case  require 


342  GALATIANS 

ev  or  Itc(;  for  dl  his  exx.  are  from  the  gospels,  and  Mk.  4>S  though 
not  precisely  parallel,  shows  the  possibility  of  using  elq.  The  real 
objection  lies  in  the  thought  which  this  parabolic  interpretation  yields. 
What  would  be  meant  by  casting  seed  into  one's  own  flesh  ?^  What 
by  "reaping  corruption"  in  that  literal  sense  which  a  parabolic  inter- 
pretation requires  as  the  basis  of  the  spiritual  sense?  It  is  evident 
that  the  apostle  is  not  constructing  a  condensed  parable  consistent 
throughout  (like  that  of  Mk.  4'««),  but  employing  individual  terms 
"sow"  and  "reap"  in  a  figurative  sense,  and  that  dq,  is  not,  there- 
fore, to  be  taken  spatially  but  tropically.  The  meaning  of  aip^  in 
ir.  TYJq  ao^px6q  is  doubtless  the  same  as  in  ek  -"^v  aapx-^  eauxoO:  the 
body,  or,  by  metonymy,  the  bodily  desires.  The  article  may  be  ge- 
neric, the  later  clause  widening  the  horizon  of  the  former,  but  is  more 
probably  restrictive,  by  implication  carrying  an  auxoO  with  it.  (On 
this  use  of  the  article,  cf.  on  5^^.) 

$0opa  (a  classical  word  in  use  from  ^schylus  down,  meaning 
"decay,"  "destruction,"  "death,"  used  also  in  the  Lxx,  Apocr.  Ps. 
Sol.  Patr.  Ap.)  interpreted  solely  by  the  clause  in  which  it  stands, 
would  naturally  mean  "corruption,"  "decay"  {cf.  Col.  2")  perhaps 
inclusive  of  a  physical  {cf.  Ps.  Sol.  4'  ['])  and  a  moral  sense,  but  prob- 
ably referring  particularly  to  moral  corruption  (Wisd.  141^  2  Pet.  i*; 
2  Clem.  6*;  cf.  the  use  of  <p8ct'pio  in  i  Cor.  15^^  2  Cor.  7=  11'  Eph.  4")- 
Nor  is  it  impossible  that  this  is  the  apostle's  meaning,  for  to  such  a 
thought,  eternal  life,  i;^^  a((5vioq,  is  not  an  impossible  antithesis. 
Yet  in  view  of  the  Pauline  use  of  cpOopd:  (Rom.  S"-'  i  Cor.  is"-  "),  the 
reference  to  the  flesh  in  the  immediate  context,  and  the  antithesis  of 
eternal  life  in  the  second  member  of  the  sentence,  it  seems  probable 
that  by  cpOopdcv  Paul  means  that  corruption  and  death  of  the  body, 
from  which,  for  those  who  have  not  lived  according  to  the  spirit,  there 
is  no  rising  to  eternal  life.  See  Rom.  6'»-"  8«->%  esp.  13:  d  yap  >^aTa 
oipxa  We  [iAXkt-ze  dtxoOvna-^scv,  e(  SI  -TuveiixaTi  xdc;  xpd^stq  tou 
a^m-zoq  eavaxoOxe  i;^a£a0e,  where,  to  be  sure,  a&p^  is  used  in  a  dis- 
tinctly ethical,  not  as  here  in  a  physical  sense,  but  Tdtq  xpa^st?  toO 
aci^axoq  conveys  very  nearly  the  idea  here  expressed  by  cicsfpov  ef? 
x-fjv  cipxa  lauToG.  In  other  words  Paul  here  affirms  that  devotion  of 
one's  self  to  the  material,  bodily  side  of  life,  brings  physical  death 
unrelieved  by  the  Christian  hope  of  resurrection  which  rests  upon  the 
indwelling  of  the  Spirit  of  him  that  raised  up  Jesus  from  the  dead.^ 

E(q  zh  xveufxa,  ex  xoO  xvcij;xaxo<;  is  in  form  a  perfect  antithesis  to 
tlq  x-f)v  adipxa,  ex  xf]?  capx6q.  Yet  xveOfxa  and  xve6<J.axo<;  are  prob- 
ably not  used  in  precisely  the  same  sense.  The  xveOi^a  unto  which 
one  sows  is  primarily  one's  own  xvsGixa,  the  non-material,  intellec- 
tual, spiritual  side  cf  man's  being,  which  is  the  seat  of  the  religious 
life,  and  that  which  survives  the  cataclysmic  experience  of  physical 


VI,    7-8  343 

death  or  the  day  of  the  Lord.  See  detached  note  on  nveu^xa  and  H&p^, 
III  A  2,  p.  490,  and  rf.  i  Cor.  5^  7"  Rom.  i*  2"  7'  S'-  '«  Phil.  4'' 

1  Thes.  5".  dq  signifies,  as  in  dq  Tifjv  adpxa  lauTou,  "unto,"  "for 
the  benefit  of,"  and  the  whole  expression  aTOfpwv  elq  xh  xveG[xa  refers 
to  devotion  of  energy  and  resources  to  the  enrichment  of  the  life  of 
the  spirit,  in  particular  through  the  reception  of  the  instruction  of  the 
xaTT]xwv  Tbv  Xoyov.  Cf.  Col.  i^  That  sauxou  is  not  added  to  xveu[xa, 
as  to  adpxa,  signifies  not  that  zh  xveu^Jta  refers  to  the  spiritual  life  of 
the  whole  community,  but  that  the  explicit  narrowing  of  the  reference 
to  the  spirit  of  the  individual  would  have  been  incongruous,  suggesting 
a  certain  (spiritual)  self-centredness.  £/.  toG  xvc6txaTo<;  probably  sig- 
nifies from  the  Spirit  of  God,  which  dwelling  in  man  is  the  cause  of 
resurrection,  and  the  earnest  of  eternal  Hfe  (Rom.  8"  2  Cor.  5*  Eph.  i"). 
The  transition  to  this  meaning  from  xveuixa  referring  to  the  human 
spirit,  is  easy  because  it  is  the  human  spirit  as  engaged  in  the  things 
of  the  Spirit  of  God  {cf.  i  Cor.  2^*'  ")  to  which  to  xveuixa  refers  (cf. 
Rom.  8i«). 

Zw-Jj  alwvtoi;,  here  for  the  first  time  in  Paul,  occurs  in  his  epistles 
much  less  frequently  than  in  the  Johannine  literature.  See  Rom.  2^ 
^51  55?,  ?3;  cf.  I  Tim.  I"  6"  Tit.  i'  3^  The  earliest  appearance  of  this 
phrase  is  in  the  Greek  of  Dan.  12^,  translating  2';7  \'D,  then 
in  Ps.  Sol.  3'^:  ol  Se  ^o^oufAevot  xuptov  ivaaTTjaovxat  dq  ^wfjv 
a{(I)vtov.  I  Enoch  (Syn.  and  Giz.)  iqi":  eXxt^ouat  tifiaai  i;a)-fjv  a(a>vtov, 
xal  OTt  ^TjasToct  lx,aaToq  auTwv  Ittq  xevxaxoata.  So  doubtless  in 
37^  40 ^  though  these  passages  are  not  extant  in  Greek.     Cf.  also 

2  Mac.  7^  4  Mac.  15'.  ^wt]  (in  classical  writers  from  Homer  down)  is 
used  by  Paul  of  (a)  physical  life,  the  antithesis  of  death  (Rom.  S'* 
I  Cor.  3"  Phil,  i^",  etc.);  accompanied  by  auTT],  meaning  the  period  of 
existence  in  the  body  (i  Cor.  1519,  cf.  1  Tim.  4^),  in  contrast  with  that 
v/hich  is  after  the  resurrection;  but  more  commonly  (b),  as  constantly 
in  John,  in  a  moral-qualitative  sense,  denoting  "existence  according 
to  the  ideal  of  existence  for  moral  beings,"  in  which  ideal  are  included 
righteousness,  the  divine  approval,  blessedness  (Rom.  6^  71"  S^.  «). 
Such  life,  possessed  by  God  (Col.  3';  cf.  Eph.  4'8)  and  by  Christ  (Rom. 
51°  2  Cor.  41°),  belongs  by  virtue  of  his  relation  to  God  in  Christ  to  the 
believer  in  Christ,  both  while  still  in  the  body  (Rom.  6^  2  Cor.  41")  and 
after  the  resurrection  (2  Cor.  5^),  and  is  not  infrequently  spoken  of 
without  limitation  to  either  period  of  its  possession  (2  Cor.  2^^  Phil.  2I6). 
Accompanied  by  aJtovtoq  this  t^w^  is  characterised  as  "eternal." 
aEtovtoq  appears  first  in  Plato,  meaning  "perpetual"  {Rep.  363D: 
TjyTicaixevot  xdiXXiaxov  dpsTTJq  ^taObv  [jlsOtjv  aftovcov,  "esteeming  per- 
petual drunkenness  the  finest  reward  of  virtue");  "everlasting"  {Tim. 
37,  38C;  Legg.  X  904A),  being  clearly  associated  with  alwv,  signifying 
an  indefinitely  long  period  {cf.  detached  note  on  A(cov,  p.  431);  see  esp. 


344  GALATIANS 

Tim.  37,  38C.  As  used  in  later  Greek  and  in  particular  in  the  Lxx, 
Apocr.  Ps.  Sol.  N.  T.,  and  Patr.  Ap.,  it  retains  this  sense  and  associa- 
tion with  alCi-'^  in  the  sense  just  referred  to.  The  supposition  that  it 
means  ''aeonian,"  i.  e.,  "pertaining  to  the  coming  aeon,"  is  insufficiently 
supported  by  i  Enoch  10",  and  is  definitely  disproved  by  the  evidence 
as  a  whole;  as  is  also  the  suggestion  of  Brooke,  International  Critical 
Commentary  on  1  John  (i^)  that  it  may  be  properly  translated  "spiri- 
tual." 


9.  TO  he  KoKov  TTOiovvres  iirj  evKaKMixev^  Kaipw  yap  ihiO)  OepL- 
aoixev  1X7]  eKKvoiievoL.  ''And  let  us  not  be  weary  in  doing  that 
which  is  good;  for  in  due  season  we  shall  reap,  if  we  faint  not." 
The  thought  of  reaping,  i.  e.,  of  obtaining  result  from  one's 
efforts,  forms  the  link  of  connection  between  the  preceding 
verses  and  this,  in  which,  nevertheless,  the  apostle  passes  still 
further  away  from  the  thought  that  vv.^-  »  were  introduced  to 
enforce  (viz.,  the  support  of  teachers),  to  speak  of  persistence 
in  well-doing  in  general  and  its  reward.  On  to  koKov  as  a 
general  term  for  the  morally  good  (it  is  scarcely  used  at  all  in 
N.  T.  in  an  aesthetic  sense),  see  i  Thes.  5^1  Rom.  7^8. 21^  ^nd  cj. 
on  eV  TTaaiv  ay  adds ,  v.^,  and  on  to  ayadov,  y}^. 

As  between  the  two  readings  evxa/.d)tJi.ev  (or  syxoxtotAev)  and 
Ixxaxw^sv,  the  former  is  undoubtedly  the  original.  B*D*  read  evx. 
«AB' 31,  33,  326  erx.  against  CD^KLP  al.  pier,  Clem.  Chrys.  Thdrt. 
which  read  exx.  (FG  £xxaxTQj(o;jLev).  There  is  no  sufficient  evidence  of 
the  existence  in  N.  T.  times  of  the  word  exxaxlw,  which  apparently 
came  into  N.  T.  mss.  from  the  usage  of  a  later  time. 

'Evxaxito  (from  which  Ixxaxlo)  apparently  differs  in  form,  but  not 
in  meaning;  see  Tdf.  Ed.  viii  maj.  2  Cor.  41)  appears  first  in  Polybius 
and  belongs,  therefore,  to  the  vocabulary  of  the  post-classical  literary 
language.  See  Nageli,  Wortschatz  des  A  p.  Paidus,  p.  32.  It  is  not 
found  in  the  Lxx  or,  so  far  as  observed,  in  other  Jewish  writers 
before  N.  T.  In  N.  T.  it  is  found  in  Lk.  181  2  Cor.  4'.  is  Eph.  313 
2  Thes.  3"  ct  h.l.;  also  in  2  Clem.  2^;  Herm.  Mand.  g^,  and  in  Symm. 
(200  A.  D.)  in  Gen.  27"  Nu.  215  Prov.  3"  Isa.  y^'.  In  Polyb.  4.  191°: 
evsxdixTjCTav  to  xifxxstv:  "They  neglected  to  send";  and  in  2  Clem.  2-: 
Tdq  xpoaeuxaq  -fjawv  dxXdx;  dvatp^petv  xpbq  xbv  6ebv  \ii}  .  .  .  lyxaxwtxsv, 
it  is  in  effect  transitive,  meaning  "to  neglect"  and  taking  an  object 
infinitive  (or,  if  one  prefers,  is  a  verb  of  incomplete  predication,  requir- 
ing an  infinitive  or  other  equivalent  form  of  expression  to  complete  its 
meaning).     In  Philo,  Cojif.   ling   51,  (13),  oux  exxaxout^svoe;  (so  mss.; 


VI,   8-IO  345 

C.  and  W.  read  xaxoutxevoq)  exva^cpGTQv,  in  2  Thes.  3",  [x-?;  evxaxTjaTQTs 
xaXoTCotouvteq,  and  in  the  present  passage  the  meaning  of  the  verb 
is,  apparently,  "  to  grow  weary."  In  these  two  N.  T.  passages  the  predi- 
cation of  the  verb  is  completed  by  a  participle  in  agreement  with  the 
subject.  Cf.  also  Herm.  Mand.  g^':  au  oOv  ^t)  ^lacXiTVQq  ccExouti-evoq  t6 
a'tTTjtJ-a  ifiq  <^oxfiq  aou,  xal  "kfi^n  auTo'  edv  Se  exxaxTjaif);;  xal  St4'UX'']<Jif5^ 
a?Tou;x£vo<;,  crsau-rbv  alxtd)  xal  ;x'f)Tbv  StBovxa  aot.  Cf.  Mt.  iii,  and  for  the 
grammatical  usage  BMT  457,  459.  In  the  remaining  N.  T.  instances 
the  verb  may  likewise  be  transitive,  the  subject  being  supplied  from 
the  context  (so  esp.  Lk.  181  2  Cor.  4')  or  intransitive  ''to  be  neglectful, 
slothful"  (2  Cor.  41"  Eph.  31'). 

Kacpqi  JStV  is  paralleled,  in  N.  T.  at  least,  only  in  i  Tim.  2«  61^,  and 
even  then  the  plural  is  used.  Yet  the  use  of  the  separate  words  is  not 
at  all  exceptional.  On  tStoq,  meaning  "appropriate,  due,"  cf.  i  Cor. 
3»  15"  Acts  i«. 

The  participle  flx>.u6[JLsvoi  is  conditional  (BMT  436).  exXuw,  used  by 
classical  writers  from  Homer  down  in  a  variety  of  meanings  derived 
from  the  etymological  sense  "to  loose,"  "set  free,"  and  in  the  Lxx 
and  Apocr.,  occurs  in  N.  T.  in  the  passive  only  and  with  the  mean- 
ing "to  faint":  (i)  "to  become  exhausted  physically"  (Mt.  15"  Mk. 
8»),  (2)  "to  relax  effort"  (Heb.  12'.  '  et  h.L). 

10.  "Apa  ovv  Q)s  Kaipov  e^^oo^iev,  ipya^cojJLeda  to  ayaBov  irpos 
irdvTas,  ndXiara  de  irpos  rovs  oUeLOvs  rrjs  Trt'crrecos.  "As 
therefore  we  have  opportunity,  let  us  do  that  which  is  good 
towards  all,  but  especially  towards  those  who  are  of  the  house- 
hold of  the  faith."  With  this  v.  the  exhortations  of  the  para- 
graph reach  the  utmost  point  of  generality.  Because  of  the 
certainty  of  the  result  of  their  efforts  (v.^^),  therefore  (dpa  ovv), 
the  Galatians  are  exhorted,  whenever  they  have  opportunity,  to 
do  good  to  their  fellow  men  in  general,  but  with  special  care  for 
the  welfare  of  their  fellow-Christians. 

i<B*3i,  2,2)^  102,  al.  read  ex^tJ^sv;  AB^CDFCKLP  al.  pier,  read  lxo[xev. 
The  rarity  of  tb<;  with  the  subjunctive  without  (2v  probably  led  to  the 
change  to  the  easier  indicative.  Transcriptional  probability  and  the 
high  authority  of  ^^B  therefore  both  point  to  the  subjunctive  as  the 
original. 

'Epyat;coiJL£ea  is  the  reading  of  ^BCDFG  al.;  AB'LP  31,  104,  234, 
326,  1908,  al.  read  — ofxsOa.  Intrinsic  probability  favours  the  subjunc- 
tive following  the  subjunctive  in  v.».  The  weight  of  documentary 
authority  is  on  the  same  side.     Transcriptional  probability,  though 


346  GALATIANS 

on  the  side  of  the  indicative,  is  not  strong  enough  to  outweigh  the  con- 
trary evidence,  especially  in  view  of  the  frequency  of  itacistic  changes. 
Cf.  on  6epiao[JLev  in  v.'. 

'Qq  e'xwtJLev  is  a  conditional  relative  clause,  (i'v  being  omitted  as  in  a 
few  other  cases;  BMT  307.  On  ih  dJYaQov  cf.  on  Totq  dtyaeolq  v.»,  but 
for  ih  ayaOov,  meaning  "that  which  is  advantageous,"  see  Rom.  7"  15'. 
Cf.  on  dtyotGwcjuvT],  5".  The  expression  is  not  quite  identical  with 
xb  xaX6v,  V.9,  signifying,  rather,  what  is  beneficial  to  another  than 
what  is  morally  right.  There  is  no  decisive  reason  to  limit  the  ex- 
pression to  either  the  spiritually  or  the  materially  beneficial;  so  far  at 
least  as  concerns  the  principal  statement  ending  with  xdvtai;  the  lan- 
guage seems  to  be  wholly  general;  on  its  use  in  relation  to  the  phrase 
\x6ikiQxix,  etc.,  see  below,  xpbq  x(ivxa<;  may  be  taken  as  limiting  either 
dyaedv,  and  meaning  "in  respect  to"  {cf.  Eph.  4")  or  the  whole  expres- 
sion epYat^toasOa  xh  dyaOdv  and  meaning  "towards,"  as  in  i  Thes. 
51^  Eph.  6'  (Ell). 

Though  oExElot  (from  Hesiod  down;  in  N.  T.  in  Eph.  2»9  i  Tim.  5* 
et  h.i.)  was  apparently  used  in  later  Greek  without  distinct  suggestion 
of  a  household  in  the  strict  sense,  yet  in  view  of  Paul's  conception  of 
the  intimate  unity  of  all  believers  {cf.  i  Cor.  3i«'  i'  12'-*)  and  the  ex- 
pression of  this  idea  in  terms  borrowed  from  the  idea  of  the  house 
(i  Cor.  3«  cf.  also  Eph.  2^^  i  Tim.  3")  it  is  most  probable  that  oUsiooq 
is  here  used  with  intention  to  characterise  those  to  whom  it  refers  as 
members  of  a  household,  though,  of  course,  in  a  metaphorical  sense. 
"zr^q  Tzia-zeoiq  denotes  the  (active)  Christian  faith,  faith  in  Jesus  Christ. 
Cf.  on  I"  and  detached  note  on  Uiaxiq,  UicxsOoi,  p.  483.  The  genitive 
is  a  genitive  of  characteristic  and  the  whole  expression  means  "those 
who  are  members  of  that  household,  the  distinguishing  characteristic 
of  which  is  the  faith  in  Jesus  Christ." 

The  qualification  of  the  exhortation  to  do  good  to  all  men  by  [xdcXiaxa 
.  .  .  x(aTco>q,  if  intended  as  a  general  principle,  represents  a  lapse  from 
the  universalistic  principle  of  5'',  which  really  underlies  the  whole 
gospel  of  the  apostle  as  against  the  particularism  which  the  epistle 
opposes.  To  promote  the  spiritual  welfare,  e.  g.,  of  those  who  have 
faith  in  preference  to  that  of  those  who  have  not,  is  indefensible  from 
the  general  point  of  view  of  the  apostle.  If,  however,  the  apostle  has 
specially  in  mind  the  physical  needs  of  the  Christian  communities, 
such  an  exhortation  might  be  judged  to  be  consistent  with  or  demanded 
by  the  general  principle  of  love  to  one's  neighbour.  In  time  of  famine 
or  other  general  distress,  the  members  of  a  Christian  church  composed 
of  those  who  had  recently  come  out  of  heathenism  would,  because  of 
religious  prejudice,  be  unlikely  to  receive  any  help  at  the  hands  of 
their  non-Christian  neighbours.  Unless,  therefore,  their  distress  were 
relieved  by  their  fellow-Christians,  they  would  fare  worse  than  the 


VI,   lo-ii  347 

non-Christians.  As  the  most  needy,  therefore,  they  would  have  a 
first  claim.  Moreover,  the  non-Christian  members  of  the  community 
would  naturally  expect  the  Christians  most  surely  to  manifest  their 
love  to  one  another.  If,  therefore,  a  Christian  were  left  in  distress 
this  would  be  even  more  to  the  discredit  of  the  new  religion  than  if  a 
non-Christian  went  hungry. 


V.     CONCLUSION  OF  THE  LETTER  (6'^-'^). 
I.  Final  warning  against  the  judaisers  (6"-^^). 

In  his  own  hand  and  in  a  larger  character  than  the  amanuen- 
sis has  used,  the  apostle  repeats  briefly,  but  emphatically,  his 
warning  against  the  judaisers,  and  reafiirms  his  positive  teaching 
that  religion  is  wholly  spiritual  and  in  no  way  dependent  on 
physical  facts,  such  as  Abrahamic  descent  and  circumcision; 
he  concludes  with  a  benediction  upon  all  who  walk  by  this  prin- 
ciple and  a  prayer  for  mercy  upon  the  Israel  of  God. 

^^See  with  how  large  letters  I  write  to  you  with  my  own  hand! 
^"^As  many  as  wish  to  make  a  good  showing  in  things  pertaining  to 
the  flesh,  these  compel  you  to  receive  circumcision,  only  that  they 
may  not  he  persecuted  because  of  the  cross  of  the  Christ.  ^^For  not 
even  they  that  receive  circumcision  are  themselves  law-abiding,  but 
they  wish  you  to  be  circumcised  that  they  may  glory  in  your  flesh. 
^^But  far  be  it  from  me  to  glory  except  in  the  cross  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  through  whom  a  world  hath  been  crucified  to  me  and 
I  to  a  world.  ^^For  neither  is  circumcision  anything,  nor  uncir- 
cumcision,  but  a  new  act  of  creation.  ^^And  as  many  as  shall  walk 
by  this  rule,  peace  be  upon  them,  and  mercy  upon  the  Israel  of  God. 

11.  *'I5eT€  T7]\lkols  vfitv  ypdiifxacTLP  eypaxj/a  rrj  ejirj  %€tpt. 
''See  with  how  large  letters  I  write  to  you  with  my  own  hand !" 
At  this  point  the  apostle,  who  usually  employed  an  amanuensis 
for  the  writing  of  his  letters  {cf.  Rom.  1622),  and  doubtless  had 
done  so  in  the  case  of  this  letter  also,  took  the  pen  in  his  own 
hand  to  write  the  concluding  paragraph.  Cf.  similar  instances 
in  2  Thes.  3^^  i  Cor.  1621  Col.  4^^.  His  motives  were  probably 
two:  first,  the  usual  one  of  authenticating  the  letter;  second, 


34S  GALATIANS 

the  special  one  of  giving  emphasis  to  certain  of  the  main  points 
of  the  letter;  notice  that  vv.^^-^"  are  almost  wholly  devoted  to 
the  reiteration  of  ideas  already  expressed.  This  second  motive 
led  him  also  to  write,  somewhat  humorously  yet  with  serious 
purpose,  in  a  larger  character  than  his  amanuensis  had  em- 
ployed; the  size  of  the  letters  would  have  somewhat  the  effect 
of  bold-face  type  in  a  modern  book,  or  double  underlining  in  a 
manuscript,  and  since  the  apostle  himself  called  attention  to  it, 
it  would  impress  not  only  the  one  person  who  might  be  reading 
the  letter  to  a  congregation,  but  the  listening  congregation, 
also.  Precisely  how  far  Paul  continued  to  write  with  his  own 
hand,  and  how  far  he  used  the  large  characters,  we  have  no 
certain  means  of  knowing,  but  probably  he  did  both  through 
v.^^,  at  least,  eypa-yfra  is  on  this  interpretation  an  epistolary 
aorist  (BMT  44).  For  other  examples  of  autographic  portions 
of  a  dictated  letter,  see  Cic.  ad  Attic.  VIII  i^;  XI  24;  Aug. 
Epist.  146.     Cf.  Moff.  Introd.,  pp.  51,  88. 

B*  23  read  rfki'Koiq.  Internal  evidence  is  wholly  indecisive,  either 
form  being  good  usage  with  no  preponderance  of  temptation  to  change 
on  either  side.  Cf.  Bl.-D.  303;  also  Col.  2>  Heb.  y*.  This  being  the 
case,  it  is  more  probable  that  B*  2;^  have  inadvertently  modified  the 
original  than  that  all  the  rest  of  the  authorities,  including  ^?ACD 
al.  have  done  so. 

The  interpretation  of  xif)>.(xot<;  ypafxtxaffiv,  as  referring  to  the  length 
of  the  letter  (AV.,  "how  large  a  letter";  so  also  Luth.  Calv.  Beng. 
Olsh.,  et  al.)  is  here  excluded  by  three  considerations:  (a)  though 
YpaixiJiaTa  sometimes  means  "an  epistle"  (Acts  28"),  Paul's  invariable 
term  for  "epistle"  is  eictoxoX-^  (so  seventeen  times);  (b)  such  a  mean- 
ing would  have  called  for  an  accusative  rather  than  a  dative;  and 
(c)  this  epistle  is  not  notably  long  as  compared  with  the  apostle's 
other  epistles.  Zahn  cites,  as  showing  how  the  length  of  a  letter 
would  be  spoken  of,  Heb.  13"  i  Pet.  5";  Ign.  Rom.  8«;  Pol.  7'.  Cf. 
also  Sief.  ad  loc.  The  use  of  6Ypa(|»a  as  an  epistolary  aorist  is  quite 
in  accordance  with  Paul's  habit.  Cf.  Phil.  2"  Phm."-  "•  "  Col.  4*. 
ifpai^a  in  i  Cor.  5»  is,  of  course,  not  epistolary  but  historical,  having 
reference  to  an  earlier  letter,  and  most  commentators  take  vGv  lypacj^a 
in  5"  in  the  same  sense.  It  is  much  more  probable,  however,  that  the 
verb  in  the  latter  verse  is  epistolary  as  is  suggested  by  vOv,  and  that 
the  apostle  is  contrasting  what  he  is  now  writing  unambiguously 
with  what  he  previously  wrote  with  the  same  intent,  but  so  arabigu- 


349 

ously  that  the  Corinthians  misunderstood  him.  The  reference  of 
iypa^x  in  the  present  passage  to  the  whole  letter  or  the  previous  por- 
tion, while  still  interpreting  ypd[JL;a.aatv  of  the  characters  in  which  the 
letter  is  written  (Ell.  Alf.  Wies.  Zahn,  et  al.)  is,  therefore,  not  neces- 
sitated by  ordinary  late  Greek  or  Pauline  usage;  while  the  improbability 
that  the  apostle  should  have  thought  at  che  outset  to  use  the  pen 
himself  and  to  write  in  a  noticeably  large  hand,  and  that  he  should 
have  kept  up  this  strained  and  diflScult  method  of  emphasis  through 
all  the  pages  of  the  letter,  only  now  at  the  end  calling  attention  to  it, 
is  so  great,  especially  in  the  case  of  a  letter  written  to  groups  of  people 
and  intended  to  be  read  aloud  to  them,  as  to  amount  to  practical  im- 
possibility. The  case  of  Cato,  who,  according  to  Plutarch,  wrote  his- 
tories for  his  son,  JSt'cjt  x^'pi  "f-o^  [xsyi^^oK;  ypa[JL[jLaffiv  (see  Moff. 
Introd.  p.  88)  is  not  at  all  a  parallel  one.  That  Paul  wrote  the  letter 
himself  because  unable  to  obtain  a  scribe,  and  in  a  large  hand  because 
of  some  physical  necessity,  an  accident  to  his  hand  or  defect  of  his 
eyesight,  is  in  itself  improbable  in  view  of  i-,  and  rendered  more  so 
by  the  lack  of  any  explanation  to  that  effect  in  this  sentence,  in  which 
he  evidently  intends  by  his  "large  letters"  to  appeal  to  the  feelings  of 
his  readers.  The  objection  that  there  were  other  parts  of  the  letter 
that  equally  with  this  called  for  emphasis,  loses  its  force  in  view  of 
the  fact  that  the  following  verses  themselves  repeat  the  chief  things 
that  the  apostle  wishes  to  impress  on  the  minds  of  the  Galatians. 

12.  "OcToi  BeKovcTiv  evirpoaccirrjaaL  ev  aapKL^  cvtol  avay- 
KOL^ovciv  vfxds  TepLTe/JLPeadai,  povov  Iva  rw  aravpo)  rod 
XPtcTTov  IJLT)  hdiKbiVTai'  "As  many  as  wish  to  make  a  good 
showing  in  things  pertaining  to  the  flesh,  these  compel  you 
to  receive  circumcision,  only  that  they  may  not  be  persecuted 
because  of  the  cross  of  the  Christ."  Proceeding  to  the  things 
which  he  desires  by  large  letters  written  with  his  own  hand  to 
emphasise,  the  apostle  alleges  first  the  selfish  motive  of  his 
opponents.  It  is  trouble  for  themselves  that  they  wish  to 
avoid.  Themselves  members  of  the  orthodox  Jewish  com- 
munity, different  from  other  Jews  only  in  that  they  accepted 
Jesus  as  the  expected  Messiah,  they  wish  to  remain  in  good 
standing  in  the  Jewish  community,  and  to  that  end  w^ish  to  be 
able  to  point  to  converts  from  the  Gentile  world  who  have  not 
merely  accepted  Jesus  as  the  Christ,  but  have  also  conformed 
to  those  physical  requirements  of  the  Jewish  law  which  from 
the  Jewish  point  of  view  were  vital,  but  to  Paul  purely  external 


350  GALATIANS 

and  physical.  If  they  can  do  this  they  will  escape  that  perse- 
cution which  the  apostle  had  himself  sufiered  (5"),  and  to  which 
they  would  be  subject  at  the  hands  of  their  fellow- Jew^s  as  mem- 
bers of  the  Christian  sect  of  the  Jewish  community,  if  they 
favoured  or  did  not  successfully  oppose  its  anti-legalistic  ten- 
dency. TO)  (TTavpo)  is  a  dative  of  cause.  The  word  is,  of  course, 
used  by  metonymy  for  the  crucifixion  of  the  Christ,  or  prob- 
ably even  more  generally  for  the  whole  doctrine  of  salvation 
through  the  crucified  Jesus  as  against  that  of  justification  by 
works  of  law.  Cf.  esp.  s^\  where  Paul  affirms  that  it  is  the 
anti-legalism  of  the  Christian  position  only  that  makes  it  offen- 
sive and  an  occasion  of  persecution.  The  use  of  the  present 
tense  StcoKcoz-'rat,  denoting  action  in  progress,  suggests  the  pos- 
sibihty  that  they  are  already  suffering  persecution,  in  that  case, 
doubtless,  not  because  of  their  own  attitude  but  because  of  the 
general  tendency  of  the  Christian  movement. 

'1-fiaou  is  added  after  Xp'.jToG  by  B  31  only.  Eth.  also  has  Jesu, 
but  follows  its  usual  custom  of  placing  it  before  Christi,  also  prefixing 
domini  to  Jesu.  There  is  a  slight  intrinsic  probability  in  favour  of 
ToG  Xpto-Tou  only  after  axaupoc;  (see  detached  note  on  Titles  and  Predi- 
cates of  Jesus,  III,  p.  398,  and  cf.  i  Cor.  i^'  Phil.  3'').  This  fact, 
together  with  the  absence  of  any  strong  transcriptional  probability  on 
either  side  favours  the  supposition  that  'Ir^aoG  in  B  31  is  the  product 
of  the  scribal  tendency  to  lengthen  the  titles  of  Jesus.     Cf.  on  2'«. 

Aitoxcovxat  is  the  reading  of  SBD  al.  plu.  Chr.  Thdrt.  Dam.  Fol- 
lowing ACFGKLP  31,  234,  429,  1908  al.  plus.^"  Euthal.,  Tdf.  reads 
-ovrai.  The  indicative  is  probably  the  result  of  itacism.  Cf.  the 
evidence  on  610  above  and  on  6'-  "  in  Tdf.  On  the  possibility  of  a 
present  indicative  after  Yvcc,  see  Bl/T  198;  Bl.-D.  91,  369  and  the 
V.  1.  m  Jn.  5"  Tit.  2*. 

E'jxpoffQTr^G)  occurs  here  first  in  extant  Greek  literature,  elsewhere 
only  in  Chrys.  and  still  later  writers.  Its  meaning  is  clear,  however, 
from  euxpdacoxoi;,  "fair  of  face,"  "specious,"  in  Aristoph.  Plut.  976, 
euxpoatoxov  xal  xaX6v,  in  Luc.  Merced.  Con.  711:  oux  ^pw  t9)v  dTCoXoytav 
Y^xtc;  euxpoawxoq  aot  ^ivoixo,  and  in  Lxx,  Gen.  1211;  from  suxpoawxt'a, 
"fair  of  appearance,"  Dion,  Hal.  etc.;  from  euxpoawxtXsorOat,  applied 
to  words,  and  meaning  "  to  be  fair  "  in  Ps.  141  *;  and  from  ae[xvoxpoaa)xso>, 
"to  assume  a  solemn  face,"  Aristoph.  Nuh.  363.  See  further  in  Cremer 
and  Eisner.  The  term  is  evidently  here  used  in  a  figurative  sense. 
Iv  aapxt  means  "in  the  sphere  of  things  that  have  their  basis  in  the 
body."     adcp^  is  here  fundamentally  physical  in  its  meaning,  but  is 


VI,   12-13  351 

used  by  metonymy  to  include  the  whole  sphere  of  life  conditioned  by 
the  flesh;  see  detached  note  on  IlvsujjLa  and  2d:p5,  II  5,  and  cj. 
I  Cor.  I"  7";  also  Phil.  3"^-,  though  the  meaning  is  not  quite  the 
same  there.  The  whole  expression  describes  those  to  whom  it  refers 
as  desiring  to  stand  well  in  matters  whose  real  basis  is  physical  rather 
than  spiritual.  Chrys.,  ad  loc,  says  that  euxpoawxtlv  ev  capxt  is 
equivalent  to  euBoxttxElv  xap'  dvOpwxotq,  "to  be  popular  with  men" 
— a  paraphrastic  interpretation,  dvayxit^oujc  is,  of  course,  conative. 
as  in  2". 

Of  the  present  infinitive  ■7csptT£[xv3a6at  two  explanations  suggest 
themselves:  (i)  As  over  against  the  aor.,  which  would  express  the 
circumcision  as  a  simple  fact,  and  the  perfect,  which  would  express  an 
existing  state  the  result  of  a  past  fact,  either  of  which  would  be  suit- 
able in  speaking  of  those  who  without  their  own  will  were  circumcised 
in  infancy,  Paul  employs  a  present  form  (c/.  5*-  »  6»»)  in  speaking  of 
the  circumcision  of  Gentiles  in  mature  life.  As  in  verbs  of  eflfort  pro- 
gressiveness  becom-es  conativeness  (cf.  BMT  11),  so  in  this  verb  the 
present  is  the  appropriate  form  to  suggest  voluntariness  which  neces- 
saril}^  accompanies  circumcision  under  the  circumstances  here  in  mind. 
This  idea  is  suggested  by  the  English  translation  "receive  circum- 
cision." Cf.  Moffatt's  translation,  "get  circumcised."  (2)  There  is 
some  reason  to  ^believe  that  expressions  of  compulsion,  consisting  of 
a  verb  and  dependent  infinitive  are  thought  of  as  constituting  a  unit, 
and  as  being  as  a  whole  either  conative  or  resultative.  It  is  true,  at 
least,  that  the  aorist  of  dvayxdl^o)  is  resultative  and  is  in  N.  T.  always 
followed  by  an  aorist  infinitive,  and  that  the  present  and  imperfect  of 
dvayxdt^ci)  are  conative  and  are  followed  by  a  present  infinitive.  Thus 
the  present  is  found  in  Acts  26",  Gal.  2^\  and  here;  the  aorist  in 
Mt.  i4«  Mk.  6«  Lk.  14"  Acts  291'  Gal.  2'. 

WH.  place  a  dash  before  p,-/),  implying  that  the  sentence  is  anaco- 
luthic,  Paul  having  intended  when  he  wrote  \}.hwv  Yva  to  end  the  sen- 
tence with  a  positive  expression.  There  is  a  certain  basis  for  this 
punctuation  in  the  fact  that  the  apostle  almost  invariably  places  the 
[x-^  of  a  negative  Yva  clause  immediately  after  ?va,  its  absence  from 
this  position  suggesting,  therefore,  that  he  intended  to  complete  the 
clause  with  an  unnegatived  verb.  Against  this  view,  however,  is  the 
practical  impossibility  of  supplying  any  such  verb,  of  which  xt^  aTaupw 
Tou  Xptaxou  could  be  the  modifier.  It  is  better,  therefore,  to  suppose 
that  Paul  has  in  this  case  departed  from  his  otherwise  almost  invariable 
cust'^m  and,  as  in  i  Cor.  2^  2  Cor.  1310,  interjected  a  phrase  between  Yva 
and  (JLTQ. 

13.  ovhe  yap  01  irepLTefivofxevoL  avrol  vojjlov  (f>v\ci(Taov(nv, 
aWa  OeKovdLV  vjias  irepirefiveaQai  Iva  ev  Trj  vfierepa  aapKl 
Kavxn^f^vTai.     "For  not  even  they  that  receive  circumcision 


352  GALATIANS 

are  themselves  law-abiding,  but  they  wish  you  to  be  circum- 
cised that  they  may  glory  in  your  flesh."  This  sentence  intro- 
duced by  ydp  confirms  that  which  is  expressed  by  jiovov  in 
v.^2  (viz.,  that  the  only  reason  for  their  course  was  a  desire  to 
escape  persecution),  by  excluding  the  reason  which  the  judaisers 
probably  themselves  alleged  as  the  motive  of  their  conduct, 
and  which  Paul  assumes  is  the  only  alternative  motive,  namely, 
a  sincere  zeal  for  the  law.  This  zeal  he  disproves  by  the  fact 
that  their  converts,  ol  TepiTe/dvoiievoL^  do  not  themselves 
keep  law,  doubtless  referring  not  to  failure  on  the  part  of  these 
converts  to  attain  to  perfect  conformity  to  the  law,  since  such 
failure  would  not  disprove  the  zeal  of  the  judaisers,  but  to  the 
fact  that  they  do  not  undertake  to  keep  it  in  full  and  are  not 
required  by  the  judaisers  to  do  so.  See  5^  and  notes  there. 
ol  Trepirejivojievoi^  however,  does  not  refer  specifically  to 
those  who  among  the  Galatians  had  been  circumcised,  which 
would  have  called  for  ol  eV  vjiiv  TvepiTfiridevres  (or  TreptrerjUT?- 
fxevoi).  <j)v\daaov(TLV  is  a  general  present  and  the  statement 
refers  in  general  to  those  who  under  the  influence  of  the  juda- 
isers receive  circumcision,  vojjlov  has  here  the  same  sense  as 
in  53,  but  is  used  quahtatively.  *'In  your  flesh"  means  "in  the 
fact  that  you  have  been  circumcised,"  which  would  be  the  sign 
of  your  conversion  to  legalistic  Judaism. 

The  words  BlXouatv  ufxaq  xeptTitJ.vco0ai  repeat  the  thought  of 
dvayxa!^.  b[i.  xsptT.,  v.^',  and  the  clause  Yva  .  .  .  xauxTjatovxat  expresses 
in  positive  and  emphatic  form  that  of  Yva  \i.ii  Btwxwvxat.  The  phrase 
ev  Tfi  u^jLcxeptjc  sapxi,  referring  literally  to  the  flesh  in  the  material 
sense  as  that  in  which  circumcision  takes  place,  is  chosen  in  preference 
to  a  pronominal  phrase  referring  directly  to  the  subject  of  xsptxIixveaGat 
the  more  distinctly  to  express  the  unworthy  character  of  their  boast- 
ing. On  aapxf  here  cf.  the  same  word  in  3'.  It  is  more  literally  em- 
ployed than  in  v."  above,  ev,  literally  denoting  the  sphere  of  the 
boasting,  suggests  also  ground,  basis. 

xeptTe[JLv6[jL£vot  is  attested  by  i<ACDKP  al.  Mcion.  f  Vg.  (qui  cir- 
cumciduntur)  Syr.  (psh.  et  hard.)  Sah.  Arm.;  Chr.  Euthal.  Thdrt.  Dam. 
xeptTETtxTjixivot  is  the  reading  of  BL  aL^"  (F  reads  xeptTitxvTj^xot,  G 
xeptT£[xvT)(ji.^vot,  both  impossible  readings,  but  probably  attesting 
the  perfect),  d  g  (qui  circumcisi  sunt)  Goth.  Boh.  Eth.  Victorin.  Aug. 
Hier.  Ambrst.     External  evidence   is   not   decisive.     Transcriptional 


VI,  13  353 

probability  favours    -[xv6^svot,  since  the    perfect  would  have   been  a 
wholly  unobjectionable  reading 

Against  the  common  view  held  by  Mey.  (who  reads  xeptTSTtx.) 
Sief.  Zahn,  Ell.  Ltft.  Alf.  that  ol  xept-r.  designates  the  judaisers  (Wies. 
and,  according  to  Sief.,  Mathias  hold  the  other  view)  the  following 
reasons  are  decisive:  (i)  It  is  very  doubtful  whether  Paul  could  have 
alleged  in  this  unqualified  way,  and  without  explanation  that  the 
Jewish  Christians  did  not  keep  the  law.  Rom.  chap.  2,  is  scarcely 
a  parallel  case.  (2)  Had  he  wished  to  affirm  it,  the  words  o\ 
•jccptT£[j.v6[xevot  would  have  been  superfluous,  the  subject  of  (fuX&aaouaiv 
being  the  same  as  that  of  StwxtovTat.  This  afi5rmation  would  have 
been  most  forcibly  and  clearly  expressed  by  ouSI  ydcp  otCitoI  v6[a. 
(foX  Had  he  wished  to  refer  to  the  circumcision  of  the  judaisers 
as  emphasising  their  inconsistency  in  not  keeping  the  law.  he  must 
have  written  not  ol  xeptx.,  but  o5xoi  xepiT.,  "these,  though  circum- 
cised." (3)  The  tense  of  the  participle  is  in  itself  decisive,  (a) 
Although  a  present  participle  may  be  used  as  a  general  present,  desig- 
nating all  those  who  perform  (or,  in  the  passive,  are  subjected  to)  the 
action  denoted  by  the  verb,  whether  the  mark  of  the  class  be  the  single 
or  the  habitual  doing  of  it  (BMT  123-126),  yet  it  is  not  so  employed, 
unless  the  mind  is  directed  to  the  performance  of  the  action,  as  dis- 
tinguished from  the  resultant  fact.  There  could  have  been  no  motive 
for  such  a  distinction  in  this  case  if  the  apostle  had  intended  to  desig- 
nate the  judaisers  (or  the  Jews).  For  this  he  must  inevitably  have 
written  'Kspnz'z[i.ri[i.iwi.*  (b)  Throughout  this  epistle  the  present  of 
xeptT.  whether  in  participle,  infinitive,  or  subjunctive,  5^-  '  6^'^-  "•>, 
means  "to  be  circumcised"  in  the  sense  "to  receive  circumcision," 
"to  get  circumcised"  (Moffatt),  not  in  the  sense  "to  be  a  circumcised 
person."  (4)  This  conclusion  is  confirmed  by  5^,  which  shows  that  the 
judaisers  had  not  as  yet  endeavoured  to  bring  the  Galatians  under 
obedience  to  the  whole  law.  Against  these  reasons  the  absence  of  an 
expressed  subject  of  GsXouatv  is  of  little  weight.  The  statement  con- 
cerning ol  xsptTsp-v.  reflecting,  as  it  does,  the  attitude  of  the  judaisers, 
the  mind  easily  supplies  as  the  subject  of  UXougiv  after  iXk&  the 
judaisers  who  have  been  the  principal  subject  of  the  discourse  from  the 
beginning  of  v.^^^  and  all  possible  ambiguity  is  excluded  by  the  close 

*  Ellicott's  assertion:  "The  use  of  the  present  may  be  fairly  explained  on  the  ground  that 
St.  Paul  includes  in  the  idea  not  merely  their  conformity  to  the  rite  (which  strictly  becomes 
a  past  act),  but  their  endeavour  thereby  to  draw  others  into  the  same  state,  which  is  a  present 
and  continuing  act,"  ascribing  to  the  present  passive  the  ideas  expressed  by  an  aorist  passive 
and  a  present  active,  is  manifestly  incorrect.  In  the  passage  cited  by  Ell.  and  at  greater  length 
by  Ltft.  ad  loc,  from  Act.  Petr.  et  Paul.,  §  63,  the  present  Trepneixvoixevoi  does  seem  to  have 
something  of  the  force  of  a  perfect.  But  arguments  drawn  from  the  usage  ot  this  book,  con- 
siderably later  than  Paul,  are  hardly  strong  enough  to  overthrow  the  clear  evidence  of  Gala- 
tians itself.  The  oi  peovT^^  quoted  by  Ltft.  from  Plato,  Thecet.  181A,  is  a  nickname,  which 
our  participle  quite  certainly  is  not. 
23 


354  GALATIANS 

parallelism  between  OcXouaiv  b[i.aq  xeptTitxv£a8at,  v.^^b  and  (i\ayv.&l,o{jm\> 
\j[i.ac,  x£ptxi[J.v3a6at  of  v.*'. 

14.  ifJLol  5e  IJL7)  yevoLTO  Kavx^crdaL  ei  fir]  ev  rw  aravpQ)  tov 
Kvpiov  rjiioiv  ^Irjaov  l^picrrov,  dt  ov  ifJiol  koojjlos  iaTavpcoTai 
Kayo)  KoGiJLijd.  "But  far  be  it  from  me  to  glory  except  in  the 
cross  of  our  Lord  J  esus  Christ,  through  whom  a  world  hath  been 
crucified  to  me  and  I  to  a  world."  In  striking  contrast  with 
the  boasting  of  the  judaisers,  which  has  its  sphere  and  basis 
in  the  mere  material  flesh  of  men,  the  apostle  sets  forth  as  his 
ground  of  boasting — note  eVot  emphatic  by  position — the 
central  fact  of  his  gospel,  the  cross  of  Christ  {cf.  Rom.  i^^  i  Cor. 
i23f.)  which  has  wrought  a  complete  revolution  in  his  own  life. 
rw  (TTavpo)  undoubtedly  has  the  same  significance  as  in  v.^^. 
See  in  v.^^  the  clear  evidence  that  the  doctrine  of  the  cross  is 
there  also  the  antithesis  to  legaHsm.  Koa^ios  is  quite  certainly 
employed  here  in  the  fifth  of  the  meanings  indicated  in  the 
note  on  Sroi^j^eta  rod  koo-jjlov,  p.  514,  viz.,  "the  mode  of  life 
characterised  by  earthly  advantages."  But  the  particular 
earthly  advantages  which  the  apostle  has  in  mind  are  not,  as 
in  I  Jn.  2^5,  etc.,  the  sensual  pleasures  of  riches  and  other  like 
things,  but,  rather,  those  of  which  he  speaks  in  Phil.  33.  \ 
Paul's  world,  koVjuos,  with  which  he  severed  his  relation,  when 
the  cross  of  Christ  acquired  for  him  its  new  significance,  was 
that  of  IsraeHtish  descent,  circumcision,  the  rank  and  dignity 
of  a  Pharisee,  the  righteousness  that  is  in  law,  touching  which 
he  was  blameless.  To  this  world  he  became  dead  by  the  cross 
of  Christ,  because  in  Christ's  death  on  the  cross  he  saw  a  dem- 
onstration that  God's  way  of  accepting  men  was  not  on  the 
basis  of  works  of  law,  but  on  that  of  faith  in  Christ.  Cf.  2^'^'  20 
^13  44, 5  Rom.  3215-  425  5I8.  19^  For  evidence  that  the  significance 
of  the  cross  is  in  what  it  proves  respecting  God's  real  attitude 
towards  men,  see  the  extended  discussion  of  313.  The  fulness  of 
the  expression  tov  Kvpiov  'qjiMV  T?]croi)  'Kpiarov  adds  weight  to 
the  utterance  and  reflects  the  emotion  with  which  the  state- 
ment is  made;  cf.  detached  note  on  the  Titles  and  Predicates 
of  Jesus,  p.  393.  As  to  what  the  apostle  means  by  "boasting 
in  the  cross,"  see  i  Cor.  i^^^-  Rom.  52-  3.  ". 


VI,   14-15  355 

On  \iii  ylvotTo,  see  on  2l^  On  the  use  of  the  dative  with  fivoitu 
(here  only  in  N.  T.  with  [li]  ylvotTo),  cf.  Lk.  i'^;  see  also  Mt.  8"  9". 
The  infinitive  does  not  occur  elsewhere  in  N.  T.  after  [lii  yivotTo,  but 
is  common  in  Lxx;  cf.  Gen.  44'-  »^  Josh.  22"  241^  i  Ki.  20  (21)3 1  Mac. 
gio  jj6  (cited  by  Ltft.);  for  the  inf.  after  other  forms  of  Ytvo[xat,  cf. 
Acts  g"  Lk,  6^'  Mt.  iS^^.  The  use  of  y.Qa[xoq  and  x6a[jL(p  without  the 
article  gives  to  both  words  a  qualitative  emphasis;  cf.  Rom.  ii^s  i  Cor. 
3"  2  Cor.  515.  e^J-oi  and  /.oa^xtp  are  datives  of  relation;  see  on  vo^w, 
2"  and  cf.  Rom.  d''-  "■  "  7'.  Si'  o5,  characterisin; ;  the  cross  as  that 
through  the  instrumentality  of  which  he  had  wholly  severed  connec- 
tion with  his  old  world  ot  Pharisaic  dignity  and  legalism,  leaves  un- 
described  the  process  by  which  the  cross  achieved  this  result.  For  this 
unexpressed  element  of  the  apostle's  thought,  see  on  2".  20,  and  espe- 
cially on  3"'  ^*- 

15.  ovT€  yap  TepLTOjJLT^  TL  ecTTLV  oiiTe  aKpo(3vaTLa,  aXKa  Kaivrj 
KTL(TLS.  "For  neither  is  circumcision  anything,  nor  uncircum- 
cision,  but  a  new  act  of  creation."  In  these  words  the  apostle 
gives  a  reason  for  glorying  only  in  the  cross  of  Christ  (v."^), 
especially  as  against  those  who  glory  in  circumcision  (v.^^);  yet 
not  content  to  exclude  circumcision  only,  he  rejects  every  mate- 
rial ground  of  boasting,  whether  it  be  the  circumcision  of  the 
Jew,  or  the  uncircumcision  of  the  Gentile.  For  doubtless  the 
Gentile  was  just  as  proud  of  being  uncircumcised  as  the  Jew  was 
of  his  circumcision.  Cf.  5^  where  to  the  Treptro/x?}  which  is 
under  discussion  he  adds,  as  here,  ovre  aKpo^varia.  ktlctls  is 
probably  to  be  taken  in  its  active  sense,  referring  to  the  divine 
activity  in  the  production  of  a  new  moral  life  {cf.  Col.  3^''),  but 
the  emphasis  of  the  expression  is  not  on  this  aspect  of  the  mat- 
ter but  upon  the  radical  transformation  of  character  impHed  in 
the  choice  of  such  a  word  as  ktCgis,  "creation,"  and  the  addi- 
tion of  Kaivr)^  new.  The  fact  referred  to  is  that  which  is  de- 
scribed in  different  terminology  in  2^'^'  20  Rom.  d^-^'  ^^  What 
the  apostle  meant  to  afSrm  about  naivr]  KTcais  he  leaves  to 
his  readers  to  infer.  The  n  eariv  of  the  preceding  clause  sug- 
gests it,  but,  of  course,  conveys  less  than  he  meant;  "is  essen- 
tial" is  nearer  his  thought.     Cf.  5^  i  Cor.  7". 

oCxe  (some  authorities  ou)  ydp  is  attested  by  B  2,2,,  1908  Syr.  (psh. 
hard,  pal.)  Sah.(?)Goth.  Chr.  Hier.  Aug.;  while  S*ACDFGKLP  al. 


356  GALATIANS 

pier,  d  f  g  Vg.  Boh.  Sah.(?)  Euthal.  Thdrt.  Dam.  Victorin.  Amb. 
Ambrst.  read  Iv  yap  Xptaxo)  'Itjaou  outs.  Despite  the  weight  of  the 
group  supporting  the  latter  reading  {cf.  on  2"  3^1  526  62.  "•  i^)  it  is  clearly 
a  harmonistic  corruption  under  the  influence  of  5*.  As  in  2^\  the  cor- 
rect reading  is  preserved  by  B  ^s  al. 

Kxiccq,  in  classical  writers,  from  Pindar  down,  and  not  infrequent 
in  Lxx  and  Apocr.,  is  used  in  N.  T.  either  (i)  as  a  verbal  noun, 
meaning  "act  of  creation,"  Rom.  i^",  xTi'atq  %6a[iou,  or,  (2)  as  a  con- 
crete noun  equivalent  to  yt.rb\x.(x  either  (a)  individually,  "a  created 
person  or  thing,"  Rom.  8"  Heb.  4'=,  or  (b)  collectively,  of  the  sum  of 
created  things,  or  the  total  of  a  particular  class  of  created  things: 
Rev.  31*  Rom.  8"  (Mk.  161O;  the  meaning  in  the  difficult  passage 
I  Pet.  2"  need  not  be  discussed  here.  The  use  of  the  same  phrase, 
xatW)  xT(aiq,  in  the  concrete  (passive)  sense,  2  Cor.  51',  suggests  the 
concrete  meaning  here,  but  the  antithesis  to  %egixo[iri  and  dxpo^uaxfa 
favours  the  verbal  (actional)  sense.  The  latter  is  also  favoured  by 
the  parallel  passages,  i  Cor.  y^^:  -f)  xeptxo^^)  oiS^v  eaxcv,  xal  -f) 
dxpo^uaxfa  ouBev  eaxtv,  dtXXd:  TTjpiQat^  IvxoXcov  6eou,  and  Gal.  5': 
o2ts  xeptTO^JLTQ  Tt  {cjxust  ouT^s  dxpoguaTca,  dXka  Tziaxiq  Be'  iy&irqq 
hepyo\j[Lhr„  in  both  of  which  the  second  member  of  the  antithesis 
is  a  term  of  action.  In  all  three  passages  the  term  used  is  qualitative. 
A  comparison  of  the  second  members  in  the  three  passages  is  instruc- 
tive. In  5«  xiaTtq  and  d-{6i%rj  are  purely  ethical  terms,  descriptive  of 
the  fundamental  moral  attitude  of  the  Christian.  In  i  Cor.  7"  irip-Qaiq 
svToXtov  is  both  a  more  external  characterisation  of  the  Christian  life 
and  more  formal,  in  that  no  intimation  is  given  of  the  content  of  the 
commandments,  xatv^  Y.iiaiq  in  the  present  passage  is,  on  the  one 
side,  less  definite  as  to  the  moral  character  of  the  new  life  than  either 
of  the  other  expressions,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  directs  attention  to 
the  radical  change  involved  rather  than  to  the  external  expression  or 
the  moral  quality  of  the  life  thus  produced.  Any  close  connection 
between  this  expression  and  the  Hebrew  '^'^'■jn  nna  (a  new  crea- 
ture), meaning  "proselyte,"  is  improbable.*  To  have  used  a  phrase 
which  would  naturally  be  understood  as  meaning  a  proselyte  would 
have  been  to  render  the  sentence  confused  and  self-contradictory. 
Had  the  expression  been  in  current  use  with  this  meaning,  Paul  must 
at  least  have  added  Iv  Xptaxq). 

*  Euthalius  (Zacagnius,  Collect.  Monum.  Vet.  I  561;  Gallandi  Bibl.  Pair.  X  260)  and  after 
him  Photius,  Amphiloch.  Quest.  183  (Migne  151),  and  a  ms.  of  the  eleventh  century  (Mont- 
faucon,  Bibl.  bibl.  I  igs)  express  the  opinion  that  the  statement,  6"  ovre  Treptro/oiTj  rt  eariv 
cure  oLKpo^va-Tia  aWa  KaLv'r}  ktCcti^,  is  a  quotation  from  an  apocryphal  writing  ascribed  to 
Moses.  Georgius  Snycellus  {Chron.  Ed.  Dind.  I  48),  whose  statement,  however,  is  prob- 
ably based,  like  the  others,  upon  that  of  Euthalius,  specifies  an  apocalypse  of  Moses  as  the 
source  of  the  quotation.  The  fact  that  the  same  epigrammatic  saying  recurs  m  very  similar 
lorm  (c/.  above)  in  5'  i  Cor.  71*  is  not  unfavourable  to  the  view  that  this  is  a  quotation.     But, 


VI,  15-16        '  357 

16.  Kai  ocroL  ro)  KauovL  tovtm  aroixvcrovaiv^  €Lpr}vy)  iw 
avTOvs^  Kai  eXeos  Kal  iwi  top  'IcrparjX  rod  deov.  "And  as 
many  as  shall  walk  by  this  rule,  peace  be  upon  them,  and  mercy 
upon  the  Israel  of  God."  The  apostle  concludes  this  paragraph 
of  brief  reiterations  of  the  chief  ideas  of  the  letter  (cf.  on  v.^O 
with  a  benediction  upon  all  whose  life  is  conformed  to  the  great 
principle  for  which  he  has  been  contending,  viz.,  the  essentially 
spiritual  character  of  reHgion  as  against  the  ascription  of  funda- 
inental  religious  value  to  any  physical  or  material  condition, 
however  sanctioned,  KavSv,  occurring  in  N.  T.  here  and 
2  Cor.  io^3-x6  only,  meaning  properly  "measuring  rod"  or 
"straight  edge,"  is  clearly  shown  by  tovto)  (referring  to  v.^^)  to 
have  here  its  metaphorical  sense  of  "principle."  aroLxeoJ 
doubtless  has  here  the  same  meaning  as  in  52^  {g.  v.),  viz.,  "'o 
walk,  to  conduct  oneself."  While  v.^^  to  which  rw  Kavovi 
TovTco  refers,  is  affirmative  rather  than  imperative,  yet  the 
proposition  which  it  affirms  is  of  fundamental  importance  for 
the  determination  of  conduct.  He  who  recognises  the  value- 
lessness  of  such  externals  as  circumcision  and  uncircumcision 
and  the  necessity  of  the  new  spiritual  life  will,  on  the  one  hand, 
be  unmoved  by  the  appeal  of  the  judaisers  to  receive  circum- 
cision, and  on  the  other  seek,  rather,  to  be  led  by,  and  to  live 
by,  the  Spirit. 

Kal  'iXeoq  is  usually  joined  with  elpiQVT),  as  with  it  limiting  Ix'  auTouq, 
thfc  comma  being  placed  after  eXsoq  (so  Tdf.  WH.  Ell.  Ltft.  Alf. 
Wies.  Sief.  Zahn).  Against  this  interpretation,  however,  it  is  to  be 
said:  (a)  The  order  elpVo  >^a^  ekeoq,  if  both  words  have  reference  to 
one  class  of  persons,  is  illogical,  placing  effect  first  and  cause  after- 
wards. sXsoq  is  joined  with  elpTjVTj  elsewhere  in  benedictions  in  N.  T. 
in  I  Tim.  i"  2  Tim.  i^  2  Jn.  ^  Jude  \  always  preceding  dp-qvq.  Note, 
also,  the  often-repeated  benediction,  x&giq  and  efptjVTj,  in  which  x^P^^r 
closely  corresponding  to  eXsoq  in  meaning,  always  precedes  e!pT]VTQ. 
xal   sXzoq   becomes,    then,   an    afterthought,   to    which    x.al    i%\    xhv 

on  the  other  hand,  an  apocryphon  entitled  "Apocalypse  ot  Moses"  is  not  otherwise  known. 
The  statement  of  the  others  (Euthalius,  etc.)  is  general  and  vague.  The  extant  so-called 
"Assumption  of  Moses"  does  not  contain  the  sentence.  But  even  though  the  passage  should 
actually  have  been  founa  in  the  text  of  some  apocryphon  of  Moses  as  extant  in  Euthalius's 
day,  that  dlone  would  by  no  means  make  clear  what  was  the  relation  between  this  and  the 
Pauline  writing.  Certainly  the  evidence  as  above  displayed  is  not  strong  enough  to  prove 
thai  this  is  a  quotation. 


35S  GALATIANS 

'I<jpa:f)X  Tou  GeoG  appends  a  second  afterthought,  (b)  Though  Rom. 
9»  I  Cor.  lo''  show  that  Paul  distinguished  between  Israel  according 
to  the  flesh  and  the  Israel  according  to  election  or  promise,  and  Rom. 
2^9  Phil.  3'  suggest  that  he  might  use  xbv  'lapa-rjX  toO  GeoG  of  all  be- 
lievers in  Christ,  regardless  of  nationality,  there  is,  in  fact,  no  instance 
of  his  using  'lapa-^X  except  of  the  Jewish  nation  or  a  part  thereof. 
These  facts  favour  the  interpretation  of  the  expression  as  applying  not 
to  the  Christian  community,  but  to  Jews;  yet,  in  view  of  -roij  0eou, 
not  to  the  whole  Jewish  nation,  but  to  the  pious  Israel,  the  remnant 
according  to  the  election  of  grace  (Rom.  ii^),  including  even  those  who 
had  not  seen  the  truth  as  Paul  saw  it,  and  so  could  not  be  included 
in  oaot  .  .  .  cxotx.  In  this  case  the  benediction  falls  into  two  dis- 
tinct parts.  In  the  first  the  apostle  invokes  peace  upon  those  who 
recognise  and  act  in  accordance  with  the  principle  of  v.^',  and,  in  dis- 
tinction from  them,  the  mercy  of  God  through  which  they  may  obtain 
enlightenment  and  enter  into  peace,  upon  those  within  Israel  who 
even  though  as  yet  unenlightened  are  the  true  Israel  of  God.  Against 
the  combined  force  of  these  two  reasons  the  presence  of  xaf  after 
ektoq  is  of  little  weight.  It  is  quite  explicable  as  slightly  ascensive. 
In  view  of  the  apostle's  previous  strong  anti-judaistic  expressions,  he 
feels  impelled,  by  the  insertion  of  Y.al,  to  emphasise  this  expression  of 
his  true  attitude  towards  his  people.  It  can  scarcely  be  translated 
into  English  without  overtranslating. 

Kavcov  is  believed  to  be  ultimately  of  Semitic  origin.  Cf.  Gregory, 
Canon  and  Text,  p.  15.  It  is  found,  however,  in  Greek  from  Homer 
down  in  a  great  variety  of  usages  at  a  greater  or  less  remove  from  the 
probable  ground-meaning,  "a  tool  or  utensil  made  of  reed  or  cane." 
(i)  Literally,  of  a  large  number  of  implements,  most  of  which  were 
probably  originally  made  of  cane,  the  name  being  retained  though 
other  material  was  later  used  in  their  construction:  e.  g.,  the  rods 
across  the  hollow  of  the  shield,  through  which  the  arm  was  passed: 
//.  VIII  193;  XIII  407;  the  shuttle  or  quill,  by  which  the  threads  of  the 
woof  were  passed  between  those  of  the  warp,  //.  XXIII  761;  in  classical 
times  most  frequently  of  the  rule  or  straight  edge  used  by  masons  and 
carpenters:  Soph.  Frag.  421;  Eur.  Troiad.  6;  Aristoph.  Av.  999,  1002; 
Plato,  Phil.  56B;  vEschin.  3'"'^  etc.  (in  the  same  meaning,  but  meta- 
phorically used:  Aristoph.  Ran.  799:  Eur.  Supp.  650);  later  of  the 
scribe's  rule,  Anth.  Pal.  6«3;  a  curtain  rod.  Chares  ap.  Ath.  538D;  the 
keys  or  stops  of  a  flute,  Anth.  Pal.  9.  365;  the  beam  or  tongue  of  a 
balance,  Anth.  Pal.  11.  334.  (2)  Metaphorically.  It  is  probably 
upon  the  basis  of  the  meaning  most  frequentl}^  found  in  classical  times, 
"a  ruler  or  straight  edge,"  that  the  word  came  to  be  used  in  a  meta- 
phorical sense,  of  anything  regulative,  determinative,  a  rule  or  stand- 
ard. Cf.  the  similar  transfer  of  meaning  in  our  English  word  "rule." 
It  is  so  used  of  the  written  law  conceived  of  as  a  whole,  or  a  section 


VI,  i6-i7  359 

of  it.  Lycurg.  149.  4;  of  the  good  man,  Arist.  Eth.  N.  3.  6  (11 13  a"); 
of  the  Aopuqj6poq  of  Polvclcitus  and  the  book  explaining  it:  Pliny, 
//  N.  34.  55;  Galen,  Hippocr.  et  Plat.  V  3;  of  a  general  rule  or 
principle:  Anecdota  GrcBca  (Bekker),  1180;  Epict.  Diss.  I  28";  Luc. 
IMieus,  30;  of  a  list  of  the  chief  epochs  or  eras,  which  served  to  deter- 
mine intermediate  dates,  Plut.  Sol.  27S  and  for  other  things  of  the 
same  general  character. 

In  the  Lxx  the  word  is  found  but  once,  in  the  difficult  passage, 
Mic  7S  where  the  translator  either  read  a  text  differing  from  the 
Massorah,  or  misunderstood  the  Hebrew.,  The  meaning  is  probably 
"measuring  rod"  or  "line."  In  the  Apocr.  it  occurs  only  once, 
Jdth.  i3«  («),  for  a  rod  used  in  the  construction  ol  a  bed;  m  4  Mac.  7^' 
it  means  "rule"  or  "standard." 

In  N.  T.,  only  Paul  uses  the  word  and  that  in  but  two  passages: 
2  Cor.  10"  >'s  where  the  meaning  probably  is  "measure"  (others  prefer 
the  meaning,  "limit,  boundary-line"),  and  in  the  present  passage, 
where  it  evidently  refers  to  the  preceding  sentence,  which  it  describes, 
as  a  general  rule  or  principle,  serving  as  a  standard.  The  use  of  xav(iv 
to  designate  ecclesiastical  statutes  and  ordinances,  a  fixed  body  of 
Christian  doctrines  serving  as  a  standard  of  correct  teaching  (some- 
times conceived  of  as  summed  up  in  the  pithy  sentences  of  the  Apos- 
tle's Creed),  the  clergy,  the  catalogue  of  martyrs  or  saints,  or  the  col- 
lection of  books  accepted  as  authoritative  for  Christian  doctrine  and 
practice,  does  not  occur  until  later  and  belongs  properly  under  a  treat- 
ment of  the  ecclesiastical  development  of  the  word.  In  the  last- 
mentioned  use  it  is  (according  to  Zalin)  not  found  until  the  middle 
of  the  fourth  century  a.  d.,  in  Athanasius,  Deer.  Syn.  Nic;  cf.  also 
Canon  59  of  the  Synod  at  Laodicea  (Mansi  II  574);  Athanasms, 
I^estal  Letter  39.  For  a  fuller  treatment  of  the  word,  see  Zahn,  Grm;d^ 
riss  der  Gesch.  des  ntl.  Kanons,-  pp.  i  /.;  ef.  also  Westcott,  The  Canon 
of  the  N.  T.S  App.  A,  pp.  504 .if-;  Gregory,  Canon  and  Text,  pp.  15/. 
Like  xv£6txaxt  in  5^%  T(p  xav6vi  is  a  dative  of  means.  On  the  use 
of  the  future  {<rzoixh^om^-^)  in  a  hypothetical  clause  see  BUT  308. 
Cf.  Lk.  i7».  On  efp-nvTj,  cf.  on  i'.  The  verb  to  be  supplied  is  an  opta- 
tive as  in  I'  6",  and  frequently  in  similar  connections. 

2.  Appeal  enforced  by  reference  to  his  own  sufferings 

17.  Toi)  \onrov  kottovs  ijlol  fxrjdels  7rap€%erco,  iycb  yap  ra 
cTTtTMCtra  rod  "lr](Tov  eV  Ta>  acoiiarL  ixov  /Jacrra^co.  "Hence- 
forth let  no  man  give  me  trouUe;  for  I  bear  the  marks  of  Jesus 
in  my  body."  This  verse  is  best  treated,  as  in  WH.,  as  a  sep- 
arate paragraph.    V.^^  is  the  benediction  of  the  whole  epistle, 


360  GALATIANS 

hence  not  to  be  attached  to  v.^^,  and  v.^'^  jg  ^-j^q  benediction  con- 
cluding the  paragraph  begun  at  vAK  With  evidently  deep 
feehng  the  apostle  demands  that  henceforth  he  be  spared  the 
distress  which  his  opponents  have  hitherto  been  inflicting  upon 
him,  and  appeals  to  the  scars  which  he  has  received  in  the  ser- 
vice of  Jesus,  and  which  he  in  a  figure  describes  as  evidence 
that  he  belongs  to  Jesus. 

Toij  Xotxoii  is  doubtless  here,  as  usually  elsewhere,  a  genitive  of  time, 
meaning  "henceforth."  The  interpretation  of  Zahn,  which  makes  it 
equivalent  to  xiov  aXXwv,  a  genitive  of  the  whole  limiting  [iri^siq  and 
referring  _to  the  remainder  of  Israel,  which  is  not  xoG  Gsou,  is  nega- 
tived by  the  fact  that  the  familiar  use  of  tou  Xotxoij  in  the  sense  of 
"henceforth"  would  have  made  it  necessary  for  Paul  to  employ  twv 
dtXXwv  to  express  the  thought  which  this  interpretation  finds  here. 
The  interpretation  of  Wies.  which  takes  xoij  Xotxou  in  the  sense 
"finally,"  equivalent  to  xb  Xotxdv  in  Phil.  31  4^,  etc.,  is  unsustained 
by  any  clear  evidence  of  the  use  of  the  genitive  xou  Xoixou  in  this 
sense.  Eph,  610  is  the  only  example  that  is  alleged  for  such  usage,  and 
neither  text  nor  interpretation  of  this  passage  is  quite  certain. 

K6%oq  is  frequent  elsewhere  in  Paul  in  the  sense  of  "labour,  toil," 
2  Cor.  6^  I  Thes.  i'  2^  3^,  etc.  But  the  phrase  xoxouq  xaps^scv  clearly 
means,  not  "to  impose  toil,"  but  "to  give  trouble";  cf.  Sir.  29^  Mt.  261'' 
Mk.  i4«  Lk.  II'  i8^  The  use  of  the  present  imperative  suggests  an 
action  already  in  progress.  With  [iri^eiq  it  means,  "let  no  one  con- 
tinue to  give,  etc.,"  "let  him  cease  giving";  cf.  BMT  165. 

By  xa  axt'Y[j,axa  Paul  undoubtedly  refers  to  the  effects  of  his  suffer- 
ings as  an  apostle  {cf.  2  Cor.  6^-«  ii^sff),  and  as  the  ev  x(p  aa)[xax{  ^jlou 
shows,  the  physical  effects,  perhaps  actual  scars.  The  only  doubt  to 
which  the  phrase  is  subject  concerns  the  value  which  he  means  to 
ascribe  to  these  marks  of  his  sufferings,  or  the  figure  of  speech  under 
which  he  means  to  present  them.  Eisner  and  Raphelius*  find  the 
explanation  in  a  custom  spoken  of  by  Hdt.  211',  according  to  which 
a  fugitive  who  took  refuge  in  a  temple  and  there  received  upon  his 
body  the  marks  of  the  god,  could  not  thereafter  be  touched.     Sief. 

♦Raphelius,  Annof.  Philol.  in  N.  T.,  II,  p.  460/.,  says:  Videtur  Paulus  respicere 
ad  morem  illorum,  qui,  quod  stigmata  sacra  gestarent,  Deo  sacri  erant,  quosque  propterea 
nefas  erat  tangere,  si  modo  ille  mos  Galatis  notus  fuit.  Caussam  certe  banc  affert,  cur  n«mo 
sibi  molestias  exhibere  debeat,  quod  stigmata  Domini  Jesu  portet.  Mentionem  hujus  moris 
facit  Herodotus  (lib.  2.  cap.  113).  Erat  in  littore  ad  ostium  Nili  Herculis  templum.  quod 
nunc  quoque  est:  eg  to  jjv  Kara^vyiov  oi/cexTjs  oreo)  avOpuinMV  eTrijSdAijTat  iTTiytJiaTa  ipd, 
iuivTOV  5t5oi>s  T(Z  0ew,  ovK  e^ecrrt  tovtov  axf/acrOat.  6  vofxog  ovtoi;  SiareAe'ei  eojj/  6/iOio?  to 
^e'xpt  ejULoC  oltt'  aoxv^-  '''<'"  <^^  ^V  'A.Ke^dvSpov  dTrtarreaTai  6epaTTovTe<;  nvOoixevoL  rbv  irepl 
TO  Ipov  e^O'''''*  vofiov,  ifcerai  Se  e^o/aec oi  tou  Oeov  Karriyopeov  tov  'AKe^dvSpov,  ^ovKofievot 
/SAaTTTeii/  avrov  .  .  .  Ceterum,  quod  Paulus  dicit  ariyixaTa  Paard^eiv,  Lucianus  una  voce 


VI,   17-18  s6i 

and  Cremer,  following  many  earlier  interpreters,  suppose  the  apostle 
to  be  thinking  of  himself  as  the  slave  (or  soldier)  of  Jesus,  and  of 
the  marks  of  his  suiierings  as  comparable  to  the  marks  on  the  body 
of  a  slave  designating  his  ownership,  or  on  that  of  a  soldier,  indi- 
cating the  general  under  whom  he  serves;  cf.  Hdt.  7"';  Diod.  Sic.  34.  2>; 
Plut.  Nicias,  29^;  Deissmann,  whom  Zahn  and  M.  and  M.  Voc.  follow, 
finds  the  suggestion  of  a  charm,  warding  off  attack,  appealing  espe- 
cially to  a  papyrus  of  the  third  century  A.  D.  (Papyrus  J.  383  of  the 
Leyden  Museum*),  containing  a  spell,  in  which  occur  both  the  word 
^(xaT(xQbi  and  the  expression  xdxouq  izapixetv.  The  expression  xdiuouq 
xapex^T^w  is  favourable  to  the  first  or  third  of  these  views  (note  the 
words  oux  e^eaxc  toutou  a4*aa0ai  in  Hdt.  2^1'  and  the  precise  phrase 
xoTuouq  xapexetv  in  the  papyrus).  But  it  is  doubtful  whether  the 
usage  described  by  Herodotus  was  prevalent  in  Paul's  day  and  sur- 
roundings, or  at  any  rate  familiar  enough  so  that  a  bare  allusion  to  it 
would  be  intelligible.  As  concerns  the  third  view,  the  appositeness 
of  the  papyrus  passage  is  greatly  diminished  by  the  fact  that  it  makes 
no  reference  to  cziy^iaxa;  what  the  protected  one  bears  being  not 
marks,  but  a  miniature  coffin  of  Osiris.  On  the  other  hand,  the  thought 
of  himself  as  a  slave  of  Jesus  is  a  favourite  one  with  the  apostle,  and 
the  custom  of  branding  or  otherwise  marking  slaves  was  undoubtedly 
familiar  to  the  Galatians.  These  facts  make  it  most  probable  that  it 
is  the  idea  of  himself  as  a  slave  of  Jesus,  marked  as  such  by  the  scars 
of  his  sufferings,  that  underlies  the  language  of  the  apostle. 

3.  Final  benedictions  (6^^). 

18.  'H  %apts  rod  Kvpiov  rj/jLcov  ^Irjaov  lLpL(TTOv  fxera  rov 
TTvevjiaros  vjjlmv^  adeX^or  aixr]V.  "The  grace  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  be  with  your  spirit,  brethren.  Amen."  The 
concluding  benedictions  of  all  the  letters  ascribed  to  the  apostle 
Paul  are  alike  in  that  they  include  the  invocation  of  grace, 
which,  except  in  Colossians  and  the  pastoral  epistles,  is  specifi- 

cTTiytxaTo^opelv  effert,  citatus  in  Lexico  Graeco.  Varius  autem  erat  usus  stigmatum.  Nam 
et  servi  in  fronte  iis  notabantur,  apud  Romanos  quidem  fugitivi  poenae  causa,  apud  Thraces 
vero,  ut  domini  eorum  noscerentur,  et  milites  in  manibus,  cum  militiae  adscriberentur.  .  .  . 
Chrysostomus  comparat  cum  vulaeribus  in  bello  acceptis.  Sed  ad  scopum  Pauli  propius 
accedere  videtur,  quod  ex  Herodoto  citavimus.  Vult  enim  ipse  sacrosanctus  et  inviolabilis 
haberi,  propterea  quod  stigmata  Domini  Jesu  in  corpora  suo  gestet.  Quanquam  quocunque 
Paulum  respexisse  dicas,  certum  tamen  est,  stigmatum  nomine  ipsum  intelligere  vibices  ac 
cicatrices  ex  plagis  illis,  lapidationibus  et  verberibus,  quorum  meminit  2  Cor.  11"  "??• 
Quae  signa  erant  manifesta,  ipsum  illorum  similem  non  esse,  qui  circumcisionem  urgebant, 
ne  ob  crucem  Christi  persecutionera  paterentiir  (v."). 

*  M)j  jiAe  6ia>/c£  65e'  avo\  7ra7n7reT[ou]  /u.eTOV/Sai'es'  ^aara^ia  Tr}v  Ta4>riv  rov  '0<rip€<os  /cat 
viTa.yoi  KaTa.\a'T\ri<Ta.i  avrrjv  e[i]s 'A|3i5os,  KaTacTTrjcrai  ei?  Ta<TTa<;  Kol  KaTaOecrOai  ets  [aAJxaS* 
eav  11.01  0  helva.  kottous  TrapaaxH'  "'poo'  (t)  pi^ia  avrrjv  avTco.  De.55.  p.  354. 


362  GALATIANS 

cally  called  "the  grace  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ."  Phil.  4^3 
and  Phm.25  are  like  Galatians  in  using  iitTa  rod  irvevyLaros 
v/jLcov  instead  of  the  usual  [Jied'  vjdcbv.  Ephesians  only  in- 
cludes the  invocation  of  peace,  which  is  regularly  found  in  the 
opening  salutations  of  the  apostle's  letters.  On  the  wholly 
exceptional  form  of  2  Cor.,  see  p.  509,  The  expression  "the 
grace  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ"  is  to  be  taken  at  its  full  value; 
for,  while  the  apostle  closely  associates  the  love  of  God  mani- 
fest in  Christ  and  the  love  of  Christ  (Rom.  8^^-  ^^),  he  expressly 
ascribes  to  Christ  in  his  earthly  career  a  love  for  men  and 
grace  towards  them  (2=^°  2  Cor.  8^,  etc.),  and  conceiving  of 
Jesus  as  still  living  and  in  relation  to  men  (i  Thes.  1^°  Rom. 
8^*,  etc.)  ascribes  to  him  as  thus  living  a  gracious  attitude 
towards  men,  manifest  on  the  one  hand  in  spiritual  fellowship 
with  them  (2^0)  and,  on  the  other  hand,  in  intercession  for  them 
(Rom.  8^4).  The  phrase  jJLera  rov  TvevfJLaTos  vfxcov  shows 
that  it  is  the  former  that  is  here  in  mind.  The  sentence  is, 
therefore,  a  prayer  that  the  Galatians  may  have  the  indwelling 
gracious  presence  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  By  the  addition  of 
a8eK<j)0L  (cf.  on  i^^)  at  the  end  of  this  letter,  in  which  there  is 
much  of  reproof  and  much  strenuous  exhortation,  the  apostle 
expresses  his  continued  affection  for  the  Galatians.  Though 
the  term  itself  is  frequent  in  Paul's  letters,  in  no  other  case 
does  he  add  it  to  a  concluding  benediction.  The  addition  of 
aiJL'^p  {cf.  on  i^),  appended  to  a  doxology  in  i^  Rom.  ii^®  16^^ 
Eph.  321  Phil.  420,  etc.,  and  in  Rom.  153^  to  a  benediction  (it  is 
apparently  a  scribal  addition  in  Rom.  16^*  i  Cor.  16^''  i  Thes.  3^^ 
Phm.  25)  J  still  further  emphasises  the  strength  and  depth  of 
the  feeling  with  which  the  apostle  brings  to  a  close  this  remark- 
able letter.  Though  it  was  probably  dictated  rapidly,  and 
was  certainly  composed  under  the  stress  of  deep  emotion,  the 
six  brief  chapters  of  which  it  consists  constitute  one  of  the 
most  important  documents  of  early  Christianity  and  one  of 
the  noblest  pleas  ever  written  for  Christian  liberty  and  spiritual 
religion. 


APPENDIX. 

DETACHED  NOTES  ON  IMPORTANT  TERMS  OF  PAUL'S 
VOCABULARY. 

PAGE 

I.  'AxoaToXoq 363 

II.  IlaT-^p  as  applied  to  God 384 

III.  Titles  and  Predicates  of  Jesus 392 

IV.  'ExxXiQafa 417 

V.  "Exspoq  and  "AXkoq 420 

VI.     EuayyeXiov 422 

VII.     Xapiq 423 

VIII.        E??TjVY] 424 

IX.  A(a)v  and  Aloivioq 426 

X.  'Evsaxtoq 432 

XL  'Axoxa'XuxTO)  and  ' A%o7.7.Xu^'.q 433 

XII.  'louBat'a 435 

XIII.  'A[xapTta  and  'A'tXapravw 436 

XIV.  N6[ioq 443 

XV.  At'xacoq,  AtxczioauviQ,  and  Atxaido) 460 

XVI.     Hiaxiq  and  IltffTsuto 475 

XVII.     IXveutxa  and  H&g^ 486 

XVIII.     AtaG^xY) 496 

XIX.     Sxlp[xaTt  and  Sxspixajiv 505 

XX.     To:  STOtx^Ia  Tou  xoaiJLou 510 

XXL    'Ayaxaco  and  'AY(ixTQ 519 

I.    'AnOSTGAGS.* 
L     CLASSICAL  AND  OTHER  NON-CHRISTIAN  USAGE. 

The  word  dtx6aT0>.oc;  is  manifestly  cognate  with  the  verb  ^croariXkdi. 
In  classical  authors  it  is  employed  both  as  an  adjective  and  as  a  noun. 
Joined  with  xXoIoq  it  was  used  much  as  our  modern  word  "despatch"  is, 
the  phrase  meaning  "  a  despatch  boat,"  i.  e.,  a  boat  in  commission.  In  Dem. 
252%  262l^  etc.,  dxoffTdXoq  (paroxytone)  alone  signifies  "a  naval  expedi- 
tion." In  Herodotus  dcxdcxoXoi;  (proparoxytone)  is  used  of  a  person,  meaning 
an  ambassador  or  delegate,  a  person  commissioned  by  another  to  represent 
him.     See  i^^:  6  ^ev  S-f)  dx6cjToXo(;  iq  t'^v  Mi'Xtjtov  ^v.     53*:  iq  AaxsSa([Ji.ova 

*  For  other  discussions  of  the  subject  see  Lightfoot,  Commentary  on  Galatians,  pp.  92-101; 
Harnack,  "  Die  Lehre  der  zwolf  Apostel,"  in  Texte  u.  Untersuchungen,  II  93-118;  Hincks, 
"Limits  of  the  Apostolate,"  in  JBL.  1895,  pp.  37-47;  Haupt,  Zum  Verstdndnis  des  Apostolats; 
Monnier,  La  notion  de  I'apostolat. 

3^3 


364  GALATIANS 

TptTjpst  dxdaxoXoq  ifivzio*  In  a  similar  but  more  general  sense,  it 
occurs  in  the  Lxx  (A)  and  Aq.  in  i  Ki.  i4«:  eyw  d'^i  dtxoaToXoq  %p6q  a= 
aifX-qpoq:  "I  am  a  hard  messenger  to  thee,"  I  bring  thee  heavy  tidings.  It 
is  found  also  in  Sym.  at  Isa.  18%  but  not  elsewhere  in  the  Greek  O.  T. 
In  Jos.  Ant.  17.  300  (iiO»  ixoaToXoc;  apparently  means  "a  despatch- 
ing, a  sending":  icpi'xsxo  &lq  t?)v  'Pcojjltjv  izpza^zia  'louBattov,  Ouctpou  xbv 
d;x6aToXov  auxtov  tg)  eOvst  ex'.z.£x<*>P^>^o'o^  utis?  atTYjaso);  aJTOvofxtaq:  "There 
came  to  Rome  an  embassy  of  Jews,  Varus  having  granted  the  people 
the  privilege  of  sending  it  for  the  purpose  of  asking  for  autonomy."  The 
indirect  evidence  of  Christian  writers  seems  to  show  that  in  the  post- 
Christian  period  the  Jews  used  the  term  iTc6aToXo(;,  or  a  Semitic  term  which 
was  expressed  in  Greek  by  dxocnroXoc;,  (a)  of  persons  despatched  from 
Jerusalem  to  other  cities,  especially  to  gather  the  temple  tribute;  (b)  of 
those  who,  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  were  associated  with  the 
patriarch  in  deliberations  and  in  the  carrying  out  of  what  was  agreed  upon. 
See  the  evidence  in  Ltft.  pp.  93  ff. 

11.     NEW  TESTAMENT  USAGE  IN  GENERAL. 

In  the  New  Testament  the  term  is  used  of  persons  only.  Its  general 
meaning,  clearly  seen  in  passages  in  which  it  is  used  in  a  non-technical 
sense,  is  "a  delegate,"  "a  representative,"  one  commissioned  by  another 
to  represent  him  in  some  way.  Thus  in  2  Cor.  8"  and  Phil.  2",  it  is  used 
of  persons  delegated  by  a  church  to  execute  a  commission.! 

In  Heb.  3^  Jesus  is  spoken  of  as  "the  apostle  and  high  priest  (ixdaToXoq 
xal  (ipxiepedq)  of  our  confession"  and  is  immediately  afterwards  charac- 
terised as  faithful  to  him  that  appointed  him. J  In  Jn.  i3>6  the  word  is  used 
in  such  a  way  as  almost  to  involve  a  definition  of  the  word.  "A  servant  is 
not  greater  than  his  master,  nor  a  delegate  (dxdaxoXoq)  greater  than  he 
that  sent  him." 

III.    THE  APOSTLES  OF  CHRIST. 

But  in  the  majority  of  its  occurrences  in  the  New  Testament  the  wora  is 
used  of  a  class  of  persons  in  the  Christian  church,  or  among  the  followers; 
of  Jesus.  The  full  expression  was  evidently  dx6aToXo<;  XptaxoO,  or 
ax6cjToXoq  Xpiaxo'j  'IiQaou  (2  Cor.  i^  111-,  etc.).  But  for  this  full  expres- 
sion dicdjToXoq  alone  is  much  more  frequently  used.     It  is  found  in  nearly 

*For  exx.  in  inscriptions  and  papyri  see  Dittenbcrger,  Sylloge,  153,  and  M.  and  M.  Voc. 
s.  v.;  cf.  also  Nageli,  Wortschatz  des  Apostels  Paulus,  p.  23. 

t  In  both  cases  a  journey  is  involved,  the  matter  to  be  attended  to  a  financial  one,  and 
the  person  who  makes  the  journey  does  not  simply  bear  a  message,  but  in  a  larger  way  repre- 
sents the  church.  This  may,  indeed,  be  accidental  coincidence,  rather  than  decisive  indica- 
tion of  the  constant  usage  of  the  word.  Yet  compare  the  Jewish  use  of  the  term,  as  stated 
above. 

t  A  similar  idea  of  Christ  is  several  times  expressed  in  the  Gospel  of  John,  e.  g.,  Jn.  17': 
"This  is  life  eternal  to  know  thee,  the  only  true  God,  and  Jesus  Christ  whom  thou  hast  sent." 


♦AHOSTOAOS  365 

all  the  books  of  the  New  Testament,  and  was  evidently  in  the  apostolic  age 
the  common  term  for  a  well-known  class  in  the  church. 

The  earliest  references  to  the  apostles  of  Christ  (reckoned  by  the  date 
of  the  writing  in  which  they  occur)  are  found  in  the  Pauline  epistles,  and 
bear  witness  not  only  to  Paul's  claim  to  be  himself  an  apostle  but  to  the 
existence  of  other  members  of  the  class,  who  were  apostles  before  him 
(Gal.  ii')-  In  the  effort  to  trace  the  development  of  the  apostolate  it  will 
be  well  therefore  to  begin  by  inquiring  as  to  the  identity  of  these  apostles 
before  Paul. 

I.  The  apostles  before  Paul— {2.)  The  Twelve  and  their  earliest  designa- 
tion. In  the  number  of  those  who  were  apostles  before  him,  Paul  evidently 
includes  Peter,  and  in  all  probability  John  (Gal.  i^^-i^  2').  In  the  gospels 
there  are  frequent  references  to  twelve  disciples  of  Jesus,  whom  Mt.  once 
calls  the  twelve  apostles  and  Lk.  refers  to  as  the  apostles,  but  who  are  most 
frequently  spoken  of  simply  as  the  Twelve.  Of  this  company  Peter  and 
John  were  members.  These  facts  do  not  warrant  the  assumption  that  the 
Twelve  and  the  apostles  are  identical,  especially  in  view  of  the  apparent 
distinction  between  them  in  i  Cor.  1$^-  ';  but  they  suggest  the  wisdom  of 
beginning  with  an  inquiry  concerning  the  Twelve,  while  avoiding  any  pre- 
supposition as  to  their  precise  relation  to  the  apostles. 

The  expression  "the  Twelve,"  ol  BcoBexa,  in  i  Cor.  15^,  consisting  simply 
of  the  numeral  with  prefixed  article,  taken  in  its  context  makes  it  evident 
that  when  the  epistle  was  written  this  was  a  recognised  title  of  a  certain 
group  who  had  been  in  his  lifetime  disciples  of  Jesus.  This  is  made  the 
more  clear  by  the  fact  that,  according  at  least  to  the  third  gospel  and  Acts, 
the  company  consisted  at  the  time  referred  to,  not  of  twelve,  but  of  eleven 
persons.  The  existence  of  this  company  which  Paul  predicates  for  the 
time  immediately  after  the  resurrection,  the  gospels  carry  back  into  the 
lifetime  of  Jesus.  All  the  four  gospels  frequently  mention  "the  Twelve," 
ol  Ba)3exa,  with  evident  reference  to  a  company  of  Jesus'  disciples  (Mk.  41" 
67  gzi  io32  nil  1410.  17.  20.  43  Mt.  20"  [text  uncertain]  26''^'  "  Lk.  8^  gi-i*  18" 
22''  <7  Jn.  6"'  '"•  "  2o«*). 

It  should  be  observed,  however,  that  all  the  references  in  Mt.  and  all 
those  in  Lk.,  except  81  and  g^S  are  parallel  to  passages  in  Mk.  and  probably 
derived  from  that  source.  Mk.  (3".  «),  followed  by  the  other  synoptists, 
records  the  selection  of  these  Twelve  by  Jesus,  and  Mt.  and  Mk.  give  the 
list  of  them  by  name  (Mk.  31"-"  Mt.  lo^-^  cj.  also  Acts  !"•  ")•  That  such 
a  company  existed  not  only  in  Paul's  day,  when  retrospectively  at  least  it 
was  referred  to  as  the  Twelve,  but  also  in  Jesus'  own  day— on  this  point 
there  is  no  reason  to  question  the  testimony  of  the  gospels. 

It  is  not  so  clear  by  what  name  this  company  was  known  in  the  lifetime 
of  Jesus.  In  Mk.  14''"  Jesus  is  said  to  have  used  the  words,  "one  of  the 
twelve,"  but  this  may  mean  only  one  of  the  twelve  then  at  table  with  him. 
Jn.  6^0,  "Have  I  not  chosen  you  the  twelve?"  is  also  indecisive,  especially 


3^6  GALATIANS 

in  view  of  the  late  date  of  the  fourth  gospel.  Yet  in  view  of  the  evidence 
that  this  was  a  very  early,  probably  the  earliest  now  extant,  name  for  the 
inner  circle  of  Jesus'  disciples,  and  of  the  probability  that  even  in  Jesus' 
ministry  there  was  some  common  title  for  the  company,  it  is  not  unlikely 
that  it  was  then  known  as  "the  Twelve."  The  persistence  of  the  name, 
even  in  the  latest  gospels,  and  its  occurrence  in  Acts  6^  show  that  it  contin- 
ued in  use  also  to  a  late  period  in  the  apostolic  age. 

The  phrase  ol  [xaQr^xai,  frequent  in  all  the  gospels,  probably  often  refers 
to  the  Twelve,  but  is  not  in  itself  restricted  to  them.  The  expression  o\ 
ScoSexa  ^a0Y3Tat  occurs  in  Mt,  only  (iqi  iii  26"),  and  is  in  all  instances 
clearly  a  secondary  form  of  expression,  due  to  the  editor,  not  to  his  sources. 

(b)  The  application  of  the  term  "apostles"  to  the  Twelve.  Reference 
has  been  made  above  to  the  evidence  that  Peter  and  John,  who  were  among 
the  Twelve,  were  also  counted  by  Paul  among  those  who  were  apostles 
before  him.  Mt.  lo"  shows  that  when  this  passage  of  the  first  gospel  took 
its  present  form,  all  the  Twelve  were  accounted  apostles.  Yet  this  designa- 
tion of  the  Twelve  as  apostles  is  rather  infrequent  in  the  gospels.  It  occurs, 
besides  Mt.  lo^  in  Mk.  3"  (on  the  text  see  below)  6^"  Lk.  6"  9"  175  22"  2410 
(perhaps  also  in  Lk.  11").  Of  these  passages  Mt.  lo^  only  uses  the  expres- 
sion ol  Swosxa  dxoffToXoi,  found  elsewhere  in  N.  T.  in  Rev.  211^,  and  in 
early  Christian  literature  in  the  title  of  the  AcSaxtj.  In  Mt.  it  is  clearly 
an  editorial  equivalent  of  ol  SwSexa  [lab-qzai  in  v.i,  which  itself  represents 
the  simple  ol  StoSsxa  of  Mk.  6^ 

In  Lk.  22i<  ol  dxocjxoXot  represents  ol  SwSsxa  of  Mk.  1417.  In  175  and 
241"  we  have  no  source  with  which  to  compare  the  Lukan  form  of  the  pas- 
sages, but  in  view  of  22",  the  word  dxdcToXot  can  not  with  confidence  be 
carried  back  to  any  older  source  than  the  editor  of  this  gospel.  In  Lk.  9", 
however,  the  expression  is  taken  over  from  Mk.  63",  which  therefore  attests 
the  use  of  the  term  as  a  title  of  the  Twelve  as  early  as  the  date  of  the  second 
gospel,  subject  only  to  the  possibility  of  an  early  and  now  unattested  cor- 
ruption of  the  text.  Only  Mk.  3^*  and  Lk.  61'  ascribe  this  usage  to  Jesus.* 
The  text  of  Mk.  31"  is  open  to  some  doubt.  The  words  ouq  xa\  dxoaxoXouc; 
(ov6[xaaev,  though  attested  by  «BCA  al.,  and  on  this  evidence  included  in 
the  text  by  WH.  and  set  in  the  margin  by  RV.,  are  rejected  by  Tdf.  Tr. 
Ws.  Sd.  The  words  are  evidently  in  Mk.  a  scribal  addition  from  Lk.  6", 
or  in  Lk.  are  taken  over  by  the  editor  from  Mk.  In  other  words,  we  have 
here  a  single  witness,  either  the  second  evangelist  or  the  third.  Whatever 
the  date  of  this  testimony  it  does  not  affirm  that  Jesus  at  this  time  gave  to 
the  Twelve  the  name  apostles,  and  does  not  necessarily  mean  that  he  at  any 
time  conferred  on  them  the  title  of  apostles.  If  it  is  of  late  origin,  it  prob- 
ably referred  in  the  author's  mind  to  the  bestowal  of  a  title,  but  if  early 

^  ♦The  utterances  of  Lk.  11"  and  Jn.  i3>«  are  ascribed  to  Jesus,  and  in  both  cases  the  term 
ajToo-ToAoi  includes  by  implication  his  immediate  followers,  but  it  is  not  restricted  to  them 
or  employed  as  a  title  for  them. 


'AnosTOAOs  367 

may  have  meant  only  that  he  was  wont  to  speak  of  them  as  his  messengers, 
using  the  term  with  descriptive  rather  than  titular  force. 

According  to  Acts  i"-''*  there  existed  within  the  company  of  one  hundred 
and  twenty  disciples  of  Jesus  who  gathered  in  Jerusalem  after  his  death 
and  resurrection,  a  smaller  company  having  a  distinct  Biaxov(a.  This 
smaller  company  constituted  not  an  indefinite  group,  but  an  organic  body 
of  definite  number  and  function.  The  context  leaves  no  room  for  doubt 
that  it  is  the  Twelve  that  are  here  referred  to.  Note  the  list  of  the  Twelve 
in  v.",  the  mention  of  Peter  and  Judas,  w."-  i«,  and  the  implication  of  a 
definite  number,  within  the  company  of  the  one  hundred  and  twenty,  which 
is  to  be  kept  complete.  This  passage  purports  to  represent  the  ideas 
of  the  Twelve  themselves  very  soon  after  the  death  and  resurrection  of 
Jesus.  The  Acts  author  by  his  use  of  the  word  "apostles"  in  vv.'-  '^'^ 
attaches  these  ideas  to  the  apostolate.  The  divergence  between  the  condi- 
tions here  implied  as  those  of  the  apostolate  and  those  which  the  rest  of 
the  book  shows  to  have  been  regarded  by  the  author  himself  as  necessary, 
makes  it  improbable  that  the  passage  has  been  essentially  modified  from 
the  source.  For  example,  these  conditions  would  have  excluded  Paul  from 
the  apostleship.  Yet  the  general  point  of  view  of  the  Acts  author  forbids 
us  to  suppose  either  that  he  denied  that  Paul  was  an  apostle,  or  that  it  was 
his  intention  to  bring  into  prominence  the  conflict  between  the  early  Chris- 
tian and  the  Pauline  definition  of  apostleship.  The  reasonable  explanation 
of  the  existence  of  this  narrative  is  that  the  Acts  author  took  it  over  sub- 
stantially unchanged  from  some  earlier  source.  As  concerns  the  historicity 
of  this  source,  it  might  conceivably  have  been  an  anti-Pauline  source  written 
with  the  purpose  of  excluding  Paul  from  the  apostolate.  But  two  things 
are  against  this.  First,  Luke  was  evidently  unaware  of  any  such  anti- 
Pauline  bias  in  his  source;  and  secondly,  the  word  apostle  does  not  occur 
in  the  body  of  the  passage,  as  would  almost  certainly  have  been  the  case 
if  it  had  been  written  to  bear  a  part  in  the  controversy  over  the  apostolate. 
It  seems  probable,  therefore,  that  this  passage,  which  undoubtedly  reflects 
the  idea  held  at  some  period  of  the  apostolic  age  as  to  the  function  and 
status  of  the  Twelve  at  the  beginning  of  that  age,  does  in  fact  convey  to  us 
the  thought  of  a  very  early  period. 

But  a  part  of  the  same  evidence  which  points  to  the  early  existence  and 
recognition  of  the  Twelve  as  a  definite  group  with  a  distinct  8tay,ov{a  indicates 
also  that  this  group  was  not  yet  called  the  apostles.  The  Acts  author, 
indeed,  not  only  in  this  passage  but  throughout  the  first  twelve  chapters 
of  Acts,  assumes  the  identity  of  the  Twelve  and  the  apostles.  But  this 
identification  belongs  to  the  author,  not  to  his  sources.  In  the  narrative 
of  the  selection  of  Matthias,  the  term  apostle  does  not  occur  either  in  the 
speech  of  Peter  or  in  the  body  of  the  narrative,  but  appears  first  in  the 
statement  of  v.'«  that  Matthias  was  numbered  with  the  eleven  apostles, 
thr  language  of  which  is  naturally  referred  to  the  Acts  author  rather  than 


368  GALATIANS 

to  an  earlier  source.  While,  therefore,  the  author  of  the  source  clearly  con- 
ceived of  "the  Twelve"  as  constituting  in  this  early  period  a  definitely 
organised  body,  and  the  Acts  author  thought  of  them  as  the  apostles,  the 
evidence  indicates  that  in  the  period  of  the  events  here  recorded  the  Twelve 
were  probably  not  as  yet  known  as  apostles. 

In  Gal.  1 19  Paul  appHes  the  term  "apostles"  to  a  company  some  of  whom 
at  least  were  included  in  the  Twelve.  It  is  improbable  that  Paul  would 
have  used  the  term  as  he  does  in  this  passage  unless  those  whom  he  there 
calls  apostles  were  also  so  designated  in  their  own  circle.  That  he  speaks 
of  them  as  having  been  apostles  before  him  implies  that  before  he  entered 
on  his  career  as  an  apostle  they  were  already  exercising  the  function  by 
virtue  of  which  he  now  called  them  apostles,  most  naturally  also  that  they 
bore  the  name  before  that  time.  Paul  is  thus  in  agreement  with  the  Acts 
author  in  Acts  i",  in  that  he  carries  the  apostolic  function  at  least  back  to 
a  very  early  period  in  the  history  of  the  Christian  community. 

If  now  we  compare  this  evidence  with  that  of  Lk.-Acts  each  will  per- 
haps be  found  to  throw  light  upon  the  other.  It  is  clear,  from  evidence 
cited  above,  that  when  the  gospel  of  Lk.  was  written,  all  the  Twelve  were 
counted  as  apostles,  and  that  they  were  supposed  to  have  constituted  the 
original  company  of  the  apostles.  To  say  "the  apostles"  when  speaking 
of  the  life  of  Jesus  was,  therefore,  equivalent  to  saying  "the  Twelve." 
From  the  usage  of  the  third  gospel  that  of  the  first  twelve  chapters  of  Acts 
differs  only  in  that  Matthias  takes  the  place  of  Judas.  With  the  latter 
portion  of  Acts,  in  which  Paul  and  Barnabas  also  receive  the  title,  we  are 
not  now  concerned.  What  we  have  to  note  is  that  from  the  point  of  view 
of  Lk.-Acts  all  the  Twelve  were  apostles  and  had  been  such  from  the 
beginning.  The  apostle  Paul  also  refers  to  certain  of  the  Twelve  as  apostles, 
and  though  he  does  not  definitely  include  all  of  them  under  the  term,  yet 
in  the  absence  of  any  limitation  of  the  title  to  a  part  of  the  Twelve,  it  is 
probable  that  he  is  in  agreement  with  Luke  on  this  point.  The  usage  of 
Lk.-Acts  in  this  respect  would  then  be  carried  back  to  the  date  of  Gala- 
tians  at  least,  and  by  probable  implication  to  a  point  a  decade  or  two  earlier, 
when  Paul  became  an  apostle.  Further  than  this  we  can  not  go  with  con- 
fidence. It  is  not  indeed  impossible,  in  view  of  Mk.  3"  and  the  evidence 
of  the  early  designation  of  the  Twelve  as  apostles,  that  Jesus  was  wont  to 
speak  of  the  Twelve  as  his  n-'n-'Su'  (messengers),  or  in  Greek  d-Tcdaxo).©!. 
But  in  view  of  the  fact  that  our  earliest  definite  knowledge  of  its  use  with 
titular  force  comes  from  the  sixth  decade  of  the  first  century,  and  in  view 
of  the  possibility  that  Mk.  3"  and  Lk.  6"  may  involve  some  antedating  of 
the  usage  of  a  later  period,  we  can  not  date  the  use  of  the  term  as  a  title 
applied  pre-eminently  or  exclusively  to  the  Twelve  more  definitely  than 
between  the  middle  of  Jesus'  ministry  and  the  middle  of  the  century,  and 
can  not  say  whether  it  was  first  used  as  a  Hebrew  or  as  a  Greek  term. 

There  are,  indeed,  four  possibilities  which  with  their  subdivisions  become 


'An02T0A02  369 

seven.  First,  the  term  "apostle"  may  have  been  applied  first  of  all  to  the 
Twelve  (i)  by  Jesus  in  his  lifetime,  (ii)  after  the  death  of  Jesus,  and  in  either 
case  have  been  gradually  extended  to  include  other  men  of  like  function 
in  the  church.  Secondly,  the  term  may  have  first  been  applied  to  a  com- 
pany that  included  both  the  Twelve  and  others  {e.  g.,  the  seventy)  (i)  in 
Jesus'  lifetime,  (ii)  after  his  death,  in  either  case  subsequent  additions  being 
made  to  the  company.  Thirdly,  the  term  may  have  been  first  applied  to 
a  company  within  the  Twelve  (i)  in  Jesus'  lifetime,  (ii)  after  his  death,  in 
either  case  the  number  being  afterwards  extended  to  include  all  the  Twelve 
and  some  others  also.  Fourthly,  the  term  may  have  been  first  applied 
after  Jesus'  death  to  a  company  of  influential  men,  partly  of  the  Twelve, 
partly  not,  e.  g.,  Peter,  James,  the  Lord's  brother,  and  John,  and  afterwards 
been  extended  as  on  the  previous  supposition.  Bearing  in  mind  these 
hypotheses  we  may  pass  to  consider — 

(c)  The  extent  of  the  company  of  apostles  before  Paul.  The  evidence 
already  cited  tends  to  show  that  though  Paul  had  personal  relations  with 
only  a  few  of  the  Twelve,  perhaps  only  with  Peter  and  John,  yet  the  expres- 
sion "apostles  before  me"  would  on  his  lips  have  included,  potentially,  all 
the  Twelve.  It  remains  to  inquire  whether  it  would  have  included  any 
others. 

Reference  has  already  been  made  to  the  fact  that,  according  to  Acts  i^i-zs, 
within  the  larger  company  of  Jesus'  disciples,  the  Twelve  constituted  an 
organic  body  having  a  definite  number  and  specific  function.  Eventual 
diminution  of  the  number  is  potentially  involved  in  the  limitation  (implied 
in  the  passage)  of  those  from  among  whom  vacancies  may  be  filled;  indeed 
this  limitation  implies  the  extinction  of  the  body  within  a  generation.  But 
the  passage  makes  no  reference  to  such  diminution,  or  to  any  possible  in- 
crease of  the  number;  it  contemplates  only  the  restoration  and  maintenance 
of  the  number  which  had  been  reduced  by  the  treachery  and  death  of  Judas. 
That  the  Acts  author  by  his  v.^^  associates  these  ideas  with  the  apostles 
indicates  that  he  supposed  that  in  the  early  apostolic  age  there  were  twelve 
apostles,  no  more,  no  less.  But  the  passage  can  not  be  cited  as  evidence 
that  the  early  apostolic  age  itself  held  this  opinion;  for  aside  from  the 
editorial  setting  in  vv.^-  26  it  certifies  only  that  in  that  period  it  was  believed 
that  the  number  of  the  Twelve  was  to  be  preserved  intact  for  the  time  being, 
and  presumably  as  long  as  there  were  among  those  who  fulfilled  the  con- 
ditions here  laid  down  competent  persons  to  fill  the  vacancies  as  they 
occurred.  Nothing  is  implied  as  to  the  opinion  of  the  Acts  author  on  the 
question  how  many  apostles  there  might  come  to  be. 

Paul's  inclusion  of  James  among  the  apostles  (Gal.  ii')  following  closely 
upon  the  mention  of  those  who  were  apostles  before  him  (i^O  suggests,  but 
does  not  necessarily  imply,  that  James  was  an  apostle  before  Paul  was.  It 
does,  however,  show  that  as  early  as  when  Paul  wrote  Galatians,  probably 
at  the  time  of  the  visit  to  Jerusalem  to  which  he  here  refers,  the  apostolic 
24 


370  GALATIANS 

body  included  others  than  the  Twelve,  i.  e.,  the  original  eleven  and  Matthias. 
But  we  do  not  know  whether  James  was  added  to  the  Twelve,  as  Matthias 
was,  by  being  elected  to  fill  a  vacancy,  and  acquired  the  title  of  apostle  by 
virtue  of  his  membership  in  the  Twelve,  or  whether  he  became  an  apostle 
without  being  numbered  with  the  Twelve.  It  is,  however,  distinctly  im- 
probable that  the  apostles  and  the  Twelve  were  at  the  time  when  James 
became  an  apostle  mutually  exclusive  bodies.  This  was  clearly  not  the  case 
when  Paul  wrote,  nor  when  Acts  was  written.  We  have  no  evidence  that 
it  was  the  case  when  James  became  an  apostle. 

I  Cor.  9»*^-  indicates  clearly  the  existence  of  a  class  of  apostles  which 
included  on  the  one  side  Paul  and  doubtless  also  Barnabas,  and  on  the 
other,  certain  unnamed  persons,  whose  standing  as  apostles  was,  however, 
quite  assured  and  undisturbed.  It  may  be  safely  assumed  that  "  the  rest 
of  the  apostles"  here  spoken  of  included  those  to  whom  in  Gal.  i^^  Paul 
refers  as  "those  who  were  apostles  before  me."  The  mention  of  Cephas 
can  not  be  understood  as  excluding  him  from  the  group  of  apostles,  and 
since  this  is  so,  neither  can  it  be  assumed  that  the  brethren  of  the  Lord  are 
so  excluded.  Yet  the  most  probable  explanation  of  the  somewhat  peculiar 
enumeration  in  v.^  is  that  the  brethren  of  the  Lord  constituted  as  such  a 
different  group  from  the  apostles  {i.  e.,  that  not  all  of  the  brethren  of  the 
Lord  were  apostles,  as  certainly  not  all  of  the  apostles  were  brethren  of  the 
Lord),  but  that  they  occupied  a  position  in  the  church,  of  dignity,  influence, 
and  privilege,  similar  to  that  enjoyed  by  the  apostles.  If  we  seek  an  ex- 
planation of  this  withholding  of  the  name  "apostle"  from  those  to  whom 
practically  the  same  position  was  accorded,  it  seems  to  be  suggested  by  v.^ 
compared  with  I56-^  V.i,  "Have  I  not  seen  Jesus  our  Lord?"  suggests 
that  to  be  a  witness  of  the  resurrection  was  now  regarded  as  a  condition  of 
apostleship,  as  Acts  i"  shows  that  it  was  esteemed  a  condition  of  inclusion 
in  the  company  of  the  Twelve,  while  i  Cor.  155-7,  mentioning  specifically 
the  epiphany  to  James,  but  none  to  his  brothers,  suggests  that  he  alone  of 
the  brethren  of  Jesus  enjoyed  this  privilege  and  distinction.  If  this  is  the 
correct  explanation,  the  passage,  though  furnishing  no  specific  names  to 
add  to  the  list  of  apostles  before  Paul,  makes  an  important  contribution  to 
our  knowledge  of  the  limits  of  the  apostolate  on  the  non-Pauline  side,  sug- 
gesting that  James  was  an  apostle  and  his  brethren  not,  though  occupying 
a  kindred  position  in  the  church,  and  that  the  reason  for  this  discrimina- 
tion was  that  he  was  a  witness  of  the  resurrection  and  they  were  not. 

I  Cor.  i5'-8  manifestly  requires  careful  consideration  in  connection  with 
the  question  of  the  extent  of  the  apostolate.     It  reads  as  follows: 

For  I  delivered  unto  you  first  of  all  that  which  also  I  received:  that  he  appeared  to  Ce- 
phas, then  to  the  Twelve;  then  he  appeared  to  above  five  hundred  brethren  at  once,  of  whom 
the  greater  part  remain  until  now,  but  some  are  fallen  asleep;  then  he  appeared  to  James; 
then  to  all  the  apostles.    And  last  of  all  as  to  the  child  untimely  born,  he  appeared  to  me  also. 

The  phrase  "all  the  apostles,"  used  in  a  series  such  as  that  in  which  the 
phrase  occurs  here,  might  refer  to  a  group  entirely  distinct  from  those  pre- 


'AnosTOAOs  371 

viously  mentioned;  yet  most  naturally  designates  the  whole  of  a  group  in 
distinction  from  a  portion  previously  mentioned.     Such  portion  may  be 
found  either  in  the  Twelve  (so,  Chrysostom,  who  found  in  the  phrase  a  ref- 
erence to  a  band  of  apostles,  including  the  seventy),  or  in  James.     The 
prima  facie  view  of  the  language  would  also  be  that  the  phrase  refers  either 
to  all  who  were  apostles  at  the  time  of  the  event  narrated  or  to  all  who 
were  such  at  the  time  of  writing.     The  latter  hypothesis  is,  however,  in 
this  case  improbable.     For  (i)  the  meaning  "all  who  are  now  apostles" 
implies  a  detachment  of  the  thought  from  the  narrative  that  is  improbable 
both  in  itself  and  because  it  would  involve  the  mental  addition  to  an  origi- 
nal number  of  apostles  of  those  who  had  subsequently  acquired  the  title, 
and  (ii)  the  phrase  would  strictly  include  Paul  himself,  whom,  therefore, 
since  he  certainly  was  not  present  at  the  time  referred  to,  he  must  have 
tacitly  excepted.     That  he  means  "all  the  apostles"  in  distinction  from 
the  Twelve,  with  the  implication  that  the  latter  constituted  a  part  of  the 
former,  is  also  improbable  in  view  of  the  remoteness  of  the  mention  of  the 
Twelve  and  the  intervention  of  the  mention  of  the  five  hundred  brethren 
and  of  James.     The  improbability  of  this  view  is  further  increased  by  the 
absence  of  any  other  evidence  that  there  was  at  that  time  any  such  larger 
group.     If,  then,  we  set  aside  the  hypothesis  that  the  phrase  means  those 
who  are  now  apostles,  and  the  supposed  reference  to  the  Twelve,  and  if  we 
assume  precision  of  expression  on  Paul's  part,  we  shall  infer  that  he  is 
speaking  of  a  company  which  was  composed  of  those  who  very  soon  after 
the  death  of  Jesus  were  called  apostles,  and  which  included  all  such  in 
contrast  with  James,  who  was  only  one  of  the  company.     In  this  case  we 
shall  conclude  that  James  was  at  that  time  one  of  the  apostles.     But  that 
Paul  spoke  with  such  precision  of  expression  is,  itself,  by  no  means  certain. 
Such  a  passage  as  i  Cor.  pS  in  which  Paul  speaks  of  "the  rest  of  the  apos- 
tles, and  the  brethren  of  the  Lord,  and  Cephas,"  warns  us  against  treating 
his  enumerations  as  if  they  were  drawn  up  by  a  statistician  or  a  logician. 
If,  as  is  probable,  he  means  by  James  the  same  person  to  whom  he  refers 
in  Gal.  ii='  2S  to  affirm  that  at  the  time  referred  to  he  was  not  an  apostle, 
would  be  indeed  to  beg  the  question  at  issue,  but  it  is  at  least  true  that  we 
have  no  evidence  outside  this  passage  that  he  was  such,  and  that  this,  pas- 
sage is  not  decisive  evidence  on  this  point.     It  seems  necessary,  therefore, 
to  reckon  with  certain  other  possibilities.     Having  in  mind  that  James  was 
not  an  apostle  at  the  time  referred  to,  or  thinking  of  the  five  hundred  as 
not  being  apostles,  Paul  may  have  used  the  expression  "all  the  apostles" 
with  the  emphasis  on  "apostles"  rather  than  on  "all."     Or,  thinking  of 
James  as  now  an  apostle,  he  may  have  been  led  half  unconsciously  to  the 
use  of  a  phrase  including  the  word  apostle  to  describe  the  next  group,  which, 
however,  still  meant  all  who  were  apostles  at  the  time  of  the  event  referred 
to.     Or  without  intention  of  comparison  with  any  previously  mentioned 
person  or  group,  Paul,  long  accustomed  to  the  term  apostle,  scarcely  aware, 


372  GALATIANS 

indeed,  of  a  time  when  the  term  was  not  in  use,  may  have  employed  the 
expression  "all  the  apostles"  of  all  who  were,  at  the  time  of  the  event 
referred  to,  members  of  the  company  which  at  the  time  of  writing  had 
long  been  known  as  the  apostles.  In  itself  the  phrase  would  not  tell  us 
who  these  were.  But  in  view  of  the  other  evidence  we  should  naturally 
assume  them  to  have  been  the  Twelve,  or  rather,  perhaps,  the  eleven.  It 
may,  indeed,  be  asked  why,  if  the  expression  "all  the  apostles"  is  of  iden- 
tical content  with  "the  Twelve,"  the  apostle  should  have  used  the  two 
instead  of  repeating  the  same  phrase.  A  confident  answer  can  not  perhaps 
be  given  to  this  question,  but  instinctive  desire  for  variety  of  expression 
combined  with  the  intervention  of  the  reference  to  the  five  hundred  and  to 
James  may  have  been  sufficient  to  lead  him  to  say  "to  all  the  apostles," 
rather  than  "again  to  the  Twelve."  * 

It  seems  impossible,  therefore,  to  deduce  from  this  passage  any  definite 
indication  as  to  who  constituted  the  apostles  at  the  time  of  the  epiphany 
which  Paul  here  relates,  or  indeed  that  there  was  at  that  time  any  definite 
group  of  persons  called  apostles.  Read  in  the  light  of  the  other  evidence 
it  distinctly  implies  the  existence  of  a  definite  company  of  Jesus'  disciples, 
known  at  the  time  of  this  epiphany  or  not  much  later  as  the  Twelve,  and 
a  definite  company  then  or  afterwards  known  as  the  apostles.  This  passage 
itself  does  not  define  the  extent  to  which  these  two  companies  were  identical, 
but  leaves  unanswered  the  question  whether  they  were  mutually  exclusive,  i 
partly  identical  or  wholly  so.  The  last  view  is,  on  the  whole,  more  con- 
sistent with  all  the  evidence. 

The  reference  to  "false  apostles"  mentioned  in  2  Cor.  will  require  consid- 
eration at  a  later  point.  It  is  sufficient  at  this  point  to  note  that  Paul's 
attitude  towards  them  renders  it  improbable  that  they  were  included  in 
those  whom  he  designates  as  having  been  apostles  before  him. 

In  Rom.  16^  mention  is  made  of  Adronicus  and  Junias  as  i%iar)[ioi  ev 
Totq  diuojxdXotq.  This  is  generally  understood  to  mean  that  they  were 
themselves  of  the  number  of  the  apostles  and  occupied  a  position  of  emi- 
nence among  them.  If  this  is  correct,  these  men  may  well  have  been  among 
those  who  were  apostles  before  Paul,  as  he  expressly  says  that  they  were 
Christians  before  he  was.  In  that  case,  they  were  probably  like  the  men 
referred  to  in  2  Cor.  in  that  they  constituted  an  early  addition  to  the  apos- 
tolic company  and,  like  them,  were  apparently  itinerant  missionaries. 

2.  The  apostleship  oj  Paul. — With  the  conversion  of  Saul  and  his  adop- 
tion for  himself,  or  the  ascription  by  others  to  him,  of  the  title  axoaToXoq, 
that  title  enters  upon  a  new  stage  of  its  history.  It  evidently  passed  from 
the  Twelve,  or  the  company  of  which  they  were  a  part,  to  him,  not  the 
reverse,  but  its  application  to  him  became  the  occasion  of  no  little  con- 
troversy. 

*  It  is  a  tempting  suggestion  made  by  Valckenarius  and  cited  by  Heinrici  in  Mey.  Kom. 
8te  Aufl.,  that  for  ■natriv  we  should  read  niXLv;  but  in  the  absence  of  any  external  evidence 
the  interpreter  can  scarcely  avail  himself  of  this  way  of  escape. 


'AnOSTOAOS  373 

Acts  131-2  relates  that  the  company  of  prophets  and  teachers  in  the  church 
at  Antioch  set  apart  two  of  their  own  number  for  a  specific  task,  which 
though  not  sharply  defined  was  apparently  that  of  carrying  the  gospel 
into  regions  as  yet  unevangelised.  There  is  a  manifest  parallel  between 
this  act  and  that  of  the  one  hundred  and  twenty  in  Jerusalem  (Acts  1^^-^'), 
and  it  is  not  improbable  that  in  this  event  we  have  an  important  step  in 
the  creation  of  an  apostolate  not  authorised  from  Jerusalem  or  by  the 
Twelve.  But  as  in  the  case  of  Matthias,  so  in  the  case  of  Barnabas  and 
Saul,  there  is  no  assertion  that  the  term  "apostle"  was  applied  at  the  time 
of  appointment,  but  only  a  subsequent  reference  to  them  as  apostles  by  the 
Acts  author,  and  no  distinct  evidence  that  those  who  took  part  in  the 
Antioch  incident  looked  upon  it  at  the  time  as  having  any  important  bear- 
ing on  the  development  of  an  office  or  the  definition  of  a  term. 

For  direct  evidence  as  to  the  origin  of  Paul's  assurance  of  his  own  apos- 
tleship  and  his  conception  of  the  functions  of  an  apostle,  we  must  depend 
upon  his  ovm  letters.  In  2  Cor.  8"  and  Phil.  2"  he  uses  the  term,  with 
limitations,  in  the  general  sense  of  messenger  or  delegate.  This  evidence 
is  valuable  as  showing  what  was  for  Paul  the  fundamental  idea  of  the  term, 
but  it  in  no  way  obscures  the  fact  that  Paul  applied  the  term  to  a  certain 
limited  number  of  persons,  including  himself  and  the  Twelve,  in  a  more 
ipecific  sense.  In  the  salutation  of  the  Thessalonian  letter  (or  letters  if 
2  Thes.  be  from  Paul),  he  couples  with  his  own  name  those  of  Silvanus 
and  Timothy,  and  adds  no  title,  but  in  i  Thes.  2«  he  uses  the  term  dTc6aTo7.o? 
of  himself,  or  of  himself  and  one  or  more  of  his  companions  at  Thessalonica, 
in  such  a  way  as  to  imply  that  to  be  an  apostle  of  Christ  carried  with  it 
either  authority,  or  the  right  to  be  supported  by  his  converts;  it  is  impos- 
sible to  say  with  certainty  which  is  the  implication  of  sv  ^apei.  In 
Gal.  1 1-2  he  affirms  his  own  apostleship  with  emphasis,  and  thereafter  in 
the  salutation  of  all  the  Pauline  letters,  except  Phil,  and  Phm.  the  term 
(i%6axoXoq  is  closely  joined  to  the  personal  name  IlaaXoq.  In  all  these 
cases  the  term  is  clearly  restricted  to  Paul  himself  and  is  evidently  of  titular 
force.  Gal.  i^  and  its  context  also  make  it  clear  that  Paul's  right  to  this 
title  was  disputed,  and  scarcely  less  so  that  the  ground  of  objection  was 
that  the  title  and  appointment  had  not  been  authorised  in  Jerusalem.  To 
this  his  defence  was  not  that  he  had  been  duly  appointed,  but  that  such 
appointment  was  unnecessary,  and  that  he  had  never  sought  it,  having 
received  his  apostleship  by  direct  divine  commission.  In  i  Cor.  91  Paul 
couples  the  assertion  of  his  apostleship  with  the  affirmation  that  he  had 
seen  Jesus  our  Lord,  evidently  referring  to  the  post-resurrection  vision 
spoken  of  in  i  Cor.  15'.  As  therefore  the  Galatian  passage  suggests  one 
element  of  the  conditions  of  apostleship  implied  in  Acts  i"-  ".  so  the  Cor- 
inthian passage  suggests  another.  .  It  is  not,  indeed,  perfectly  clear  whether 
he  conceded  that  such  a  vision  of  the  risen  Jesus  was  a  necessary  condition 
of  apostleship  or,  only  since  he  fulfilled  it,  preferred  simply  to  affirm  the 


374  GALATIANS 

fact  and  so  avoid  controversy  on  this  point.  On  the  one  side,  the  general 
type  of  his  thought,  his  emphasis  on  the  purely  spiritual  as  against  the  phys- 
ical in  religion,  would  favour  the  view  that  he  did  not  attach  vital  impor- 
tance to  his  having  seen  Jesus.*  But,  on  the  other  hand,  the  great  signifi- 
cance which  he  evidently  attached  to  this  particular  experience,  and  his 
apparently  careful  avoidance  of  the  ascription  of  apostleship  to  other  mis- 
sionaries of  Christianity,  such  as  Timothy,  Titus,  and  Apollos,  point  to  the 
conclusion  that  he  included  ability  to  bear  personal  testimony  to  the  resur- 
rection among  the  conditions  of  apostleship.  We  may  concede  that  his 
view  would  have  been  more  thoroughly  self-consistent  if  he  had  attached 
no  importance  to  this  condition;  but  it  seems  on  the  whole  probable,  nev- 
ertheless, that  he  did  include  it  in  the  necessary  qualifications  of  an  apostle. 
If  this  is  the  case  it  was  implied  in  the  view  both  of  Paul  and  his  oppo- 
nents that  the  apostleship  could  not  last  many  years  since  the  supply  of 
those  who  fulfilled  this  condition  would  inevitably  be  exhausted  within  a 
generation.  But  it  is  probable  that  this  consideration  was  deprived  of  any 
importance  by  their  expectation  of  the  consummation  of  the  age  by  the 
coming  of  the  Lord.     Cf.  Mt.  ig^s, 

3.  The  false  apostles. — The  mention  by  Paul  of  those  whom  he,  in 
2  Cor.  II",  characterises  as  "false  apostles  [(j^suSaxoaxoXot],  deceitful 
workers,  fashioning  themselves  into  apostles  of  Christ,"  though  adding, 
of  course,  none  to  the  list  of  those  whom  he  accounted  apostles,  throws 
considerable  light  on  the  whole  problem  of  the  conception  of  apostleship 
held  in  the  apostolic  age.  The  letter  which  has  been  preserved  to  us  in 
part  in  chaps.  10-13  of  what  is  commonly  known  as  2  Cor.  shows 
clearly  that  there  had  been  in  Corinth  certain  persons  who,  claiming  them- 
selves to  be  apostles  of  Christ,  denied  Paul's  right  to  that  title.  If  2  Cor.  31 
(written  a  little  later)  refers,  as  it  probably  does,  to  the  same  persons,  it 
suggests  that  these  persons  brought  with  them  letters  of  commendation, 
and  that  not  improbably  their  claim  to  the  apostleship  was  supported  by 
these  letters.  We  have  no  means  of  knowing  whether  these  men  had  been 
elected,  as  Matthias  was,  to  fill  a  vacancy  in  the  original  Twelve,  or  were 
an  addition  to  the  Twelve.  In  any  case,  Paul's  objection  to  their  apostle- 
ship was  not  based  on  the  method  of  their  appointment,  but  on  the  spirit 
and  purpose  of  the  work  they  were  doing.  The  expression  "false  apostles," 
however,  confirms  what  the  evidence  previously  examined  implies,  that 
to  be  an  apostle  was  a  definite  fact.  In  other  words,  while  neither  Paul 
nor,  so  far  as  we  know,  the  Jerusalem  Christians  were  insisting  on  the 
maintenance  of  the  number  twelve,  the  term  apostle  still  conveyed  a  defi- 
nite meaning;  it  was  not  applied  indiscriminately  to  any  preacher  or  mis- 
sionary of  the  Christian  message.f 

*Cf.  Hincks,  "Limits  of  the  Apostolate,"  in  JBL.  i8gs,  pp.  37-47. 

fThe  assertion  frequently  made  (see,  e.  g.,  Robinson  in  HDB,  art.  "Apostle,"  and 
Robertson  and  Plummer  on  i  Cor.  12M)  that  the  expression  "false  apostles"  implies  that 
the  number  of  the  apostles  was  indefinite  is  inaccurate  and  misleading.     The  expression 


'AnOSTOAOS  375 

2  Cor.  lo'  and  ii"  strongly  suggest  that  among  the  qualifications  which 
these  persons  affirmed  that  they  possessed  and  Paul  lacked  was  a  certain 
relation  to  Christ.  In  all  probability  this  was  in  part  at  least  personal 
knowledge  of  him  in  his  lifetime.  This  view  is  in  some  measure  confirmed 
by  I  Cor.  i^^  (lyo)  U  XpiaxoCi)  and  g\  if,  as  is  probable,  the  former  passage 
refers  to  the  same  persons,  or  at  least  to  the  same  movement,  as  2  Cor.  10' 
II",  and  if  i  Cor.  91  conveys  a  veiled  and  passing  allusion  to  that  party, 
with  which  the  apostle  for  some  reason  did  not,  in  this  letter,  wish  to  deal 
openly.*  Cf.  on  the  general  situation  Weizs.  Ap.  Zeit.  p.  299,  E.  T. 
1  354,  and  Sanday  in  Encyc.  Bib.  I  905. 

The  time  when  these  men  set  up  their  claim  to  be  apostles  is  indicated 
only  by  the  mention  of  them  in  the  letter  of  Paul  which  is  embedded  in 
what  is  known  as  2  Cor.  This  would  point  to  a  date  in  the  early  fifties  as 
the  time  when  they  were  in  Corinth.  How  much  sooner  they  claimed  or 
were  given  the  title  of  apostle  we  have  no  means  of  knowing.  Whether 
elected  to  fill  a  vacancy  in  the  number  of  the  Twelve  or  added  to  that  num- 
ber, they  may  have  been  accounted  apostles  in  Jerusalem  even  before  Paul 
acquired  the  title.  His  subsequent  denial  of  the  title  to  them,  when  he 
discovered  the  spirit  in  which  they  were  working,  does  not  exclude  the  pos- 
sibility of  his  having  at  first  accounted  them  apostles  Such  evidence  as 
there  is,  however,  would  suggest  that  these  were  relatively  late  additions 
to  the  company  of  those  who  bore  the  title  of  apostles. 

In  Rev.  2"^  reference  is  also  had  to  false  apostles  in  the  church  at  Ephesus, 
men  who  call  themselves  apostles  and  are  not.  Whatever  the  point  of  view 
of  this  portion  of  the  Apocalypse,  and  whatever  the  test  by  which  the 
Ephesians  tried  them  and  discovered  that  they  were  false,  the  passage  tes- 
tifies to  the  fact  that  to  be  an  apostle  was  something  definite  and  desirable. 
4.  The  usage  of  the  latter  part  of  Acts. — Reference  has  already  been  made 
to  the  usage  of  the  word  "apostle"  in  the  first  twelve  chapters  of  Acts.  It 
remains  only  to  observe  that  while  in  chap.  14  Paul  and  Barnabas  are  spoken 
of  as  apostles,  the  word  occurs  elsewhere  only  in  chaps.  15  and  16,  and  al- 
ways in  the  phrase  ol  dxoaxoXot  xal  [ol]  xpsa^uxspoi  dSeXcpoi,  designating  the 
shows  only  that  there  was  difference  of  opinion  as  to  who  were  apostles.  It  suggests  no 
indefiniteness  as  to  what  it  was  to  be  an  apostle,  but  quite  the  contrary,  for  had  the  term 
been  of  quite  indefinite  meaning  (signifying,  e.  g.,  only  itinerant  preacher),  Paul  would  have 
had  no  motive  to  refuse  it  to  the  emissaries  from  Jerusalem,  or,  it  may  be  added,  to  claim 
it  for  himself.  Nor  does  the  term  of  itself  exclude  definiteness  of  number;  since  an  agree- 
ment, e.  g.,  that  there  could  be  but  twelve  apostles,  would  only  have  given  acuteness  to  the 
question  who  were  the  genuine,  who  the  spurious.  Cf.  the  case  of  delegates  to  a  political 
convention.  Probably  on  neither  side  was  the  number  definitely  restricted,  but  the  expres- 
sion "false  apostles"  would  not  of  itself  prove  this. 

*  It  is  not  improbable  that  in  2  Cor.  s>«  also  there  is  an  allusion  to  the  same  emphasis  of 
Paul's  opponents  on  personal  knowledge  of  Jesus;  in  which  case,  however,  the  apostle's 
phrase  iyui^iKa/xev  Kara  o-ap/ca  Xpiarov  must  be  taken  as  a  general  expression  inclusive  of 
estimation  of  Christ  on  any  basis  of  the  physical  and  external,  which  estimation  he  now 
abjures,  whatever  may  have  been,  ia  fact  or  according  to  the  accusation  of  his  opponents,  the 
case  in  the  past. 


37^  GALATIANS 

leading  men  of  the  church  assembled  in  Jerusalem.  While  the  epistles  of 
Paul  recognise  the  apostleship  of  James,  and  of  Andronicus  and  Junias,  and 
testify  that  others  also  claimed  the  title,  which  though  denied  by  Paul  was 
apparently  conceded  by  others,  the  book  of  Acts  makes  no  mention  of  any 
of  these  as  apostles,  but  restricts  the  term  to  the  Twelve  with  the  addition 
of  Paul  and  Barnabas. 

5.  Summary  of  New  Testament  usage.— T}\ese  facts,  respecting  the  usage 
of  the  word  in  the  several  N.  T.  books,  suggest  that  the  term  was  first 
used  of  a  narrower  circle,  composed  of  the  Twelve  or  including  them  and  a 
limited  number  beside,  then  of  a  wider  circle,  and  again  in  certain  quarters 
of  a  narrower.  They  do  not  clearly  indicate  when  the  term  was  first 
applied  to  the  Twelve  except  that  it  was  at  some  time  before  the  writ- 
ing of  Galatians.  They  do  not  show  clearly  whether  the  term  was  first 
applied  to  the  Twelve  only  and  afterwards  to  others,  or  whether  it  first  arose 
as  a  title  of  a  larger  group  including  the  Twelve.  They  suggest  that  while 
the  Twelve  were  at  first  the  eminent  body  among  the  followers  of  Jesus, 
and  were  known  simply  as  the  Twelve,  the  raising  of  James,  and  in  a  lesser 
measure  of  his  brethren,  to  a  place  of  influence  in  the  Christian  community 
only  second,  and  in  the  case  of  James  scarcely  second,  to  that  of  the  Twelve, 
gradually  led  to  the  partial  displacement  of  the  numerical  term,  the  Twelve, 
by  the  more  descriptive  and  honorific  term  "apostles."  Not  improbably 
from  the  beginning,  this  term  included  all  the  Twelve,  but  also  James. 
Eventually  all  who  like  these  were  regarded  as  founders  of  Christianity 
were  called  apostles.  C/.  below  on  the  function  of  the  apostle.  For  this 
use  of  the  term  there  was  doubtless  some  preparation  in  earlier  usage. 
This  may  have  been  furnished  by  the  use  of  some  such  term  as  dicoaxoXot 
or  D^n-'Si:'  not  as  a  title  but  as  a  term  descriptive  of  the  function  of  the 
Twelve.  Subsequently,  doctrinal  differences  led  to  the  denial  of  the  apos- 
tolic character  of  some  of  these  later  additions  to  the  apostolic  circle,  each 
party  denying  the  title  to  those  whose  views  or  character  they  disapproved, 
but  none  apparently  questioning  the  apostolic  title  of  the  Twelve.  The  book 
of  Acts  represents  a  stage  of  the  controversy  and  a  circle  of  thought  in  which 
it  was  held  that  in  the  early  days  the  Twelve  were  the  only  apostles  and 
there  was  caution  in  recognising  the  legitimacy  of  any  addition  to  that 
number  except  Paul  and  Barnabas  Of  the  persistence  in  other  circles  cf 
another  point  of  view,  something  will  be  said  later  in  discussing  the  usage 
of  the  AiSax^r). 

If  this  hypothesis  be  accepted  as  probable,  we  should  reconstruct  the 
history  of  the  use  of  the  term  "apostle"  in  what  we  call  the  apostolic  age 
somewhat  as  follows:  In  the  midst  of  his  ministry  Jesus  gathered  about  him 
a  company  of  twelve  disciples  who  companied  with  him,  learning  from 
him  as  pupils,  and  sharing  in  his  work  as  his  representatives.  The  earliest 
name  that  we  can  discover  for  this  company  was  "the  Twelve,"  a  title  which 
they  not  improbably  bore  even  in  Jesus'  lifetime.     Assured  by  their  visions 


'AnOSTOAOS  377 

of  him  after  his  death  that  he  still  lived,  they  were  impelled  to  continue 
their  organisation  such  as  it  was,  and  to  fill  the  vacancy  caused  by  the 
treachery  and  death  of  Judas.  They  conceived  it  to  be  their  function  to 
testify  to  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  and  in  general  to  transmit  the  message 
of  Jesus'  life  and  teaching  which  they  had  received  through  their  associa- 
tion with  him.  They  were  not  ecclesiastical  officers  but  bearers  of  a  mes- 
sage. They  continued  for  some  time,  precisely  how  long  we  can  not  tell, 
to  be  known  as  "the  Twelve."  With  them  were  early  associated  the 
brothers  of  Jesus,  of  whom  James  was  especially  prominent,  and  these 
grew  in  influence.  James  being  a  witness  of  the  resurrection  and  a  man 
of  weight  and  influence,  assumed  functions  quite  like  those  of  the  Twelve. 
This  fact  gradually  led  to  the  adoption  of  the  term  ''apostles,"  which  may  or 
may  not  have  already  been  applied  to  the  Twelve,  as  the  title  of  all  who 
shared  the  functions  of  the  Twelve. 

Converted  to  an  enthusiastic  faith  in  Jesus  by  his  Damascus  vision,  Paul 
felt  himself  called  by  God  to  become  a  preacher  of  the  gospel  message,  as 
he  conceived  of  it,  to  the  Gentiles.  This  was  for  him  a  divine  commission 
and  he  unhesitatingly  appropriated  to  himself  the  title  and  function  of  an 
apostle  of  Christ,  which  he  conceived  himself  to  hold  by  direct  divine 
authority,  subject  in  no  way  to  the  control  of  those  who  were  apostles 
before  him. 

When  Paul  had  been  at  work  for  some  years,  there  went  out  into  the 
territory  which  he  conceived  to  be  his  and  into  the  churches  which  he 
had  founded,  certain  men,  perhaps  by  authorisation  from  Jerusalem,  who 
denied  Paul's  apostleship,  apparently  either  on  the  ground  that  he  had  not 
been  a  personal  companion  of  Jesus,  or  had  not  been  commissioned  from 
Jerusalem,  or  both,  and  no  doubt  claimed  for  themselves  what  they  denied 
to  him.     These  men  Paul  in  turn  denounced  as  false  apostles. 

It  is  clear  that  there  had  grown  up  two  contrasted  views  of  the  conditions 
of  apostleship,  having  much  in  common  but  sharply  difEerentiated  on  cer- 
tain points.  Both  parties  were  agreed  that  to  be  an  apostle  was  some- 
thing very  definite,  and,  as  will  appear  later,  were  not  widely  divided  as 
to  what  the  function  of  an  apostle  was.  Of  the  existence  of  a  loose  sense 
of  the  term  as  applied  to  apostles  of  Christ  (2  Cor.  8"  and  Phil.  2«  do  not 
come  into  account  here),  either  as  the  only  meaning  or  parallel  with  a 
stricter  sense,  the  books  of  N.  T.  give  no  evidence.  The  difference  of 
opinion  pertained  chiefly  to  the  conditions  of  apostleship.  The  party  of 
Paul's  opponents  probably  held  respecting  the  apostolate  substantially  the 
position  which  Acts  i"-  "  takes  respecting  the  Twelve.  An  apostle  must 
have  known  Jesus  personally,  must  be  able  to  bear  witness  to  the  resurrec- 
tion, and  must  have  been  commissioned  from  Jerusalem.  Paul  denied  the 
necessity  of  personal  acquaintance  with  Jesus  on  earth,  or  of  any  commis- 
sion whatever  from  men.  On  the  basis  of  his  Damascus  vision  he  claimed 
to  have  seen  Jesus  and  so  to  be  a  witness  of  the  resurrection.     Other  condi- 


378  GALATIANS 

tions  than  this,  he  maintained,  were  purely  spiritual,  and  apostleship  came 
by  unmediated  divine  commission. 

How  many  of  those  who  were  eligible  to  apostleship  under  either  of  the 
two  views  eventually  came  to  bear  the  name  "apostle"  it  is  impossible  to 
state.  We  can  definitely  name  only  about  twenty,  but  quite  possibly  it 
was  given  to  all  who  having  been  sharers  in  the  epiphanies  of  Jesus  after- 
wards assumed  positions  of  responsibility  in  the  church,  especially  perhaps 
if  they  became  itinerant  preachers  and  founders  of  churches. 

6.  The  function  of  an  apostle. — For  the  interpretation  of  the  epistles  of 
Paul  the  question  what  he  conceived  to  be  the  function  of  an  apostle  is  of 
much  more  importance  than  the  number  of  those  to  whom  he  conceived 
the  title  to  be  rightly  applicable.  Most  of  the  evidence  bearing  on  this 
point  has  been  cited  incidentally  in  the  preceding  sections,  but  may  now 
be  assembled  and  brought  to  bear  on  this  phase  of  the  subject. 

In  Mk.  3"'  *'  we  read:  xal  exofTjasv  5a)Sexa,  oSq  xatl  dtxoaxdXouq  <iv6[i.aaEv, 
Tva  uatv  [xst'  auTOu  xal  Yva  dxoaxcXXyj  aiJTo6<;  /.tjpuaastv  xal  Ixsiv  e^ouafav 
h.<^ikXkEKv  Tcl:  BatpL6vtcz.  This  passage  was  evidently  written  or  took  its 
present  shape  when  it  was  believed  that  Jesus  himself  created  the  apos- 
tolate  and  gave  to  its  members  the  name  apostles.  It  shows  that  at 
that  time  it  was  believed  that  the  primary  purpose  for  which  Jesus  chose 
the  Twelve  was  that  they  should  be  his  personal  companions  and  helpers 
in  his  work.  Learning  from  him  by  companionship  with  him,  they  were 
to  share  in  his  work  by  going  out  to  announce  his  message  and  to  do  such 
things  as  he  had  himself  been  doing  {cf.  Mk.  g'^).  Though  this  gospel  was 
written  long  after  the  death  of  Jesus  and  when  the  Twelve  had  long  been 
exercising  a  function  largely  created  by  conditions  that  arose  after  his 
death,  and  though  the  expression,  "whom  he  also  named  apostles,"  prob- 
ably shows  the  influence  of  later  thought,  yet  with  the  exception  of  this 
phrase  the  horizon  of  the  passage  is  wholly  that  of  Jesus'  lifetime,  and 
there  is  in  it  no  suggestion  of  any  work  to  be  done  after  Jesus'  death.* 
This  fact  is  strong  evidence  that  the  substance  of  the  passage  comes  from 
a  very  early  date,  and  embodies  the  recollection  of  the  Twelve  of  their 
original  conception  of  their  primitive  function. 

But  though  this  original  appointment  suggested  no  function  extending 
beyond  the  period  of  the  personal  presence  of  Jesus,  his  death  resulted  not 
in  the  dissolution  of  the  group  but  in  the  taking  on  of  a  new  function. 
Those  who  had  been  his  chosen  companions  in  his  lifetime  became  the 
witnesses  of  his  resurrection.  See  above  on  Acts  i"-".  The  insistence 
upon  personal  companionship  mth  Jesus,  as  a  condition  of  membership  in 
the  body  in  the  new  period  of  its  history,  was  doubtless  in  part  because  of 

*  This  is  the  implication  of  the  present  tenses,  an-offTeAXrj,  KTjpv<r<reti',  «xei«'  and  eKjSdAAeii', 
not,  of  course,  in  that  they  denote  present  time,  but  continued  or  repeated  action,  naturally, 
therefore,  thought  of  as  continuous  with  the  time  of  S)cn.v  fxer  avrov.  Had  the  thought 
been  of  a  single  subsequent  sending  out,  following  upon  the  period  of  the  w<7ii'  iJ-tT  auroO, 
the  aorist  an-oo-TeiAjj  must  certainly  have  been  used. 


'AnOSTOAOS  379 

the  relation  between  such  companionship  and  ability  to  be  a  witness  to 
the  resurrection.  But  the  inclusion  of  the  phrase  "from  the  baptism  of 
John"  indicates  that  the  bearing  of  such  testimony  was  not  the  full  duty  or 
the  only  function  of  the  Twelve.  They  must  also  be  able  to  testify  to  the 
deeds  and  words  of  Jesus  before  his  death  and  even  from  the  beginning 
of  his  public  ministry,  and  carry  forward  his  work  as  they  only  could  do 
who  knew  him  well.  On  the  other  hand  witnessing  to  the  resurrection 
was  not  an  end  in  itself,  but  the  means  by  which  men  were  to  be  persuaded 
to  accept  him  as  Lord  and  Christ.  The  function  of  the  apostle  is  therefore 
comprehensively  the  winning  of  men  to  faith  in  Jesus  through  the  testi- 
mony to  his  resurrection,  and  building  them  up  in  such  faith  through  the 
story  of  his  life  and  teaching.  There  is  thus  a  clear  affinity  between  the 
thought  of  the  two  passages  Mk.  31*  and  Acts  i"-^*.  The  companionship 
with  Jesus  which  in  Mk.  is  a  part  of  the  purpose  of  the  choice  of  the  Twelve 
becomes  in  Acts  a  condition  of  membership  in  the  body;  and  the  function 
of  the  group,  though  new  in  that  it  includes  and  makes  prominent  the 
testimony  to  the  resurrection,  is  in  substance  the  same  as  that  set  forth 
in  Mk.  with  only  such  modification  as  the  death  and  subsequent  epiph- 
anies of  Jesus,  convincing  them  of  his  resurrection  and  messiahship,  would 
naturally  call  for.  Whether  at  the  early  period  in  v/hich  this  conception 
of  the  function  of  the  Twelve  took  shape  they  were  already  known  as  apos- 
tles, or,  as  suggested  above,  this  name  was  only  later  applied  to  them,  the 
passage  in  Acts  shows  that  by  the  time  of  the  writing  of  Acts  the  definition 
of  function  had  become  attached  to  the  term  "apostle,"  and  there  is  no 
special  reason  to  question  that  this  took  place  in  the  process  by  which  the 
term  apostle  was  carried  over  to  the  Twelve  or  to  that  larger  company  of 
which  they  were  the  major  part. 

Paul's  conception  of  the  function  of  an  apostle  is  conveyed  by  implica- 
tion rather  than  by  any  express  statement.  The  important  passage 
I  Cor.  1228  indicates  the  place  of  high  importance  which  he  attached  to  it, 
and  shows  that  he  regarded  apostleship  rather  as  a  commission  conferred 
by  divine  endowment  than  an  ecclesiastical  office  to  which  one  was  appointed 
or  elected  by  men  (see  also  Gal.  1^).  That  the  function  was  local,  t^ 
exxXTjat'c?  referring  to  the  church  at  Corinth,  or  generically  to  any  local 
church,  can  not  be  assumed  in  view  of  Paul's  use  of  exxXTjaca  in  the  larger 
sense  in  Gal.  i^^  i  Cor.  15'  Phil.  3'  Col.  i^s-  ",  and  is  against  all  other  usage 
of  the  word  ixoaioXo^.  Tt  is  still  more  clear  that  in  Eph.  4"  the  writer  is 
thinking  of  the  church  at  large.  But  neither  of  these  passages  gives  a 
clear  definition  of  the  specific  function  of  the  apostle.  The  evidence  that 
Paul  regarded  first-hand  testimony  to  the  resurrection  as  a  part  of  the  work 
of  the  apostle  has  already  been  discussed  {cf.  2  above).  That  the  preach- 
ing of  the  gospel  was  a  part  of  it  is  clearly  implied  not  only  in  such  passages 
as  Gal.  ii«  I  Cor.  i^'  Rom.  i\  but  in  practically  all  his  references  to  his 
apostleship.     But  neither  of  apostleship  in  general  nor  of  his  own  apostle- 


380  GALATIANS 

ship  in  particular  would  this  have  been  an  adequate  definition.  Not  every 
preacher  of  the  gospel  was  an  apostle;  nor  was  it  given  to  Paul  by  virtue 
of  his  apostleship  to  preach  the  gospel  without  restriction.  Limiting  his 
own  efforts  to  Gentile  lands  (Gal.  i^*  2^'  »)  and  within  these  lands  to  fields 
not  already  occupied  by  others,  he  disclaimed  all  intention  of  reproselytis- 
ing  to  his  own  conception  of  Christianity  converts  already  made  by  others 
(2  Cor.  ID"  Rom.  15"),  and  equally  denied  the  right  of  others  to  attempt 
to  win  his  converts  to  their  views  (Gal.  i^-  '  512).  We  infer  that  according 
to  Paul's  conception  the  work  of  an  apostle  of  Christ  was  that  of  planting 
Christianity.  Endowed  by  the  vision  of  the  risen  Christ  with  ability  to 
testify  to  the  resurrection,  commissioned  by  God,  and  his  commission 
attested  by  the  signs  of  an  apostle,  viz.,  ability  to  work  miracles  and  suc- 
cess in  the  work  of  the  gospel  (i  Cor.  g'-  ^  2  Cor.  i2>'^),  possessed  of  a  message 
for  which  no  man  was  his  authority  (Gal.  ii-  "•  "),  it  belonged  to  the  apostle 
not  to  follow  in  the  footsteps  of  others,  nor  to  build  along  the  lines  deter- 
mined by  other  men's  foundations,  but  himself  to  announce  the  gospel 
message,  to  found  churches,  and  thus  to  fix  the  lines  of  the  development 
of  the  new  religion,  or  the  new  type  of  the  Jewish  religion.  Disclaiming, 
indeed,  lordship  over  the  faith  of  his  converts  as  against  the  working  of 
the  Spirit  in  their  own  hearts  (2  Cor.  i"),  yet  in  the  assured  conviction  of 
his  own  apostleship  and  his  own  possession  of  the  Spirit  (i  Cor.  chap.  2), 
Paul  did  not  hesitate  on  the  one  side  to  reprove,  exhort,  and  even  to  com- 
mand the  churches  which  he  had  founded  (i  Thes.  4^!;  cf.  2  Thes.  3<-  « 
2  Cor.  iT,^'  10  etfreq.),  and,  on  the  other,  utterly  to  deny  the  right  of  others, 
whether  true  or  false  apostles,  to  assume  such  authority  over  these  churches. 
To  be  an  apostle  of  Christ  was  in  Paul's  thought  to  be  divinely  commis- 
sioned to  found  churches  of  Christ  and,  by  virtue  of  such  commission,  to 
be  independent  of  human  authority.*  It  was  such  a  commission  and  the 
right  and  duty  to  exercise  it  among  the  Gentiles,  thus  practically  deter- 
mining the  character  of  Gentile  Christianity  as  far  as  his  work  and  influ- 
ence extended,  that  Paul  steadfastly  claimed  for  himself. 

Lacking  any  correspondingly  definite  expression  of  the  conception  of 
apostleship  held  by  the  other  apostles,  we  can  not  say  to  what  extent  they 
would  have  agreed  with  Paul's  definition  of  the  function  of  an  apostle.  It 
is  evident,  however,  that  Paul's  conception  is  closely  akin  to  that  which 

*  The  work  of  the  apostles  as  a  whole  might  be  defined  (cf.  Haupt,  Zum  Verstdndnis  des 
Apostolats  im  N.  T.,  p.  135)  as  the  founding  of  the  church.  But  since  this  is  the  work  of 
no  single  man,  one  could  not  from  Paul's  point  of  view  give  this  as  the  definition  of  the  func- 
tion of  the  apostle  (sing.)  without  the  addition  of  a  limiting  phrase  defining  the  scope  and 
territory  within  which  the  individual  apostle  was  divinely  commissioned  to  act.  Yet  neither, 
from  Paul's  point  of  view,  was  the  founding  of  the  church  committed  to  any  body  of  men 
to  be  achieved  by  them  as  a  body.  Whether  it  be  due  to  the  difference  of  judgment  between 
himself  and  others  whose  apostleship  he  was  nevertheless  unwilling  to  deny,  or  to  inherent 
individualism,  the  apostle  held  at  any  rate  that  to  him  was  given  his  task  and  to  the  others 
theirs,  which  each  was  to  accomplish,  with  recognition  of  the  other's  rights  and  duties,  but 
not  co-operatively  as  a  duty  laid  on  them  all  jointly. 


'AnosTOAOs  3S1 

underlies  Acts  i^'-^s,  but  that  his  is  more  sharply  defined  in  respect  to  the 
independence  of  the  apostle.  It  is  evident,  also,  that  precisely  by  reason 
of  this  peculiarity  of  Paul's  view,  it  was  well  adapted  to  give  rise  to  con- 
troversy. A  conception  of  a  college  of  apostles  would  have  called  for  cor- 
porate action  in  the  achievement  of  a  common  task.  But  Paul's  individ- 
ualism, his  view  that  each  apostle — he  at  least — had  his  own  commission 
from  God,  and  was  responsible,  therefore,  to  God  and  not  to  his  fellow- 
apostles,  could  scarcely  fail  to  bring  him  into  conflict  with  those  who  held 
the  other  conception.  Paul's  solution  of  the  problem  of  conflicting  claims 
that  in  fact  arose  was,  as  Gal.  2^"^°  clearly  shows,  neither  to  deny  the  apos- 
tleship  of  the  others  and  maintain  his  own  only,  nor  to  consent  to  submit 
mooted  questions  to  a  majority  vote  of  a  college  of  apostles,  but  to  affirm 
the  undiminished  authority  of  each  in  his  own  field.  The  pillar  apostles, 
on  the  other  hand,  without  apparently  denying  his  apostleship,  did  not  at 
first  recognise  that  it  required  them  not  to  interfere  with  his  work.  Later, 
they  conceded  this  in  theory,  but  did  not  steadfastly  conform  to  it  in  prac- 
tice; while  the  more  extreme  members  of  the  Jewish  Christian  party  denied 
Paul's  apostleship  altogether. 

Itinerancy  was  evidently  an  incidental  rather  than  a  cardinal  feature  of 
the  apostle's  work.  The  Twelve,  according  to  Mk.  3",  were  to  go  out 
from  time  to  time.  But  Acts  i"-  "  makes  no  mention  of  itinerancy.  The 
use  of  the  phrase  yuval/.a  xsptaystv  in  i  Cor.  g^  suggests  that  the  apostles 
generally  and  the  brethren  of  the  Lord  were  more  or  less  itinerant,  yet 
rather  in  the  sense  that  they  had  frequent  occasion  to  change  their  home 
than  to  be  away  from  home.  Paul,  we  know,  was  in  "journeyings  oft." 
Having  no  family  he  may  perhaps  be  said  to  have  had  no  home.  Mani- 
festly, also,  the  witness  to  the  resurrection  must  go  where  they  are  to  whom 
the  testimony  is  to  be  borne,  and  the  founder  of  churches  can  not  remain 
seated  in  one  place.  Yet  prolonged  residence  in  a  given  place  might  be 
necessary  to  the  accomplishment  of  a  given  apostle's  task,  and  no  definite 
limit  could  be  set  to  the  period  of  such  residence.  Like  the  modern  mis- 
sionary bishop,  the  apostle  must  be  where  his  work  called  him,  yet  not  nec- 
essarily always  journeying.  James  the  brother  of  our  Lord  was  never,  so 
far  as  our  evidence  shows,  an  itinerant  preacher,  nor  does  it  seem  probable 
that  any  one  who,  in  the  discharge  of  his  function  as  a  founder  of  Chris- 
tianity, should  find  it  expedient  to  take  up  permanent  residence  in  a  cer- 
tain place,  would  on  that  account  have  been  denied  the  title  of  apostle. 
Still  less  does  the  evidence  of  the  N.  T.  permit  us  to  suppose  that  itinerancy 
would  of  itself  have  entitled  a  preacher  of  the  gospel  to  be  called  an  apostle. 
Nor  was  the  expression  equivalent  to  "evangelist,"  or  to  the  modern  term, 
"missionary." 


382  GALATIANS 


IV.     CHRISTIAN  USAGE  IN  THE  SECOND  CENTURY. 

To  the  interpretation  of  the  development  of  the  apostolate  and  the  usage 
of  the  word  "apostle"  hereinbefore  set  forth,  the  use  of  the  word  in  the  well- 
known  passage  in  the  AtSax^  twv  owSc/.a  'AtcoctoXwv,  chap.  11,  seems 
at  first  sight  to  interpose  an  objection: 

But  concerning  the  prophets  and  apostles,  so  do  ye  according  to  the  ordinance  of  the 
gospel.  Let  every  apostle,  when  he  comes  to  you,  be  received  as  the  Lord;  but  he  shall  not 
abide  more  than  a  single  day,  or  if  there  be  need,  the  second;  and  if  he  abide  three  days  he 
is  a  false  prophet.  And  when  he  departs  let  the  apostle  receive  nothing  save  bread,  until 
he  find  shelter.     But  if  he  ask  for  money  he  is  a  false  prophet. 

The  first  injunction  manifestly  has  reference  to  Mt.  lo^":  "He  that  receiveth 
you  receiveth  me,  and  he  that  receiveth  me  receiveth  him  that  sent  me." 
And  this  reference  in  turn  associates  the  apostle  here  spoken  of  with  the 
Twelve.  Yet,  on  the  other  hand  it  is  quite  impossible  to  suppose  that  the 
following  injunctions  were  intended  to  apply  to  the  Twelve  or  arose  in  a 
time  when  they  could  have  been  so  understood.  For  surely  the  Twelve 
never  sank  to  so  low  a  level  in  the  esteem  of  the  church  that  it  was  deemed 
necessary  to  prohibit  their  remaining  more  than  two  days  at  utmost  in  any 
one  church,  or  receiving  anything  more  than  the  food  necessary  to  sustain 
them  to  their  next  stopping  place.  Apparently,  therefore,  the  passage 
comes  from  a  time  when  the  apostles  as  a  class  were  still  so  connected  in 
thought  with  the  Twelve  that  the  sentence  which  the  gospel  applies  to  them 
could  be  applied  to  the  then  existing  class  of  apostles,  but  when  the  still 
living  members  of  the  class  had  so  far  degenerated  as  to  be  regarded  with 
suspicion  and  treated  with  extreme  caution.  Those  to  whom  the  term  is 
here  applied  are  itinerant  prophets,  living  off  the  churches,  but  prohibited 
from  receiving  any  money  or  subsisting  upon  any  church  for  more  than 
two  days  at  a  time.  Violation  of  these  rules  proves  them  false  prophets, 
but  apparently  does  not  deprive  them  of  the  title  "apostles." 

It  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  this  is  the  only  extant  passage  in  early 
Christian  literature  in  which  any  such  use  of  the  term  occurs.  The  term 
is  found  six  times  in  Clem.  Rom.,  once  in  so-called  2  Clement,  16  times  in 
Ignatius,  five  times  in  the  Epistle  to  Diognetus,  five  times  in  Hermas,  and 
once  in  Barnabas  (see  Goodspeed,  Index  Patristicus).  All  of  these  instances 
are  in  line  with  the  usage  which  from  Acts  we  should  infer  prevailed  in  the 
latter  portion  of  the  apostolic  age,  most  of  them  very  clearly  so.  Clement 
of  Rome,  Barnabas,  and  Ignatius  know  of  no  apostles  save  the  Twelve  and 
Paul.  In  Clem.  Rom.  47^  Apollos  is  expressly  distinguished  from  the 
apostles:  "For  ye  were  partisans  of  apostles  and  of  a  man  approved  in  their 
sight."  Equally  clear  is  the  usage  of  2  Clem,  and  Mart.  Pol.  The  usage 
of  Hermas  is  less  clear  and  may  perhaps  be  more  nearly  akin  to  that  of  the 
middle  period  of  the  apostolic  age.  He  speaks  once  of  forty  apostles  and 
teachers  (Sim.  9.  15^  and  twice  of  apostles  and  teachers,  without  mention- 


*An02T0A02  383 

ing  their  number  (Sim.  9.  165;  25^).  These  preached  the  gospel  to  the  whole 
world  and  having  fallen  asleep  preached  also  to  those  that  had  fallen  asleep 
before  them.  The  apostles  preached  to  the  twelve  tribes  (Sim,  9,  171),  in 
which  phrase  there  is,  perhaps,  a  reminiscence  of  the  twelve  apostles.  Of 
apostles  still  living  Hermas  makes  no  mention.  From  Ep.  ad  Diogn.  ii*: 
"Having  become  a  disciple  of  apostles  I  came  forward  as  a  teacher  of  the 
gentiles,"  and  the  probability  that  this  writing  was  produced  not  earlier 
than  the  third  quarter  of  the  second  century,  it  might  be  inferred  that  the 
word  is  used  of  men  of  the  second  century.  But  the  fact  that,  in  the  other 
instances  in  which  it  occurs  in  this  fragment  (ii'>  «;  la'-  '),  the  word  clearly 
has  its  usual  reference  to  the  great  leaders  of  the  church  in  the  first  century, 
makes  it  more  likely  that  it  has  the  same  meaning  here  and  that  the  writer 
intended  to  say  that  he  accepted  the  teachings  of  the  apostles,  not  that  he 
knew  them  personally. 

The  usage  of  the  AtSaxT)  remains  therefore  without  parallel  in  the  lit- 
erature either  of  the  first  or  of  the  second  century.  It  is  not,  indeed,  impos- 
sible that  the  persons  here  referred  to  were  survivors  of  the  company  of 
five  hundred  witnesses  of  the  resurrection  whom  Paul  mentions  in  i  Cor.  15', 
but  they  had  certainly  ceased  to  exercise  the  functions  which  in  an  earlier 
period  were  the  characteristic  marks  of  an  apostle,  and  which  afterwards 
were  regarded  retrospectively  as  the  signs  of  an  apostle.  In  no  strict  sense 
can  the  use  of  the  word  in  the  AtBaxifj  be  regarded  as  the  survival  of  a 
primitive  usage.  Of  the  three  ideas,  preaching  the  gospel,  founding  the 
church,  itinerancy,  it  was  the  first  and  second,  not  the  first  and  third,  which 
entered  into  the  earliest  use  of  the  term  as  a  designation  of  a  class  in  the 
Christian  community;  and  of  these  the  second  was  what  constituted  the 
distinctive  mark  of  an  apostle;  itinerancy  was  apparently  neither  a  constant 
nor  a  necessary  feature  of  apostleship. 

A  more  probable  explanation  of  the  usage  found  in  the  AtBaxt)  is  that 
it  is  an  offshoot,  probably  local  and  rather  temporary,  from  the  general 
stream  of  usage  in  both  first  and  second  centuries  arising  out  of  the  con- 
ditions of  which  we  catch  a  glimpse  in  2  Cor.,  a  degenerate  use  of  the  term 
arising  from  the  degeneracy  of  the  class  to  whom  it  was  applied.  The  con- 
flict over  the  apostleship,  reflected  in  the  Galatian  and  Corinthian  letters, 
led  on  the  Jewish-Christian  side,  possibly  on  the  Gentile-Christian  also, 
to  the  designation  and  sending  out  of  men  as  apostles,  first,  probably,  of 
those  only  who  had  known  Jesus  in  the  flesh,  but  afterwards,  perhaps,  when 
no  more  such  remained,  of  others.  The  name  apostle  thus  became  the 
designation  of  a  class  of  itinerant  Christian  prophets  which,  for  reasons  no 
longer  known,  in  time  so  degenerated  that  strenuous  rules  were  laid  down 
to  prevent  their  unduly  annoying  the  churches.  But  this  was,  after  all, 
a  relatively  sporadic  use  of  the  term.*  The  main  stream  of  usage  in  Chris- 
tian circles  remained  the  same.    It  was  still  commonly  used  of  the  founders 

*  C/.  the  usage  prevailing  at  about  the  same  time  in  Jewish  circles,  mentioned  under  I  above. 


384  GALATIANS 

of  the  church,  those  men  of  the  first  generation,  contemporaries  of  Jesus 
who  put  their  stamp  upon  the  new  religious  movement  and  had  no  suc- 
cessors. 

II.     HATHP  AS   APPLIED    TO   GOD. 
The  antecedents  of  the  N.  T.  designation  of  God  as  Father  are  found, 
on  the  one  side,  in  an  ancient  usage  of  the  Greek  world,  and  on  the  other 
in  the  religious  thinking  of  the  Hebrews. 

I.    CLASSICAL  USAGE. 

As  early  as  Homer  Zeus  is  designated  as  TcaT'Jjp  dtvSpwv  ts  9euv,  and  in 
later  classical  writers  as  xaTTjp:  iEsch.  Theh.  512;  Aristoph.  Achar.  225; 
Find.  Pyth.  4";  Soph.  Track.  275:  6  tcov  dxavTwv  Zeut;  xkttjp  'OXutxiutoq. 
On  the  question  whether  this  title  marked  him  as  the  progenitor  of  the  race 
of  gods  and  men,  or  emphasised  his  authority  and  watch-care  over  them, 
see  Zinzow,  "ZeCk;  xaTYjp  und  6c6q,"  in  ZkWkL.,  1882,  pp.  189/.  Diod. 
Sic.  5. 72^  says  of  him,  icaTlpa  Stcc  t^jv  ^povTc'Sa  xal  T"f)v  eCvotav  t?)v  zlq 
axavxat;,  Iti  Ss  xal  xb  Boxelv  wcxep  apxTQybv  elvat  xou  yevouq  xwv 
dvBpwxwv.  Cf.  also  Plut.  Apoph.  reg.  15.  Jos.  Ant.  4.  262  (8")  speaks  rather 
under  the  influence  of  his  contact  with  the  Greek  world  than  of  his  Hebrew 
training  when  he  calls  God  xax'Jjp  xou  xavxoq. 

II.  OLD  TESTAMENT  USAGE. 
The  O.  T.  writers  speak  of  God  as  Father  of  men  rather  rarely,  yet 
often  enough  to  make  it  clear  that  they  employed  the  term  not  in  any 
literal  or  physical  sense,  or  to  designate  a  relation  of  God  to  all  men,  but 
to  ascribe  to  him  ethical  relations  to  certain  men  or  to  a  certain  people 
analogous  to  those  which  a  human  father  sustains  to  his  sons.  The  rela- 
tion which  is  in  mind  is  sometimes  authority,  but  especially  love  and  watch- 
care.  See  Deut.  32^  Isa.  6316  Jer.  $*>  "  31^  Mai.  i«  2  Sam.  7'*  i  Chr.  17"; 
cf.  Deut.  i4»  Hos.  iii  Ps.  2^  The  reference  to  creation  in  Mai.  2^'>  is  quite 
exceptional,  but  even  here  it  is  to  be  noticed  that  it  is  creation,  not  beget- 
ting or  descent — hence,  not  fatherhood  in  a  physical  sense.  In  Ps.  2^  the 
term  "beget"  is  used,  but  it  is  evidently  like  the  word  "son"  itself,  em- 
ployed in  a  purely  figurative  sense  denoting  an  ethical  or  representative 
relationship.  When  God  is  said  to  be  the  Father  of  Israel,  this  affirmation 
is  wholly  religious,  designating  God's  choice  of  the  nation,  and  his  love  for 
it,  and  watch-care  over  it  (Deut.  326-14)^  and  the  designation  of  him  as  Father 
of  the  King  of  Israel  or  of  the  coming  Messiah  has  the  same  significance. 
In  the  few  instances  in  which  it  is  used  of  individuals,  Ps.  68^  103",  it  clearly 
refers  to  his  compassionate  love  and  care. 

III.    THE  USAGE  OF  LATER  JEWISH  WRITERS. 
In  the  later  Jewish  writers  the  term  retains  the  same  general  significance 
in  reference  to  the  nation,  present  or  future  (Tob.  13*  Wisd.  iii"  Jub.  i". 


nATHP   AS   APPLIED   TO   GOD  385 

*6;  c^.  2"").  Clear  instances  of  the  designation  of  God  as  Father  of  the 
Messiah  do  not  seem  to  occur;  for  Test.  XII  Patr.  Jud.  242  speaks  of  God 
not  as  Father  of  the  Messiah,  but  as  the  Holy  Father  (see  also  Levi  i8«), 
and  Levi  17"  employs  the  term  only  by  way  of  comparison;  the  Ps.  Sol, 
(1738)  designate  the  Lord  as  the  King,  not  the  Father  of  the  Messiah.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  designation  of  God  as  the  Father  of  the  pious  individual 
or  individuals  appears  more  frequently  than  in  the  canonical  writings.  Cj. 
esp,  Wisd.  2i6-i»:  "He  (the  righteous)  vaunteth  that  God  is  his  father.  Let 
us  see  if  his  word  be  true  and  let  us  try  what  shall  befall  him  in  the  end  of 
his  hfe.  For  if  the  righteous  man  is  God's  son,  he  will  uphold  him,  and 
he  will  deliver  him  out  of  the  hands  of  his  adversaries."  See  also  Sir.  23!'  < 
Ps.  Sol.  17",  and  Bous.  Rel.  d.  Jud.-,  pp.  432/. 

IV.    NEW  TESTAMENT  USAGE. 

These  facts  make  it  evident  that  the  N.  T.  teachers  and  writers  found 
the  term  ready  to  their  hands  both  in  the  thought  and  vocabulary  of  the 
Greek  world  and  especially  in  their  inheritance  from  their  Hebrew  ances- 
try; in  the  former  as  a  designation  of  God's  relationship  to  men  in  general 
and,  in  the  latter,  of  his  attitude  towards  those  who  were  the  especial  objects 
of  his  love  and  approval.  Its  range  of  uses  and  the  variety  of  the  forms 
which  the  expression  takes  in  N.  T.  is  such  as  to  make  it  necessary  to  give 
attention  to  these  before  considering  the  precise  content  of  the  term  in  the 
N.  T.  books. 

A.      THE   FORMS   OF   EXPRESSION   AND   CONSTRUCTIONS    OCCURRING   IN   N.    T. 

The  term  xat-rip  is  used  in  N.  T.  with  reference  to  God: 

1.  Without  the  article  and  without  other  appellative  so  joined  with  it 
as  to  constitute  with  it  a  compound  appellative. 

(a)  In  the  vocative  (or  nominative  used  as  a  vocative),  alone:  Lk.  ii' 
22«  23^«  Jn.  II"  12"-  28  171.  6.  11.  21.  24,  25.  with  other  appellatives  in  appo- 
sition with  it:  Mt.  ii^^  Lk.  lo-i'^;  with  adjective  or  possessive  limitations: 
Mt.  26".  "2. 

(b)  In  the  predicate  or  in  dependent  construction  with  qualitative  force: 
Jn.  I"  5>8  8"  (with  xbv  Gsov  in  apposition),  *-  2  Cor.  6^^. 

2.  With  the  article,  but  without  other  appellative  so  joined  with  it  as 
to  constitute  with  it  a  compound  appellative. 

(a)  Absolutely  and  without  appositive:  Mt.  ii26.  27  2436  281'  Mk.  13" 
i4'«  Lk.  io2ib.  22b,  c  Jn.  lis  33s  421, 23^  and  freq.  in  Jn.  Acts  i^-  ">  2«  Rom.  6*  815. 

(b)  Limited  by  a  genitive  referring  to  Jesus,  as  in  the  phrases,  "my 
father,"  "his  father,"  "thy  father":  Mt.  721  10^2,  33  1127  ^2^0  2023  253^  2623.  " 
Mk.  8'8  Lk.  2^'  io22«  Jn.  5"  S^'  1025.  29,  and  freq.  in  Mt.  and  Jn. 

(c)  Limited  by  a  genitive  referring  to  men:  Mt.  68.  is  1020  29  1343  y^k.  6" 
J250.  32;  no  exx.  in  Jn. 

25 


386  GALATIANS 

(d)  Limited  by  a  participle  or  prepositional  phrase:  Lk.   ii"  Jn.  5" 

544,  57  gie.  18  i2*\ 

(e)  Limited  by  a  genitive  referring  to  Jesus,  and  an  adjective,  participle, 
or  prepositional  phrase:  Mt.  7"  lo"-  "  is^"  15"  i6>^  iS*"-  "•  i'-  »». 

(f)  Limited  by  a  genitive  referring  to  men,  and  an  adjective,  participle, 
or  prepositional  phrase:  Mt.  s^^'  «•  ■"  6^'  *•  «•  «•  ^*-  i*-  =«•  «  711  Mk.  ii«. 

3.  Joined  with  0s6<;  to  form  a  compound  appellative. 

(a)  The  two  words  standing  without  connective  and  neither  word  hav- 
ing the  article:  not  found  in  the  gospels  or  Acts;  frequent  in  the  Pauline 
epistles,  and  occasional  in  the  general  epistles:  Rom.  i^  aizh  esou  xaxpbc; 
■fj^xoiv  xal  xupt'ou  'Itjjou  XptaTou.  i  Cor.  i'  2  Cor.  i*  Gal.  i'-  *  Eph.  i'  6" 
Phil.  i2  2"  Col.  i2  I  Thes.  i>  2  Thes.  i^  »  i  Tim.  i*  2  Tim.  i^  Tit.  i^  Phm. » 
I  Pet.  I*  2  Pet.  1 17  2  Jn.  ^  Jude  K 

(b)  The  two  words  being  joined  by  xat  and  the  phrase  preceded  by  the 
article,  giving  the  expression  6  02cq  xal  Tzax-qp;  not  found  in  the  gospels 
or  Acts;  not  infrequent  in  Paul:  Rom.  15",  Tva  .  .  .  So^dt^TjTe  tov  6e6v 
xxl  Tiaczipa  xou  xupfou  t);j.(I)v  'lYjaoiJ  XpicTOu.  i  Cor.  15^4  2  Cor.  i'  11" 
Gal.  I*  Eph.  i3  520  Phil.  420  i  Thes.  i^  3".  "  Jas.  i"  i  Pet.  i'  Rev.  i«. 

4.  In  some  eight  or  ten  passages  the  words  xaT-^p  and  636;;  are  associated 
in  other  ways  which  are  slight  modifications  of  those  already  named.  In 
five  of  them  some  uncertainty  of  text  aflfects  the  question  what  form  the 
original  text  contains.  In  Col.  i'  3l^  there  occurs  the  phrase  zi^  6s(I)  xaxpf. 
In  Col.  1 12,  ^T^i  read  tw  Osoj  xa-rp;',  FG  Gey  tw  xaxpt,  but  the  evidence  is 
on  the  whole  against  the  insertion  of  QzC).  In  Jn.  6"  and  Eph.  i'^  b  6s6q 
and  6  xaxfjp  do  not  constitute  a  compound  appellative,  but  stand  in  appo- 
sition,  the  relation  being  such  as  we  commonly  express  in  English  by  the 
word  "namely."  In  Jn.  8"  6  Qz6q  stands  in  similar  relation  with  dq  xaxTjp, 
and  in  i  Cor.  S^  h  xax-^p  is  in  apposition  with  slq  Qzoq.  In  Eph.  4*  we 
have  elq  Qzhq  xal  xax-?]?  xtivxwv,  which  is  simply  the  common  form  3  b,  with 
the  numeral  slq  replacing  the  definite  article.  In  Mt.  6«  6  Qehq  h  xaxTjp  is 
found  in  ^5*B  Sah.,  but  most  authorities  omit  b  Qeoq.  It  is  bracketed  by 
WPI.  Other  editors  do  not  admit  it  even  to  the  margin.  In  2  Thes.  2>«  6 
Qihq  b  xaxT)p  is  read  by  most  authorities.  The  6  before  Qeoq  is  omitted  by 
BD*K  33  and  bracketed  by  WH.  Before  xaxrip  it  is  doubtless  genuine, 
though  generally  omitted  by  the  Syrian  authorities.  Apparently  we  have 
here  an  expression  unique  in  N.  T. 

Aside,  therefore,  from  the  four  cases  of  distinctly  detached  apposition, 
the  two  cases  of  xo)  Sso)  xaxp{  (Col.  i»  31^),  the  one  case  of  [6]  Qzhq  b  xaxiQp 
(2  Thes.  2>«),  the  one  instance  of  elq  Qshq  xal  xaxTjp  (Eph.  4«),  all  the  in- 
stances of  Qt6q  and  xaxTjp  used  together  for  which  there  is  good  textual 
evidence,  have  either  the  form  Qehq  xaxrjp  (without  article  or  connective) 
or  6  Qzhq  xczl  xaxTQp  (with  both  article  and  connective). 

The  first  of  these  forms  (see  3  a  above)  occurs  in  the  genitive  or  dative 
only;  in  nineteen  out  of  the  twenty-one  instances  after  a  preposition,  and 


nATHP  AS  APPLIED  TO   GOD  387 

in  the  two  remaining  cases  (Phil.  2"  and  i  Pet.  i')  after  a  prepositional 
phrase.  In  nine  ot  the  twenty-one  instances  it  is  limited  by  •f};jLa)v,  the  list 
of  nine  being  almost  identical  with  those  which  belong  to  the  certainly 
genuine  Pauline  letters  (i  Cor.  i»  2  Cor.  i^  Gal.  i^  Eph.  i^  Phil,  i*  Col.  i' 
Phm.  »  2  Thes.  i\  but  cf.  contra  Gal.  i^  i  Thes.  i^.  In  no  instance  in  this 
group  is  the  compound  appellative  followed  by  a  genitive  referring  to  Christ. 

The  second  form  (3  b  above)  is  found  in  all  cases  except  the  vocative. 
In  five  of  the  fourteen  it  is  followed  by  tjejlwv;  in  six  by  a  genitive  referring 
to  Jesus,  in  three  there  is  no  genitive  limitation.  In  three  instances  it 
occurs  after  a  preposition  or  prepositional  adverb. 

It  thus  appears  that  either  form  may  be  used  in  prepositional  construc- 
tions, but  that  there  is  a  decided  preference  for  the  shorter  form  after 
prepositions.  Either  form  may  be  used  in  the  genitive  or  dative,  but  only 
the  longer  form  occurs  in  the  nominative  or  accusative.  Either  form  may 
be  limited  by  ii'^ioy  or  be  used  without  limitation,  but  only  the  longer  form 
is  limited  by  a  genitive  referring  to  Christ. 

These  facts  show  that  the  difference  between  the  two  expressions  is  one 
neither  of  meaning  nor  of  definiteness,  but  only  of  the  situations  in  which 
each  is  preferably  used.  In  accounting  for  the  omission  of  the  article 
before  Osou  %aip6q  it  is  to  be  borne  in  mind  (i)  that  neither  Qeoq  nor  xaxifip 
exhibit  any  special  use  of  the  article,  the  assertions  commonly  made  to  the 
contrary  being  without  good  basis,  as  is  also  the  implication  of  Rob.  p.  795, 
that  Qzoq  and  b  Qeoq  are  used  without  distinction;  the  regular  designation 
of  God  is  b  Qeoq*  and  the  omission  of  the  article  indicates  that  the  term 
is  qualitative,  or  much  more  rarely  indefinite,  or  comes  under  some  other 
general  rule  for  the  use  of  nouns  without  the  article;  (2)  that  it  is  not  due 
to  the  presence  or  absence  of  a  limiting  genitive;  (3)  that  some  compound 
names  show  a  tendency  to  omit  the  article  more  freely  than  the  single 
terms  which  compose  the  compound;  this  is  true  both  of  such  names  as 
St'txwv  Iliipoq,  composed  of  two  proper  names  and  of  those  like  'lYjaouq 
XptcToq,  which  are  in  part  appellative;  it  is  apparently  true  of  Oebq 
•jcaTTjp,  since  this  expression  is  almost  invariably  anarthrous;  (4)  that  prep- 
ositional phrases  of  a  formulary  or  qualitative  character  tend  to  omit 
the  article  before  the  noun.  This  tendency  is  illustrated  by  sv  xup((p  and 
ev  XptffT^.  It  is  apparently  the  combined  influence  of  these  two  latter 
tendencies  that  gives  rise  to  the  expression  dexb  6soij  xaTpoi;.  The  ten- 
dency to  omit  the  article  with  compound  names  (in  this  case  amounting  to 
an  almost  invariable  rule)  excludes  tou  6eou  Tza-zpoq;  the  preference  for  the 
non-articular  form  in  prepositional  phrases  leads  to  the  use  of  diub  GeoO 
-Kcxxpbq  rather  than  (x%h  tou  0coG  xal  nzaxpoq.     Cf.  1  Thes.  i'  3"  Jas.  i". 

The  fact  of  most  importance  for  the  interpreter  is  that  the  omission  of 

*The  English  use  of  "Lord"  and  "God"-  interestingly  reverses  the  Greek  use  of  /cvpios 
and  6e6<;  in  N.  T.  The  Greek  regularly  says  6  5e6s,  but  in  using  Kvpiog  of  God  usually 
employs  it  without  the  article.  In  English,  on  the  other  hand,  we  say  "  the  Lord,"  but  "  God  " 
(without  the  article).    The  usual  Greek  for  "the  Lord  God"  is  Kv'ptos  6  Oeds.     Cf.  Sl.Qn. 


388  GALATIANS 

the  article  with  the  compound  appellative  does  not  affect  the  meaning  of 
the  expression. 

In  reference  to  the  question  whether  xaTp6'^  in  Gal.  i^  and  other  passages 
in  which  no  genitive  is  added  designates  God  as  Father  of  men  or  of  Christ, 
it  should  be  noticed :  (i)  The  latter  conception  is  several  times  unequivocally 
expressed  in  Paul  (Rom.  is«  2  Cor.  i'  11"  Eph.  i')  and  is,  therefore,  not 
intrinsically  improbable  here,  (ii)  Yet  in  the  Pauline  epistles,  when  xax-^p, 
referring  to  God  is  joined  by  v.xi  to  a  name  of  Christ,  TzaTqg  prevailingly 
if  not  invariably  designates  God  as  Father  of  men.  In  nine  instances  out 
of  sixteen,  viz.,  in  Rom.  i'  i  Cor.  i»  2  Cor.  i"  Gal.  i'  Eph.  i*  Phil,  i*  Phm.  » 
2  Thes.  1*3"  -fjawv  is  expressed;  in  three  cases — i  Tim.  i*  2  Tim.  i''  Tit.  i* — 
it  is  probably  to  be  supplied  in  thought  from  the  context;  the  probability  is 
strong  that  in  the  remaining  four  cases — Gal.  i^  Eph.  6"  i  Thes.  i^  2  Thes.  i», 
in  which  no  genitive  is  expressed,  that  which  is  to  be  supplied  in  thought 
is  T^;i.a)v.  (iii)  In  the  eight  instances  in  the  Pauline  epistles  in  which  xa-rr)? 
is  used  of  God  without  genitive  limitation  and  is  not  joined  by  xa(  to  the 
name  of  Jesus  (Rom.  8"  i  Cor.  8»  15"  2  Cor.  6'^  Gal.  4«  Eph.  i^^  Phil.  2" 
Col.  3"),  there  are  several  in  which  xaxiip  unequivocally  designates  the 
relation  of  God  to  men;  none  in  which  it  certainly  designates  God  as  Father 
of  Christ,  though  several  of  them  are  usually  so  interpreted  (esp.  i  Cor.  15" 
Phil.  2"  Col.  3")-  These  facts  make  it  clear  that  xaTTjp  as  a  title  of  God  is 
prevailingly  used  by  Paul  (it  is  otherwise  in  John)  to  designate  the  relation 
of  God  to  men;  and  especially  that  when  0;bq  xaTTjp  and  xupioq  'iTjaou? 
XptaT6<;  are  joined,  the  antithesis  in  thought  is  not  that  of  the  relation  of 
Father  and  Son  to  one  another,  but  of  their  respective  relations  to  men. 
See  Rom.  i^  i  Cor.  i«  2  Cor.  i',  etc.,  esp.  i  Cor.  8«.  (iv)  At  the  same 
time  it  must  be  remembered  that  in  the  two  passages  in  which  Paul  spe- 
cially discusses  the  relation  of  believers  to  God  as  sons  of  the  Father  he 
implies  a  causal  relation  between  such  sonship  and  the  possession  of  the 
spirit  of  God's  Son,  Jesus  Christ  (Gal.  4^-'  Rom.  8'5-").  It  is  therefore 
contrary  to  the  apostle's  thought  to  draw  a  line  of  sharp  distinction  between 
the  fatherhood  of  God  to  Christ  and  his  fatherhood  to  men,  and  it  may 
be  that  when  xarrjp  is  used  without  genitive  limitation,  the  emphasis  is 
on  God's  fatherly  attitude  without  specific  reference  to  the  persons  to 
whom  it  is  manifested. 

When  ■^■xdv,  limiting  xaxpdi;  after  a  preposition,  is  followed  by  x,al  xupfcu 
'Irjaou  XptaTou,  as  in  Gal.  i',  it  is  grammatically  possible  that  xu?{ou 
'Itqjou  XptJToG  should  be  joined  by  xa{  to  ■Jj'^div  and  along  with  it  limit 
xaTp6<;,  rather  than,  like  xaTp6<;,  be  governed  by  the  preposition.  That 
this  is  not  in  fact  the  case,  but  that  xa(  joins  xupfou  to  OsoG  xaxpdq  and 
is  with  it  governed  by  d%6  is  made  clear  by  two  facts:  (i)  This  double  con- 
ception, God  as  Father  of  us  and  of  Jesus  Christ,  is  nowhere  unambiguously 
expressed  in  the  Pauline  letters;  the  second  genitive  xczl  xupfou  occurs  only 
when  0co.  xaxp.  is  itself  in  the  genitive,     (ii)  Though  there  is  in  the  un- 


nATHP  AS   APPLIED   TO   GOD  389 

doubtedly  genuine  letters  of  Paul  no  so  perfectly  clear  example  as  that  in 
2  Thes.  iS  ev  Geo)  xaxpl  -fj-^wv  xal  xupt'w  'lr,GoO  Xpiaxw,  where  •Jj-o.wv  lim- 
iting Tcaxpt  is  followed  not  by  y.up.  'Ir^a.  Xp.  in  the  genitive  but  by  a  dative, 
yet  such  other  examples  as  Gal.  i^  i  Thes.  i^  s^\  where  the  structure  of  the 
sentence  removes  all  syntactical  ambiguity,  show  that  it  was  the  apostle's 
usual  habit  to  associate  the  titles  designating  God  and  Christ  together 
after  a  preposition,  not  to  join  the  latter  with  rjixcov,  referring  to  men. 
On  the  question  whether  when  the  form  b  Qehq  xal  xaTTjp  is  followed 
by  T)[xa)v  (Gal.  i*  Phil.  4^°  i  Thes.  i»  3"-  ")  the  genitive  limits  both  606? 
and  xarrjo  or  xaxTjp  only,  translators  and  interpreters  are  divided.  Vulg. 
renders  it  uniformly  by  the  ambiguous  phrase  "deus  et  pater  noster." 
Weisz.  usually  reads,  "GoU  unser  Vater,"  entirely  ignoring  the  xai  (in 
I  Thes.  iS  "unser  GoU  tend  Vater").  Sief.  reads,  "GoU  der  auch  unser 
Vater  ist,"  expressly  rejecting  the  translation  "unser  GoU  und  Vater." 
Ell.,  followed  by  Alf.,  makes  r^ixd^  limit  iraTTQp  only,  translating,  "God  and 
our  Father."  Segond  reads,  "notre  Dieu  et  Pere";  RV.  "our  God  and 
Father."  The  last  is  undoubtedly  correct;  the  arguments  advanced  for 
restricting  the  limitation  of  ■?)tJ.wv  to  xa-ajp  are  quite  inconclusive.  The 
statement  of  Alford  (citing  Ell.,  whom  he  misunderstands)  that  xaTTjp  is 
regularly  anarthrous  is  an  error;  xaTT)p,  whether  referring  to  man  or  to 
God,  shows  the  regular  use  of  the  article;  and  the  argument  that  6  6s 6? 
is  naturally  used  absolutely  is  of  little  weight  in  view  of  Paul's  not  infre- 
quent use  of  6  Gobq  y][uby  (i  Cor.  6"  i  Thes.  2*  3'  2  Thes.  i".!^,  and  b  Osdq 
^ou  (Rom.  18  Phil,  i'  413).  Nor  is  the  appeal  made  by  Sief.  to  the  phrase 
03oO  xaxpbq  -fjixuv  (Rom.  i^  i  Cor.  i',  etc.)  of  any  weight,  first  because, 
the  phrase  being  different,  it  is  by  no  means  certain  that  the  relation  of 
•^[jLwv  is  the  same,  and,  second,  because  the  probability  is,  as  shown  above, 
that  Gsou  xaxpo;  is  itself  a  compound  name,  the  whole  of  which,  as  a  unity 
including  both  elements,  is  limited  in  thought  by  -fjii-wv.  Two  nouns  joined 
by  xai  and  having  the  article  before  the  first  only  are  always  closely  con- 
nected in  thought,  either  as  common  predicates  of  one  individual,  or  as 
individuals  constituting  in  some  sense  a  unity.  Even  in  the  latter  case, 
when  the  objects  are  distinct,  and  only  closely  joined  in  thought,  a  genitive, 
standing  after  either  or  before  them  both,  commonly  limits  both.  See 
Lk.  14"  Phil,  i^-  "  21'  Eph.  3^  i  Thes.  2"  3'  2  Pet.  i".  Much  more  prob- 
ably, therefore,  would  this  be  the  case  when  the  two  nouns  evidently  desig- 
nate the  same  person.  The  only  fact  that  could  suggest  a  restriction  of 
the  relation  of  a  genitive  after  two  such  nouns  to  the  second  would  be  its 
manifest  unsuitableness  to  limit  the  first. 

Somewhat  similar  reasoning  leads  us  to  the  conclusion  that  xoO  xupc'ou 
Y];jLcov  'I-rjaou  XptaxoG  when  standing  after  b  Oebq  xal  xarfjp  (Rom.  15' 
2  Cor.  i»  Eph.  1 2  I  Pet.  i';  cf.  2 -Cor.  ii^i)  is  to  be  understood  as  limiting 
both  nouns.  The  expression  "God  of  our  Lord  Jesus"  does  not,  indeed, 
occur  in  Paul  {cf.  Mk.  15'"  Mt.  27^«  Jn.  201^,  but  it  can  not  be  inferred  from 


390  GALATIANS 

this  fact  that  Paul  could  not  limit  the  compound  appellative  "  God  and 
Father  "  by  a  genitive  referring  to  Jesus  Christ,  for  neither  does  Paul  use  the 
phrase  "Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus." 


B.      THE   MEANING   OF   THE    TERM,    xairrjp,    AS   APPLIED   TO   GOD   IN   N.    T. 

1.  Jas.  1 17  stands  quite  alone  in  N.  T.  in  its  use  of  the  term  Father  to 
designate  God's  relation  to  the  heavenly  bodies. 

2.  The  conception  that  God  is  Father  of  all  men  is  rarely  expressed  by 
N.  T.  writers.  That  he  maintains  to  all  men,  and  even  to  the  lower  ani- 
mals, that  attitude  of  love  and  watch-care  which  the  term  father  expresses, 
is  indeed  explicitly  affirmed.  But  even  Mt.  5«  and  Lk.  6^^-  "  do  not  directly 
designate  God  as  Father  of  all,  but  only  of  those  who,  as  disciples  of  Jesus, 
are  evidently  looked  upon  as  objects  of  divine  approval.  Nor  is  God  called 
Father  of  all  in  Heb.  i2  7-»,  for  the  "we"  of  this  passage  apparently  includes 
only  Christians,  or  at  most  Jews  and  Christians.  Only  in  Eph.  4*,  with 
which  Eph.  3"  is  seemingly  in  agreement  in  thought,  does  God  seem  defi- 
nitely to  be  called  Father  of  all,  and  even  here  it  is  not  quite  certain  that 
"all"  includes  other  than  Christians.  While,  therefore,  it  may  be  properly 
said  that  the  N.  T.  writers  believe  in  the  universal  fatherliness  of  God, 
because  they  ascribe  to  him  a  relationship  to  all  men  which  may  naturally 
be  included  under  that  term,  yet  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  N.  T.  use  of 
words,  the  doctrine  that  God  is  the  Father  of  all  is  definitely  expressed,  if  at 
all,  only  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians.  Nor  is  this  fact  without  signifi- 
cance; for  it  shows  that  the  conception  of  God  as  Father  so  emphasised  the 
ethical  elements  of  fatherhood  and  in  particular  that  of  fellowship  grounded 
in  approval,  that  the  N.  T.  writers  were  indisposed  to  use  the  term  when 
the  element  of  approval  was  not  felt  to  be  present. 

3.  The  designation  of  God  as  Father  of  all  who  believe  in  Jesus  is  fre- 
quent in  all  parts  of  N.  T.  See  examples  under  A.  2  c,  f;  3  a,  b  above. 
While  emphasising,  especially  when  used  in  addressing  God,  the  conception 
of  his  love  and  watch  care  in  which  men  may  safely  trust,  yet  by  its  all 
but  universal  restriction  to  use  in  relation  to  believers,  and  by  the  clear 
limitation  of  the  correlative  term  "sons  of  God"  to  those  who  are  like  God 
(Mt.  5«)  or  who  are  led  by  his  Spirit  (Rom.  Si*-!"),  it  is  evident  that  the  term 
carries  with  it  the  idea  not  only  of  benevolent  love  such  as  God  has  for  the 
world  (Jn.  3»«)  and  as  men  are  bidden  to  have  for  their  enemies,  but  also 
such  friendship  and  fellowship  as  is  characteristic  of  the  normal  relation 
between  a  father  and  his  children. 

4.  The  designation  of  God  as  the  Father  of  Jesus  is,  except  in  the  fourth 
gospel,  much  less  frequent  in  N.  T.  than  the  characterisation  of  him  as 
Father  of  believers,  yet  it  is  found  often  enough  to  show  that  it  is  a  familiar 
thought  to  the  N.  T.  writers.  It  is  found  four  times  in  the  Pauline  epistles 
(Rom.  158  2  Cor.  i»  11"  Eph.  i'),  is  ascribed  by  the  synoptic  gospels  to 


nATHP   AS   APPLIED   TO    GOD  391 

Jesus  (see  A.  2  b  above),  occurs  very  frequently  in  Jn.,  once  in  Heb.  (iS 
where  it  is  expressly  based  upon  the  O.  T.  passage  concerning  the  Son  of 
David),  in  i  Pet.  2  Jn.  and  Rev.  In  i  Jn.,  as  in  the  Gospel  of  John,  6  T.aTqp 
absolute  frequently  occurs  in  antithesis  with  6  uloq,  suggesting  that  the  ref- 
erence is  to  God  as  Father  of  Christ. 

N.  T.  usage  in  general  evidently  has  a  twofold  basis,  on  the  one  side  in 
the  conviction  attested  by  the  synoptic  gospels  that  as  Jesus  could  speak 
to  other  men  of  God  as  "your  Father,"  so  he  could  also  think  and  speak 
of  him  as  "my  Father,"  and  on  the  other,  in  that  the  ascription  to  him  of 
messiahship  carried  with  it  the  designation  of  God  as  his  Father  in  the 
sense  in  which  God  was  the  Father  of  the  Messiah  (cf.  esp.  Heb.^  i^).  These 
two  conceptions  have,  indeed,  a  common  root  in  the  conception  of  God's 
love  and  watch-care  over  those  whom  he  approves,  but  the  differentiation 
of  the  two  ideas  would  probably  be  more  present  to  early  Christian  thought 
than  their  common  root.  A  comparison  of  the  several  books  of  N.  T., 
with  remembrance  of  the  order  of  their  development  and  of  that  of  their 
sources,  especially  of  the  synoptists  and  the  fourth  gospel,  indicates  that 
the  two  conceptions  developed  in  the  order  named,  the  conception  of  the 
fatherhood  of  God  as  pertaining  to  Jesus  in  a  unique  sense  or  degree  grad- 
ually gaining  ascendancy  over  the  earlier  idea  that  God  is  Father  of  all 
whom  he  approves,  but  even  in  its  latest  forms  never  wholly  losing  sight 
of  the  basal  idea  of  fatherhood  as  consisting  essentially  in  love.  That  "  the 
Father  loveth  the  Son  and  showeth  him  all  things  that  he  himself  doeth," 
is  still  in  the  fourth  gospel  the  fundamental  element  of  fatherhood. 

In  respect  to  the  thought  of  Paul  in  particular,  it  is  to  be  noted  (a)  that 
he  used  the  same  form  of  expression  in  reference  to  Jesus  as  in  respect  to 
Christians,  viz.,  "God  and  Father  of  us,"  "God  and  Father  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ";  (b)  that  he  expressly  associated  together  the  sonship  of  men 
by  virtue  of  which  they  call  God  their  Father  and  the  sonship  of  Jesus, 
making  the  possession  of  the  Spirit  of  the  Son  the  ground  or  the  conse- 
quence of  the  possession  of  the  spirit  of  sonship  (Rom.  8i*-i«  Gal.  4^-') ;  but 
(c)  that  he  did  not  apparently  join  the  two  together  in  the  expression,  "  the 
God  and  Father  of  us  and  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ " ;  (d)  that  though  employ- 
ing the  expression  "the  God  and  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,"  and 
once  (2  Cor.  11")  "the  God  and  Father  of  the  Lord  Jesus,"  he  never  used 
either  "God  of  our  Lord  Jesus,"  or  "Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus"  alone;  and 
(e)  that  he  never  enters  into  an  exposition  of  the  conception  of  the  father- 
hood of  God  in  relation  to  Christ,  and  in  particular  never  associates  it  with 
any  statement  respecting  the  origin  of  Jesus.  From  these  facts  it  seems 
necessary  to  infer  that,  in  common  with  the  Jewish  writers  of  the  late  pre- 
Christian  period  and  with  early  Christian  thought,  Paul  understood  the 
divine  fatherhood  in  a  purely  ethical  sense,  and  associated  it  closely  with 
the  conception  of  the  godhead  (Qsiozriq)  itself,  so  that  though  one  may 
say  "our  God,"  or  "the  Father,"  it  is  more  congenial  to  say  "our  God  and 


392  GALATIANS 

Father."  This  conception  of  fatherhood  holds  in  respect  to  God  as  the 
Father  of  Jesus  also,  and,  indeed,  especially  in  respect  to  him,  God  sustain- 
ing towards  him  in  a  pre-eminent  degree  those  ethical  relations  which  are 
expressed  by  the  term  Father,  but  having  no  relation  to  him  as  Father 
which  can  be  thought  of  apart  from  the  fact  that  he  is  God. 

On  the  correlative  idea  of  Jesus  as  "Son  of  God,"  see  below  on  The  Titles 
and  Predicates  of  Jesus,  V. 

III.     TITLES   AND   PREDICATES   OF  JESUS 
Occurring  in  the  Pauline  Epistles. 

I.    THE   TITLES   ENUMERATED. 
The  following  names  and  phrases  are  applied  to  Jesus  in  the  Pauline 
epistles,  as  titles  or  predicates.     For  purposes  of  comparison  instances  oc- 
curring elsewhere  in  N.  T.  are  indicated  in  the  lists.* 

1.  TT^joiiq.  (a)  Without  the  article:  Rom.  32'  10'  i  Cor.  12'  2  Cor.  ^^^ 
11"-  14b  Phil.  210  I  Thes.  i»o  4Ha  (not  elsewhere  in  Paul);  Mt.  141  2030  21'.  '^ 
26"  Mk.  i«  Lk.  2"  3".  "  41  Jn.  I".  ",  etc.  Acts  i^'  5">,  etc.  Heb.  2»  3»  6", 
etc.;  I  Jn.  2^2  51.  ^  Rev.  i'  12",  etc.;  not  found  in  pastoral  epistles,  or  i  and 
2  Pet.  Jas.  or  Jude. 

(b)  With  the  article:  Rom.  8"  2  Cor.  4't"^.  t,  nb  Gal.  61^  Eph.  4"  i  Thes. 
4"i>  (only  instances  in  Paul);  Mt.  2>  Mk.  V*  Lk.  4*  Jn.  i'«,  et  freq.,  in  all 
the  gospels;  Acts.  !»•  ^\  etc.;  i  Jn.  4';  not  in  pastoral  epistles,  Heb.  i  and  2 
Pet.  2  and  3  Jn.  Jude  or  Rev. 

2.  Xptcxdq.  (a)  Without  the  article:  Rom.  5*.  »  6^.  '  Gal.  i«.  10,  etfreq., 
in  Paul,  esp.  in  the  phrase  ev  XptsTw,  e.  g.:  Gal.  i«  2'\  etc.;  rare  in  other 
parts  of  N.  T.,  except  i  Pet.  See  Mt.  ae"  (voc.)  Mk.  9"  Lk.  23*  Jn.  i«  9« 
Acts  2"  Heb.  36  gii-  "  i  Pet,  i"  2"  3I8  4'.  "  510.  k. 

(b)  With  the  article:  Rom.  7^  8«  93,  6  j^is  j-s.  7,  19  jgis  j  Qqj.  je,  n,  n  gub 
9"  io<-  i«  bis  II'  bis  i2«  1515,  22.  23b  2  Cor.  i^  2i<  3^  4^  510.  i<  913  lo'.  5.  i<  hj,  j 
(txt.  unc.)  12^  Gal.  i^  6^  Eph.  i"-  12.  20  35,  nb  .^t.  s  ^u,  n.  20  rj,  s,  w,  23,  24, 
25.  29  65  Phil.  ii5.  17  (txt.  unc.)  "  ^1 .  18  Col.  I '■  "  2".  ^^  31.  ..  4.  ij  (txt.  unc.) 
»■  i«  (txt.  unc.)  4»  I  Thes.  3*  2  Thes.  3=  (not  elsewhere  in  Paul);  less  freq.  in 
other  parts  of  N.  T.  See  Mt.  i^^  112 1620  2310  Mk.  8"  Lk.  4"  Jn.  7"  11"  20" 
Acts  2"  85  9"  173  i85.  28  26"  I  Tim.  5"  Heb.  3'^  5^  6^  gi''.  's  n^s  i  Pet.  4"  51 
I  Jn.  222  51  2  Jn.  »  Rev.  2o«;  after  ev  in  2  Cor.  2"  Eph.  i^o.  «.  to  only. 

b  XptcjToq,  meaning  "the  Messiah,"  but  not  as  a  title  or  affirmed  predi- 
cate of  Jesus  is  found  in  Mt.  2*  22"  245.  23  26"  Mk.  1235  1321  Lk.  3>'  20"  22" 

2335,    39    2425.    <6  Jn.    l20.    26  ^28  420    yii,    27,    31,    42   jq24    j23<. 

In  a  few  passages  b  x?'-^^^^  is  applied  to  Jesus,  with  the  addition  of 
unusual  titles  or  limitations.  Thus:  b  xpicxhq  b  paacXeuq  TapoajX,  Mk. 
IS";  ^  XP'<^'i^^?  T^ou  esoij,  Lk.  920;  b  xptarbt;  auxou.  Acts  3^8  426  Rev.  ii». 

*  C/.  Middleton,  Use  of  the  Article  in  Greek,  edited  by  H.  G.  Rose,  Appendix  II  (by  Rose), 
"A  Table  showing  the  various  Appellations  of  our  blessed  Lord."  etc. 


TITLES   AND   PREDICATES   OF   JESUS  393 

3.  K6pto<;.  (a)  Without  the  article:  Rom.  lo'  i  Cor.  7"^.  25  j;^  jqh 
bis,  etc.  It  is  rather  infrequent  in  Paul,  except  in  the  phrase  Iv  xupfcp: 
Rom.  168.  '1.  12-  !'■  "  I  Cor.  7"a,  31,  2  Cor.  2^^  Gal.  5";  a  complete  list  is  diffi- 
cult to  give  because  of  the  difficulty  of  deciding  in  all  cases  whether  the 
reference  is  to  God  or  Christ.  It  is  rare  in  other  parts  of  N.  T.  (Acts  2") 
except  in  the  gospels  as  a  title  of  respectful  address  (Mt.  S^.  «.  »,  etc.). 

(b)  With  the  article:  i  Cor.  45  6'3.  14.  n  710.  12  ^5  nze.  27  Gal.  i^\  Mk.  ii^ 
and  its  repetition  in  Mt.  21'  are  apparently  the  only  cases  in  these  gospels, 
but  instances   are  much  more  frequent  in  Lk.  Acts,  and  Jn.:  Lk.  7»'-  19 

jQl.  5».  41  Il39  1242a  j^li  jy6,  6  ig*  IQ*'  ".  34  22*1  24"  Jn.  4I  6^^  II*  20*-  1».  ".  25 
21^-    "  Acts   51*  9'-    lOa-    "•    15.    17,   27,   ?.8.   35,   42   jjl6,   21b    j,^   1^23   2210^   26^'^. 

4.  'iT^aoGq    Xptardq.     (a)  Without    the   article    preceding:    Rom.     i*.  « 

1  Cor.  3"  Gal.  i^  12  etfrcq.  in  Paul,  Acts,  the  pastoral  and  general  epistles; 
occurs  also  Heb.  10"  i38-  21  Rev.  il  2.  »  Mt.  ii  16"  (txt.  unc.)  Mk.  ii  Jn. 
I"  i7».  In  Mt.  ii«  27".  22^  occurs  'IiQcroOq  6  Xsy6[iewq  xpiaxoq.  In  Acts  35 
4"  we  have  'Ir^ooUq  Xpiczhq  b  Na'C,i>ipaloq. 

(b)  With  the  article,  in  Mt.  i^'  only.     See  5  b  below. 

5.  Xpiaxhq   'iT^couq.     (a)    Without    the    article:    Rom.    6'    S"''.  "    15H 

2  Cor.  i»  (txt.  unc.)  Gal.  41*  Eph.  i^  2^0  Phil,  il  »  Col.  i'  4"  esp.  freq.  in 
the  phrase  ev  XptcTw  'Ir,Gou;  Rom.  3^4  6"  8^-  *  151^  16'  i  Cor.  i'-  <•  s"  415.  n 

16"    Gal.     2*    326.   28    ^6    Eph_     Jib    28.    v.    10,    13    26.   51    Phil,     l^^-   ^S    25    35.   14   47,   19,  « 

Col.  i<  I  Thes.  2i<  518;  found  also  in  the  pastoral  epistles  and  Acts,  but  in 
no  other  books.  In  Rom.  i^  2^^  51^  155 1  Cor.  ii  2  Cor.  4^  Gal.  2I6  y*  Phil.  i« 
2*1  the  mss.  vary  between  'J-raoO  Xp.  and  Xp.  'Irjaou. 

(b)  With  the  article  preceding:  Gal.  52^  {cf.  ad  loc.)  Eph.  31  only.  In 
Acts  5«  1 85.  28  Tov  xpiaxov  is  predicate;  Mt.  i^s  should  probably  read, 
ToG  'Ir^joG  XptaxoG. 

6.  Kupioq  'Ii^aoGq.     (a)  Without  the  article:  Rom.  14^  Phil.  2I'  Col.  3" 

1  Thes.  41  Acts  7"  Rev.  222"  only.  In  Rom.  lo'  and  Phil.  2",  probably  also 
in  I  Cor.  i2'i>,  x,6ptoq  is  predicate. 

(b)  With  the  article  preceding:  i  Cor.  5'  (txt.  unc.)  11 23  1623  2  Cor.  414* 
II"  Eph.  I"  I  Thes.  2"  42  2  Thes.  1^2^  (txt.  unc);  2  Tim.  422  (some  texts); 
Phm.5;  freq.  also  in  Acts  (81"  1120  1511  1631  etc.)  but  not  found  in  other 
books  with  conclusive  ms.  evidence. 

7.  'iTjjoGq  6  xupiog  ti'^dv.  Rom.  424  i  Cor.  9I;  or  in  transposed  order: 
6  xuptoq  T)[xuv  'IrjaoGq:  i  Cor.  s*^-  ^  (txt.  unc.)  2  Cor.  i"  i  Thes.  2^^  y^-  " 

2  Thes.  ii2a;  outside  of  Paul  in  2  Pet.  i«,  'ItjcoO?  h  x6ptoq  -fj^Awv,  and  Heb. 
13",  &  xuptoc  -fj^uLfov  'IigaoG";  only. 

8.  xupco?  'Iir^croGq  Xptaxdq  and  other  phrases  containing  these  three  terms, 
(a)  x6ptoq  'ItqcoG.;  Xptcrroq  without  the  article:  Rom.  i'  i  Cor.  i'  8«  2  Cor. 
12  Gal.  i»  Eph.  i2  623  Phil.  12  320  i  Thes.  ii  2  Thes.  i'.  2,  12b  phm. ';  outside 
the  Pauline  letters,  in  Jas.  ii  only. 

(b)  With  the  article:  Rom  13'^  (txt.  unc.)  i  Cor.  6'!  2  Cor.  13'  Phil.  423 
2  Thes.  3»  Phm.  25;  outside  of  Paul  in  Acts  iii'  2831  Rev.  2221,  with  vv.  II. 
in  the  last  case. 


394  GALATIANS 

(c)  In  transposed  order  without  the  article:  XptuTb?  'iTQaoJq  xuptoq: 
2  Cor.  45. 

(d)  With  the  article  repeated:  b  xpiGihq  'l-qooiiq  b  xupioq:  Col.  2«. 

(e)  'O  xuptoq  •f)[A(7)v  'l-qaoijq  Xpiaioq:  Rom.  51-  "  i5«'  '»  i  Cor.  !*•  '•  *•  i» 
15"  2  Cor.  I'  89  Gal.  6".  '»  Eph.  i'-  i'  52°  62<  Col.  i»  i  Thes.  i'  5'.  "•  »  2  Thes. 
21,  14,  18  3I8J  also  I  Tim.  6''  ^*  Acts  1525  20^1  (txt.  unc.)  Jas.  2^  1  Pet.  i' 
2  Pet.  I*'  »<•  i»  Jude  4,  17,  21. 

(f)  'Itjcous;  Xpcaxbq  6  xuptoq  ■^a.wv:  Rom.  i<  5"  725  i  Cor.  i',  also  Jude  25. 

(g)  X-piazhq  'iTjffouq  6  xupioq  tjjxwv.  (i)  Without  the  article  before  Xpiazhq 
'l-(]Go\Jq:  Rom.  6"  8^9  i  Cor.  15"  i  Tim.  !*•  i"  2  Tim.  i^;  with  [xoO  instead 
of  -fjawv:  Phil.  38;   (ii)  With  the  article  before  Xpiaihq  'Iriaouq:  Eph.  3'!. 

9.  Tlbq  OiOiJ,  or  utoq  with  a  pronoun  referring  to  God:  (a)  Without  the 
article  with  either  word:  Rom.  i^  (only  instance  in  Paul);  also  in  Mt.  14" 
2743,  s4Mk.  ii  (txt.  unc.)  is^siLk.  I'^Jn.  19^  Acts  i3"Heb.i5  5=. 

(b)  YVoq  ToG  9300 :  Mt.  4»-  •  8"  (voc.)  27"  Mk.  5'  (voc.)  Lk.  4'.  ^  8^8  (yoc.) 
Jn.  10"  (txt.  unc);  some  of  these  are  in  conditional  clauses. 

(c)  With  the  article  before  u\6q:  b  u\hq  toD  02ou,  or  b  ulhq  auzou,  kauxou, 
[100,  or  'cBtoq,  a'JTou,  etc.,  referring  to  God:  Rom.  i'-  »  5'°  8'-  "•  "  Gal.  i»6 
220  44,6  Eph.  4"  I  Thes.  i*"  (no  other  examples  in  Paul);  Mt.  2^5317  17s 
Mk.  I"  3"  9^  Lk.  322  4"  935  Jn.  !"•  "  3I8  5"  935  (txt.  unc.)  ii<  Acts  9"  Heb. 
66  73  io2'  2  Pet.  i^M  Jn.  3*  4"''  ^^  $^-  '•  i"  bis  "  ''^'  "•  2"^. 

(d)  With  the  article  and  other  titles  accompanying:  b  \j\hq  ojutou  'l-r^aoiji; 
Xptaxbq  6  Y.upioq  tjxwv:  I  Cor.  i^;  6  tou  0£ou  uVoq  'lT]joOq  Xptaxoq:  2  Cor.  i"; 
6  uVoq  ajToQ  'Iri^oiiq  Xpiaroq:  I  Jn.  i'  3'''  5^°'';  6  XP'^'^^'S  ^  u^°'?  "^o^  ^[.wvToq  OeoiJ: 
Mt.  i6i«  (c/.  Mk.  14"  Mt.  26");  b  xpio'chq  b  u\hq  ToCiOeou:  Jn.  11"  20";  'l-qaouq 
b  uVoq  TOJ  Osou:  Heb.  4^^;  'IryaoOq  6  ulbq  auToO:  i  Jn.  i^;  b  u\hq  aJTOu  b  [jlovo  • 
YoVT);:  I  Jn.  4'.     Cf.  2  Jn.  ',  'Itqjoui;  Xptaxbq  b  ulbq  toG  xaxpot;. 

10.  In  the  Pauline  epistles  aojT-rjp  is  applied  to  Jesus  in  Phil.  3^0,  yet  here 
not  precisely  as  a  title.  Cf.  Lk.  2"  Jn.  4"  Acts  5"  13"  i  Jn.  4'\  As  a  title 
of  Jesus  b  rjiii]p  :?)j,djv  Xp'.azoq  'It^joO?  is  found  in  2  Tim.  i^";  XptaTb<; 
'I-r]jo'j;  b  awt-fjp  rjuLdiv  in  Tit.  i^;  T-iQaou<;  Xpiaihq  b  acoT-fjp  -fjtJLWv  in  Tit.  3^-, 
b  Gsbq  x.al  cwTTjp  T]X(7)v  Xptffxbc;  'lr]~ouq  in  Tit.  2";  b  dehq  i)[iMiV  xal  atox-Jjp 
'Ittjcjo'j?  XptJTOi;  in  2  Pet.  i^;  6  xupioq  tj^wv  xal  cw-:-?]?  Ttqjojs  XptaToq  in  2  Pet. 
Ill  ^18;  without  T)ix(I)v  in  2  Pet.  2=0. 

11.  Qsbq.  The  passages  to  be  considered  here  arc:  Rom.  9=  Heb.  i*  Jn. 
!»■  '8,  I  Jn.  520.     Cf.  also  Phil.  2«. 

II.    'IH20T2. 

'lr,~oiJq  is  a  personal  name,  the  Grecised  form  of  the  Hebrew  name 
Joshua,  V'^^ini,  which  etymologically  means  "saviour."  To  what  extent 
this  etymological  sense  of  the  word  lingered  in  the  use  of  the  name  itself 
in  N.  T.  times,  there  is  no  definite  indication.  In  Paul  there  is  no  trace 
of  it,  and  elsewhere  in  N.  T.  in  Mt.  i"  only.  Probably  it  was  usually  as 
little  in  mind  as  is  the  meaning  of  the  word  Theodore  at  the  present  day. 


TITLES  AND  PREDICATES   OF   JESUS  395 

III.    XPI2T02. 

A.    JEWISH   USAGE. 

XptaTo.;  is  the  Greek  representative  of  the  Hebrew  nirn,  "anoint- 
ed." The  Hebrew  word  is  applied  in  the  literal  sense  to  the  high  priest 
in  Lev.  4»'  *•  i'.  As  a  substantive  sometimes  in  the  expression  'Hhe 
anointed  of  Yahweh,"  it  is  applied  to  the  King  of  Israel:  i  Sam.  2^°'  " 
12'-  5  Ps.  18"  Lam.  4^°  Hab.  31'.  It  is  used  of  Cyrus  in  Isa.  45*.  From  its 
usage  with  reference  to  the  King  of  Israel,  perhaps  under  the  influence 
of  a  messianic  interpretation  of  Ps.  2^,  and  Dan.  g^^f-,  it  came  to  be  em- 
ployed as  a  title,  eventually  the  most  common  and  distinctive  title,  of 
the  expected  king  and  deliverer  of  Israel.  But  as  the  idea  of  a  personal 
Messiah  is  not  always  associated  with  what  may  be  broadly  called  the 
messianic  hope  (see  Bous.  Rel.  d.  Jud^,  p.  255),  so  the  term  Xgioihq  is 
not  always  present  when  the  expected  deliverer  is  spoken  of.  See,  e.  g., 
Test.  XII  Patr.  Reub.  6'-i=;  Lev.  S^"  iSi^-  Jud.  241-s  Dan.  510.  ".  Among 
the  earliest  instances  of  its  use  as  a  distinctive  messianic  title  are  i  Enoch 
4810  52*.  Charles,  Book  of  Enoch,  ad  loc,  says  these  are  the  earliest  cases. 
Nearly  contemporaneous  and  more  significant  is  Ps.  Sol.  ly'^b.  36;  "And  a 
righteous  king  and  taught  of  God  is  he  that  reigneth  over  them.  And 
there  shall  be  no  iniquity  in  his  days  in  their  midst,  for  all  shall  be  holy, 
and  their  King  is  Messiah,  Lord  (Xpiczhq  xupto^;)."  The  whole  psalm  is 
a  most  instructive  reflection  of  the  ideas  of  religion,  and  especially  of  the 
Messiah  and  the  messianic  deliverance  which  were  held  by  the  Pharisees 
in  the  last  pre-Christian  century.  See  also  i8«'  «,  and  on  the  whole  subject 
Schr.,  §  29;  E.  T.  II,  ii,  pp.  129/.;  Bous.  Rel.  d.  Jud.\  pp.  255/. 

B.     NEW  TESTAMENT   USAGE. 

The  evidence  of  N.  T.  leaves  no  room  for  doubt  that  the  titular  use  of 
the  term  illustrated  in  Ps.  Sol.,  in  which  it  denotes  an  ideal  expected  char- 
acter as  distinguished  from  an  identified  historical  person,  had  become  com- 
mon by  the  early  part  of  the  first  Christian  century,  as  it  also  shows  even 
more  clearly  that  early  in  the  history  of  the  Christian  movement  it  was 
used  as  a  descriptive  title  or  personal  name  of  Jesus. 

As  respects  the  degree  of  identification  of  the  character  designated  by 
the  term  with  the  person  Jesus,  there  are  five  uses  of  the  term  in  N.  T.,  in 
the  first  four  of  which  it  stands  alone  without  other  appellatives;  in  the 
fifth  it  is  used  with  other  titles  of  Jesus. 

1.  It  designates  "the  Messiah"  without  identification  of  any  person  as 
such:  Mt.  2<  22«  Mk.  1235  Lk.  22'  24=6  Jn.  y".  "•  "•  "•  «  Acts  2"  ly'^. 

2.  It  is  used  as  the  predicate  of~  a  proposition,  the  subject  of  which  is 
affirmed  to  be  the  Messiah,  the  identification  lying,  however,  not  in  the 
term  but  being  effected  by  the  proposition  itself;  or  in  a  question,  it  is  asked 


396  GALATIANS 

whether  one  is  to  be  identified  with  the  Christ.  Most  frequently  the  sub- 
ject of  the  afl&rmation  or  question  is  Jesus  (Mk.  8"  14"  Mt.  16^^  26"  Lk.  9" 
23*  Jn.  7"  10"  II"  17^^  Acts  17^^  iSO,  but  occasionally  others  (Mt.  24^-  " 
Lk.  3")-     For  qualitative  effect  the  article  may  be  omitted:  Acts  2'*. 

3.  It  designates  "the  Messiah"  as  such,  but  with  implied  identification 
of  the  Messiah  with  Jesus;  in  other  words,  refers  to  Jesus,  but  to  him  specifi- 
cally as  the  Christ:  Mt.  i^'  ii^  2310  Acts  8'  Rom.  j*  9'.  »  14I8  i^?.  19  j^is 

1  Cor.  !«•  "■  17  (txt.  unc.)  912  ioi«  bis  1212  15"  2  Cor.  i^  2'2.  i<  3*  4*  510.  u 
qu  io^'  «•  "  II*  12*  Gal.  i^  6^  Eph.  i^"-  ".  20  25.  n  ^t,  s.  i?  ^12,  20  ^2.  6,  u.  23.  24, 
«.  "  Phil.  I".  27  37.  18^  etc. 

4.  It  becomes  a  title  or  name  of  Jesus  without  discernible  emphasis  upon 
his  messiahship,  though  this  is  perhaps  usually  in  the  background  of  the 
thought:  Rom.  5«'  »  6^-  s.  9  S'-  »<>•  "  91  io<-  «•  ''•  "  158.  i*.  20.  "  16*  i  Cor.  i^^.  i^ 

2l«  ^l.  23  4I.    10  f)is  ^^  6l5a   722  gll.    12  q21   ijl   J227   I5»'    "•    "•    K.    1«.    17.    18.    19,   20,   22,    23a 

2  Cor.  I"  210'  15,  17  ^3,  14  46  ^17,  18,  19.  20  ^j^  515  §23  jq^  Ms  III"'  13,  23  i22,  10,  19 
133    (?)    Gal.    I«.   "•   22   2*'   1«-    17.   20,   21   ^13.    16,   24,   27,   29  ^19   ^1.   2,   4  Heb.    3«  911.   '<. 

The  line  of  distinction  between  the  two  classes  of  cases,  3  and  4,  can 
not  be  clearly  drawn.  Broadly  speaking,  the  instances  in  which  the  article 
is  present  in  the  Greek  belong  under  3,  those  in  which  it  is  absent  under  4, 
But  instances  without  the  article  may  belong  under  3,  the  article  being 
omitted  to  give  the  word  qualitative  force.  See,  e.  ,g.,  i  Cor.  123  (cf.  RV. 
margin);  so,  perhaps,  i  Cor.  2i«  and  2  Cor.  51',  and  probably  Mk.  g*K  It  is 
possible  also  that  in  some  cases  the  article  is  prefixed,  as  it  is  also  to  'iTjaoOq 
or  any  proper  name,  without  emphasising  the  titular  significance.  It  is 
clear,  however,  that  the  word  is  often  used  purely  as  a  proper  name  and 
that  this  fact  is  usually  marked  by  the  omission  of  the  article.  No  exam- 
ples of  this  usage  of  XptcjToc;  alone,  without  the  article  (on  'Ir;aoOq  Xpia-z6q, 
see  below),  occur  in  the  gospels,  except  perhaps  in  Mk.  9".  Though  the 
Pauline  letters  show  clearly  that  it  was  current  before  the  gospels  were 
written,  the  gospel  writers  do  not,  with  the  one  possible  exception,  impute 
it  to  the  evangelic  period  or  themselves  employ  it. 

5.  It  occurs  in  combination  with  other  titles  of  Jesus,  forming  with  them 
compound  appellatives.     See  I  4,  5,  8  above,  and  below. 

In  the  epistles  of  Paul,  which  in  time  of  writing  precede  all,  or  all  but  one, 
of  the  other  N.  T.  books,  we  find  the  use  of  the  term  with  reference  to 
Jesus  fully  developed,  and  taken  for  granted.  This  is  true  even  of  the 
earhest  letters.  Paul's  common  titles  for  Jesus  are  "the  Christ,"  "Christ," 
"the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,"  and  "our  Lord  Jesus  Christ."  Indeed,  he  finds 
no  occasion  to  affirm  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  nor  does  he,  outside  of  two 
or  three  passages  of  somewhat  doubtful  interpretation  (see,  e.  g.,  2  Cor.  10"; 
cf.  Eph.  iio-  12),  ever  use  the  term  in  its  primary  sense  of  "the  (unidentified) 
Christ."  The  major  portion  of  the  post-Pauline  epistles  exhibit  substan- 
tially the  same  usage,  but  with  a  somewhat  marked  tendency  to  prefer 
the  longer,  compound  titles.    These  facts  show  that  comparatively  early 


TITLES  AND   PREDICATES   OF   JESUS  397 

in  the  apostolic  age  the  use  of  the  term  as  a  title  or  name  of  Jesus  was 
already  well  established. 

From  the  gospels  and  Acts  we  are  able  to  see  in  part  how  this  usage  arose 
and  was  developed.  Though  undoubtedly  written  after  the  letters  of  Paul, 
and  in  many  passages  reflecting  the  usage  of  the  period  in  which  they  arose 
(so,  e.  g.,  clearly  in  Mt.  i^  and  Mk.  i^;  see  also  Mt.  11*  23I"),  they  show 
clear  traces  of  an  earlier  usage  and  thought.  The  gospel  of  Mk.  represents 
Jesus  as  gathering  his  earliest  disciples  without  asserting  that  he  was  the 
Christ  or  eliciting  from  them  any  acknowledgment  of  him  as  such.  The 
first  assertion  of  the  messiahship  was  at  Caesarea  Philippi,  but  the  con- 
fession there  made  he  charges  them  not  to  publish  (S^^.  »»),  and  it  is  not 
again  referred  to  except  incidentally  in  conversation  between  Jesus  and  his 
disciples  (9"),  and  by  implication  in  the  words  of  Bartimaeus,  till  the  trial 
of  Jesus,  when  in  response  to  the  challenge  of  the  high  priest  he  openly  de- 
clares that  he  is  the  Christ  (Mk.  14"-  ").  The  discussion  of  the  lordship  of 
the  Messiah  in  i2''ff-  pertains  to  the  Messiah  as  such,  not  to  Jesus.  This 
primitive  tradition  is  somewhat  modified  in  the  other  synoptic  gospels,  yet 
not  so  as  materially  to  obscure  it. 

The  fourth  gospel  represents  the  question  whether  Jesus  was  the  Christ 
as  playing  a  much  larger  and  earlier  part  in  the  relation  of  Jesus  to  the 
Jewish  people  than  the  synoptic  gospels  imply.  In  this,  as  in  other  respects, 
the  gospel  has  doubtless  been  affected  by  the  distance  between  the  events 
narrated  and  the  writing  of  the  book,  and  by  the  special  purpose  of  the 
book  as  defined  in  20";  but  even  in  this  gospel,  there  is  an  entire  absence 
of  the  Pauline  usages  of  XpiaiSq  and  6  xP'-3i:6q,  and  'l-qaouq  Xpiaxoq 
occurs  but  once  (17')  in  narrative  or  discourse,  the  personal  name  Jesus 
being  the  one  commonly  used.  Even  in  editorial  passages  Xpiaxoq  never 
occurs,  b  xpiax6q  but  once  (20"),  and  then  not  as  a  title  but  as  a  predi- 
cate, and  'l-Qcouq  Xptaxdc;  but  once  (i^')-  The  longer  compound  titles  do 
not  occur  at  all. 

The  book  of  Acts,  on  the  other  hand,  furnishes  examples  of  all  the  Pauline 
usages,  the  instances  of  the  compound  names  being  most  frequent.  The 
writer  even  represents  Peter,  at  the  beginning  of  the  apostolic  age,  as  com- 
monly using  the  expression  "Jesus  Christ"  and  once  "the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ."  If  this  is  historically  correct,  there  must  have  been  a  very  rapid 
development  of  usage  immediately  following  the  death  and  resurrection  of 
Jesus.  It  is  probable,  however,  that  the  author  is  here,  to  some  extent, 
carrying  back  to  the  beginning  of  the  apostolic  age  the  usage  of  a  later 
time.  Acts  2'«  ascribes  to  Peter  the  view  that  by  the  resurrection  and 
exaltation  of  Jesus  God  made  him  both  Lord  and  Christ.  If  this  means 
that  the  messiahship  dates  from  the  resurrection,  this  is  a  different  con- 
ception from  that  which  is  implied  in  the  third  gospel,  viz.:  that  it  belonged 
to  his  public  ministry  (s^^^-  9"),  if  not  even  dating  from  his  birth  (2ii'  '«). 
In  the  mind  of  the  writer  it  may  perhaps  mean  that  what  he  was  pre- 


39^  GALATIANS 

viously  in  purpose  and  by  right  he  now  became  in  fact  and  power  {cf.  Rom. 
lO,  or  that  he  now  became  Lord  as  well  as  Christ. 

fthe  whole  evidence  points,  therefore,  to  the  conclusion  that  beginning 
with  the  use  of  "the  Christ"  as  the  name  of  the  expected  but  as  yet  un- 
identified coming  king  (a  usage  in  existence  among  the  Jews  before  the 
appearance  of  Jesus)  it  was  in  his  lifetime  first  questioned  whether  Jesus 
was  the  Christ,  then  affirmed  by  his  disciples  that  he  was;  then  with  the 
birth  of  the  conviction  that  Jesus  was  risen  from  the  dead,  reaffirmed  with 
new  confidence,  and  that  out  of  this  conviction,  perhaps  in  part  before 
Paul's  day,  but  probably  in  larger  part  under  his  influence,  there  arose  a 
variety  of  titles  for  Jesus,  embodying  this  faith.  These  usages  once  devel- 
oped were  carried  back  to  a  very  limited  extent  into  the  gospel  record  and 
to  a  greater  extent  into  the  narrative  of  the  early  apostolic  age,  yet  not  so 
as  wholly  to  obscure  the  underlying  and  more  primitive  usage.  1 

But  it  still  remains  to  inquire  precisely  what  it  meant  in  the  first  century 
to  apply  to  Jesus  or  to  any  one  else  the  term  "  Christ,"  not  in  its  literal  sense, 
"anointed,"  or  as  a  mere  proper  name,  but  as  a  significant  title.  What 
did  the  early  Christians  mean  when  they  affirmed  that  Jesus  was  the 
Christ?  In  particular  how  did  this  assertion  differ  from  what  they  meant 
when  they  spoke  of  him  as  "Lord,"  or  "Son  of  God"?  | 

There  is  singularly  little  direct  evidence  to  answer  this  question.  The 
very  familiarity  of  the  term  apparently  made  even  indirect  definition  un- 
necessary. Yet  such  evidence  as  there  is  is  sufficient  to  make  it  clear  that 
as  a  descriptive  title  the  word  meant  "dehverer,"  "saviour,"  with  the 
added  implication  of  divine  appointment.  Both  elements  of  this  meaning 
arise,  of  course,  not  from  the  etymology  of  the  word,  but  from  its  employ- 
ment to  designate  the  looked-for  King  of  Israel,  concerning  whom  men's 
chief  thought  was  that  he.  sent  by  God,  would  deliver  Israel.  The  element 
of  divine  appointment  is  specially  suggested  in  Acts  23«:  "Him  hath  God 
made  both  Lord  and  Christ."  jBut  the  word  "Christ"  complementary 
to  the  term  "Lord"  probably  describes  Jesus  as  Saviour.  In  the  absence 
of  any  direct  definition  of  the  word  in  Paul's  writings  there  is  no  more  sig- 
nificant clue  to  the  thought  for  which  the  term  stands  in  his  mind  than 
the  class  cf  words  with  which  he  employs  the  expression  6  x?^'^'^^^,  which, 
as  pointed  out  above, 'is  not  a  proper  name  but  a  significant  title.'  It  is 
important,  therefore,  to  observe  that  he  all  but  uniformly  employs  xcG 
XP'.aToiJ  in  preference  to  XptJToG  and  even  to  other  designations  of  Jesus 
after  terms  of  soteriological  significance.  Thus  he  uses  to  euayyeXtov  xoG 
XptffTou  eight  times  (i  Thes.  3«  Gal.  i'  i  Cor,  9»«  2  Cor.  2"  91'  iqi*  Rom.  15'' 
Phil.  I")  and  only  in  2  Thes.  i*  employs  any  other  designation  of  Jesus  after 
euayyiXtov  .  After  oxaupoq  he  uses  tou  xP'^^^oiJ  in  i  Cor.  i^^  Gal.  61'  (?) 
Phil.  3I8,  and  only  once  any  other  name  or  title  of  Jesus  (Gal  6i<;  but  see 
also  Col.  I").  See  also  cA  OXt'ij^eti;  xoG  xP^^'^oiJ  in  Col.  i";  and  rot  xaGiQiXaTa 
TOU  xP"JToiJ  in  2  Cor.  i«.     After  a\\i<x  or  aGi\La,  referring  to  his  death  -coii 


TITLES  AND   PREDICATES   OF   JESUS  399 

^ptaxoO  is  used  in  i  Cor.  lo^'  bis  Eph.  2"  Rom.  7*;  but  also  tou  xupfou 
in  I  Cor.  11".  After  d-r&iz-q  we  find  xou  xpiaiou  in  Rom,  8'^  2  Cor.  5" 
Eph.  3I',  and  no  instance  of  XpwToO  or  other  genitive  referring  to  Jesus 
(yet  cf.  Gal.  22").  'Not  all  the  instances  of  tou  xpi<J^ou  are  clearly  of  this 
type;  but  the  Pauline  usage,  as  a  whole,  strongly  suggests  that  by  6  xpiaxbq 
Paul  meant  "the  Christ"  in  the  sense  of  "the  DeHverer,"  "the  Saviour.") 
Note,  also,  the  rarity  of  aioxrig  as  a  title  of  Jesus  in  his  vocabulary.  Phil.  3" 
is  the  only  instance  in  the  certainly  genuine  letters,  though  it  is  frequent  in 
the  pastoral  epistles. 

From  what  the  Christ  was  expected  to  deliver  men— on  this  the  thought 
of  men  undoubtedly  varied  greatly.  When  in  Lk.  3'^  it  is  said,  "  All  men  were 
in  expectation  and  mused  in  their  hearts  whether  John  was  the  Christ," 
the  meaning  is  doubtless  that  men  were  wondering  whether  John  would  be 
the  national  political  deUverer  for  whom  the  nation  was  looking.  In  the 
trial  scene  in  the  synoptic  gospels,  the  meaning  of  the  term  is  probably 
similar. 

Such  passages  as  i  Thes.  i"  Gal.  3"  Rom.  $'  show  that  in  its  negative 
aspect  the  salvation  which  the  Christ  brought  to  men  was  a  deliverance 
from  the  condemnation  of  sin  and  the  divine  wrath  against  sinners.  Yet 
it  clearly  had  also  its  positive  side,  including  both  future  glory  (Rom.  5^-  ") 
and  in  the  present  life  divine  approval  and  the  achievement  of  character. 
See,  e.  g.,  Rom.  i^^-  i'  s'"''*  5'""  chap.  8  Gal.  5>»-'*  Phil.  3"-". 

"it  is  the  manifest  intention  of  the  fourth  gospel  to  attach  its  doctrine  of 
Jesus  as  the  Christ  to  the  Jewish  idea  of  the  Messiah  (note  its  interpretation 
of  the  word  "Christ"  as  the  equivalent  of  the  Hebrew  "Messiah,"  i"), 
and  to  claim  for  Jesus  the  fulfilment  of  that  idea  to  the  full.  Yet  it  is 
scarcely  less  evident  that  the  idea  of  the  Christ  which  the  fourth  evangelist 
desired  his  readers  to  accept  and  hold  had  little  in  common  with  the  Jewish 
idea  of  a  poUtical  deliverer  of  the  nation,  except  the  bare  idea  of  deliverance. 
See  20",  "that  ye  may  believe  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God; 
and  that  believing  ye  may  have  life  in  his  name."  See  also  4«  where  "the 
Saviour  of  the  world"  represents  "the  Christ"  of  v.".  'The  author  has 
attached  his  conception  to  its  historical  Jewish  basis;  he  has  retained  the 
old  term,  but  has  so  purged  it  of  its  political,  and  even  of  its  apocalyptic, 
significance,  and  given  it  a  purely  religious  meaning,  that  "the  Christ"  is  in 
his  thought  chiefly  a  deliverer  from  death  and  from  that  which  is  the  cause 
of  death.  "I  am  come  that  they  may  have  life"  represents  the  dominant 
point  of  view  of  the  book,  and  "life"  is  a  fundamentally  ethical  conception. 

IV.    KTPI02. 

A.      CLASSICAL  USAGE. 

In  classical  Greek  writers  the  substantive  xuptoq  designates  a  person 
who  has  control  over  another  person  or  thing,  or  persons  or  things,  either 


400  GALATIANS 

by  right  of  divinity,  as  in  the  case  of  the  gods,  or  by  right  of  ownership,  as 
m  the  case  of  a  master  and  his  slave;  or  of  position,  as  of  a  husband  to  his 
household,  or  of  office,  as  in  the  case  of  a  guardian  or  trustee. 

B.      SEPTUAGINT   USAGE. 

In  the  Lxx  this  same  word  x6ptoq  occurs  hundreds  of  times,  being  em- 
ployed as  a  translation  of  some  twenty  different  Hebrew  words  and  phrases. 
The  two  that  are  most  important  for  our  purpose  are  rnx,  lord,  and 
nin^,  Yahweh,  the  great  majority  of  the  occurrences  of  x6pto<;  being 
translations  of  one  or  the  other  of  these,  jnx  means  "owner,"  "mas- 
ter." "lord,"  and  is  applied  in  various  senses:  to  a  man  as  the  owner  of  prop- 
erty or  as  the  master  of  a  slave;  to  the  husband  as  lord  of  the  wife;  to  a 
prince  as  lord  of  the  land;  and  even  to  God  himself  (Josh.  3").  Applied 
to  God,  however,  it  usually  takes  the  form  ^jin.  The  general  tendency 
of  the  Lxx  is  to  omit  the  article  before  xuptoq  when  it  translates  nin\ 

C.      NEW  TESTAMENT   USAGE. 

In  N.  T.  three  elements  enter  into  the  meaning  of  the  word:  (i)  owner- 
ship, (ii)  right  of  service,  (iii)  right  of  obedience.  Its  correlative  term  is 
SouXoq,  "slave,"  or  Stcixovoq,  or  oUi-cnq,  "servant,"  most  commonly  the 
first.  See  Mt.  10".  25  1327  24«-5o  2^'^  Lk.  i2«-47  1421-23  jn.  13I8  1^20.  xhe 
slave  belongs  to  his  master,  owes  him  service  and  obedience.  These  three 
ideas  are  not,  indeed,  always  equally  prominent  in  the  usage  either  of 
xuptoq  or  SouXog,  and  in  individual  instances  some  one  of  them  may  alto- 
gether fall  away.  See,  e.  g.,  2  Cor.  4',  where  BoCiXo?  carries  with  it  the  idea 
of  service  only,  being  used  by  hyperbole  for  oMT-qq  or  Staxovoq.  These 
conceptions  are,  however,  the  usual  elements  of  the  relation  referred  to  by 
these  words,     xuptoc;  then  means: 

1.  The  master  of  a  slave  in  the  ordinary  human  relation,  or  the  owner  of 
other  property:  Mt.  lo^^.  "  1-27  1825,  27.  31  20'  21^0  Mk.  1335  Gal.  41  Eph.  6». 

In  parables  the  meaning  of  the  term  is  in  itself  the  same  as  above;  although 
the  relarion  symbolised  is,  of  course,  one  of  an  ethical  and  religious  char- 
acter:   Mt.    14^2,   45,   48,   48,   60    25I8.    19.   20,   21,   22,   23    f)^'^  24,   28 

2.  One  who  has  rightful  control  of  an  institudon,  to  whom  it  belongs, 
being,  as  it  were,  his  property:  Mt.  128  Mk.  2^^,  x6ptoq  xoG  aa^^dxou. 

3.  Like  the  English  "Mister"  (Master)  and  the  modern  Greek  xupto?,  it  is 
used  as  a  term  of  polite  address,  expressing  greater  or  less  reverence,  and 
implying  greater  or  less  authority  according  to  circumstances;  sometimes 
equivalent  to  "Rabbi"  or  "Master": 

(a)  addressed  to  a  father  by  his  son:  Mt.  21". 

(b)  addressed  to  a  Roman  governor  by  his  subjects:  Mt.  27". 

(c)  addressed  to  Jesus  by  his  disciples,  and  by  the  people:  Mt.  17"  18" 
Mk.  728. 


TITLES   AND   PREDICATES   OF   JESUS  40 1 

4.  In  the  plural  it  is  a  generic  term  for  deities,  or  for  rulers,  human  and 
divine:  Mt.  6"  i  Cor.  8^. 

5.  As  a  name  for  or  title  of  God  it  represents  the  0.  T.  nm*  or  ^pN  and 
varies  in  the  precise  thought  which  it  conveys  from  a  religious  term 
distinctly  expressive  of  the  sovereignty  of  God  to  a  proper  name  not  sharply 
distinguished  from  the  word  Qeoq:  Mt.  i^".  22,  24  2".  n.  is  33  47,  10  ^33  1125 

2i9,  42  2237'  "a  2339  2710  282  Mk.  I3  5"  (?)  Il3  I2"-  29.  30,  36  1320  Llc.  I  «•  «•  "•  "■ 
16,    17,    25,    28,    38,    45,   46,   58,    66,    68,   76  29a,    b,    IB,  22,   23a,  b,  24,   39  ^4    aS,    12,    18,    19    -17  JQ^^'   ^''  1^^^ 

ig8  20".  ■*2  Tn.  i^''  1213. 38a,  b  Acts  i^"*  22°'  2''  "•  "»•  '^  3='^  4-^'  ^'  5''  "  7"-  "•  *^  82'- 

J9   io33    Ii21  127'    "•    !'•    23  I^l?.    18  Rom.  48'    Q"'   "  Jq",   1«  Il3,   34   12"  j^ll  j^ll  J   Cor. 

i3i  (?)  2'8  32"  iqs.  22  (?)  26  16'"  (?)  2  Cor.  6"-  18  821  iqi?  (?)  131  I  Thcs.  4»  52 
(?)  2  Tim.  2"a'  ''.  Of  these  passages  the  following  are  most  significant  as 
indicating  the  meaning  v/hich  the  term  bore  in  the  N.  T.  period  as  applied 
to  God:  Mt.  4'-  i"  1125  223'  Mk.  1229.  30  Lk.  1021.  27.  it  is  worthy  of  note  that 
in  the  Pauline  epistles  the  word  is  used  of  God  chiefly  in  quotations  from 
the  0.  T.,  the  words  Gsoq  and  xaTYjp  being  the  apostle's  favourite  titles  for 
God,  and  /.uptoq  being  more  commonly  a  title  of  Jesus.  See  especially  i  Cor. 
85.  6. 

The  N.  T.  follows  the  general  usage  of  the  Greek  O.  T.  in  that  the  word 
•Kupioq  applied  to  God  is  usually  without  the  article  in  Greek  (as  in  English 
the  word  "God"  is  anarthrous).  But  both  in  the  Greek  O.  T.  and  in 
N.  T.  the  article  is  sometimes  prefixed.  So  clearly  in  Gen.  128  181^  3923 
Ex.  i2«  1312  1425  151  1623  3115  Lev.  i2  21  43  515,  etc.  Mt.  533  Lk.  !«•  »•  ^s  2^^-  23b 
Acts  226  428  733  1^17  Rom.  IS".  In  the  letters  of  Paul  there  is  a  number 
of  passages  in  which  it  is  difficult  to  say  whether  the  reference  is  to  God 
or  Christ. 

6.  As  applied  to  Jesus  (in  addition  to  the  instances  falling  under  3),  it 
is  sometimes  used  in  a  theocratic  sense,  ascribing  to  him  supreme  authority 
over  men  and  the  world  of  heavenly  existences,  subject  only  to  that  of  God 
the  Father:  Rom.  10'  i  Cor.  722  123  Phil.  2",  etc. 

On  the  question  what  was  the  precise  content  of  the  term  so  used,  and 
in  particular  whether  it  was  identical  in  meaning  with  the  term  xuptoq  as 
applied  to  God  the  following  facts  have  a  bearing : 

(a)  nini,  which,  as  stated  above,  is  represented  in  the  Lxx  and  in 
N.  T.  by  xupioq,  is  never  used  with  possessive  suffixes.  The  expressions, 
"my  Yahweh,"  "our  Yahweh,"  never  occur  in  0.  T.  But  xuptoq  applied 
to  Jesus  is  often  accompanied  by  ^'^iCyv.  This  suggests  that  xuptoq  as  used 
of  Jesus  corresponds  rather  to  "'0^N  than  to  nin\     See  (c)  below. 

(b)  The  expression  D-'mSx  nin-"  is  often  applied  in  0.  T.  to  God,  as  the 
Greek  equivalent  7.(jpioq  b  Osoq  is  in  the  Lxx  and  N.  T.;  but  the  latter  is 
never  used  of  Jesus. 

(c)  In  N.  T.  Ps.  no  is  so  quoted  (Mt.  22"  Mk.  1235  Lk.  20*2  Acts  2")  as 
to  apply  the  term  nini  to  God,  ""Jix  to  Jesus. 

(d)  In  the  Lxx  r^^n>  is  usually  translated  by  xupioq  without  the  article. 

26 


402  GALATIANS 

In  N.  T.  this  usage  is  generally  followed,  but,  as  indicated  in  5  above, 
not  invariably.  For  Jesus  the  regular  term  is  6  xupcog,  subject  to  the 
usual  rules  for  the  omission  of  the  article.* 

(e)  The  title  xupioq  was  in  the  apostolic  age  beginning  to  be  appHed  to 
the  Roman  emperors.  In  Acts  2526  Festus  speaks  of  Nero  as  b  x6ptoq. 
The  term  probably  expressed  supreme  political  authority.  But,  whatever 
its  significance,  it  originated  too  late  (Augustus  and  Tiberius  refused  it)  to 
have  marked  influence  on  the  early  stages  of  the  development  of  the  term 
as  a  title  of  Jesus.     See  Dal.  WJ.  pp.  324  /. 

(f)  The  title  xuptoq  as  applied  to  Jesus,  probably  did  not  originate  in 
Greek  or  in  Hebrew.  Even  Paul  took  it  over  from  the  Aramaic,  as  appears 
in  his  use  of  the  expression  Maran  atha.  But  Mar  or  Maran  is  a  general 
term  for  lord,  master,  ruler;  not  a  specifically  religious  term  at  all.  See 
Case,  "Kuptoq  as  a  Title  for  Christ,"  in  JBL.  1907,  pp.  151-161,  espe- 
cially p.  156.  C/.  MacNeill,  The  Christology  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews, 
PP-  70/. 

These  facts  indicate  that  xupto?,  as  applied  to  Jesus  in  N.  T.,  i^  not,  even 
in  its  highest  sense,  a  term  of  nature  or  of  identification  with  Yahweh,  but 
of  relationship  (to  men  and  the  world). 

What  the  precise  relationship  expressed  by  the  term  is,  is  indicated  by 
the  following  facts: 

(i)  The  distinctive  Christian  confession  is  that  Jesus  is  xupcoq:  Rom.  lo' 
I  Cor.  12'  Phil.  211;  cf.  2  Cor.  4=. 

(ii)  xupco;  and  oixsttq?  or  SoOXo^  are  used  as  correlative  terms:  i  Cor. 
721-=*  2  Cor.  45  Rom.  14^;  cf.  Lk.  6"  Col.  3^".  Cf.  also  the  apostle's  designa- 
tion of  himself  as  a  slave  of  Christ:  Rom.  i^. 

(iii)  Despite  the  general  practice  stated  in  5  and  6  (d)  above,  the  lordship 
which  is  attributed  to  Christ,  especially  by  Paul,  is  not  sharply  discrimi- 
nated from  that  which  is  ascribed  to  God.  The  language  which  is  used  of 
God  is  to^  such  an  extent  used  also  of  Jesus  that  there  are  several  passages 
in  which  it  is  impossible  to  determine  with  certainty  whether  the  reference 
is  to  God  or  Jesus,  and  several  in  which  the  only  choice  is  between  assum- 
ing an  application  to  God  of  the  title  usually  employed  of  Jesus,  or  an 
ascription  to  Jesus  of  offices  or  titles  generally  ascribed  to  God.  See,  e.  g., 
Rom.  145-9,  where  in  v.«  the  word  xupioq  is  without  the  article,  suggesting 
the  reference  to  God,  but  in  v.^  has  the  article,  suggesting  reference  to  Christ, 
which  is  confirmed  by  v.';  2  Cor.  31«-ib,  where  xupto?  is  without  the  article 
and  refers  to  God  in  the  O.  T.  quotation  of  v.i«,  in  v.i^a  has  the  article,  in 

*  As  a  title  or  name  simply  it  has  the  article,  as  a  rule.  See,  e.  g..  Lk.  lo'  i7».  «  Rom.  i*  5-.  » 
Gal.  I"  6K.  When  the  article  is  omitted  the  noun  is  (a)  qualitative:  Acts  2"  Rom.  io» 
I  Cor.  7"b.  =5  f,;,  iqj,.  (b)  vocative:  Acts  i«;  (c)  used  in  a  fixed  adverbial  phrase,  especially 
eu  Kvpior.  I  Ccr.  7"  "  oL  «  Gal.  5i»,  etc.,  though  particularly  in  reference  to  this  phrase  is 
it  difficult  to  determine  with  certainty  whether  the  term  refers  to  Christ  or  to  God;  or  (d) 
jained  by  Kal  to  a  phrase,  especially  ^eb?  irarr^p,  which  either  itself  has  the  article  or  is 
definite  withoii!:  it.     See  detached  note  on  UaTijp  as  applied  to  God,  p.  386. 


TITLES   AND   PREDICATES   OF   JESUS  403 

17b,  18  is  without  it;*  2  Thes.  a'^,  where  y.upiog  is  used  with  the  article,  and 
Phil.  4S  where  instead  we  have  Osoc;;  also  i  Cor.  1015-22.  with  Rom.  lo'^-is 
cf.  I  Cor.  i2;  also  with  i  Thes.  52  cf.  2  Thes.  2^:  and  with  i  Cor.  2'«  cf.  Rom. 

(iv)  The  lordship  which  Jesus  exercises  since  his  resurrection  is  conceived 
of  as  delegated  rather  than  original,  having  been  bestowed  by  God  after 
the  death  of  Jesus  on  the  cross.  Yet  on  the  other  hand,  Jesus  possessed  a 
lordship  before  the  worlds  were  created,  and  was  himself  the  agent  of  crea- 
tion. The  exaltation,  therefore,  to  the  present  lordship  is  in  part  a  restora- 
tion of  a  power  temporarily  laid  aside.  And  while  the  present  lordship 
is  again,  when  it  has  accomplished  its  purpose,  to  give  place  to  a  supreme 
and  unrivalled  sovereignty  of  God  the  Fa:ther,  yet  during  the  period  of  its 
exercise,  which  is  to  extend  beyond  th«  coming  of  the  Lord  in  the  clouds, 
it  is  without  limit  in  its  authority  over  men,  and  extends  even  to  "things 
in  heaven"  and  "things  under  the  earth."  See  i  Cor,  8^.  «  Phil.  2^.  i«  cj. 
I  Cor.  15=4-28  Col.  115-18, 

While,  therefore,  the  sentence,  "Jesus  is  Lord,"  which  the  apostle  Paul 
several  times  quotes  as  the  distinctively  Christian  confession  (Rom.  10' 
I  Cor.  12'  Phil.  2"),  was  doubtless  of  variable  content,  according  to  the 
period  in  which  it  was  used  and  the  person  uttering  it,  and  while  it  does  not 
in  any  case  mean,  "Jesus  is  God,"  being  an  assertion  of  function  and 
authority  rather  than  of  nature,  yet  at  its  highest  it  ascribes  to  Jesus  a 
lordship  which  is  strictly  theocratic  in  character.  To  accept  him  as  Lord 
in  this  highest  sense  of  the  expression  is  to  bow  the  will  to  him  as  God. 
This  highest  theocratic  use  of  the  term  as  applied  to  Jesus  is  most  fully 
developed  in  the  Pauline  letters.  The  impression  thus  given  that  Christian 
thought  is  chiefly  indebted  to  him  for  the  development  of  the  idea  is  con- 
firmed by  an  examination  of  the  gospels  and  Acts,  the  total  evidence  indicat- 
ing that  the  term  as  applied  to  Jesus  gradually  acquired  greater  depth  and 
significance,  rising  from  a  title  of  ordinary  respect  to  a  theocratic  sense, 
but  reaching  the  latter  well  within  the  lifetime  of  Paul. 

In  the  gospel  of  Mk.,  the  evangelist,  though  showing  that  he  himself 
fully  believed  in  the  messianic  or  theocratic  lordship  of  Jesus,  and  repre- 
senting Jesus  as  having  in  somewhat  veiled  language  claimed  this  for  him- 
self, yet  does  not  represent  Jesus'  disciples  as  ever  calling  him  Lord,  or  any 
of  the  people  as  doing  so  in  any  sense  other  than  Sir  or  Master.  The  gos- 
pels of  Mt.  and  Lk.  modify  this  representation  of  the  situation  in  Jesus' 
lifetime,  yet  on  the  whole  in  such  a  way  as  to  make  it  clear  that  they  are 
therein  influenced  chiefly  by  the  usage  of  the  later  time  in  which  they  are 
writing.     Particularly  significant  are  the  eschatological  passages,  Mt.  7" 

*WH.  suggest  that  Kvpiov  in  v.'  is  a  primitive  error  for  Kvpiov,  "dominant,"  a  reading 
which  would  relieve  the  difEculty  of  interpretation  and  would  obviously  tempt  to  change 
to  the  more  familiar  /cuptov,  but  which  one  hesitates  to  adopt  because  of  the  rarity  of  the 
word  Kvptos  as  an  adjective,  it  being  found  nowhere  else  in  N-  T. 


404  GALATIANS 

and  25"'  ",  in  which  Jesus,  in  his  office  of  judge,  at  the  last  day,  is  addressed 
as  Lord.  In  Acts  the  expression  b  xupioq  is  frequently  used  in  narrative 
passages  as  a  name  of  Jesus,  sometimes  of  the  historic  person,  much  more 
frequently  of  the  risen  and  heavenly  Jesus.  Most  significant  is  Acts  2", 
which  ascribes  to  Peter  at  the  beginning  of  the  apostolic  age  the  words, 
"Him  hath  God  made  both  Lord  and  Christ,"  the  implication  being  that 
this  is  achieved  by  his  resurrection  and  exaltation.  The  association  with 
the  word  "Christ"  indicates  that  the  word  "Lord"  is  used  in  an  exalted 
sense,  probably  exceeding  the  meaning  of  the  word  as  addressed  to  Jesus 
in  any  passage  in  the  third  gospel.  This,  in  a  measure,  confirms  the  evi- 
dence, derived  from  a  comparison  of  the  synoptic  gospels,  that  the  recog- 
nition of  Jesus  as  Lord  in  the  lofty  sense  of  this  passage  arose  first  in  the 
apostolic  age  and  indicates  that  it  was  at  first  associated  with  him  only  as 
risen  and  exalted. 

The  usage  of  the  fourth  gospel  is  in  essential  features  identical  with 
that  of  Lk.  and  Acts,  differing  only  in  the  greater  frequency  of  the  use  of 
the  word  as  a  term  of  address  to  Jesus  and  in  a  clearer  ascription  of  the  term 
in  a  theocratic  sense  to  the  risen  Jesus. 

The  total  evidence  tends,  therefore,  to  indicate  that  the  conception  of 
Jesus  as  master  or  rabbi  had  its  origin  in  Jesus'  own  lifetime  and  in  his 
own  teaching,  but  that  the  application  of  the  term  to  Jesus  in  its  higher 
senses  is  of  later  origin.  The  theocratic  sense,  so  clearly  and  fully  devel- 
oped in  Paul,  is  ascribed  to  the  earlier  apostolic  age  in  Jn.  20"  Acts  2^*, 
and  to  Jesus  in  Mt.  7"  25"'  *\  But  the  evidence  as  a  whole  points  to  the 
conclusion  that  (with  the  possible  exception  of  Acts  2'«)  all  these  passages, 
as  well  as  Lk.  i"  and  2",  were  modified  by  the  usage  of  the  Pauline  period 
and  that  the  higher,  theocratic  sense  had  its  origin  in  the  apostolic  age, 
perhaps  with  Peter,  more  probably  with  Paul.  Cf.  Bohlig,  "Zum  Begriff 
Kyrios  bei  Paulus,"  in  ZntW.  1913,  pp.  23-37. 

V.    YI02   0EOT,   YI02   TOT  0EOT. 

A.   CONCEPTION  "  SON  OF  GOD,"  IN  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT. 

In  O.  T.  the  term,  "son  of  God,"  a"'ri'?N  |3,  with  which  maybe  included 
also  the  plural,  "sons  of  God,"  D^riSx  ^jd,  d^hSnt  >J3,  and  "my  son,"  v^ 
(when  the  possessive  refers  to  God),  is  used  in  three  different  ways: 

1.  It  is  applied  in  the  plural  to  angels,  probably  marking  them  as  super- 
human and  like  God  in  their  mode  of  being:  Job  i«:  "Now  there  was  a  day 
when  the  sons  of  God  came  to  present  themselves  before  the  Lord."  See 
also  Job  21  38^  Ps.  89'  Gen.  6<.     Of  similar  force  is  Dan.  3"  («). 

2.  It  is  applied  in  the  singular  to  the  nation  of  Israel,  marking  it  as 
chosen  of  God  and  brought  into  especially  close  relation  with  him,  analogous 
to  that  of  a  son  to  his  father:  Ex.  4".  23;  "Thou  shalt  say  unto  Pharaoh, 
Thus  saith  Yahweh,  Israel  is  my  son,  my  first-born,  and  I  have  said  unto 


TITLES   AND   PREDICATES   OF   JESUS  405 

thee,  Let  my  son  go."  See  also  Deut.  141  326.  is  Jer.  319.  i^  O")  Hos.  iii: 
"When  Israel  was  a  child,  then  I  loved  him,  and  called  my  son  out  of 
Egypt."  It  is  used  also  in  the  plural  of  the  children  of  Israel:  Hos.  ii": 
"Where  it  was  said  unto  them.  Ye  are  not  my  people,  it  shall  be  said  unto 
them,  Ye  are  the  sons  of  the  living  God." 

3.  It  is  applied  to  the  king  of  Israel,  marking  him  as  not  only  chosen  of 
God  and  brought  into  specially  close  relation  to  him,  but  also  as  exercising 
authority  as  the  representative  of  God:  2  Sam.  7":  "I  will  be  his  father, 
and  he  shall  be  my  son."     See  also  Ps.  2'  Sq^"-"  i  Chr.  1713-  ^'  221". 

The  Hebrew  phrase  in  all  these  latter  cases  is  not  definite  or  individualis- 
ing, nor,  on  the  other  hand,  indefinite,  but  qualitative. 

B.      USAGE   IN   JEWISH-GREEK. 

The  usage  of  ulb<;  Gsou  in  the  Lxx  corresponds  substantially  to  that  of 
DiriSx  "ja  in  the  Heb.  O.  T.  It  is  noticeable,  however,  that  the  singular 
is  never  used  with  the  article,  but  always  as  a  qualitative  expression  with- 
out the  article,  and  that  the  plural  is  definite  only  in  Gen.  6*. 

The  term  uVoq  6eou  occurs  not  infrequently  in  the  O.  T.  Apocrypha  and 
the  Pseudepigrapha  of  the  pre-Christian  period,  designating  one  who  is 
the  object  of  divine  love  and  care.  It  occurs  most  frequently  in  Wisd.  Sol. 
See  218;  "If  the  righteous  man  is  God's  son  {uVoq  Qzoij)  he  will  uphold  him." 
The  plural  is  used  in  5*:  "How  was  he  numbered  mong  sons  of  God,  and 
how  is  his  lot  among  saints?"  So  also  in  9^  i2i9-  "  1610.  ^^  i8^  In  18"  the 
singular  is  used,  as  in  Hos.  iii,  of  the  people  as  a  whole.  The  singular  is 
also  found  in  Sir.  41°,  but  with  special  reference  to  an  individual:  "So  shalt 
thou  be  as  a  son  of  the  Most  High,  and  he  shall  love  thee  more  than  thy 
mother  doth."  See  also  Jth.  9*.  "  (plur.);  3  Mac.  6=8  (plur.);  Ps.  Sol.  173": 
"For  he  shall  know  them  that  they  are  all  sons  of  their  God,"  ulol  0eoO 
e(ctv  auTwv  TiavTsq.     Cf.  detached  note  on  IlaTTjp  as  applied  to  God,  p.  385. 

The  messianic  use  of  the  term  in  Jewish  Uterature  first  appears  in  the 
latter  part  of  the  first  Christian  century,  in  4  Ezr.,*  in  y""^-  29  (though  the 
phrase  is  of  doubtful  genuineness  in  72*,  and  Gunkel  questions  it  in  29 
also;  cf.  Gunkel  in  Ka.^P.,  and  Bous.  Rel.  d.  Jiid.\  p.  261  /.);  i3'='.  "•  "  14". 
This  book  being  definitely  dated  by  internal  evidence  for  the  year  81  a.  d., 
these  passages  are  of  capital  importance.  It  is  significant  that  (as  Bousset 
remarks)  the  Jewish  passages  in  which  the  term  "  Son  of  God  "  is  used  of  the 
Messiah  are  those  in  which  he  is  represented  as  in  conflict  with  the  people 
and  kings  of  the  earth.  This  conception  obviously  suggests  Ps.  2  as  the 
source  of  the  idea,  but  as  obviously  suggests  that  there  is  little  connection 
between  the  Jewish  and  N.  T.  use  of  the  term;  since  the  latter  has  entirely 
different  associations  and  suggestions. 

*  The  words  "and  my  Son"  in  i  Enoch  105'  are  in  all  probability  an  interpolation,  if,  indeed , 
the  whole  passage  is  not.  Cf.  Charles,  in  Ch.AP.  ad  loc;  DaX.WJ.  p.  269.  Beer,  in  Ka. 
AP.,  seems  to  accept  the  vorse  as  genuine. 


4o6  GALATIANS 

Apparently,  therefore,  we  must  seek  not  in  Jewish  but  in  Christian  circles 
themselves  the  origin  of  the  Christian  usage  of  the  title  as  applied  to  Jesus, 
or  in  so  far  as  it  has  a  basis  in  older  usage  must  find  this  either  (a)  in  the 
O.  T.  passages  in  which  the  king  of  Israel  is  called  God's  son,  or  (b)  in  those 
broader,  more  general,  uses  of  the  term  in  the  O.  T.,  which  are  themselves 
the  basis  of  the  application  of  the  term  to  the  king  of  Israel.  It  will  appear 
from  the  examination  of  N.  T.  usage  itself,  on  the  one  side,  that  these  basal 
O.  T.  usages  are  familiar  elements  of  Christian  thought,  and,  on  the  other, 
that  the  application  of  the  term  to  Christians  in  general  is  closely  associated 
with  its  application  in  emphatic  measure  to  Jesus. 

One  link  of  connection  between  Jewish  and  Christian  usage  must,  how- 
ever, be  mentioned.  The  term  "Christ"  was  in  common  use  among  the 
Jews  as  a  title  of  the  expected  king  and  deliverer  before  the  Christian  era, 
and  was  early  taken  over  by  the  Christians  as  a  title  of  him  whom  they 
accounted  to  be  this  expected  deliverer,  viz.,  Jesus.  Whether  the  usage 
was  so  associated  with  Ps.  2  that  it  involved  a  tacit  reference  to  that  psalm 
or  not,  it  would  certainly  suggest  it  to  many.  And  since  in  that  psalm 
the  one  who  is  called  the  "Anointed"  is  also  called  "m.y  son,"  that  is, 
God's  son,  there  was  furnished  in  this  way  a  possible  basis  for  the  appli- 
cation of  the  term  "Son  of  God"  to  the  Messiah  by  either  Jews  or  Chris- 
tians. It  is  doubtful,  however,  whether  the  Christian  usage  of  the  term 
was  actually  arrived  at  in  this  way.  For,  though  the  term  "Son  of  God" 
was  applied  to  the  Messiah  by  Jews  of  the  latter  part  of  the  first.  Christian 
century,  there  is  no  evidence  that  this  usage  was  common  either  in  the  days 
of  Jesus  or  in  the  lifetime  of  Paul  that  is  sufficient  to  justify  our  assuming 
it  as  the  basis  for  the  interpretation  of  the  Christian  usage.* 

C.      USAGE    OF   THE    NON-JEWISH    WORLD. 

The  characterisation  of  a  king  as  a  son  of  God  or  of  a  particular  god,  was 
a  wide-spread  usage  of  the  ancient  world,  but  was  not  of  uniform  meaning. 
Dal.TFJ.  pp.  272  /.,  says:  "When  Asshurbanipal  in  his  Annals  .  .  .  calls 
himself  'an  offspring  of  Asshur  and  Bilit,'  this  means  no  more  than  a  being 
destined  from  birth  to  the  royal  power.  The  kings  of  Egypt,  on  the  con- 
trary, were  reckoned  to  be  real  '  descendants  of  the  god  Ra.'  .  .  .     The 

*  See  Dal. IF/,  pp.  268/.;  "One  may  assume  that  as  time  passed  the  Christian  exposition 
of  Ps.  2  became  a  deterrent  to  its  common  use  by  Ihe  synagogue.  But  even  for  the  earher 
period  it  must  be  recognised  as  certain  that  Ps.  2  was  not  of  decisive  importance  in  the  Jew- 
ish conception  of  the  Messiah  and  that  "Son  of  God"  was  not  a  common  Messianic  title.  A 
hindrance  to  the  use  of  xnVs  1:3  or  ^inSsn  j3  would  have  presented  itself  in  the  custom  of 
not  uttering  the  name  of  God;  and  this  aftenvards  shows  itself  when  Mark  1461  gives  the 
words  of  the  Jewish  high  priest  as  6  vib?  tov  tvXoyrjrov,  a  form  ill  adapted  to  become  a 
current  Messianic  title.  When  God  calls  the  Messiah  his  Son,  this  is  merely  meant  as  a 
sign  of  thj  c.-cceptional  love  with  which  he  above  others  is  regarded,"  p.  272. 

Cf.  also  Bous.  Rel.  d.  Jud.*,  p.  262.  "Dass  der  Titel  'Sohn'  im  Judentum  an  und  fur 
sich  noch  keinerlei  metaphysische  Bedeutung  hat,  bedarf  keines  weiteren  Bowcises." 

Wendt,  Teaching  of  Jesus,  vol.  II,  p.  131.  says  that  "thii  title  was  .  .  .  njither  a  direct 


TITLES   AND   PREDICATES   OF   JESUS  40 7 

royal  style  of  old  Egypt  was  continued  by  the  Ptolemies.  .  .  .  Roman  em- 
perors also  boasted  frequently  of  divine  progenitors.  Sextus  Pompeius  called 
himself  the  son  of  Neptune;  Domitian  the  son  of  Minerva;  Caligula  and 
Hadrian  deemed  themselves  to  be  earthly  manifestations  of  Zeus." 

The  Roman  worship  of  rulers  began  with  Julius  Caesar.  Enthusiasm 
over  his  achievements  led  to  the  erection  of  statues  which  listed  him  among 
the  deities.  This  was  at  first  pure  flattery  taken  seriously  by  no  one.  But 
with  his  assassination  extravagant  adulation  crystallised  into  religious  con- 
viction. In  the  minds  of  the  common  people  he  became  a  god.  In  defer- 
ence to  this  belief  the  senate  conferred  upon  him  the  title  Divus  (.deified) 
and  ordered  a  temple  erected  for  his  worship.  His  successor,  Augustus, 
disclaimed  divine  honours  during  his  lifetime,  but  was  deified  immediately 
after  his  death.  From  that  time  on  till  the  fall  of  the  empire  in  the  fifth 
century  nearly  every  emperor  was  deified.  Later,  however,  the  honour 
lost  much  of  its  religious  character  and  became  largely  a  formality.  Other 
members  of  the  imperial  family  also  were  deified.  The  deification  of  a 
deceased  emperor  was  accomplished  by  a  formal  vote  of  the  senate,  and 
was  celebrated  by  appropriate  ceremonies.  See  H.  F.  Burton,  "The  Wor- 
ship of  the  Roman  Emperors,"  in  Biblical  World,  August,  191 2,  from  which 
the  above  statements  are  condensed.  Cf.  also  Case,  Evolution  of  Early 
Christianity,  chap.  VII.  The  title  "son  of  God,"  as  applied  to  the  Roman 
emperor  of  the  first  Christian  century,  was  not,  however,  a  characterisation 
of  the  emperor  himself  as  divine,  or  of  divine  origin,  but  referred  to  the 
fact  that  his  predecessor  had  been  deified  at  death.  See  the  inscription 
quoted  by  De.55.  p.  131,  h  oaaoq  uxep  xa;  auToy.paxopoq  Kataapoq  0:ou 
ulou  S£(ia(jToij  awTTjptaq  0£otq  IXaaxTiptov,  and  that  transcribed  by  Hogarth 
in  Journal  of  Hellenic  Studies,  1887,  p.  358,  in  which  the  emperor  ap- 
parently speaks  of  his  imperial  father  as  6  Onb;  icaTTjp  [xou.  Cf.  also 
De.55.  pp.  166  ff.  It  is  improbable,  therefore,  that  this  usage  had  any 
important  influence  on  the  Christian  usage  by  which  the  term  uXhc,  OeoG 
or  h  ulbq  Tou  6sou  was  applied  to  Jesus,  still  less,  of  course,  on  the  use  of 
the  plural,  ulol  GsoO,  as  applied  to  believers  in  Christ.  There  is,  indeed, 
a  possible,  not  to  say  probable,  parallelism  in  the  apostle's  mind  between 

designation  of  the  Messianic  dignity,  nor  did  it  brin^  into  prominence  that  characteristic 
of  the  Messiah  on  which  the  Jews  in  the  time  of  Jesus  laid  the  chief  stress.  ...  In  relation 
to  this  most  essential  characteristic  of  the  Messiah  [viz.,  that  he  was  king  of  Israel]  the  tra- 
ditional attribute,  'the  Son  of  God,'  denotes  only  an  incidental  notion  of  very  indefinite 
content."  Yet  he  holds  that  the  term  would  be  recognised  as  designating  the  Messiah. 
Thus,  p.  130,  "In  the  fact  that  the  0.  T.  passages  2  Sam.  7'*  Ps.  2^  89»"f-,  in  which  the  theo- 
cratic king  of  Israel  was  designated  the  Son  of  God,  were  interpreted  of  the  future  Mes- 
sianic king,  lay  the  reason  for  this  title  of  Son  of  God  being  considered  as  specially  belong- 
ing to  the  Messiah."  Even  so  much  as  this  may  be  doubted.  There  is  no  clear  evidence 
that  a  claim  to  be  son  of  God  would  necessarily  be  understood  as  an  affirmation  of  mes- 
siahship  among  the  Jews  of  the  first  half  of  the  first  Christian  century.  One  recognised 
as  the  Messiah  would  undoubtedly  be  conceived  to  be  a  son  of  God.  But  the  converse 
would  not  follow. 


4o8  GALATIANS 

the  language  in  Rom.  i^  too  hpioUvxoq  uloG  GsoO  ...  1^  imaxdaeaq 
vsxpwv,  and  an  announcement  such  as  might  have  been  made  in  Rome 
that  the  emperor  lately  deceased  had  by  decree  of  the  senate  been  deified, 
raised  to  the  rank  of  Qzoq.  But  the  parallelism  fails  precisely  in  the  fact 
that  Paul  uses  uVoq  0coO  instead  of  6e6q:  from  which  it  must  be  inferred 
(since  he  can  not  possibly  mean  that  by  his  resurrection  from  the  dead  his 
father  has  been  made  a  god)  that  his  term  ulb;  ecoCi  had  its  origin  in  and 
derived  its  meaning  from  a  usage  quite  other  than  that  of  the  application 
of  this  term  to  Augustus,  or  in  similar  sense  to  other  emperors.  Cf.  H.  F. 
Burton,  op.  cil.,  p.  91. 

D.      NEW  TESTAMENT   USAGE, 

I.  Pauline  7/5a^e.— Investigation  of  the  use  ot  the  term  by  N.  T.  writers 
and  teachers  necessarily  begins  with  that  of  Paul's  epistles,  since  it  is  only 
in  the  light  of  their  evidence  that  it  is  possible  to  judge  how  much  of  the 
usage  of  the  gospels  is  of  pre-Pauline  origin.  The  clue  to  the  meaning  of 
the  expression  in  Gal.  i^^  is  probably  to  be  found  in  2  Cor.  4*-6.  Both  pas- 
sages seem  to  refer  to  the  experience  by  which  Paul  abandoned  Pharisaic 
Judaism  to  become  a  follower  of  Jesus  the  Christ;  both  refer  to  a  process  or 
act  of  divine  revelation  by  which  Paul  gained  a  new  conception  of  Jesus; 
it  is  reasonable,  therefore,  to  take  2  Cor.  4<-6,  in  which  Jesus  is  described  as 
the  image  of  God,  and  it  is  said  that  God  shined  in  the  apostle's  heart  to 
give  the  light  of  the  glory  of  God  in  the  face  of  Jesus  Christ,  as  indicating 
the  principal  emphasis  of  the  expression,  "his  Son,"  in  Gal.  ii«,  and  so  to 
understand  the  term  as  referring  especially  to  the  resemblance  of  the  Son  to 
the  Father. 

In  Rom.  S'ff-  the  post-resurrection  Christ  is  identified  with  the  Spirit  of 
Christ  and  the  Spirit  of  God,  and  in  the  same  context  is  called  God's  own 
Son.  It  is  hazardous  to  press  the  fact  of  this  connection,  both  because  there 
is  a  considerable  interval  between  the  two  expressions,  and  because  the 
expression  "his  own  Son"  is  used  in  speaking  of  the  sending  of  Christ  into 
the  world,  while  the  other  expressions  are  used  of  the  post-incarnate  Christ. 
It  is  probably  safer,  therefore,  to  interpret  this  passage  by  comparison  with 
Rom.  8^2,  "  He  that  spared  not  his  own  Son  but  delivered  him  up  for  us  all," 
where  the  Son  (incarnate)  is  evidently  thought  of  as  the  special  object  of 
divine  love,  and  with  Rom.  51",  which,  in  the  light  of  Rom.  58,  evidently  em- 
phasises the  same  aspect  of  the  sonship. 

In  Gal.  4<  which  apparently  conceives  of  Christ  as  the  Son  of  God  before 
the  incarnation,  a  different  phase  of  sonship  is  made  prominent.  The  pur- 
pose of  his  sending  the  Son  is  said  to  be  that  we  might  receive  the  spirit 
of  adoption.  And  it  is  added  that  "because  ye  are  sons,  God  sent  forth 
the  Spirit  of  his  Son  into  our  hearts,  crying,  Abba,  Father."  Two  things 
are  important  here — first,  that  the  apostle  passes  without  jar  from  the 
idea  of  the  pre-incarnate  Son  to  that  of  the  post-incarnate  Son;   and. 


TITLES   AND   PREDICATES   OF  JESUS  409 

second,  that  the  aspect  of  the  sonship  which  is  emphasised  is  that  of  the 
filial  spirit— the  recognition  of  the  divine  fatherhood,  in  other  words,  inti- 
macy of  moral  fellowship,  which,  belonging  to  Christ,  becomes  ours  through 
the  impartation  of  his  Spirit  to  us.  This  connects  the  passage  again  with 
Rom.  8'«-,  where  the  Spirit  of  Christ  is  identified  with  Christ  and  the 
Spirit  of  God.  But  it  also  recalls  Rom.  8"-  ",  which  make  it  clear  that 
Paul  used  the  term  "son  of  God"  to  designate  one  who  is  in  moral  fellow- 
ship with  God,  governed  by  his  Spirit,  doing  his  will,  like  him  in  character, 
and  that  he  applied  the  term  in  this  sense  both  to  Christ  as  the  Son  of  God 
and  to  men  as  sons  of  God.  These  two  uses,  therefore,  were  related,  but 
in  two  ways.  In  Gal.  4*  God  sends  the  Spirit  of  his  Son  into  the  hearts  of 
men  who  are,  and  because  they  are,  sons;  in  Rom.  8^^  it  is  implied  that  men 
become  sons  by  the  possession  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  which  elsewhere  Paul 
identifies  with  the  Spirit  of  his  Son.  For  the  evidence  that  the  expression, 
"born  of  a  woman,"  in  Gal.  4^  can  not  be  interpreted  as  referring  to  the 
virgin  birth  or  as  implying  that,  by  virtue  of  divine  procreation  he  is  Son 
of  God  in  a  genealogical  sense,  sec  com.  ad  loc. 

In  I  Cor.  is^*  it  is  noticea,ble  that  the  expression  "  Son  of  God  "  is  used  of 
the  post-incarnate  Son,  that  it  is  made  equivalent  by  the  context  to  Christ 
(v."),  and  that  the  whole  context  emphasises  the  idea  of  the  exercise  of 
power  on  behalf  of  God;  yet  it  is,  perhaps,  also  not  without  significance 
that  it  is  only  when  he  comes  to  speak  of  the  surrender  of  power  that  the 
term  "Son "  is  used.  The  term  i3  therefore  clearly  employed  in  its  theocratic 
sense — denoting  one  who,  though  subordinate  to  God,  exercises  for  God 
power  over  all  things. 

In  Col.  113-17,  the  expression  "of  his  love"  at  once  makes  it  clear  that  the 
expression  is  used  in  its  affectional  sense.  With  this,  however,  is  closely 
associated  in  v.^^  the  idea  of  moral  likeness  and  in  v."  that  of  vice-regal 
power.  It  is  perhaps  too  much  to  say  that  the  two  latter  ideas,  as  well  as 
the  first,  are  contained  in  the  expression  "his  Son,"  but  it  is  noteworthy 
that  they  follow  in  easy  sequence  upon  it  as  if  suggested  by  it. 

Rom.  !'-«  may  be  paraphrased  as  follows:  "  As  a  corporeally  conditioned 
being,  born  Son  of  David  (Messiah  in  the  Jewish  sense  of  the  term  or  as 
predicted  in  the  O.  T.) ;  as  a  holy  and  spiritually  existent  being,  constituted 
Son  of  God  with  power  (nearly  equivalent  to  heavenly  Messiah  and  Lord) 
by  the  resurrection  from  the  dead."  Thus  the  sonship  with  power,  as  con- 
trasted with  the  sonship  of  his  earthly  life  (cf.  Phil.  2^),  is  based  on  moral 
likeness  to  God  (note  the  word  holiness)  but  consists  essentially  in  the  pos- 
session and  exercise  of  theocratic  power,  that  is,  lordship  over  men  and 
the  world  as  God's  representative.  Note  the  immediately  following  words, 
"Jesus  Christ  our  Lord,"  and  cf.  i  Cor.  ii^  12^^  Phil.  29-".  Thus  the  two 
members  of  the  parallelism  express  respectively  the  messiahship  on  its 
earthly  and  its  heavenly  side;  in  its  pre-resurrection  and  its  post-resurrection 
aspect. 


41 0  GALATIANS 

We  may  then  summarise  the  uses  of  the  term  by  Paul  as  follows: 

(a)  The  ethico-religious  sense.  In  this  sense  Paul  uses  the  term  both  of 
Christ  and  of  men,  though  clearly  assigning  it  to  Jesus  in  unique  measure, 
and  in  some  cases  basing  the  sonship  of  men  on  their  possession  of  the 
Spirit  of  the  Son, 

(i)  The  affectional  sense,  denoting  one  who  is  the  object  of  divine  love: 
Gal.  3='5  4<.  6.  7  Rom.  5"  8^-  i'  (cf.  ")•  "  Col.  i"-. 

(ii)  The  moral  sense,  denoting  one  who  is  morally  like  God,  being  led  by 
his  Spirit,  doing  his  will;  as  applied  to  Christ,  consequently  a  revelation  of 
God:  Gal.  i^s  i  Cor.  i*  Rom.  8^'^--  "■. 

(iii)  With  these  two  ideas  Paul  associates  the  idea  of  freedom,  such  as 
belongs  to  a  son  as  distinguished  from  a  slave:  Gal.  4'  Rom.  S'^-'^ 

(h)  The  ofiQcial  and  theocratic  sense,  denoting  one  who  exercises  divine 
power  for  God;  applied  to  Christ  only:  i  Thes.  i'"  i  Cor.  15=8  2  Cor.  i'' 
Rom.  !'•  *•  »•. 

Not  all  of  these  assignments  are  equally  certain,  and  there  is  doubtless 
some  blending  of  the  different  conceptions.  But  there  are  enough  unam- 
biguous cases  under  each  head  to  justify  the  classification. 

The  official  sense  being  applied  to  Christ  only,  it  is  natural  that  the  two 
expressions  "Christ"  and  "Son  of  God"  approximate  and  to  a  certain 
extent  blend  in  meaning.  Through  the  union  of  the  idea  of  the  theo- 
cratic Son  with  that  of  the  pre-existence  of  the  Christ  and  with  that  of 
his  resurrection  and  post-mundane  power,  there  issues  for  Paul  the  thought 
of  (i)  the  Son  as  the  one  Lord  through  whom  the  worlds  came  into  being 
(i  Cor.  8«);  (ii)  the  Son  who,  having  laid  aside  his  divine  power  on  earth, 
lived  under  the  law  and  died  on  the  cross  for  men  (Rom.  8^=);  (iii)  the 
Son,  who,  exalted  to  the  right  hand  of  God  (Rom.  8^*;  cf.  Phil.  21")  is  again 
Lord  of  all  till  he  surrender  all  things  to  the  Father  (i  Cor.  15=^-").  Yet 
it  is  important  to  observe  that,  in  Paul  at  least,  each  term  retained  its  own 
fundamental  meaning,  Xptaxo?  as  an  official  term  and  the  bearer  of  the 
inherited  messianic  idea  as  modified  in  Christian  thought,  utb;  [toG]  OsoO 
as  a  fundamentally  ethical  and  religious  term,  connoting  a  certain  moral 
and  religious  relation  to  God. 

2.  Usage  of  the  synoptic  gospels  and  Ads.— The  instances  of  the  term 
'■'  son  of  God  "  that  occur  in  the  synoptic  gospels  and  Acts  may  be  best  con- 
sidered in  the  following  groups : 

(a)  Those  in  which  the  expression  "sons  of  God,"  \j\o\  OsoG,  designates 
those  who  are  like  God  in  moral  character:  Mt.  5''  "^  Lk.  6^^;  cf.  Rom.  8'^ 

(b)  One  passage  in  which  it  designates  those  who  are  like  God  in  that 
their  mode  of  existence  is  supramundane:  Lk.  2o'«;  cf.  Job  i«. 

(c)  Those  which  record  the  personal  religious  experiences  of  Jesus,  and 
use  the  term  in  the  singular  referring  to  him.  Thus  in  the  baptism,  Mk.  I'l 
Lk.  3=2 :  "Thou  art  my  beloved  Son"  (6  ul6^  ^ou  b  ayax-rjToq),  but  in 
Mt.  3":  "This  is  my  beloved  Son";  in  the  transfiguration,  Mk.  9'  Mt.  17=: 


TITLES  AND   PREDICATES   OF  JESUS  41 1 

"This  is  my  beloved  Son"  (6  ul6;  [xou  h  dyaxirjToq),  but  in  Lk.  9":  "This 
is  my  son,  the  chosen"  (b  u\6q  [lou  h  IxXeXiQYtJLlvoq);  in  the  temptation, 
Mt.  4'>  «  Lk.  4'-  »:  "If  thou  art  Son  of  God"  {zl  ulhq  d  toO  OcoO).  The 
context,  esp.  in  the  narrative  of  the  baptism,  but  scarcely  less  clearly  in  the 
other  accounts,  emphasises  the  affectional  sense  of  the  term,  the  conception 
of  the  Son  as  object  of  the  love  and  confidence  of  God.  The  use  of  the 
article,  lacking  in  the  narrative  of  the  temptation,  but  present  in  all  the  other 
passages  cited,  designates  Jesus  as  the  one  who  was  in  an  exceptional  or 
unique  degree  the  object  of  the  divine  approving  love.  This  uniqueness 
doubtless  suggests  unique  responsibility,  and  so  conveys  an  intimation  of 
the  official  or  theocratic  sense.  But  neither  this  fact  nor  the  probability  that 
in  the  apostolic  age,  when  the  theocratic  sense  was  the  common  posses- 
sion of  Christian  thought,  it  was  understood  chiefly  in  that  sense,  can  con- 
ceal the  fundamentally  ethical  sense  of  the  term  in  these  passages. 

(d)  The  passages  in  which  the  demoniacs  address  Jesus  as  the  Son  of 
God,  b  u\hq  Toij  08OU,  ule  toO  OcoO,  tou  'T^ia-coo:  Mk.  3"  Lk.  4"  Mt.  8" 
Mk.  5^  Lk.  8^8.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  in  the  passages  as  they  stand, 
the  expression  is  to  be  taken  in  a  theocratic  sense,  probably  nearly  equiv- 
alent to  "the  Christ"  in  the  Jewish  sense.  But  several  considerations  com- 
bine to  raise  a  doubt  whether  the  original  tradition  which  underlay  the 
gospel  record  represented  the  demoniacs  as  calling  Jesus  the  Son  of  God 
in  this  sense  if,  indeed,  in  any  sense.  Lexicographical  evidence  makes  it 
doubtful,  to  say  the  least,  whether  "the  Son  of  God"  was  in  the  life  of 
Jesus  in  current  use  in  an  official  sense.  The  gospel  record  makes  it  im- 
probable that  Jesus  was  in  the  beginning  of  his  ministry  recognised  as  the 
Christ;  and  the  comparison  of  the  statements  of  the  several  gospels  shows 
such  a  tendency  on  the  part  of  the  evangelists  to  add  such  statements  to  the 
testimony  of  their  sources  as  makes  it  probable  that  they  are  all,  in  fact,  the 
product  of  the  process  of  gospel-making.  The  cries  of  the  demoniacs  which 
tradition  recorded,  the  evangelists,  influenced  by  the  thought  of  their  own 
day,  interpreted  as  affirmations  of  his  divine  sonship  in  a  sense  closely 
akin  to  messiahship. 

(e)  The  records  of  the  trial  and  crucifixion  of  Jesus.  Here,  also,  the 
term  which  the  evangelists  report  to  have  been  used  in  the  question  of  the 
high  priest  to  Jesus  (Mk.  14"  Mt.  26«'  Lk.  2  2«''  ^o)  was  doubtless  understood 
by  the  gospel  writers  in  a  theocratic  sense  and  nearly  though  not  quite 
equivalent  to  "the  Christ,"  which  in  Mt.  and  Mk.  it  follows  immediately, 
and  in  Lk.  m  a  separate  question.  But  it  is  probable  that,  as  in  the  pre- 
ceding group  and  still  more  clearly  in  Mt.  i6i«  (see  below),  the  words  are 
an  epexegetic  addition  of  the  evangelists.  In  Mt.  2j*0'  «  the  term  empha- 
sises the  ethical,  affectional  sense,  yet  is  probably  official  also.  It  is,  how- 
ever, clearly  an  editorial  expansion  of  the  source.  The  words  are  not  found 
in  either  Mk.  or  Lk.,  and  though  the  parallelism  of  Mt.  27"  with  Lk.  23" 
suggests  that  Mk.  originally  had  a  similar  expression,  it  does  not  imply 


412  GALATIANS 

that  that  expression  contained  the  term  "Son  of  God."  The  omission  of 
the  article  before  ul6?  gives  the  phrase  qualitative  force.  In  Mk.  15" 
and  the  parallel  Mt.  27",  the  expression,  looked  upon  as  an  utterance  of  a 
Roman  officer,  would  naturally  be  taken  in  its  non-Jewish  sense,  "a  son 
of  a  god,"  implying,  perhaps,  kingly  authority,  since  such  a  title  was  usu- 
ally employed  of  kings,  but  directly  expressive  of  divine  origin.  In  the 
thought  of  the  evangelist  it  may  have  borne  the  ethical  or  the  official 
meaning. 

(f)  In  Mt.  i6»«,  "the  Son  of  the  living  God"  (6  itVoq  toG  Gsou  tou  ^wvtoj) 
is  an  unmistakable  epexegetic  addition  to  the  Mk.  source,  which  has 
only  h  xpt<JT^«i;.  The  phrase  is  evidently  theocratic.  To  Mt.  14"  there 
is  no  parallel  in  either  Mk.  or  Lk.:  the  verse  is  doubtless,  like  Mt.  2'j*'>-  «, 
an  editorial  addition.  The  article  is  lacking,  the  omission  giving  to  the 
expression  a  qualitative  force.  There  is  nothing  to  indicate  clearly  whether 
it  is  ethical  or  official.  In  Mk.  i^  ubO  OjoG  standing  in  the  title  of  the 
gospel  or  of  its  opening  section  is  manifestly  editorial,  whether  proceeding 
from  the  original  evangelist  or  an  early  scribe.  In  either  case  it  is  un- 
doubtedly theocratic  (cf.  Rom.  1*  Jn.  20")-  The  absence  of  the  article  is 
due  to  the  titular  character  of  the  whole  expression,  "The  beginning  of 
the  gospel  of  Jesus  Christ,  Son  of  God." 

(g)  In  Mk.  i3'2  and  in  its  parallel  in  Mt.  24'«,  and  in  Mt.  11"  and  its 
parallel  Lk.  10",  Jesus  uses  the  expression  "the  Son,"  6  uloc;,  in  antithesis 
to  "the  Father,"  b  xa-ngp.  The  latter  term  clearly  refers  to  God,  and  the 
former,  without  doubt,  to  Jesus  himself.  In  itself  the  term  bears  its  ethical 
sense,  designating  the  one  who  is  in  closest  fellowship  and  intimacy  with 
God.  Yet  in  Mt.  11",  Lk.  10"  especially,  the  uniqueness  of  the  sonship 
is  so  strongly  emphasised  as  inevitably  to  suggest  an  official  and  theocratic 
sense,  though  clearly  in  the  spiritual  realm.  The  passage  testifies  to  the 
early  date  at  which  this  conception  of  Jesus'  divine  sonship  was  accepted 
by  the  church,  but  by  its  limitation  of  fellowship  with  God  to  those  whom 
the  Son  admits  to  this  privilege,  in  contradistinction  to  the  synoptic  teach- 
ing in  Mk.  3"  Mt.  58,  and,  indeed,  the  immediate  context,  Mt.  ii«  Lk.  lo^i, 
it  raises  the  question  whether  it  is  not  the  product  of  the  same  type  of 
Christian  thought  of  which  the  fourth  gospel  gives  so  abundant  evidence, 
rather  than  a  reflection  of  the  earliest  thought  of  the  church  or  of  Jesus' 
own  thought. 

(h)  In  the  infancy  narrative  of  Lk.  the  expression  "Son  of  God,"  or  its 
equivalent,  occurs  three  times.  The  phrase  in  i"  is  u\hq  'T(]^tjTou,  in  i" 
vlh:;  0;ou,  and  in  3'8  [ulhq]  tou  6cou.  In  the  last-named  passage  the  use 
and  meaning  of  the  term  are  quite  exceptional.  At  the  end  of  the  genea- 
logical line  which  traces  the  ancestry  of  Jesus  backward,  Seth  is  said  to 
be  son  of  Adam,  and  Adam  son  of  God.  The  basis  and  content  of  the 
sonship  is  the  fact  that,  as  each  preceding  member  of  the  line  owed  his 
existence  to  his  immediate  ancestor,  so  Adam  owed  his  existence  not  to 


TITLES  AND  PREDICATES   OF  jEStJS  413 

any  man  but  directly  to  God.*    It  is  improbable  that  the  author  meant 
to  push  the  parallel  so  far  as  to  ascribe  to  God  a  physical  or  biological 
paternity,  such  as  that  which  Greek  and  Roman  mythology  sometimes 
ascribed  to  its  gods,  and  quite  certain  that  the  term  "son  of  God"  as  applied 
to  Adam  conveyed  no  implication  respecting  his  nature.     The  first  man 
is  not  other  than  man.     In  Lk.  i"  uXhq  'T<^iaxou,  used  qualitatively,  seems 
obviously  to  have  the  theocratic  sense,  but  as  the  immediate  context  shows, 
with  a  distinctly  Jewish  colouring,  akin  to  that  which  in  Rom.  i'-  <  is  ex- 
pressed not  by  uVoq  SsoO  but  by  ex  a%ip[i.czxo<;  Aauet'S,  and  suggesting  an 
influence  of  2  Sam.  7".    The  term  is  evidently  nearly  equal  to  Xpiaxo?. 
Cf.  Lk.  2"'  ".     In  I"  the  meaning  of  the  term  is  extremely  difficult  to  deter- 
mine with  accuracy.     Between  the  passage  as  it  stands,  including  v.'*, 
and  3'8,  there  is  a  certain  parallelism  in  that,  as  there  Adam  had  no  earthly 
father  and  owed  his  existence  to  the  immediate  activity  of  God,  so  here 
Jesus  is  represented  as  begotten  without  a  human  father  and  as  owing  his 
conception  to  the  special  exercise  of  divine  power.     But  it  can  not  perhaps 
be  inferred  that  the  content  of  the  term  is  in  both  cases  the  same;  it  is 
possible  that  in  i"  the  writer  thinks  of  this  exceptional  manner  of  Jesus' 
conception  as  differentiating  him  in  nature  from  other  men.     If  so,  and  if 
he  thought  that  such  differentiation  of  nature  necessarily  resulted  from  the 
exceptional  relation  of  God  to  his  conception,  he  has,  of  course,  reasoned 
differently  here  from  3^8.     If  Adam,  with  no  human  parents,  can  be  the 
product  of  divine  creative  power,  yet  as  fully  human  as  any  other  man,  it 
can  not  be  inferred  as  a  matter  of  necessity  that  Jesus,  with  one  human 
parent,  becomes  other  or  more  than  human,  because  the  human  paternity 
is  replaced  by  divine  creative  power.     Nor  should  it  be  overlooked  that  in 
no  other  passage  of  N.  T.  is  divine  sonship  represented  either  as  a  biologi- 
cal fact  or  as  physically  conditioned.     Of  the  impartation  of  the  divine 
nature  through  a  physical  or  biological  process,  or  otherwise  than  in  a 
purely  spiritual  and  religious  sense,  or  of  its  association  with  physical 
birth,  there  is  no  trace.     From  this  point  of  view,  therefore,  the  presump- 
tion is  against  the  interpretation  which  would  impute  to  the  author  the 
thought  that  by  virtue  of  the  exceptional  condition  of  his  conception  Jesus 
was  of  divine  or  semi-divine  nature.f    Yet  the  context  makes  it  improbable 

*C/.  the  statement  of  Philo,  Opif.  Mund.  140'  (49):  >;  t^ev  yap  ^^eripa  yeVecrt;  i^  av- 
0pu>rToiv,  Tov  (sc.  'ASttju.)  5e  Oebg  eS-nfJU-ovpyrjorev. 

t  This  is  the  case,  aside  from  any  question  as  to  the  integrity  or  originality  of  the  passage 
as  it  stands.  But  in  fact,  v.»<  is  so  out  of  harmony  with  the  preceding  context  as  to  make 
it  probable  that  it  is  an  addition  of  a  later  hand  than  that  of  the  author  of  the  rest  of  the 
narrative.  The  preceding  context,  with  its  announcement  to  a  maiden  betrothed  to  a  descen- 
dant of  the  house  of  David  that  she  will  bear  a  son  who  will  be  the  promised  Messiah,  so 
obviously  implies  that  this  will  take  place  in  wedlock  as  to  leave  no  ground  or  occasion  for 
the  question,  "How  shall  this  be,  seeing  I  know  not  a  man?"  But  with  the  omission  of  this 
verse,  of  the  rrj  efxi/Tjo-Tevjaevrj  avTiZ  of  2»,  and  of  the  parenthetical  i?  ivoixi^ero  of  3",  all  of 
which  are  probably  from  the  same  hand,  there  disappears  from  the  gospel  all  intimation  of 
a  conception  without  human  paternity  or  of  a  divine  sonship  conditioned  on  or  related  to  a 


414  GALATIANS 

that  the  term  here  means  no  more  than  in  3",  and  the  immediate  asso- 
ciation of  the  word  ayioq,  "holy,"  with  the  term  ulb?  6eoj,  "son  of  God," 
and  the  parallel  use  of  the  expression  xvsu[ji.a  aytov  suggests  that  the  term 
"Son  of  God"  is  here  used  in  the  ethical  sense.  Begotten  of  a  mother 
overshadowed  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  child  is  holy :  generated  by  the  power 
of  God  the  Highest,  he  is  son  of  God.  This  is  also  favoured  by  the  anar- 
throus use  of  almost  all  the  terms  in  the  sentence,  suggesting  a  qualitative 
and  ethical  emphasis  on  them  all.  In  that  case,  while  the  usage  of  the 
term  is  the  familiar  one  which  is  found  also  in  Mt.  5''  «,  and  in  Rom.  8^\ 
the  passage  is  exceptional  in  that  Jesus'  divine  sonship,  ethically  defined, 
is  implied  to  result  from,  or  to  be  associated  causally  with,  the  exceptional 
fact  respecting  his  conception,  viz.,  the  replacement  of  human  paternity 
by  divine  power.  And  if  this  be  correct,  then  it  appears  that  whereas  the 
sonship  with  power  is  in  Rom.  1*  carried  back  to  the  resurrection  (its  origi- 
nal possession,  however,  in  i  Cor.  8»  to  the  beginning  of  creation),  and 
whereas  in  Mk.  i^,  the  ethical  sonship  with  theocratic  implications  is  asso- 
ciated with  the  baptism  of  Jesus,  the  present  passage  associates  its  origin 
with  the  conception  of  Jesus  in  his  mother's  womb  under  the  overshadowing 
of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

(i)  In  Acts  the  term  occurs  in  g^"  only.  It  is  used  here  with  reference 
to  the  exalted  Jesus,  doubtless  in  the  theocratic  sense. 

3.  Usage  of  the  Johannine  ivritings. — The  term  occurs  more  frequently 
in  the  fourth  gospel  than  in  the  synoptic  gospels,  but  the  usage  is  less  di- 
verse. The  title  "the  Son  of  God,"  as  applied  to  Jesus,  is,  as  in  Paul  and 
the  synoptists,  fundamentally  ethical,  marking  him  as  in  intimate  fellow- 
ship with  God,  and  the  object  of  his  love  (iis  513.  2°).  This  is  also  the 
meaning  of  the  term  [xovoyeviQi;,  which  refers  not  so  much  (if  at  all)  to  the 
generation  of  Jesus  {cf.  i'-  1^)  as  to  the  uniqueness  of  his  relation  to  God, 
describing  him  as  possessing  the  love  which  a  father  has  for  his  only  son; 
cf.  3'«'  i«,  and  for  the  meaning  of  the  term  i^*-  ^^.  But  it  should  be  observed 
that  the  expression  [xovoysv-f);  xapa  xaTpoq  in  i"  is  not  a  predicate  or  title  of 
Jesus,  but  a  qualitative  expression  used  by  way  of  comparison,  "glory  as 
of  an  only  begotten  (son,  sent  forth)  from  a  father  (to  represent  him) ";  and 
that  in  i^^  we  should  probably  read  [xovoY^v-f];  Osoq,  and  interpret  pLovoye'/iQ; 
as  standing  for  {jLovoysv?)^  \SKdz,,  with  Ocoq  in  definitive  apposition.  But  on  the 
basis  of  its  ethical  sense  the  term  is  also  theocratic,  characterising  Jesus  as 
the  representative  and  revelation  of  God  (i"-  i*  3".  35  ^22,  23,  26  ic'«).  In 
I"  and  in  i"  there  is  probably  an  approximation  to  the  idea  of  the  Christ, 

birth  physically  exceptional.  The  later  writer,  indeed,  desiring,  like  his  predecessor,  to  exalt 
Jesus,  by  the  addition  of  v."  excluded  human  paternity  and  threw  a  difJerent  atmosphere 
around  v.";  but  this  does  not  destroy  the  original  sense  of  the  v.,  or  even  necessarily  imply 
that  the  author  of  this  v.  gave  to  the  divine  sonship  a  physical  or  biological  sense.  His  ex- 
clusion of  human  paternity  does  not  necessarily  carry  with  it  the  idea  of  a  divine  nature 
propagable  by  generation. 


TITLES    AND    PREDICATES    OF   JESUS  415 

and  that  in  the  Jewish  or  early  Christian  sense,  as  in  11"  and  20"  there  is 
a  manifest  association,  but  not  identification,  of  the  term  with  the  historically- 
inherited  idea  of  the  Messiah.  Here,  as  in  Mt.  i6i«,  the  confession  of  Jesus 
as  the  Christ  is  naturally  supplemented  by  the  term  "Son  of  God,"  not  as  a 
mere  repetition,  but  as  a  term  of  additional  and  richer  significance.  In  the 
gospel  generally  the  term  is  thoroughly  spiritualised,  the  Son  being  thought 
of  as  the  revelation  of  the  character  and  will  of  the  Father  (I's  lo^s,  etc.), 
and  the  functions  which  are  ascribed  to  him  being  in  no  way  political  or 
mulitary  (as  they  are  in  Ps.  Sol.  17;  cj.  Acts  i«),  but  purely  spiritual  (ji*. 
36  539  836),  Even  the  judgment  which  is  ascribed  to  the  Son  (5-^)  is  not 
primarily  thought  of  as  future  or  external,  but  as  present  and  self-executing 
(3I8);  his  great  work  is  the  impartation  of  eternal  life  as  an  immediate  pos- 
session (338  521.  24,  26)^  and  the  conception  of  a  future  resurrection  of  right- 
eous and  wicked  (5=8)  is  a  secondary  element  unassimilated  with  the  preva- 
lent view  of  the  book. 

In  the  prologue  the  Christ,  in  his  pre-existent  state,  is  called  the  Word, 
6  Xdyoq.  But  in  i^s  the  Word  is  identified  with  the  only  begotten  (Son) 
and  3"  lo'^  are  most  naturally  interpreted  as  applying  the  term  "Son"  to 
him  in  his  pre-existent  state.  There  is  at  least  no  intimation  that  the 
Word  becomes  the  Son  by  the  incarnation.  In  1413  and  20",  on  the  other 
hand,  "  the  Son  "  is  a  title  of  the  risen  Christ.  Most  commonly,  however,  it 
refers  to  Jesus  in  his  earthly  life  (i"-  "  333  5i9-2«  6»'  8'«  lo^s  n^.  2?  171).  In 
19^  the  Jews  are  said  to  have  affirmed  that  he  ought  to  die  "because  he  made 
himself  Son  of  God"  (ulb?  0:oa),  the  only  instance  of  the  qualitative 
use  of  the  term  in  this  gospel,  as  in  518,  they  sought  to  kill  him  because 
he  "called  God  his  own  Father,  making  himself  equal  with  God."  These 
passages  probably  imply  that  in  the  view  of  the  writer  the  Jews  understood 
the  term  as  he  himself  did,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  that  for  him  it  expressed 
the  possession  on  Jesus'  part  of  full  though  delegated  divine  authority 
(1I8  ^22-27  io3o  149),  This  carries  back  into  the  earthly  life  of  Jesus,  and 
expresses  more  emphatically  and  explicitly  what  Paul  affirmed  of  him  as 
the  risen  and  exalted  Son. 

In  the  fourth  gospel  the  term  "son  of  God"  or  "sons  of  God,"  ulbq  Ssou 
or  ulol  Gsou,  as  a  title  of  believers,  is  displaced  (i^^  1152)  by  Tsxva  Geou,  which 
Paul  also  uses  as  a  synonym  of  ulol  6306  (Rom.  S^^-  i"-  ").  The  exclusion  of 
ulol  Gsoj  from  Jn.  is  generally,  and  probably  correctly,  ascribed  to  the 
writer's  desire  to  distinguish  more  sharply  between  Jesus  and  his  followers 
than  would  seem  to  be  done  by  using  ubl  Gsoii  of  them. 

In  no  book  of  N.  T.  does  the  term  "Son  of  God"  occur  as  frequently  in 
proportion  to  its  length  as  in  i  Jn.  In  3'  55.  ifa,  12,  13,  20a  ^yg  have  h  ulbg 
ToO  0£oj;  in  4"  ^'^'  '"b,  n  ^  ^^^g  ai!iToij;  in  i'  323  520b  \^  ^\-^^  auxou  Tt)ctou<; 
Xpiaxdq;  in  i'  'Ir^aoGq  6  ulbq  auToQ;  in  4'  6  ulb<;  auTou  6  [xovoysvTjq;  in 
222.  23  ])i^  24  414  ^12  5/_j  J,  uPj^^  ij^  every  case  except  those  in  5>2  in  antithe- 
sis with  6  Tcax-^p.     In  2  Jn.  »  occurs  the  expression  'Iigaouq  Xpttjxbc;  6  ulb? 


4l6  GALATIANS 

Tou  xaTpoi;,  and  in  v.'  b  ul6c;  in  antithesis  with  h  xa-n^p.  The  term  is  never 
anarthrous  in  either  epistle.  It  is  clear  from  the  use  of  the  term  in  its 
various  forms  that  there  are  those  who  deny  that  Jesus  is  the  Son  of  God, 
and  the  term  is,  perhaps  in  part  by  reason  of  the  controversy  over  it, 
thoroughly  familiar  and  needs  no  definition.  In  themselves,  these  letters 
do  not  clearly  indicate  precisely  what  phase  of  its  meaning  is  chiefly  in 
mind,  but  read  in  the  light  of  the  clearer  passages  of  the  fourth  gospel,  they 
leave  no  doubt  that  it  bears  here  the  same  general  meaning  as  there,  and 
that  by  the  title,  "the  Son  of  God,"  Jesus  is  described  as  being  the  unique 
revelation  and  representative  of  God.  The  constant  designation  of  God 
as  the  Father,  alongside  of  the  term  "  Son  "  applied  to  Jesus,  emphasises  the 
intimacy  of  relation  between  them  and  the  representative  character  of  the 
Son.  A  comparison  of  i  Jn.  2"  41=  with  51  illustrates  the  familiar  approxi- 
mation of  the  term  to  "the  Christ,"  but  even  the  latter  term  has  evidently 
largely  left  behind  its  Jewish  messianic  associations,  and  the  functions  of 
the  Son  of  God  are  spiritual  and  universal.     See  i^.  ^  38  4^0  {cf.  2')  ". 

As  in  the  fourth  gospel,  the  children  of  God  are  called  in  the  epistle 
tixm  GcoQ,  not  ulol  eeou  (i  Jn.  a^-  ".  10  52), 

In  Rev.  the  "  Son  of  God,"  h  u\h<;  tou  6sou,  is  found  in  2^^  only.  It  mani- 
festly refers  to  the  exalted  Jesus,  but  what  phase  of  its  meaning  is  empha- 
sised, the  context  does  not  show.  In  21'  it  is  said  of  him  that  overcometh 
that  he  shall  be  to  God  a  son,  ul6q,  the  expression  clearly  designating  the 
victor  as  the  object  of  God's  approving  love. 

4.  Usage  of  the  other  N.  T.  books. — The  phrase  "Son  of  God"  does  not 
occur  in  the  pastoral  epistles,  nor  in  any  of  the  general  epistles  except  i 
and  2  Jn. 

In  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  great  emphasis  is  laid  upon  the  pre-exist- 
ence  of  Jesus,  and  upon  his  post-resurrection  exaltation  and  authority. 
In  the  former  period  powers  above  those  of  the  angels  are  ascribed  to  him, 
even  the  word  God,  Qzoq,  being  used  of  him.  In  the  latter  all  things  are 
put  in  subjection  to  him.  In  both  these  periods  he  is  spoken  of  as  Son  of 
God,  and  this  term  is,  moreover,  expressive  of  his  exaltation.  Yet  in  the 
period  of  his  sufferings,  also,  he  was  Son.  In  all  the  instances  in  which 
the  term  is  used  of  Jesus,  it  is  apparently  to  be  taken  in  an  official  or  theo- 
cratic sense  and  for  the  writer  evidently  far  surpasses  in  content  the  term 
"Christ."  What  is  conveyed  respecting  nature  is  by  implication  of  the  con- 
text only.  See  !«■  »■  «  3«  4^*  55.  «  6«  7'  10".  But  the  term  is  also  used  of 
believers  (i2=-8),  with  emphasis  upon  the  fact  that  as  a  father  God  chastens 
those  whom  he  receives  as  sons. 

5.  Summary. — From  the  whole  history  of  the  usage  of  the  term  in  N.  T., 
it  appears  that  the  basis  of  that  usage  is  in  the  use  of  the  term  in  a  purely 
ethical  and  religious  sense,  in  which  it  is  applied  in  O.  T.  to  the  nation  of 
Israel  and  in  Wisd.  Sol.  and  Ps.  Sol.  to  the  pious  individual,  designating 
him  as  the  object  of  divine  love  and  approval. 


'EKKAHSIA  41 7 

In  their  portrayal  of  Jesus'  religious  experiences  the  oldest  evangelic 
sources  use  the  term  with  the  article,  marking  its  application  to  him  in 
unique  degree  to  express  his  consciousness  of  exceptionally  intimate  fellow- 
ship with  God  and  divine  approval,  with  probable  suggestion  of  the  conse- 
quent duty  and  responsibility  resting  upon  him.  These  documents  furnish 
the  best  basis  we  possess  for  determining  Jesus'  own  use  of  the  term  and 
^conception  of  himself  which  he  expressed  by  it.  It  is  impossible  to  trace 
with  accuracy  and  certainty  the  connection  between  the  representation  of 
Jesus'  consciousness  which  underlies  the  usage  of  the  synoptic  gospels  and 
the  Pauline  usage.  But  it  is  clear  that  the  latter  also,  whether  under  the 
influence  of  the  type  of  Christian  thought  that  is  reflected  in  the  synoptists 
or  independently,  like  the  synoptists,  takes  its  starting-point  from  the 
general  rehgious  use  of  the  term  and,  alongside  of  the  use  of  the  term  in 
the  plural  to  designate  pious  men,  applies  it  in  a  unique  degree,  and  with 
consequent  heightening  but  without  essential  change  of  meaning,  to  Jesus. 
On  the  other  hand,  through  association  of  the  term  with  "the  Christ"  and 
with  the  doctrine  of  the  pre-existence  of  Jesus  as  the  Word  of  God  and  the 
Lord,  through  whom  God  exercised  creative  power,  it  came  to  be  in  the 
Pauline  letters  the  bearer  of  the  most  exalted  conception  of  Jesus  held  by 
the  early  church,  surpassed  only  in  that  respect  by  the  term  Osoq  itself. 
Yet  it  is  to  be  observed  that  in  no  passage  of  N.  T.  does  it  take  on  a  clearly 
physical  or  biological  sense,  implying  that  Jesus  was,  by  reason  of  exceptional 
facts  respecting  his  paternity,  of  divine  nature;  nor  is  it,  apart  from  any 
such  facts,  ever  in  the  strict  sense  a  term  of  nature.  True  to  this  extent 
to  its  O.  T.  ancestry,  it  is  always  a  term  descriptive  of  the  religious  and 
ethical  relationship  between  God  and  Christ,  and  of  the  function  of  Jesus 
in  the  field  of  relationship  between  God  and  man. 

Into  the  diSicult  question  in  how  many  of  the  passages  named  above  in 
I  II  (p.  394)  6c6q  is  used  of  Jesus  and  what  sense  the  term  bears  when  ap- 
plied to  him  or  to  the  \6yoq,  who  became  flesh  (Jn.  i'-  '*),  it  is  not  neces- 
sary to  enter  here,  since  the  word  is  not  so  used  in  Galatians.  On  the 
question  whether  Paul  so  uses  the  term,  the  reader  should  consult  S.  and  H. 
on  Rom.  9^  and  the  literature  there  referred  to.  On  the  other  passages  see 
esp.  Westcott  on  Heb.  i^  and  i  Jn.  52°. 

The  discussion  of  cwttqp  also  lies  outside  the  scope  of  this  work,  since  it  is 
not  found  in  Galatians. 


IV.    'EKKAH2IA. 

A  cursory  examination  of  the  N.  T.  instances  of  the  words  lxx>vT]ata  and 

auvaywyr]  is  sufficient  to  show  (i)  that  auvaywYY)  is  commonly  used  of  the 

Jewish  place  of  worship,  or  of  the  congregation  meeting  there,  and  exx>>T]afa, 

on  the  other  hand,  all  but  invariably  of  the  Christian  assembly  or  com- 

27 


4i8  GALATIANS 

munity,  and  (ii)  that  exxXiQata  most  commonly  designates  a  local  assembly 
of  Christians,  less  frequently  the  whole  body  of  Christians  in  the  world. 
The  reason  for  the  distinction  between  the  two  terms,  and  the  order  of 
development  of  the  two  usages  of  exxXyjcta  are  more  difficult  to  ascertain, 

I.  'ExxX-rjcfa  denotes  in  classical  Greek,  according  to  its  etymology, 
"a  summoned  assembly,"  and  by  usage  "an  assembly  of  citizens  sum- 
moned for  legislative  business."  At  Athens  the  term  was  applied  to  the 
assembly  of  all  citizens,  as  distinguished  from  the  local  assemblies  which 
were  called  xupiat;  see  L.  and  S.  5.  v. 

II.  In  0.  T.  the  assembly  of  Israel  is  sometimes  called  nnj;,  some- 
times Sni-j.  The  latter  corresponds  approximately  in  etymological 
meaning  and  usage  to  the  Greek  IxxXtjaca;  the  former,  cognate  with  the 
verb  -^iii,  "to  appoint,"  signifies  primarily  an  assembly  met  by  appoint- 
ment. In  usage  the  two  words  are  nearly  synonymous,  as  an  examina- 
tion of  the  respective  articles  in  BDB.  will  show.  Both  have  their  most 
frequent  use  in  reference  to  the  people  of  Israel,  either  as  gathered  in 
assembly,  or  as  constituting  a  community.  But  while  the  company  of  the 
Israel  of  the  Exodus  is  usually  called  n'li''  (Nu.  271^  311*  Josh.  22i«'  J'; 
BDB.  speak  of  it  as  a  term.  tech.  in  this  sense  in  P),  sometimes  also 
VniT  (Exod.  16'  Lev.  4"  16''  Nu.  16',  etc.),  n-^r,*  practically  disappears 
from  Chr.  Ezr.  and  Neh.  (occurring  but  once,  2  Chr.  5"),  and  the  commu- 
nity of  Israel  is  called  Snp  (2  Chr.  3ii»  Ezr.  2«<  Neh.  7««,  etc.). 

III.  In  the  Pentateuch,  where  both  words  occur  frequently,  the  Lxx  trans- 
late both  by  cuvaywYTQ  down  to  and  including  Deut.  5".  From  this  point 
on,  with  few  exceptions,  IxxX-rjaia  regularly  stands  for  ''^r^p^,  auvaywyiQ 
for  n-jjr.  This  holds  also  of  2  Chr.  5«,  where  the  Sn-iu'^  n-jy,  but  repre- 
sented as  assembled  together,  is  translated  auvaywyfj  Tapa-^X. 

IV.  In  the  Apocrypha  both  words  occur  in  both  senses,  but  while 
IxxAr^at'a  is  used  only  of  Israel  and  more  frequently  than  auyayoiyi]  of  the 
community  as  such,  auvaywyT)  is  used  also  of  other  companies,  even  of 
"sinners,"  and  occurs  also  in  the  sense  of  a  collection  of  material  things, 
as  of  money,  or  of  water.  IxxXirjcta  never  occurs  in  the  plural,  auvaywyaf 
(plur.)  occurs  once.  Sir.  24",  but  the  Syriac,  which  has  the  sing.,  indicates 
that  the  Hebrew  read  hn^^,  having  reference  to  the  Jewish  community, 
the  house  of  Jacob,  and  that  the  Lxx  have  substituted  for  this  idea  that 
of  the  "synagogues"  of  the  dispersion.  In  Ps.  Sol.  neither  word  occurs  of 
the  Jewish  community  as  a  whole.  ouvaywyiQ  occurs  three  times  (10' 
1718,  48)^  in  the  plural  of  the  congregations  (or  synagogues)  of  Israel;  in  the 
one  instance  of  the  singular  (17")  it  also  refers  to  Israel,  but  is  probably 
used  in  a  literal  sense,  "  a  gathering  together."  The  one  instance  of  IxxXfjai'a 
(loO  stands  in  parallelism  with  cuvaywyat  and  apparently  expresses  quali- 
tatively what  the  other  term  expresses  concretely. 

V.  These  examples,  though  few  in  number,  indicate  what  N.  T.  itself 
makes  far  more  clear,  that  by  the  end  of  the  pre-Christian  period  the  local 


'EKKAHSIA  419 

Jewish  congregations — "synagogues,"  by  this  time  widely  developed  both 
in  the  dispersion  and  in  Palestine  (see  Bous,  Rel.  d.  Jud.^,  pp.  197  /.) — 
were  universally  known  as  au^ajbiyai  and  the  term  lx,xXT)ata,  formerly  used 
by  preference  for  the  Jewish  assembly  or  community,  had  fallen  into  dis- 
use. There  is  perhaps  no  more  probable  explanation  of  this  shift  of  us- 
age than  that  the  common  use  of  £xx>.-rjaia  in  the  Greek-speaking  world  to 
designate  a  civil  assembly  (cf.  Acts  19")  led  the  Jews  as  they  spread 
through  that  world  and  established  their  local  congregations  to  prefer  what 
had  previously  been  the  less  used  term,  auvaywyiQ. 

On  the  other  hand,  when,  in  the  same  regions  in  which  these  Jewish 
auvaytoyat  existed,  the  Christians  established  their  own  assemblies  they, 
finding  it  more  necessary  to  distinguish  these  from  the  Jewish  congrega- 
tions than  from  the  civil  assemblies,  with  which  they  were  much  less  likely 
to  be  confused,  chose  the  term  ixySkr^aia,  which  the  Jews  had  discarded. 

If  this  be  the  correct  explanation  of  the  distinction  between  auvaywyr) 
and  ir-xk-qaioc  in  N.  T.,  it  suggests,  also,  that  the  use  of  the  term  in  refer- 
ence to  the  Christian  church  arose  first  on  Gentile  soil,  and  with  reference 
to  the  local  congregations,  but  that  the  development  of  the  ecumenical 
meaning  was  the  easier  because  of  the  usage  of  Sn,-?  with  reference  to 
Israel  as  the  covenant  people  of  God,  and  the  representation  of  this  term 
in  the  Lxx  by  exyCkriaia.  This  is  in  a  measure  confirmed  by  the  use  of 
the  term  in  Paul's  letters.  In  all  those  that  precede  Col.  it  is  used  in  a 
large  preponderance  of  instances  in  the  local  sense  (i  Thes.  i^  2'*  2  Thes. 
ji.  *  Gal.  I'.  "  I  Cor.  i^  417  6^  7"  iii«  14".  "  161-  "  2  Cor.  ii  8»'  i*-  i'-  ".  24 
118.  2«  12"  Rom.  i6i'  *•  5.  16.  23  Phil.  4^^  Phm.  «).  In  i  Cor.  ii''  i4'5'  "s.  33 
Iv  IxxXTjat?  is  a  qualitative  phrase  meaning  "in  assembly,"  "publicly." 
For  another  instance  of  qualitative  usage  see  i  Cor.  14^  In  i  Cor.  145.  "■  23 
it  is  local  but  perhaps  used  generically.  The  latter  is  probably  the  case 
in  i2-«.  In  Gal.  i"  i  Cor.  io32  15'  Phil.  3',  however,  we  find  tj  ixyCk-qaia 
used  not  of  a  local  church  but  of  the  whole  body  of  Christians.  In  Gal.  i" 
I  Cor.  io'2  15'  there  are  added  the  words xcO  Gsou,  and  in  Gal.  i"  i  Cor.  15' 
Phil.  36  the  reference  is  to  the  Christian  commimity  which  Paul  persecuted 
before  his  conversion.  That  he  does  not  mean  the  local  church  in  Jerusa- 
lem, but  the  body  of  Christian  believers  as  such,  is  indicated  by  the  fact 
that  the  persecution  extended  beyond  Jerusalem,  by  the  addition  of  toO 
O30O,  by  the  absence  of  any  local  designation  (cf.  1  Cor.  i^  iii*  2  Cor.  i^ 
I  Thes.  2")  and  especially  by  the  use  of  precisely  the  same  phrase 
•J)  exxX-nat'a  toO  OcoG  in  i  Cor.  io32,  where  a  reference  to  the  church  at 
Jerusalem  is  impossible,  and  to  any  local  church  improbable.  The  facts 
as  a  whole  show  that  when  he  wrote  Gal.  and  i  Cor.,  Paul  had  not  only 
learned  to  think  of  each  local  Christian  body  as  t)  exxT^Tjata  toO  OsoCi  in 
that  particular  place,  but  had  also  already  formed  the  notion  of  the  entire 
body  of  believers  in  Christ  as  constituting  the  hrip^  of  God,  f)  lxx)^TQata 
ToO  GeoiJ,  and  that  though  he  used  the  expression  but  rarely,  it  was  that 


420  GALATIANS 

which  came  most  naturally  to  his  lips  when  he  was  speaking  of  his  persecu- 
tion of  the  Christians.  In  Phm.  -  i-AY.'kriai'x  is  used  in  the  local  sense. 
In  Col.  there  are  two  instances  of  the  local  sense  (415.  le),  but  also  two  per- 
fectly clear  instances  of  the  oecumenical  sense  ( i  ^ '•  -*).  In  Eph.  the  oecumen- 
ical sense  only  is  found  (i^^  31°.  21  5=3,  24,  25.  27.  29.  32).  jn  Tit.  (36.  »  5i«)  itis 
apparently  used  in  the  local  sense,  but  in  315  qualitatively  and  in  $^^  generi- 
cally  taken.  In  Acts  it  is  prevailingly  local  (5"  S^-  '  112=.  26  i2i>  ^  13^  1425.  2^ 
1^3,  4.  22.  ii  j55  1822  2oi^),  but  there  is  a  trace  of  the  larger  sense  in  9",  and 
perhaps  in  20".  In  iq"'  *^  it  is  used  in  the  Greek  sense  of  an  assembly,  a 
company  of  people,  and  in  19^'  of  a  civil  assembly  in  particular.  In  7", 
like  n-j;;,  but  also  [occasionally  h^p^,  in  the  Pentateuch,  it  is  used  of  the 
congregation  of  Israel  in  the  wilderness.  Heb.  2^2  is  a  quotation  from 
the  Lxx  of  Ps.  22^2  (23),  and  the  term  is  apparently  qualitative.  In  12", 
though  translated  by  EV.  "  the  .  .  .  church,"  it  signifies  simply  "  an  assem- 
bly." In  Jas,  3  Jn.  and  Rev.  it  is  used  in  the  local  sense  exclusively.  In 
IMt.  16^8  it  is  used  in  the  oecumenical  sense,  in  iS^'  in  the  local  sense,  generi- 
cally  taken. 

Both  uses  of  ixxk-qaioc  are  thus  in  evidence  from  an  early  period,  but  the 
local  sense,  for  which  there  was  a  basis  in  the  Jewish  use  of  this  term  in 
translation  of  '?^P,  and  especially  in  the  current  Greek  usage,  is  un- 
doubtedly primary.  On  the  other  hand,  the  fact  that  Paul's  earlier  letters 
preceding  Rom.  are  all  addressed  to  a  church  or  group  of  churches,  while 
from  Rom.  on  the  word  sx.xXTf)aca  does  not  appear  in  the  salutation,  does 
not  warrant  the  inference  that  in  framing  the  idea  of  the  oecumenical  he 
had  abandoned  that  of  the  local  church,  for  though  the  Christian  com- 
munity in  Rome  is  nowhere  in  the  epistle  spoken  of  as  constituting  a  church, 
this  may  very  well  be  due  to  the  fact  that  it  was  not  organised  as  a  single 
community,  and  in  Phil.  Phm.  and  Col.  the  apostle  still  uses  exxXtjafa  of  the 
local  body. 

Nor  can  there  be  imported  into  the  word,  on  the  basis  of  its  etymology, 
the  thought  that  the  church  is  "called  out"  from  the  world  and  separated 
from  it.  For  however  congenial  to  N.  T.  thought  it  is  to  think  of  the  church 
in  this  way  (2  Cor.  6^*-'^^),  the  substitution  of  an  etymological  sense  for  that 
of  current  usage  is  foreign  to  Paul's  habit  of  mind. 

V.    "ETEPOS   AND  "AAAOS. 

In  his  Tlistorical  Commentary  071  St.  PauVs  Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  p.  262, 
Ramsay  maintains  that  "when  the  two  words  are  pointedly  contrasted 
with  one  another,  sTspoq  means 'a  second,'  ' another  of  the  same  kind '  .  .  . 
while  aXAo<;  implies  difference  of  kind."  In  defence  of  this  doctrine  Ram. 
cites  Hom.  //.  XIII  64;  XXI  22;  Thuc.  2.  4o2f-;  Plato,  Protag.  329D-330D, 
and  Aristot.  Polit.  2.  52  (1263  a«).  The  Homeric  passages  are  indecisive, 
Ram.  really  begging  the  question  when  he  assumes  that  because  Spveov 
(2XXo  probably  refers  to  a  bird  of  a  different  species,  and  'I'xOuei;  (SeXXoc  to 


"ETEP02    AND   "AAA02  42 1 

fishes  of  a  different  species,  it  is  this  difference  of  species  rather  than  indi- 
vidual non-identity  within  the  class  of  birds  and  fishes  that  is  indicated 
by  the  word  aXkoq.  Similarly  indecisive  are  the  passages  from  Thucydides 
and  Aristotle.  The  passages  from  Plato  illustrate  the  otherwise  well-known 
fact  that  aWoq  may  be  used  to  express  not  simply  non-identity  but  quali- 
tative difference;  but  also  prove  that  'hepoq  and  akkoq  standing  in  close 
connection  may  be  synonymous.  See  also  Eur.  Or.  S4sff.:  Tt'va  Yctp  Ixt 
Tz&goq  olxov  aXkov  eTspov  |  t^  xbv  ixb  ©soyovwv  j(!c[x.(iiv,  \  tov  drzh  TavxdXou, 
ci^aoQtxi  [i-e  xP'h',  "For  what  other  house,  other  than  that  which  sprang 
from  divine  nuptials,  the  house  that  descended  from  Tantalus,  ought  I 
more  to  reverence?"  Cf.  also  Aristot.  Metaph.  4.  ^^  (ioi4a28f):  ^tjxst' 
dq  oiXkaq  cptovdq  kxepaq  tw  e'c'Bst  auTwv,  "no  longer  (divisible)  into  other 
vocables  of  a  different  kind  {lit.  different  in  their  kind)."  Cf.  1.  ^2,  where 
the  same  idea  is  expressed  by  [i-qv^ixi  elq  aXka  e't'Sei  Bta9l?ov'ua. 

Of  the  important  evidence  of  the  Lxx  and  N.  T.  Ram.  takes  no  account. 
The  former  (including  that  of  both  canonical  and  apocryphal  books)  shows 
that  broadly  speaking  the  two  words  are  synonymous.  Both  words  are 
used  much  more  frequently  in  the  enumerative  sense,  meaning  "an  addi- 
tional one,"  than  in  the  differentiative  sense,  meaning  "  (another)  of  a 
dift'erent  kind."  But  both  are  used  in  both  senses,  and  in  six  instances  of 
pairs  of  passages,  otherwise  practically  identical,  Ixepoq  is  used  in  one  mem- 
ber of  the  pair,  and  aXkoq  in  its  parallel.  Cf.  Gen.  810  and  41^;  Exod.  S^" 
and  20';  I  Sam.  lo^  and  Ezek.  ii^';  Deut.  24"  and  i  Sam.  io«;  Lev.  6^^  and 
I  Sam.  288,  Gen.  19"  and  Judg.  ii'^  On  the  other  hand,  in  so  far  as  there 
is  a  distinction  between  the  two  words  aWoq  is  enumerative  and  Uiegoq 
differentiative.  It  is  of  little  significance  that  the  preponderance  of  enu- 
merative over  differentiative  cases  is  slightly  greater  in  the  case  of 
aXkoq  (9  to  i)  than  in  that  of  excpoq  (8  to  i).  More  decisive  is  the  use  of 
aXkoq  in  Job  37^2  and  Dan.  4'  ["],  and  the  regular  employment  of  Gsol 
e-cepot  for  "strange  gods,"  whose  worship  is  forbidden.  The  very  pro- 
hibition or  reprobation  of  such  worship  excludes  the  thought  that  they 
were  conceived  of  as  other  gods  of  the  same  class  as  Yahweh,  and  marks 
them  as  foreign,  different.  See  Deut.  5^  6"  8"  iii*-  =8  Josh.  2^^^  24^  Judg. 
212,  etc. 

The  situation  in  N.  T.  is  much  the  same.  The  near  approach  of  the 
words  to  identity  of  meaning  is  illustrated  in  Mt.  16"  i  Cor.  121"  and  in 
Mk.  4»-«  Mt.  135-8,  compared  with  Lk.  8«-8.  Gal.  i^'  shows  the  use  of  exepoq 
in  the  additional  or  enumerative  sense.  But  its  characteristic  meaning 
appears  in  Mt.  6^*  Lk.  14"  {cf.  Jn.  141*)  23^'  Acts  23'  Heb.  7"-  ",  and  esp. 
in  Mk.  161''  Lk.  9"  2  Cor.  11*.  In  some  of  these  passages  oiXkoq  might 
perhaps  have  been  used,  but  no  such  instances  actually  occur  in  N.  T. 
Most  instructive  is  i  Cor.  15''-",  in  which  both  words  occur  in  apparently 
similar  senses.  Yet  this  also  illustrates  the  real  difference  between  the  two 
words.     fiXTvOc;  is  used  in  the  subject  when  simply  enumerating  the  various 


42  2  GALATIANS 

kinds  of  flesh;  Ixspoq  in  predicate  to  affirm  that  they  are  different.  This 
passage  is  specially  significant  for  our  present  purpose,  because  it  shows  how 
Paul  distinguished  the  terms.  Taken  with  the  other  evidence,  it  leaves  no 
room  for  doubt  that  for  Paul  exspoq  suggested  difference  of  kind  more 
distinctly  than  did  aXkoq  and  that  the  latter,  in  contrast  with  exepoc;,  sig- 
nified simply  numerical  non-identity.     Cf.  Rob.  pp.  747  Jf. 

VI.    ETArrEAION. 

The  word  e-jajy  fkiov  is  found  in  Greek  writers  from  Homer  down,  bear- 
ing in  extant  exx.  from  the  classical  period  the  sense  "reward  for  good 
news."  In  the  Lxx  it  is  used  in  the  plural  in  this  sense  (2  Sam.  41"  1822), 
once  at  least  (in  the  Swete  text)  in  the  sense  "good  news"  (2  Sam.  18"), 
in  which  sense  it  appears  also  in  later  Greek  writers.  Cf.  Frame  on  i  Thes.  i* 
and  reff.  given  there.  In  N.  T.  it  is  used  only  in  the  singular,  only  in  the 
sense  "good  news,"  and  only  with  reference  to  the  good  news  of  salvation 
as  announced  by  Jesus,  or  (and  especially)  as  achieved  through  him.  Its 
usage  is  so  preponderatingly  Pauline  (in  the  Pauline  letters  sixty  times,  of 
which  ten  instances  are  in  Eph.  2  Thes.  and  the  pastorals;  in  i  Pet.  and 
Rev.  each  once;  in  Mk.  seven  times;  in  Mt.  four,  in  Acts  two,  in  Lk.  not  at 
all)  as  to  suggest  that  the  Christian  use  of  the  term  probably  originated 
with  Paul. 

I.  It  is  most  frequently  used  in  a  doctrinal  sense,  signifying  the  great 
body  of  teaching  concerning  salvation  which  constituted  the  apostle's 
message  (Rom.  ii«)  and  which  because  it  came  to  him  from  God  by  revela- 
tion of  Jesus  Christ  to  him  (i  Thes.  2*  Gal.  i"-  ")  he  called  "the  gospel  of 
God"  (i  Thes.  2-^-  »■  ^  2  Cor.  11'  Rom.  151'),  or  "the  gospel  of  the  Christ" 
(Gal.  I''  2  Cor.  91*  Phil,  i"),  sometimes  also  "my  (or  our)  gospel"  (i  Thes.  i" 
2  Cor.  43  Rom.  2i«  [16"];  cf.  Gal.  i"  2*),  but  most  frequently  simply  "the 
gospel"  (Gal.  2^-  "  Rom.  !>«  lo's,  etc.).  It  has  a  similar  doctrinal  sense  in 
Eph.  I"  36  615  Acts  15'  2o2*  I  Pet.  4"  Rev.  i4«.  So  also,  but  with  special 
reference  to  the  message  of  the  kingdom  as  announced  by  Jesus,  in  Mk. 
i^*-  15  Mt.  4"  935;  perhaps  also  Mk.  131°  Mt.  24^*. 

II.  In  a  few  instances  the  term  is  used  with  special  reference  to  certain 
historic  events  which,  having  soteriological  significance,  are  themselves  a 
part  of  the  good  news.  So  in  i  Cor.  151.  This  is  more  clearly  the  sense 
in  2  Tim.  2',  and  is  perhaps  the  meaning  in  Mk.  14'.  The  clearest  instance 
is  in  Mk.  i^.  But  even  here  (unless  the  verse  is  a  title  added  by  a  later 
hand;  see  Menzies,  The  Earliest  Gospel,  ad  loc;  Swete,  ad  loc.)  it  does  not 
denote  the  book,  but  the  series  of  events  and  teachings  that  from  the 
point  of  view  of  the  writer  constitute  the  good  news. 

III.  The  term  is  also  employed  by  metonymy  in  a  practical  sense. 
The  message  requires  to  be  proclaimed  and  is  accordingly  not  infrequently 
conceived  of  objectively  as  a  thing  requiring  service,  so  that  the  word 
denotes  the  gospel-work,  the  whole  task  of  making  the  message  known  and 


XAPI2  423 

securing  its  acceptance.  In  this  sense  Paul  calls  it  "a  gospel  of  God" 
(Rom.  V),  or  "the  gospel  of  his  Son,"  or  "of  the  Christ"  (i  Thes.  3^  Rom.  i' 
1519  I  Cor.  212  9'^  2  Cor.  10'*),  or  "the  gospel"  (i  Cor.  g^*^-  ''  2  Cor.  8i» 
Phil.  2"  43  Phm.  15)-  It  is  in  this  sense  probably  that  the  word  is  used  in 
Mk.  8"  10";  cf.  I  Cor.  9^3. 

It  should  be  observed,  however,  that  these  three  uses  can  not  be  sharply 
distinguished.  They  differ  only  in  the  emphasis  that  is  laid  on  different 
aspects  of  one  conception  rather  than  by  sharp  discrimination  of  meaning. 

VII.    XAPI2. 

I.  X&giq,  a  word  of  the  same  root  as  xatpw  and  xap&,  is  used  in  Greek 
writers  from  Homer  down  to  the  present  day.  It  is  very  frequent  in 
classical  authors  and  has  a  wide  range  of  usage,  including  "gracefulness," 
"attractiveness,"  the  quality  of  giving  pleasure  (so  in  Homer,  Hesiod, 
Thucydides,  et  al),  "graciousness,"  "kindness,"  "good-will  towards  an- 
other" (so  in  Hesiod,  Thucydides,  .Eschylus,  Sophocles),  or  "an  act  of  kind- 
ness" (so  from  Homer  down);  and  the  effect  of  kindness,  viz.,  "thanks" 
(so,  very  often,  from  Homer  down),  or  of  grace,  viz.,  "pleasure,"  "gratifica- 
tion" (Pindar,  Euripides,  et  al).  From  this  last-named  usage  there  arose, 
also,  the  use  of  yapiv  with  the  force  of  a  preposition,  meaning  "for  the  sake 
of,"  "because  of." 

II.  In  the  Lxx  y^&piq  is  the  usual  translation  of  ]n  (as  £Xso<;  is  of  -'on). 
Like  the  Greek  term  in  its  classical  usage,  ]n  signifies  "gracefulness," 
"elegance"  (Prov.  22"  31'°),  but  much  more  frequently  "favour,"  "ap- 
proval," and,  usually  in  the  phrases  which  have  no  exact  parallel  in  the 
classical  usage  of  ^apiq,  IDNSO,  "to  find  favour,"  and  ^n  J^J  "to  cause  to 
obtain  favour."  In  itself  the  term  has  no  religious  significance,  being 
used  of  the  obtaining  of  the  approval  both  of  men  (Gen.  30"  39^1)  and  of 
God  (Ex.  33i2f-  2  Sam.  15").  The  meanings  of  x^P'^  not  expressed  by 
the  Hebrew  jn  are  rather  rare  in  the  Lxx  and  other  Jewish-Greek  writers. 

III.  In  N.  T.,  while  retaining  nearly  all  the  classical  usages,  it  takes  on, 
under  the  influence  of  Christian  thought,  and  especially  in  Paul,  certain 
distinctly  new  shades  of  meaning.     Its  uses  are: 

1.  As  in  classical  Greek  and  the  Lxx:  gracefulness,  attractiveness: 
Lk.  4",  Tolq  Xoyoiq  'zriq  x^P^'^^'i- 

2.  As  in  classical  Greek  and  the  Lxx:  kindly  disposition,  favourable 
attitude  towards  another,  approval:  Lk.  2":  xpoexoxxsv  .  .  .  x&pixi  xapa: 
esq')  %a\  dtv0pa)xoiq.  In  this  sense  the  word  occurs  in  phrases  derived  from 
the  Hebrew  through  the  Lxx:  eSpsTv  x<^pi^)  "to  find  favour,"  both  in 
relation  to  the  favour  of  God  towards  men  and  of  men  towards  one  another 
(Lk.  I'o  Acts  7"):  SoOvat  xaptv,  "to  cause  to  obtain  favour"  (Acts  j^"; 
though  in  Jas.  4«,  apparently  under  the  influence  of  Christian  thought,  a 
different  interpretation  is  put  upon  the  same  phrase  as  quoted  from 
Prov.  33*);  and  e'xstv  x^P'v  (Acts  2"),  not  in  the  sense  which  this  phrase 


42  4  GALATIANS 

usually  has  in  classic  writers,  "to  have  gratitude,"  but  as  the  equivalent 
of  the  Heb.  jn  nxo,  a  meaning  found,  however,  in  Plut.  Dem.  7^  Favour 
or  kindness  of  a  given  type  may  be  individualised,  giving  rise  to  the  ex- 
pression, ^  X'^?^^  au'^TQ  (2  Cor.  8«),  meaning  "this  sort  of  kindness"  (to 
your  fellow-Christians),  and  xaaa  xapiq  (2  Cor,  g^),  meaning  "every  form 
of  (divine)  favour." 

3.  As  in  classical  Greek  and  Apocr.  but  not  in  the  Lxx,  and  rare  in 
N.  T.:  kindly  feeling  because  of  benefit  received,  thanks:  Lk.  b'^.  33.  34 
I  Tim.  1 12. 

4.  As  in  classical  Greek  and  Apocr.  but  not  often  in  the  Lxx:  an  expres- 
sion of  kindness,  a  benefit:  2  Cor.  i«;  or  bounty:  i  Cor.  i6^ 

5.  In  a  sense  found  neither  in  classical  Greek  nor  in  the  Lxx,  but  appar- 
ently first  occurring  in  N.  T.*  and  especially  frequent  in  Paul:  "favour 
towards  men  contrary  to  their  desert."  This  usage  is  illustrated  in  the 
employment  of  xaxot  x&piv  and  xaxdc  (i^BCK-q\t.(x  to  express  directly  antithet- 
ical conceptions  (see  Rom.  4*-  '«) ;  in  accordance  with  it  also  'ipya  votxou 
(on  man's  part)  and  x&piq  (on  God's  part)  are  mutually  exclusive  as  pos- 
sible grounds  of  acceptance  with  God  (Rom.  3"-"  6^*'  "  ii*-  «  Gal.  5^- 
Grace  in  this  sense  is  attributed  only  (a)  to  God  in  his  relations  to  sinful 
men  (Rom.  3"-"  5"  i  Cor.  1510  Eph.  i«.  ^),  and  (b)  to  Christ  (Acts  15" 
Rom.  5"  I  Cor.  16"  and  frequently  in  benedictions),  inasmuch  as  the  gra- 
cious attitude  of  God  towards  men  is  also  that  of  Christ  (2  Cor.  8'  cf.  Rom. 
5«  with  Gal.  2^°),  and  it  is  in  the  work,  especially  the  death,  of  Jesus  that 
the  divine  grace  is  manifested  (Rom.  3^4  52  Eph.  !«•  '').  It  is  the  basis  of 
the  whole  work  of  salvation,  characterising  and  underlying  God's  action  in 
the  gift  of  Christ  for  men  (Rom.  5*;  cf.  2),  in  the  justification  of  believers 
(Rom.  32^),  in  the  blessings  bestowed  on  believers  (i  Cor.  1*  Phil,  i^,  and 
consummating  the  whole  work  (Rom.  52.  i").  It  is  not  possible  to  deter- 
mine in  every  case  in  which  the  grace  of  God  or  of  Christ  is  spoken  of 
whether  this  special  aspect  of  it  as  manifested  to  the  sinful  and  undeserv- 
ing is  distinctly  present  to  the  mind  or  not.  But  the  prominence  of  this 
thought  in  the  thinking  of  the  apostle  Paul  makes  it  almost  certain  that 
in  his  benedictions  he  thinks  of  grace  as  specifically  divine  favour  to  the 
sinner,  manifested  in  Christ. 

VIII.     EIPHNH. 

EfpiQVT)  is  one  of  those  N.  T.  words  which  show  clearly  the  influence 
both  of  the  classical  sense  of  the  term  and  of  the  Hebrew  word  of  which 
it  became  the  recognised  representative. 

*  In  I  Enoch  (Giz.)  5'  (•)  the  word  is  used  apparently  as  a  synonym  of  eAeos  (cf.  s«),  and 
with  reference  to  those  who  have  been  sinful.  But  it  is  not  clear  that  the  fact  of  their  sin 
and  non-desert  is  in  mind  in  the  use  of  the  word,  and  in  any  case,  since  the  Greek  is,  according 
to  Charles,  not  earlier  than  the  eighth  century,  the  passage  throws  no  light  on  the  pre- 
Christian  or  early  Christian  use  of  the  Greek  word. 


EIPHNH  425 

I.  In  classical  writers  elpTjvr]  means  "a  state  of  harmony,"  "freedom 
from,  or  cessation  of,  war  or  strife":  Horn.  II.  II  797:  a[:i'  xot  ^u0ot  ^tXot 
ay.ptTo{  ebtv,  wq  xot'  k-K  eJpYjVTjq.  xdXejAOc,  V  iXlT.Q-.oq  opwpev:  "Words 
without  limit  are  always  dear  to  thee,  as  in  days  of  peace;  but  war  without 
respite  is  upon  us."  Xen.  Cyr,  3.  2^^,  dW  zipxiv-qy  ^ouXo^Lsvoq  xoifjc-at 
'AptJLsvtotq  %a\  XaXoacotq.  Cf.  Hell.  7.1";  Plato,  Rep.  465B:  e^ptjvtqv 
xpbq  iWrfkooq  ol  d'vBpsg  a^ouac:  "Men  will  maintain  peace  with  one 
another." 

II.  The  Hebrew  mSr,  on  the  other  hand,  has  as  its  fundamental 
idea  "soundness,"  "prosperity,"  "well-being,"  and  acquires  the  sense  of 
harmony  between  persons  or  nations,  freedom  from  strife  and  war,  only 
as  a  secondary  meaning,  and  apparently  because  such  freedom  from  strife 
is  conceived  of  as  a  necessary  condition  of  well-being.  Its  range  of  mean- 
ing in  O.  T.  is  as  follows: 

1.  Well-being,  welfare,  prosperity. 

(a)  In  general,  well-being,  welfare:  i  Sam.  25«:  "Peace  be  both  unto 
thee,  and  peace  be  to  thy  house,  and  peace  be  unto  all  that  thou  hast." 
See  also  i  Sam.  1718.  "  Ps.  29"  i22«-  ';  so  the  Aramaic  □'^u'  in  the  saluta- 
tion of  a  letter:  Ezr.  41^  5'  Dan.  3"  (4O  6«  {^^),  and  in  the  modern  Hebrew 
salutation,  shalom  elekeni,  "  Good  morning." 

(b)  Specifically,  safety:  2  Sam.  3"'  "  Isa.  38^^ 

(c)  Specifically,  prosperity,  success:  2  Sam.  11'  Ps.  73'-. 

2.  Harmony,  freedom  from  or  cessation  of  war  or  strife:  Josh.  9":  "And 
Joshua  made  peace  with  them,  and  made  a  covenant  with  them,  to  let 
them  live."  See  also  Lev.  26'  Deut.  2oi''-  "  Judg.  41^-.  In  the  positive 
sense  of  friendship:  Ps.  41 1"-.  Of  reconciliation  between  God  and  man  in 
the  turning  away  of  the  divine  anger:  Ps.  85*  Isa.  53"  571'-.  The  subjective 
sense  of  " tranquiUity,"  "quietness  of  mind,"  is  perhaps  less  certainly 
vouched  for,  but  is  probably  found  in  such  passages  as  Gen.  1515  Ex.  18"-^ 
Ps.  4'  37"  Isa.  321'  Jer.  305-. 

III.  The  N.  T.  usage  of  sfpTjvrj  follows  that  of  the  O.  T.  c^Su^  more 
closely  than  that  of  the  classical  elp-qvt];  it  distinctly  includes  the  meaning, 
"tranquilUty  of  mind."     Its  range  of  meaning  and  use  is  as  follows: 

1.  Harmony,  absence  of  strife. 

(a)  Between  nations  or  between  man  and  man:  Mt.  10":  [li]  yo[i.iaT,-zs 
OTi  Y^>.6ov  p^aXelv  etpTjvT^v  Ixl  ttjv  yTjv-  o'j/.  TJXeov  ^aXelv  dpiiyqv  &Xka  [Kkiocipay. 
See  also  Lk.  14"  Acts  72^  Heb.  12",  etc. 

(b)  Reconciliation  between  God  and  man:  Eph.  2i'-. 

2.  Prosperity,  well-being,  safety. 

(a)  In  general,  with  reference  to  external  conditions  or  without  exclusive 
reference  to  spiritual  conditions,  especially  in  salutations:  i  Cor.  1611: 
-KporAix^aie  Se  auxbv  Iv  e?pT)VT3-     See  also  Mt.  lo^'  Lk.  11"  Acts  i6'«  Jas.  2^^-. 

(b)  Specifically,  spiritual  well-being,  that  state  into  which  men  are 
brought  by  the  grace  and  mercy  of  God  in  delivering  them  from  the  evil 


426  GALATIANS 

of  sin,  nearly  equivalent  to  salvation  in  the  broad  sense:  Rom.  8":  xb  5e 
(fp6yr}[i.a  xoG  •3cv£6(jLaTO(;  "Qoiij  y.a\  eiprjVT).     See  also  Rom.  1620  Eph.  6^^-. 

3.  Tranquillity  of  mind,  which  comes  from  the  assurance  of  being  recon- 
ciled with  God  and  under  his  loving  care:  Jn.  14":  dp-qyqv  6c(flr][u  u^jlIv, 
eJptjviQv  T-f)v  e[jLTf)v  5iSa)[jLt  ufjicv.  See  also  Jn.  16"  Rom.  5^  15"  Phil.  4^ 
Col.  315 . 

The  occurrences  of  the  word  in  the  apostolic  salutations  fall  almost  of 
necessity,  by  the  fact  that  they  are  in  salutations,  under  the  second  general 
sense,  and  by  the  association  with  the  term  "grace,"  as  well  as  the  evidently 
religious  character  of  the  whole  course  of  thought,  under  the  second  sub- 
division. 

IX.    AIQN  AND  AIQNI02. 

In  discussing  the  New  Testament  usage  of  the  word  attov  it  is  necessary 
to  distinguish  among  the  influences  affecting  it  (a)  classical  usage  of  a{a>v, 
(b)  O.  T.  usage  of  0^^';,  with  the  union  of  these  two  in  the  Lxx  and  the  Jewish- 
Greek  writers,  and  (c)  the  idea  of  the  two  ages;  this  was  of  relatively  late 
origin,  but  whether  it  was  born  on  Greek  or  Semitic  soil  is  not  wholly 
clear. 

I.     CLASSICAL  USAGE  OF  AIQN. 

The  Greek  aldtv  is  connected  by  etymologists  with  ahl,  iei,  Skr.  dyu, 
Lat.  cBvum,  Germ,  ewig,  Eng.  aye.     It  occurs  in  three  senses: 

1.  Lifetime,  Hfe.  So  in  Homer,  Pindar,  Herodotus,  the  tragedians,' 
Plato,  Xenophon,  and  Aristotle.  See  ^sch.  Eumen.  315,  datvf).;  S'  atova 
Btoixvsiv,  "to  go  through  life  unharmed."  By  metonymy  it  denotes 
"one's  lot  in  life,"  Eur.  Andr.  1215,  or  "a  generation,"  ^sch.  Theb.  744; 
in  Dem.  295"  6  [j,iXkhiv  aJwv  apparently  means  "posterity,"  though  possi- 
bly it  falls  under  the  next  meaning.  In  an  inscription  of  37  a.  d.  (Ditten- 
berger,  Sylloge\  364')  it  means  "age"  (of  human  history). 

2.  An  indefinitely  long  time;  sometimes  with  an  adjective,  [i<x%p6q, 
i-xa'jGToq.     See  ^sch.  Supp.  574,  582;  Ag.  554;  Aristot.  Mund.  5  (397  a"). 

3.  In  philosophic  language,  "time  without  limit,"  "eternity";  so  notably 
in  Plato,  Tim.  37C-38,  xbv  atwva,  "forever";  and  Aristot.  Cael.  i.  g^^ 
(279  a"''),  where  a?tiv,  meaning  lifetime  of  a  man,  and  aldiv,  denoting  the 
period  of  existence  of  the  universe,  are  associated. 

II.     THE  HEBREW  ='?^i?. 

The  etymology  of  this  term  affords  no  safe  guidance  in  determining 
the  meaning.  In  usage  it  signifies  "a  period  of  indefinite  duration, 
time  without  limits,  except  such  as  are  set  by  the  context  or  the  nature 
of  the  thing  spoken  of."  Cremer,  accepting  its  relation  etymologically  to 
aV^^,  "to  hide,"  defines  it  as  "a  time  whose  end  or  beginning  escapes 
perception."     It  is  used  with  reference  to: 

I.  Past  time  stretching  indefinitely  backward,  as  in  Gen.  6*,  "the  mighty 
men  of  old":    josh.  24*  Ps.  93^  Prov.  S^',  etc. 


AIQN  427 

2.  Much  more  frequently,  time  stretching  indefinitely  forward,  with  no 
limit  except  that  which  is  set  by  the  author's  thought  of  the  nature  of  the 
thing  of  which  he  is  speaking:  Deut.  151':  "He  shall  be  thy  servant  for 
ever";  2  Sam.  121":  "The  sword  shall  not  depart  from  thy  house  for  ever"; 
Ps.  29":  "The  Lord  sitteth  as  king  for  ever,"  It  is  probably  not  correct 
to  say  that  in  such  passages  as  Deut.  15"  and  i  Sam.  i"  the  word  denotes 
a  Hfetime,  or  that  in  Ps.  291°  it  signifies  eternity.  The  extent  of  the  for- 
ward look  depends  upon  the  author's  thought  about  the  nature  of  the 
thing  spoken  of,  but  the  meaning  of  the  word  remains  the  same,  "time 
bounded  by  no  known  or  discernible  limit." 

To  emphasise  the  idea  of  the  length  of  the  time  the  plural  is  sometimes 
used:  i  Ki.  8":  "I  have  surely  built  thee  a  house  of  habitation,  a  place 
for  thee  to  dwell  in  for  ever"  (a^rjS'i;);  Ps.  61^  145"  Isa.  26<-. 

III.    THE  USAGE  OF  AIQN  IN  THE  LXX. 

In  the  Lxx  afwv,  though  occasionally  used  to  translate  ^y.  and  other 
words  of  nearly  the  same  significance  as  u^'^';,  is  in  so  large  a  proportion  of 
its  occurrences  the  translation  of  the  latter  that  its  usage  is  practically 
identical  with  that  of  this  word. 

1.  It  occurs  in  prepositional  phrases  meaning  "from  of  old,"  such  as 
dcx'  atovo?  (Ps.  118  [119]"  Jer.  2^0),  dxb  toO  aStbvoq  (i  Chr.  i6'«),  e^  alwvoq 
(Prov.  8"),  Trpb  alwvoq  (Ps.  73  [jaV^),  r.gh  twv  aiwvwv  (Ps.  54  [55]'")- 

2.  It  stands  in  prepositional  phrases,  meaning  "for  ever,"  i.  e.,  for  the 
indefinite  future,  such  as  elq  alibm  (i  Chr.  1615);  ^k  afwva  atevoc;  (Ps.  18 
[19]");  dq  Tov  alCiva.  (Deut.  15"  et  freq.);  dq  -ubv  afwva  toO  aldvoq  (Ps.  144 
[14510 ;  dq  ToCic;  alwvctq  Tfov  a^wvwv  (Ps.  83  [84]0;  ^w?  aibivoq  (i  Sam.  i"); 
Iwq  ToiJ  aluiwq  (Josh.  4O;  lax;  tou  aEwvoq  twv  alwvwv  (Lxx  Dan.  7^8);  01' 
atwvoq  (Deut.  5"  Isa.  60"). 

3.  It  is  used  without  prepositions,  meaning  "an  indefinitely  long  time," 
either  (a)  in  the  past,  -fj^xipaq  alwvoq  (Deut.  3 2  7);  vexpouq  atovoq  (Ps.  142 
[143]');  T^vea  alwvoq  (Isa.  51');  Xahq  aldvoq  (Ezek.  26^°);  or  (b)  in  the 
future,  ^aatXeuwv  rbv  atwva  (Ex.  15I8);  see  also  Isa.  25^  Ps.  65  [66]^  144 
[145]";  Lxx  Dan.  sS  though  in  the  last-named  example  toO  atovoq  may 
mean  "of  the  world."  In  Eccl.  3",  xbv  alwva  Btoxsv  sv  xapStt?  ajxwv,  it 
seems  to  stand  by  metonymy  for  "the  conception  of  eternity,"  or  "the 
ability  to  conceive  of  eternity." 

4.  Quite  exceptional  is  Ps.  89  [90]',  in  which  a(a)v  has  its  classical  mean- 
ing, "lifetime";  cf.  v."-. 

IV.    THE  IDEA  OF  THE  TWO  AGES. 
Speculation  as  to  the  future  history  of  the  world  and  the  beginnings  of 
the  idea  that  world-history  can  be  divided  into  periods  of  fixed  length  ap- 
pear as  early  as  the  book  of  Daniel,  and  in  Ethiopic  Enoch  (Bous.  Rel.  d. 
Jud.\  pp.  278/.),  but  the  clear  evidence  of  a  definitely  framed  doctrine  of 


428  GALATIANS 

the  two  ages,  D'' ?"?'>,  this  age  and  the  age  to  come,  does  not  appear  among 
Jewish  writers  before  the  last  pre-Christian  century.  In  the  Greek  frag- 
ments of  the  Ethiopic  Enoch  there  are  several  phrases  (some  of  them  new) 
illustrating  the  familiar  meanings  of  a(a)v,  "a  long,  undefined  period"  (9*  lo'- » 
145  21K'  2211  273).  But  in  i6S  b  alwv  b  [xAyaq  xzXzaO-q^izai,  a  passage  assigned 
by  Charles  to  the  second  century  b.  c.  and  dated  about  170,  there  appears  the 
thought  of  an  age  of  limited  extent,  which  is  further  defined  as  lasting  ten 
thousand  years.  Cf.  i8i6  2i«-.  The  phraseology  reminds  one  of  the  Stoic  no- 
tion of  the  great  conflagration,  itself  related  to  Platonic  influence.  Cf.  Bous., 
op.  cit.,  p.  568.  If  the  translation  correctly  represents  the  Hebrew  original,  we 
may  perhaps  discover  in  this  passage  both  the  first  occurrence  of  the  idea 
in  Semitic  literature  and  the  clue  to  its  appearance  in  Hebrew  thought.  If, 
further,  aJwv  here  stands  for  ^\'^'J,  we  have  the  earliest  traceable  in- 
stance of  this  word  in  this  sense.  In  the  Slavonic  Enoch,  said  by 
Charles  to  have  been  written  1-50  a.  d,,  occur  the  expressions,  "the  great 
aeon,"  'Hhe  endless  aeon,"  over  against  which  is  set  the  present  ason  of 
woes  (61^  65''  8  66«,  cited  by  Bous.,  op.  cii.,  p.  280).  To  the  famous  teacher 
Hillel,  a  contemporary  of  Herod  the  Great,  are  ascribed  the  words:  "He 
who  acquires  for  himself  the  words  of  the  law  acquires  for  himself  the  life 
of  the  age  to  come"  (Pirke  Aboth  ii.  7,  cited  by  Dal.WJ.,  p.  150).  But 
the  authenticity  of  the  ascription  is  doubted  by  some.  The  earliest  rab- 
binic witness  to  the  use  of  the  two  phrases  "this  age"  and  "the  age  to 
come"  is  Yokhanan  ben  Zakkai,  who  flourished  about  80  a.  d.  (Dal. IF/., 
loc.  cit.).  These  passages  give  no  indication  of  the  boundary -line  between 
the  two  ages.  The  age  to  come  would  seem  to  be  the  life  after  death. 
Similar  ideas  appear  also  in  4  Esd.  (81  a.  d.).  In  this  latter  book  "this 
age"  and  "the  coming,  endless  age"  are  clearly  distinguished.  See  42.  " 
69  712.  29-31.  47,  ii2f.  gif-.  62.  In  7"'  the  day  of  judgment  is  said  to  be  the 
boundary-line  between  the  two  ages.  In  6^-^"  it  seems  to  be  implied  that 
the  new  age  begins  with  and  includes  the  period  of  Israel's  dominion,  or  the 
messianic  times.  But  in  7"  the  new  age  begins  after  the  days  of  the  Mes- 
siah. This  seems  to  indicate  that  the  variation  of  view  on  this  point 
found  in  later  Jewish  writings  antedated  4  Esd.,  and  this,  in  turn,  sug- 
gests that  tne  idea  of  the  two  ages  had  been  for  some  time  prevalent  in 
Jewish  thought. 

On  the  other  hand,  there  is  reason  to  doubt  whether  this  conception  was 
wide-spread  before  the  Christian  era  or  early  in  the  Christian  period.  Ps. 
Sol.  {ca.  60  B.  c.)  use  aJwv  frequently  in  the  familiar  sense  of  the  Lxx  (see 
238.41  313.  15  8'-''  9"  ii8- «  15I6),  adding  the  expression  dq  atova?  (8") 
and  showing  a  special  fondness  for  the  phrase  tlz  Tbv  atova  xa^  Irt,  but 
never  use  the  word  in  reference  to  the  two  ages.  Philo  uses  afwv  not  infre- 
quently for  the  period  of  a  man's  life.  See  Ebriet.  195  (47);  Sohr.  24  (5); 
Ahr.  271  (46).  He  employs  it  in  the  usual  sense  of  an  indefinitely  long 
time,    in   the   phrase   not   elsewhere   observed,    [j-sxpi   tou    Tuavroq   aldwq. 


AIQN  429 

See  Cher.  2  (i);  Quod  deus  sit  2  (i).  In  Mut.  nam.  12  (2)  Iv  to.  yaO'  ^.a, 
aSvclans  Wn  the  present  age,"  the  present  period  of  the  world  s  exist- 
ence in  contrast  with  the  eternity  before  the  world  came  into  bemg,  which 
"described  as  .pb  «(6vo,.  In  Prcem.  et  p.n.  37  (6)  occurs  the  expression 
.ov  I'^xpoaOsv  alcova,  meaning  the  earlier  part  of  a  mans  life,  the  part 
preceding  the  experience  under  consideration.  Cf.  also  Sacr.  Carm  et  Abd 
76  (21).  But  there  is  apparently  no  trace  of  the  antithesis  between  this 
age  and  the  coming  age.  Concerning  the  various  forms  which  the  doctrine 
took  and  the  different  definitions  of  what  belonged  to  each  age,  see  Da  . 
WJ.  pp.  147  /•;  Schr.  pp.  544  f;  E.  T.,  ii  i7_7-79;  Charles  art. 
<'Eschatology  of  the  Apocryphal  and  Apocalyptic  Literature  in  HZ)5. 
I  741/.,  and  Hebrew,  Jewish,  and  Christian  Eschatology ,-  chaps.  V-Vlii. 
V.  NEW  TESTAMENT  USAGE  OF  AIQN. 
The  result  of  these  different  usages  appears  in  the  New  Testament  in  the 
existence  of  three  senses  of  the  term,  for  the  most  part  clearly  distingmsh- 
able  from  one  another.  , 

I    An  indefinitely  long  period,  a  period  without  assignable  hmits.     This 
s'^nse  is  found,  as  in  the  Lxx,  chiefly  in  prepositional  phrases,  which,_  ex- 
pressing with  varying  emphasis  the  idea  of  indefinite  or  unendmg  continu- 
ance, are  translated  by  the  word  'forever,"  or  with  a  negative     never. 
The    simplest    and  most  frequent  of    these  expressions  is  sf,  xbv  al^.a 
which  occurs  in  N.  T.  27  times:  Mt.  21-  Mk.  3"  "^  etc..     There  are  but 
two  instances  in  Paul:  i  Cor.  8-  2  Cor.  9^     For  contemporary  exx.  of  this 
phrase  and  of  s(,  ateva,  see  M.  and  M.,  Voc.  s.  v.    The  ^tensive  si,  .ou. 
alcova,  occurs  six  or  eight  times:  Lk.  i''  Rom.  x-  9^  n-  ^  ^or  ii'^  Heb.  13;. 
The  still  stronger  form,    s[,  To^q  «(6>vaq  t^Dv  aJciviov,    found  but  once  m 
the  Lxx  is  a  well-established  idiom  in  N.  T.,  occurring  two  or  three  times 
in  the  Pauline  epistles:  Rom.  16"  (?)  Gal.  i^  Phil.  4-,  twice  in  the  pas- 
torals I  Tim.  I-  2  Tim.  4-,  and  11  times  in  Rev.     Other  slightly  varian 
forms  also  occur  in  single  instances.     The  expressions  referrmg  to  past 
time  are  less  frequent,  but  by  no  means  lacking:  Acts  3"  i_5'«  i  <-or.  2 
Eph    V-  "  Col    i^«  Jude  ^^     The  great  variety  of  prepositional  phrases 
employing  this  word  in  the  Lxx,  Apoc,  and  N.  T.  is  extraordinary 

2  One  of  the  two  great  periods  of  the  world's  history,  distinguished  as 
6  al^v  o5to,  and  h  al^v  h  p.aXa>v  or  h  lpx6tx.vo,:  Mt.  12-  Mk.  lo"  Lk.  i6« 
i83o  The  boundary-line  between  the  two  ages  is  doubtless  for  N.  1.  writ- 
ers generally  the  future  coming  of  Christ.  Mt.  specifically  indicates  that 
^  auvxaecoc  too  ato>vo,,  the  consummation  of  the  age,  doubtless  of  the  then 
present  age,  is  at  the  coming  of  Christ  for  judgment,  Mt.  13^-  «•  -  24'  28-. 
.  In  the  plural,  world,  universe.  This  meaning  is,  perhaps,  not  estab- 
lished beyond  all  doubt,  but  it  seems  nearly  certain  that  it  must  be  assumed 
for  Heb.'i^  and  ii';  cf.  Wisd.  13'  i4«  18^  and  Jos.  Ant.  i"^  (i8«). 

From  the  point  of  view  of  the  date  of  the  literature,  the  Pauhne  epistles 


430  GALATIANS 

furnish  the  first  evidence  for  the  acceptance  by  Christians  of  the  idea  of 
the  two  ages.  The  expression  "this  age,"  b  afwv  ouxoq,  occurs  seven  times 
in  the  unquestionably  genuine  epistles:  Rom.  12''  i  Cor.  i^o  2*  {bis)  '  3'' 
2  Cor.  4<.  In  Gal.  i^  there  occurs  also  the  expression  "the  present  evil 
age,"  b  alcjv  6  evjaxcjc;  xovr^po;;.  Only  in  Ephesians,  among  the  epistles 
ascribed  to  Paul,  do  the  two  expressions,  "this  age,"  "the  coming  age," 
occur  together  (i").  In  2''  we  have  "the  coming  ages."  In  the  pastoral 
epistles,  i  Tim.  6^^  2  Tm.  41"  Tit.  2^"^,  we  find  the  expression  "the  present 
age,"  b  v5v  atcjv. 

In  the  eight  passages  first  named  the  emphasis  of  the  apostle's  thought 
is  upon  the  ethical  characteristics  of  the  present  age.  Note  esp.  i  Cor.  i" 
(where  he  uses  "world,"  y.6a[Loq,  as  a  synonym  for  "this  age");  Rom.  12* 
Gal.  I*.  The  distinctly  apocalyptic  passages,  however,  i  Thes.  4^^-i»  5" 
I  Cor.  15"  {cf.  Phil.  i«),  leave  no  doubt  that  Paul  held  the  doctrine  of 
Eph.  I"  respecting  the  two  ages,  and  that  2  Thes.  2^-'^^,  whether  from  his 
pen  or  not,  is  substantially  in  accordance  with  his  thinking.  His  thought 
about  the  character  of  the  age  to  come,  and  the  extent  to  which  the  apoca- 
lyptic ideas  associated  with  it  pervaded  Paul's  thinking,  may  be  gathered 
from  such  passages  as  i  Thes.  2^^  3"  chaps.  4,  5,  i  Cor.  1523-28  2  Cor.  51-10 

Phil.    !«■  >o   218. 

I  Thes.  415  shows  that  the  apostle  believed  himself  to  have  the  authority 
•f  Jesus  for  his  expectation  of  the  apocalyptic  coming  of  the  Lord.  But  it 
ioes  not  follow  from  this,  nor  is  it  probable,  that  Paul  was  the  first  in  the 
Christian  church  to  hold  this  view,  and  that  it  passed  from  him  to  the 
Jewish  Christian  body.  The  absence  of  any  indication  of  any  controversy 
over  the  matter,  such  as  arose  over  other  points  on  which  he  held  views 
different  from  those  of  his  predecessors  in  the  Christian  community,  and 
the  evidence  of  the  early  chapters  of  Acts  that  the  primitive  church  already 
accepted  the  doctrine,  make  it  much  more  probable  that  the  apostle  found 
the  doctrine  already  in  the  church,  and  that  if  Iv  Xoyoj  xup(ou  refers,  as 
many  interpreters,  ancient  and  modern  {cf.  Frame  ad  loc),  hold,  to  a 
revelation-experience  of  the  apostle,  this  experience  confirmed  or  ampli- 
fied a  view  already  held.  If,  as  is  more  probable,  it  is,  with  Frame  et  al., 
to  be  understood  as  referring  to  an  uttered  word  of  Jesus,  it  shows,  indeed, 
that  the  apostle  himself  supposed  his  inheritance  of  thought  on  this  point 
to  have  had  its  ultimate  origin  in  th:>  teaching  of  Jesus  himself.  The  latter 
view  is,  as  is  well  known,  confirmed  by  the  testimony  of  the  gospels  as  they 
stand,  but  not  so  certainly  by  their  older  sources.  The  latter  leave  it  at 
least  doubtful  whether  Jesus  accepted  the  two-age  eschatology  or  used  its 
phraseology.  The  expression,  "the  consummation  of  the  age,"  which 
Mt.  13'''  ■"'•  "  245  and  282°  ascribe  to  Jesus,  is  found  in  this  gospel  only.  In 
24'  it  is  manifestly  an  editorial  addition  to  the  source  (Mk.  and  Lk.  agree 
in  reporting  the  question  in  a  simpler  form  without  this  phrase),  and  this 
fact,  together  with  its  occurrence  nowhere  else  in  the  N.  T.  {cf.,  however. 


AIQNIOS  431 

Heb.  9")  makes  it  probable  that  in  the  other  passages  also  it  is  an  inter- 
pretative gloss  of  the  editor,  reflecting  the  thought  of  his  time  as  to  v^hat 
Jesus  held,  but  not  traceable  to  any  early  source.  The  situation  is  similar 
in  respect  to  all  the  passages  in  which  Jesus  is  represented  as  speaking  of 
the  coming  age  in  contrast  to  the  present  age  (Mt.  12"  Mk.  lo'"  Lk.  18'° 
20'^'',  cj.  Lk.  168).  Only  in  Mk.  10'°  does  the  oldest  source  attest  this 
expression  as  coming  from  Jesus,  and  here  the  absence  of  this  phraseology 
from  Mt.  (19^0,  whose  predilection  for  the  idea  of  the  two  ages  would 
have  tended  to  prevent  his  omitting  it  while  taking  over  the  rest  of  the 
passage,  makes  it  highly  probable  that  it  was  lacking  in  the  original  form 
of  Mk.,  and  that  it  owes  its  presence  in  Lk.  (i8'o)  to  the  same  impulse  or 
influence  that  accounts  for  it  in  Lk.  2o'<f-  In  that  case  its  presence  in 
Mk.  is  due  to  the  influence  of  the  other  gospels  upon  the  original  Mk., 
of  which  there  is  considerable  evidence.  Cj.  Burton,  Some  Principles  of 
Literary  Criticism,  p.  25;  Sharman,  The  Teaching  of  Jesus  about  the  Future, 
PP-  57,  93,  95,  256. 

In  Mk.  419  the  absence  of  the  word  "this"  makes  it  improbable  that  there 
was  here,  at  least  in  the  original  form  of  the  expression,  any  reference  to 
the  two  ages.     Cf.  Lk.  8'^ 

The  phrases  "this  age"  and  "the  coming  age"  do  not  occur  in  Acts,  nor 
are  they  found  in  the  fourth  gospel.  Both  these  books  bear  evidence  in 
other  ways  of  being  influenced  by  eschatological  ideas  similar  to  those  of 
Paul,  and  implicitly,  too,  by  the  conception  of  the  two  ages,  but  it  is  not 
probable  that  here,  any  more  than  in  the  synoptic  gospels,  these  concep- 
tions are  traceable  to  Jesus. 

It  is  in  any  case,  however,  clear  that  the  two-age  eschatology  was  for 
Paul  not  a  product  of  his  own  thinking,  but  an  inheritance  accepted  on 
what  he  believed  to  be  the  authority  of  Jesus.  That  it  was  shared  by 
practically  all  N.  T.  writers,  even  by  the  author  of  the  fourth  gospel  to 
a  certain  extent,  appears  from  the  passages  quoted  above  from  the  synop- 
tists,  and  from  such  passages  as  Jn.  6".  "  Jas.  5'-  « i  Pet.  i«  2  Pet.  3*  i  Jn.  2^^ 
Jude  18  Rev.  i'. 

VI.    AIQNIOS. 

The  adjective  afuvtoc;  is  found  first  in  Plato.  From  Plato  down  to  N.  T. 
times  it  is  used,  with  no  apparent  change  in  meaning,  in  the  sense,  "endur- 
ing for  an  indefinitely  long  time,"  "perpetual,"  "eternal,"  referring  both 
to  the  past  and  (perhaps  throughout  its  history,  certainly  in  N.  T.,  rather 
more  frequently)  to  the  future.  For  classical  usage  see  Plato,  Rep.  363D ; 
Legg.  X  904A;  post-classical,  e.  g.,  Diod.  Sic.  i.  i',  Cf.  the  statement  of 
M.  and  M.  Voc:  "In  general  the  word  depicts  that  of  which  the  horizon  is 
not  in  view,  whether  the  horizon  be  at  an  infinite  distance  ...  or  whether 
it  lies  no  farther  than  the  span  of  a  Caesar's  life." 

The  Lxx  translates  by  means  of  it  only  u^yj  and  cognates,  modif)dng 


432  GALATIANS 

^laQrjxf]  (Gen.  17^  i  Chr.  i6»0,  voixtixo.;  (Ex.  27"  Nu.  io«),  etc.  The 
phrase  "^loi]  aSwvtoq,  so  frequent  in  N.  T.,  occurs  first  in  Dan.  12^  The 
Apocrypha  show  no  noteworthy  deviation  from  previous  usage.  l,u}i]  afcovtoq 
occurs  in  4  Mac.  15'  Ps.  Sol.  s'^  (12).  A  similar  phrase,  aiwviog  dva^t'waiq 
X,(jifiq,  occurs  in  2  Mac.  7«.  In  I  Enoch  15^.  6  we  find  the  phrase  xveu[j.aTa 
Z,(bvza  a((ov'.a. 

In  N.  T.  the  phrase  l^wi?)  aldinoq  occurs  43  times.  In  Jn.  and  i  Jn.,  in 
Acts,  and  in  Gal.  (68)  the  adjective  is  used  in  this  phrase  exclusively.  The 
feminine  acwvfa  is  found  2  Thes.  2^^  Heb.  g^^.  Its  force  is,  as  everywhere 
else  in  ancient  Greek,  purely  temporal  and  quantitative.  Cf.  M.  and  M. 
Voc.  s.  V.  The  qualitative  conception  sometimes  ascribed  to  it  lies  wholly 
in  the  noun  X,cdri,  with  which  it  is  joined.  It  has  no  association  with  6  afwv 
ouToc;  or  6  pLsXXwv  afuv.  It  came  into  existence  before  these  terms  were 
in  use,  and  its  kinship  of  meaning  is  not  with  them,  but  with  the  alwv  of 
Plato,  meaning  "  for  ever."     See  also  in  N.  T.,  Mk.  3'^* 

X.    'ENE2TQ2. 

'Eveaxtjc;  is  the  perf.  part,  of  evtjTYjrxt,  which  in  the  pres.  mid.  means 
"to  impend,"  "to  threaten,"  "to  begin,"  in  the  aor.  act.  "impended," 
"threatened,"  "begun,"  but  in  the  perf.  with  the  proper  force  of  a  perfect 
of  existing  state  (BMT.  75,  154),  "to  have  begun,"  "to  be  present."  Ex- 
1  amples  of  this  use  of  the  perf.  appear  especially  in  the  participles  evsaxwc; 
and  IvsffTTQxtoc;. 

Thus,  in  classical  writers:  ^schin.  2^8,  g^c  tou  xoA£[jloO  toO  xpb<;  ^Cmtztzov 
i\x'y  iveazrixoToq.  Aristot.  Rhet.  i.  9"  (1366  b"),  xaTOt  xbv  ivsczCiia  xaipov. 
In  the  grammarians,  6  Ivsottox;  XP'^^oq  signifies  "the  present  tense."  See 
also  Xen.  Hell.  2.  i«,  twv  evecjTiQxdTwv  xpaY[j.d:Twv.     Polyb.  1. 18'«  i.  60'^  2.  26'. 

The  usage  of  the  Jewish  Greek  writers  is  the  same.  See  i  Esdr.  96 
I  Mac.  12"  2  Mac.  31^  6«  12'.  The  participle  is  used  in  this  sense  only  in 
O.  T.  Apocr.     It  does  not  occur  in  the  Lxx  (can.  bks.). 

In  N.  T.  the  participle  has  but  one  meaning,  "present."  See  Rom.  8'« 
1  Cor.  3",  in  both  of  which  it  stands  in  antithesis  with  [liXkovxa;  i  Cor. 
7"  2  Thes.  2^  Heb.  9'.  The  translation  of  RV.  in  i  Cor.  7^^  "that  is 
upon  us,"  and  2  Thes.  2^,  "is  just  at  hand,"  is  in  both  cases  evasive  of  the 
real  meaning,  as  is  the  comment  of  Robertson  and  Plummer  on  i  Cor.  ad 
loc.  See  Frame  on  Thes.  ad  loc.  See  also  Ep.  Barn,  i':  xa  xapeXT]>vu66Ta, 
xal  Toc  eveaTwxa,  xal  t(Lv  [jLeXXdvTWV  Souq  ixapxa*;  Tj'^tv  -^zxicztsiq,  and  5':  2Tt 
xal  xd:  xapsXT]XuG6Ta  -fjalv  eyvtopiasv,  xal  Iv  xolq  evcaxwaiv  ri\x.a,q  eaocptaev,  xal 
tlq  xa  [xeXXovxa  oiJx  ec[xev  dcauvsxot. 

In  Gal.  i«    xou    atovoq   xoO    hzczd-zoq    undoubtedly    refers    to    what   is 

*  The  first,  and  apparently  the  only  occurrence  of  aiuSj/io?  in  a  meaning  other  than  that 
given,  which  is  known  to  present-day  lexicographers,  is  in  Herodian  (238  a.d.)  3.  S",  where  he 
refers  to  the  ludi  sxculares  given  by  Severus  in  the  words:  aitoi/i'ovs  5e  avras  c/caAovv  01 
Tore,  a.KovovTi<;  jpiiav  yeveuv  St.aSpaiJ.ov(TO)v  iTrt,Te\tiaOai. 


*AnOKAATnTQ  433 

more  commonly  called  h  afo)v  oh-zoq;  for  "present"  is  the  only  clearly 
established  sense  of  the  word  eveaTwq,  and  the  apostle's  twice-repeated 
antithesis  between  heaxdxa  and  (xeXXovxa  (Rom.  S^«  i  Cor.  3"),  together 
with  the  use  of  the  word  [leXkiov  in  connection  with  afwv  to  designate  the 
future  age,  apparently  a  recognised  and  current  usage  (Mt.  12^2  Eph.  i^i 
Heb.  60,  makes  it  especially  difficult  to  give  to  evsaxo)?  in  connection  with 
aloiv  any  other  sense  than  its  usual  one,  "present." 

XI.    'AnOKAAYHTQ  AND  'AnOKAAY^IS. 

A  comparison  of  the  N.  T.  instances  of  the  words  dxoxaXuxTw  and 
(pavspow  shows  that  the  two  terms  have  a  certain  area  of  usage  in  common, 
so  that  in  certain  connections  either  might  be  used  and  the  difference  of  mean- 
mg  be  but  slight.  Thus  both  are  used  in  general  expressions  about  manifest- 
ing or  revealing  that  which  is  hidden:  Mt.  lo^^  Mk.  4".  Both  are  used  of 
the  revelation  of  divine  righteousness  in  the  gospel:  Rom.  i^'  $^K  Both 
are  used  of  the  manifesting  of  Christ  at  his  second  coming,  yet  neither 
frequently:  Lk.  17^°  (only  instance  of  ixo/.a^vuxxd))  Col.  3^  i  Pet.  5^  i  Jn. 
2-83-.  Both  are  used  of  the  revelation  of  the  mystery  of  Christ:  Eph.  3^ 
Rom.  1626.  In  general,  however,  the  distinction  between  the  two  words  is 
maintained. 

$avEp6o)  throws  emphasis  on  the  fact  that  that  which  is  manifested  is  ob- 
jectively clear,  open  to  perception.  It  is  thus  suitably  used  of  an  open  and 
public  announcement,  disclosure,  or  exhibition:  i  Cor.  4^  2  Cor.  2^*  4io-  " 
Eph.  5". 

'AxoxaXuxTw,  on  the  other  hand,  refers  primarily  to  the  removal  of  what 
conceals,  an  uncovering,  and  in  some  cases  the  choice  of  the  word  seems  to 
be  due  to  the  thought  of  a  previous  concealment.  But  for  some  reason 
dxoxaXuxTw  has  evidently  come  to  be  used  especially  of  a  subjective  reve- 
lation, which  either  takes  place  wholly  within  the  mind  of  the  individual 
receiving  it,  or  is  subjective  in  the  sense  that  it  is  accompanied  by  actual 
perception,  and  results  in  knowledge  on  his  part:  Rom.  S^*  i  Cor.  21°  14"' 
Eph.  sK 

This  distinction  is  illustrated  even  in  some  passages  in  which  the  words 
seem  at  first  sight  to  be  used  interchangeably.  Thus  in  Rom.  i"  Paul, 
using  a  present  tense  and  by  this  fact  and  the  context  indicating  that  he 
is  speaking  of  what  is  constantly  taking  place  as  the  result  of  the  preach- 
ing of  the  gospel,  writes  Stx.aioj6vTQ  ydp  ev  auxoj  ixoxaXuxTsxat,  i.  e.,  men 
are  coming  to  perceive  the  divine  way  of  righteousness.  But  in  3",  speak- 
ing, as  the  use  of  the  perfect  tense  and  the  context  show,  of  a  fact  once 
for  all  made  clear,  he  writes  vuvl  ok  x^P^'i  vd^ou  of/.atoa6vTQ  6sou  xs^avepcoxat. 
The  distinction  between  dtxoxaXuxxexai  in  i^^  and  l^avspwaev  in  i"  is  less 
obvious  and  perhaps  less  real.  The  former  verb  is  probably  chosen  in  part 
because  of  the  dxoxaXuxxsxat  in  v.i^  the  apostle  having  in  mind  that,  par- 
allel to  the  revelation  of  the  righteousness  of  God,  there  is  also  in  progress 


434  GALATIANS 

a  revelation  of  divine  wrath,  the  revelation  in  both  cases  taking  place  in 
experience.  The  tense  of  sqjavlpwasv,  on  the  other  hand,  indicates  that  he 
is  summing  up  all  God's  past  disclosure  of  himself  as  a  single  fact  and  the 
use  of  the  subject,  6  Qs6q,  shows  that  he  has  specially  in  mind  the  divine 
activity. 

Especially  significant  in  its  bearing  on  the  interpretation  of  Gal.  ii»  is 
the  comparison  of  i  Cor.  2^"  (see  also  Eph.  3*-  ^),  in  which  c^xoxaAuzTO)  is 
used,  with  2  Cor.  41".  ",  in  which  cpavcpoco  is  employed.  In  i  Cor.  2^'>  a 
revelation  through  the  Spirit  is  spoken  of,  and  in  Eph.  35  in  the  spirit:  the 
latter  phrase  probably  means  in  the  realm  of  spirit,  i.  e.,  of  the  mind  of  the 
prophet,  thus  emphasising  the  subjective  character  of  the  revelation.  In 
2  Cor.  4^°-  1',  on  the  other  hand,  the  reference  is  evidently  not  to  the  per- 
ception in  the  minds  of  those  to  whom  the  disclosure  was  made,  but  to  the 
disclosure  itself.  In  harmony  with  this  distinction  between  the  two  words 
is  the  fact  that  (pavspow  is  several  times  used  in  speaking  of  the  appearance 
of  Christ  in  the  flesh  (Jn.  2"  i  Tim.  3I6  Heb.  9"  i  Jn.  i^  (bis)  35.  » i  Pet.  i^o); 
three  times  of  his  appearance  after  the  resurrection  (Jn.  21 1  [bis]  ^*,  and 
four  times  of  his  future  coming  (Col.  3*  i  Pet.  5^  i  Jn.  2^8  32),  while 
dTcoxaXuxTO)  is  never  used  of  the  first  or  second  of  these  events  and  but 
once  (Lk.  17'";  cf.  2  Thes.  i^  of  the  third.  dxcxaXux-rw  is  indeed  used, 
also,  in  2  Thes.  2^-  «.  »  of  the  appearance  of  the  man  of  sin,  but  probably 
here  with  reference  to  the  disclosure  and  perception  of  his  true  character. 
The  total  evidence  leaves  no  room  for  doubt  that  the  presumption  is 
strongly  in  favour  of  the  view  that  dxoxaXuxroi  has  reference  to  a  disclosure 
to  the  human  mind  involving  also  perception  and  understanding  by  the 
mind. 

' ATOx&kui^iiq  occurs  first,  so  far  as  observed,  in  the  Lxx:  i  Sam.  20'"  (the 
only  instance  in  can.  bks.);  see  also  Sir.  11"  22''^  42'.  In  general  it  corres- 
ponds in  meaning  to  ixoxaXuxTw,  signifying  properly  "  an  uncovering,  dis- 
closing, laying  bare."  It  acquired  by  association  the  idea  of  a  correspond- 
ing perception  (possible  or  actual)  of  that  which  was  disclosed,  but  does  not 
so  preponderatingly  as  dxoxaXuxTco  suggest  the  idea  of  actual  perception. 

N.  T.  usage  of  dxoxdXuc|>'.q  is  as  follows: 

1.  An  appearance  or  manifestation  of  a  person,  a  coming,  or  coming  to 
view;  used  of  the  coming  of  Christ,  nearly  equivalent  to  Ixt^dvsta:  i  Cor. 
V  2  Thes.  I'  I  Pet.  i'-  "  413. 

2.  A  disclosure  of  a  person  or  thing  such  that  its  true  character  can  be 
perceived:  Lk.  2"  Rom.  2^  8i»  16". 

3.  A  divine  revelation  or  disclosure  of  a  person  in  his  true  character,  of 
truth,  or  of  the  divine  will,  made  to  a  particular  individual,  and  as  such 
necessarily  involving  the  perception  of  that  which  is  revealed;  by  metonymy, 
that  which  is  revealed:  i  Cor.  i4«-  "  2  Cor.  12^'  ^  Gal.  i^*  22Eph.  ii'3'Rev. 
ii.  In  the  first  group  the  emphasis  is  upon  the  objective  appearance  of 
the  person;  in  the  second  on  the  disclosure  of  a  person  or  truth,  the  revela- 


'lOYAAIA  435 

tion  oi  him  or  it  in  its  true  character;  in  the  third  on  the  divine  source  of 
the  revelation  and  its  perception  by  the  individual  to  whom  it  was  made. 
Cf.  Milligan,  Com.  on  Thes.  pp.  149/. 

XII.    'lOTAAIA. 

The  precise  extent  of  the  territory  covered  by  the  word  Judaea  is  difficult 
to  determine.  'louoai'a  is  the  feminine  form  of  the  adjective  'louBaloq 
(derived  from  Hebrew  n-.ini).  Like  other  similar  adjectives,  PaXtXafa, 
Supta,  etc.,  it  designates  a  country,  x^^pa  (see  Mk.  i';  Jos.  Ant.  ii<  [i^]) 
being  omitted.  The  country  designated  by  it  was  of  variable  extent.  In 
the  Lxx,  as  the  translation  of  nn^n^  used  in  a  territorial  sense  (i 
Sam.  233),  it  denotes  the  territory  ruled  by  David  or  that  of  the  southern 
kingdom  (2  Chr.  ii^).  In  i  and  2  Mac.  it  designates  substantially  the 
same  territory,  as  inhabited  by  the  Jews  cf  the  Maccabasan  period  (i  Mac. 
33*  5I8  950  jq38.  ^y_  v.^";  ii2°.  3*  2  Mac.  i"  11^).  The  military  succe.sses  of  the 
Maccabees  extended  the  territory  under  their  dominion,  probably  in  part 
at  least,  with  a  corresponding  extension  of  the  term  Judaea.  Herod  the 
Great  ruled  over  all  the  territory  on  both  sides  of  the  Jordan  from  the 
desert  to  the  Mediterranean,  to  Phoenicia  and  Syria  on  the  north,  and  to 
Idumsea  (inclusive)  on  the  south.  His  title  was  king  of  Judaea.  But 
whether  the  whole  of  the  territory  ruled  by  him  was  included  under  the 
term  Judasa  is  not  wholly  clear.  On  Herod's  death  Augustus,  substantially 
confirming  Herod's  will  except  as  to  the  title  given  Archelaus,  assigned  to  him 
Idumaea,  Judaea,  and  Samaria,  with  the  title  of  Ethnarch  (Jos.  Bell.  2.  93/. 
[6']).  When,  ten  years  later,  Archelaus  was  removed,  his  territory  was 
made  a  Roman  province  and  placed  under  a  procurator  (Jos.  Bell.  2.  117 
[81]),  who  apparently  bore  the  title,  "Procurator  of  Judaea"  (Lk.  3I;  c/. 
Jos.  Bell.  2.  169  [92]).  From  41  to  44  a.  d.  Herod  Agrippa  I  again  ruled, 
with  the  title  of  king,  over  all  the  territory  which  had  previously  belonged 
to  his  grandfather,  Herod  the  Great  (Jos.  Bell.  2.  215  [11^];  Ant.  18.  252  [7^] 
19.  274  [51]).  On  the  death  of  Herod  Agrippa  I  his  kingdom  again  came 
under  Roman  procurators  with  the  title  "Procurator  of  Judaea"  {Ant. 
19.363  [9==]),  and  this  condition  of  affairs  continued  until  53  a.  d.,  when 
Ituraea,  Trachonitis,  etc.,  subsequently  increased  also  by  a  portion  of  the 
former  tetrarchy  of  Plerod  Antipas,  was  given  to  Herod  Agrippa  II  (Jos. 
Ant.  20.  158/.  [8^]).  Josephus  speaks  of  Cuspius  Fadus  as  procurator 
(gxapxoq)  of  Judaea  "and  of  the  entire  kingdom"  {Ant.  19.  363  [9^]),  rather 
suggesting  that  Judaea  was  not  the  name  of  the  whole  territory.  But  cf. 
Ant.  20.  97  (51).  Also  in  speaking  of  the  addition  to  the  kingdom  of 
Agrippa  I  he  speaks  of  the  country  of  his  grandfather  Herod  as  Judaea 
and  Samaria  {Ant.  19.  274  [5']).  And  in  Bell.  3.  35-58  (3'-^),  speaking  of  the 
period  just  preceding  the  Roman  War,  he  divides  the  whole  country  of  the 
Jews  into  Galilee,  Peraea,  Samaria,  and  Judaea.  Yet,  having  in  Bell.  2.  247/. 
(128)  stated  that  Felix  had  been  made  procurator  of  Samaria,  Galilee,  and 


436  GALATIANS 

Perjea,  and  in  2.  252/.  (13")  that  certain  toparchies  in  the  vicinity  of  the 
Sea  of  Galilee  were  given  to  Agrippa,  he  adds  that  over  the  rest  of  Judaea 
he  made  Felix  procurator.  Cj.  also  Jos.  Bell.  2.  265  (13^).  Similarly  in 
Acts  Luke  seems  commonly  to  use  Judaea  in  the  narrower  sense  (Acts,  i* 
gi  q3i  iii)^  in  i2>'  and  211"  even  excluding  by  implication  Caesarea,  which 
was  the  residence  of  the  procurator  of  Judasa.  Only  in  2'  10"  26*"  28" 
is  a  larger  sense,  inclusive  of  Samaria  and  Galilee,  probable.  Mt.  191 
on  the  other  hand  (cf.  contra  Mk.  loO  bears  witness  to  the  inclusion  of  Peraea 
under  the  term  Judaea.  While,  therefore,  under  the  influence  of  the  numer- 
ous political  changes  which  Palestine  underwent  in  the  last  century  b.  c. 
and  the  first  century  a.  d.,  the  term  Judaea  was  probably  used  in  at  least 
three  different  senses:  (a)  the  territory  south  of  Samaria  and  west  of  the 
Jordan,  (b)  the  Roman  province,  which,  as  in  the  days  of  Pilate,  e.  g.,  in- 
cluded Samaria  and  Idumaea,  (c)  the  kingdom  of  Herod  the  Great,  and  after 
him  of  Agrippa  I,  yet  alike  in  the  O.  T.,  Apocr.,  N.  T.,  and  Josephus, 
the  first,  with  some  vagueness  as  to  exact  extent,  remains  the  prevalent 
usage.  Whether  Paul,  under  the  influence  of  his  predilection  for  the 
Roman  usage  of  geographical  terms,  employed  it  in  i  Thes.  2^*  Gal.  i" 
2  Cor.  ii«  Rom.  15"  in  its  Roman  sense,  or  as  Josephus  usually  does,  in 
its  narrowest  sense,  must  for  lack  of  decisive  evidence  remain  uncertain. 
It  is  worthy  of  note,  however,  that  all  these  letters  were  written  in  the 
period  of  the  procuratorships  that  followed  the  death  of  Herod  Agrippa  I, 
and  all  the  passages  are  explicable  as  referring  to  the  Roman  province  of 
Judaea. 

XIII     'AMAPTIA  AND  'AMAPTANQ. 
I.     CLASSICAL  USAGE. 

'A^apxfa  and  d;;xapT(ivw  are  derived  etymologically  from  a  and  ^igoq,  the 
primary  significance  of  the  verb  being  therefore  "to  have  no  part  in,"  but 
more  commonly  in  usage,  "to  miss  the  mark,"  "to  fail  to  attain."  In  a 
physical  sense  it  is  used  in  Hom.  //.  V  287,  of  a  spear  missing  the  mark,  and 
in  other  similar  applications  in  Jischylus,  Sophocles,  and  Antipho.  So  also 
from  Homer  down  in  such  derived  senses  as  "  to  fail  of  one's  purpose,"  "  to 
lose,"  "to  neglect."  But  it  had  also  acquired  as  early  as  Homer  and  re- 
tained throughout  the  classical  period  a  distinctly  ethical  sense,  "to  do 
wrong,  to  err,  to  sin."     See  numerous  exx.  in  L,  &  S. 

The  noun  ^'^oLg-zia  first  appears  in  iEschylus  and  dt.\iAg-zri'^o:  in  his  con- 
temporary Sophocles.  Neither  word  seems  to  have  been  employed  in  a 
physical  sense,  but  both  are  used  of  non-moral  defects  and  of  sin  in 
the  strictly  ethical  sense.  By  its  termination  S^^^agxiy.  would  naturally 
mean  the  quality  of  an  act  or  person,  "  defectiveness,"  "  sinfulness."  In 
the  former  of  these  senses  it  is  found  in  Plato,  Legg.  I  627D,  Ivsxa  .  .  . 
6p66TT]To<;  Ts  xal  djxapTfxq  voijlwv  T^Ttq  eaTt  9'ja:i,  "in  the  interest  of  the 
right  and  wrong  of  law,  whatever  it  is  by  nature."     Legg.  II  668C:  cxok^ 


'AMAPTIA  437 

T^v  Ys  6p96Tr]Ta  xriq  ^ouX-qa£W<;  ^  xal  d:piapT(av  auTou  StaYvtoasxat:  "He 
will  scarcely  be  able  to  discern  the  Tightness  or  wrongness  of  its  inten- 
tion" {sc.  of  a  musical  or  poetic  composition).  For  the  latter,  more  ethical 
sense,  see  Plato,  Leg^.  II  66oC:  XotSopstv  ydp  izg^y-xa-za  (kyioc^cc  xal  xoppo) 
xpops^T^xoTa  d^jt-apTtaq  ojSatJLci<;  T336:  "For  it  is  not  at  all  pleasant  to  cen- 
sure things  that  are  incurable  and  far  advanced  in  evil."  But  it  is  also 
found  in  the  more  concrete  sense  of  a  "fault,"  an  "error,"  either  non- 
ethically  of  an  error  of  judgment,  or  ethically  of  a  wrong  deed;  in  the  former 
sense  in  Thuc.  i.  325,  Soqr^q  Se  [a4X>.ov  d^jLap-ria.  In  the  latter  sense  it  occurs 
in  ^schyl.  Ag.  1198,  xaXatdq  tuvSs  d:jLapT(aq  56[xwv,  "ancient  crimes 
of  this  house."  Antipho  127":  ou  Tfj  eauToO  dixapTi'tjc  .  .  .  dxlOavsv.  Cf. 
Dem.  248":  e'jTG)  S'  dliY.-qii.axa  xdvO'  a  x^xpoc/.-rat  xocl  daapxTjaax'  e[i.d.  For  dis- 
cussion of  classical  usage,  see  Butcher,  Aristotle's  Theory  of  Poetry  and  Fine 
Art\  pp.  311  /.;  Kendall  in  Classical  Review,  XXV,  195-7-  For  in- 
teresting exx.  from  the  papyri,  see  M.  and  M.  Voc.  sub  d;xapx<ivo). 

II.    HEBREW  USAGE  OF  ^'^^>  ^m-  AND  ^^^^. 

These  Hebrew  words,  the  common  originals  of  daapxcivw  and  du-aprfa  in  the 
Lxx,  have  etymologically  the  same  meaning  as  the  Greek  terms,  viz.,  "to 
miss  (the  mark),"  "a  missing  (of  the  mark)."  The  verb  is  occasionally  used 
(in  Kal  and  Hiph.)  in  this  original  sense:  Job  5"  Prov.  ig^;  but  far  more  fre- 
quently in  an  ethical  sense,  "to  sin";  occasionally  against  man:  Gen.  42" 
'  I  Sam.  ig*'  ^  but  in  the  great  majority  of  cases,  expressly  or  by  implica- 
tion, against  God:  Gen.  2o«  Ex.  32^^  Eccl.  7"  etfreq.  Of  the  modified  senses 
of  the  various  conjugations  it  is  unnecessary  to  speak.  The  nouns  are 
always  used  in  an  ethical  sense,  signifying: 

1.  An  act  of  sin:  (a)  proprie:  Deut.  21"-"-  Ps.  51'  Mic.  6'  Hos.  4'  etfreq.; 
possibly  in  i  Ki.  8"  2  Chr.  6'«  Ezek.  iS'"  Ps.  51=  in  the  sense  of  "the 
committing  of  sin";  but  cf.  Ezek.  18'-'.  ^\  which  seem  to  show  that  even  re- 
pentance was  thought  of  as  the  turning  from  deeds  committed  or  which 
might  be  committed  rather  than  expressly  as  the  abandonment  of  a  course 
of  action  in  progress,  (b)  With  special  reference  to  responsibility  and  con- 
sequent guilt:  Deut.  15'  2415.  i«  Gen.  iS^o  Nu.  16'-';  (c)  With  special 
reference  to  the  penalty  or  consequence  of  sin:  Lev.  20^0  24"  Isa.  531^ 
Zech.  1419. 

2.  (N'fn  not  so  used.)  A  sin  offering:  Lev.  7=^  2  Chr.  29".  "•  ^i. 

III.     USAGE  OF  THE  SEPTUAGINT. 

In  the  Lxx  (can.  bks.)  d^apxivto  is  found  about  170  times,  being  in  all 
but  21  of  these  a  translation  of  nton  in  one  or  another  of  its  conjugations. 
Its  meaning  is  practically  identical  with  the  usual  ethical  sense  of  the 
Hebrew  original;  that  the  latter  is  often  translated  also  by  dBtxsIv  only  em- 
phasises the  fact  of  the  ethical  character  of  the  word  in  the  minds  of  the 
Lxx. 


438  GALATIANS 

Of  the  nearly  500  instances  of  &:^(Xi?-zioc  in  the  Lxx  about  four-fifths  are 
translations  of  N:pn  or  nN'on,  and  the  word  has  the  same  variety  of  mean- 
ing as  the  Hebrew  terms,  except  that  a  sin  offering  is  expressed  by 
xspl  d;j,apTtaq  or  xb  nzsgX  a-^ocg-zixq,  the  word  dpLapx^a  therefore  retaining 
its  usual  meaning,  ''sin."     See  Lev.  g*.  ».  ?.  m.  ".  22,  g^^^ 

IV.     USAGE  OF  THE  APOCRYPHA  AND   PSEUDEPIGRAPHA. 

The  usage  of  the  Apocr.  is  in  general  similar  to  that  of  the  Lxx  (can. 
bks.).  The  words  are  always  ethical.  d;xocpTdva>  is  frequently  used  in 
speaking  of  sin  against  God  (i  Esd.  1=*  6»5  Jdth.  520  2  Mac.  y^»),  or  in 
his  sight  (Susan.  23),  sometimes  against  men  (Sir.  y  Ep.  Jer.  14),  and 
occasionally  against  one's  own  soul  (Sir.  19*,  c/.  Tob.  121°);  yet  it  is  doubt- 
less thought  of  as  related  to  God  as  the  supreme  power  whose  authority  it 
contravenes  and  who  will  punish  it. 

'AixocpT^a  is  used  most  frequently  of  deeds  of  sin,  commonly  in  the  plural 
(Tob.  3''  5  Sir.  2",  etc.),  sometimes  in  the  singular  in  the  same  sense  (Tob. 
3>^  4*0  or  qualitatively  (Sir.  10"  198),  occasionally  collectively  (Tob.  12' 
I  Esd.  78).  In  a  few  passages  it  means  "  the  doing  of  sin,"  rather  than 
the  deed.  Sir.  8'  2iS  but  esp.  25="  46^  It  apparently  does  not  occur  in 
the  sense  of  "  sinfulness." 

Under  the  influence  of  the  developing  legalism  of  this  period  the  concep- 
tion of  sin  among  the  Palestinians  in  general  tended  to  become  legalistic, 
and  sin  to  be  regarded  as  the  violation  of  commandments  (Tob.  31-5  4s 
Jub.  IS'"  21^-",  chap.  50;  Toy,  Judaism  and  Christianity,  pp.  205/.;  Bous. 
Rel.  d.  Jud.\  pp.  14s/.,  Ch.^P.,  II  9). 

Atonement  for  sins  is  thought  of  as  achieved  by  sacrifice  (Jub.  6*  34I8), 
or  by  compensatory,  meritorious  deeds,  especially  almsgiving  (Tob.  4«-ii 
128.  »).  Of  attempt  to  define  in  more  explicit  ethical  terms  what  it  is  that 
makes  sin  sinful  there  is  little  trace. 

On  the  other  hand,  there  appears  in  this  period  an  effort,  of  which  there 
is  little  trace  in  O.  T.,  to  discover  the  origin  of  sin.  Among  the  Palestinians 
there  arises  the  doctrine  of  the  evil  impulse.  According  to  Ryssel,  quoted 
in  Bous.  Rel.  d.  Judr-,  pp.  462  /.,  it  is  to  be  found  as  early  as  Sir.  (21 'i »). 
clearly  in  4  Esd.  iT,'^^^-  4'o  748.  92  353  1434)^  the  Pirke  Aboth  (IV  i)  and 
then  frequently  in  the  rabbinic  literature.  As  interpreted,  no  doubt  cor- 
rectly, by  Porter  ("The  Yeger  Hara"  in  Biblical  and  Semitic  Studies  by 
Members  of  the  Faculty  of  Yale  University,  pp.  93-1 11)  and  Bous.  (op.  cit., 
p.  465)  this  impulse  has  its  seat  in  the  soul,  not  in  the  body  of  men.  The 
Palestinians  never  found  the  seat  of  moral  evil  in  matter.  Philo,  affected 
by  Greek  thought,  especially  by  Plato,  wavers  in  his  opinion,  sometimes 
seeming  to  find  the  cause  of  sin  in  the  materiality  of  the  body,  sometimes 
tracing  it  to  the  work  of  demons  in  the  creation  of  man,  sometimes  to  man's 
free  choice  of  pleasure.  Adam  and  Eve  were  originally  morally  indifferent, 
as  is  every  infant  of  their  posterity,  but  made  choice  of  evil.     The  indi- 


'AMAPTIA  439 

vidual  man  is  a  free  moral  agent,  tempted  to  sin  by  his  body  but  able  to 
choose  the  life  of  the  spirit.  See  Siegfried,  Philo  von  Alexandria,  pp.  242/. 
A  noteworthy  element  of  Philo's  doctrine  is  that  intention  is  of  equal  im- 
portance with  fulfilm^ent,  yet  does  not  become  guilty  until  it  is  fulfilled 
{Quod.  det.  pot.  96-99  [26]).  See  BSSF.  p.  163.  Sir.  once  traces  the 
sin  of  the  race  to  Eve  (252''),  and  2  Bar.  once  intimates  the  same  (47^), 
but  the  common  doctrine  of  2  Bar.  (17^  54",  etc.)  and  of  4  Esd. 
(321  430  yiieff.)  is  that  the  sin  of  men  began  with  Adam,  and  that  death  is 
its  consequence,  yet  this  is  not  conceived  of  as  excluding  the  moral  respon- 
sibility of  the  individual  (2  Bar.  54"-  ^').  The  connection  which  the  Ethi- 
opic  Enoch  finds  between  the  sin  of  men  and  that  of  the  fallen  angels  is  an 
exceptional  view.  The  transmutation  of  the  serpent  of  Gen.,  chap.  3, 
into  Satan  and  the  tracing  of  the  beginnings  of  human  sin  to  the  devil 
begin  as  early  as  the  first  half  of  the  first  century  b.  c.  (Wisd.  Sol.  2"). 
On  the  whole  subject  see  the  full  and  informing  discussion  in  Bous.,  op.  cit., 
pp.  459-70. 

V.    NEW  TESTAMENT  USAGE. 

In  N.  T.  both  verb  and  noun  are  used  in  the  ethical  sense  only.  The 
influence  of  the  etymology  of  the  word  is  to  be  seen  in  the  fact  that  there 
is  still  in  some  cases  clearly,  probably  always  in  fact,  in  the  background  of 
the  conception  the  idea  of  a  standard  to  which  action  ought  to  but  does  not 
conform.  The  standard  is  usually  conceived  of  as  set  by  God  (Rom.  3"; 
(;j_  1 23-32^  esp.  5^,  rarely  by  the  civil  power  (Acts  25^). 

The  nouns  a^xxpr^a  and  a'.x&p-iriixa  are  also  always  ethical.  a[X(kpzri[ia, 
which  occurs  only  in  Mk.  3^8.  29  Rom.  3^=  i  Cor.  6^'  [2  Pet.  i'],  is  always, 
in  accordance  with  its  termination,  an  act  of  sin.  &[iagxicc,  which  occurs 
much  more  frequently,  is  never  used  in  its  strictly  abstract  sense,  ''sinful- 
ness," but,  formally  defined,  has  two  usages: 

I.  The  committing  of  sin,  the  doing  of  that  which  is  not  in  accordance 
with  the  v/ill  of  God,  equivalent  to  to  a^ap-ravstv,  peccatio,  as  distinguished 
from  peccatum:  Rom.  61 :  Ixitxevwtxsv  tfj  ccixapiiq:;  see  also  Rom.  512.  13.  20,  21 
52,  6b,  13,  14,  16,  17,  18.  20.  22,  23  (p)j  most  of  thc  lustauces  in  chap.  7;  S^-  ^^-  ° 
1  Cor.  i5^«  2  Cor.  5^1=^  Gal.  21^  Jn.  8"  16'  Heb.  4'=-  The  word  is  never 
used  in  this  sense  in  the  synoptic  gospels,  or  Acts,  and  is  mainly  confined 
to  Paul  and  John.  In  this  sense  it  is  frequently  personified,  or  semi- 
personified,  being  spoken  of  as  one  would  speak  of  a  person— a  demon  or 
Satan  (see,  e.  g.,  Rom.  61^:  ^jltj  ouv  ^aaiXeulxw  t)  &[iapTice.  ev  T(p  Qv-qiM  u-^div 
atotxaxt  .  .  .  ixT)8e  xocpiaTtivcTS  Ta  [lekt)  uyiwv  .  .  .  T-ji  a^xapxtqc),  or  as  a  force 
having  existence  independent  of  the  sinner;*  see  esp.  Rom.  5"-  ''  7''  "• 

*The  opinion  of  T)ih.Gu>l.  pp.  1 14-124,  that  Paul  sometimes  not  simply  rhetorically 
personifies  but  actually  personalises  sin,-thinking  of  it  as  a  demon,  is  scarcely  justified  by 
the  evidence.  Dib.  himself  holds  that  he  more  frequently  uses  the  word  in  a  non-personalised 
sense,  and  that  it  is  not  possible  always  to  draw  with  certainty  th?  line  between  image  and 
actuality. 


440  GALATIANS 

Rom.  5«-»i  shows  that  Paul  applied  the  term  both  to  the  violation  of 
known  law  (  cf.  Rom.  iisff)  and  to  conduct  of  the  same  character  produced, 
where  there  was  no  law,  under  the  impelling  influence  of  the  hereditary 
tendency  derived  from  Adam.  To  the  former  only  Paul  apparently  applies 
such  terms  as  xapcixrwixoc  and  xxpa^aatq  (see  Rom.  $^*^-  Gal.  3");  cf.  the 
discriminating  discussion  by  E.  P.  Gould,  "Paul's  Doctrine  of  Sin,"  in 
Baptist  Review,  1880,  pp.  216—235. 

2.  Sin  committed,  the  deed  as  distinguished  from  the  doing  of  it — pec- 
catum. 

(a)  Generically,  when  no  reference  is  had  to  specific  forms  of  sin:  Mt.  i": 
e&azi  xhv  Xa&v  auxou  dxb  twv  daapTcwv  a'JTWv.  Mk.  2'-':  a:pizvi(xi  aou  a\ 
a'.xap-zlxi.  This  is  the  use  in  all  the  instances  in  the  synoptic  gospels  except 
Mt.  12".  So  also  in  Jn.  8"^  (^  ?).  46  1522.  24  19U  20"  Acts  2^0  (and  always 
in  Acts  except  7«o)  Rom.  4^  s  gsb,  10  1127  j  Cor.  15^.  i?  2  Cor.  ii^  Heb.  i', 
and  generally  in  this  epistle;  i  Jn.  i',  and  generally  in  this  epistle.  It  is 
used  in  this  sense,  in  the  singular  and  without  the  article,  qualitatively 
(meaning,  however,  not  sinfulness,  but  having  the  quality  of  sin)  in  Rom. 
142=  I  Jn.  51'  Jas.  4^\ 

(b)  Specifically,  when  reference  is  had  to  a  particular  deed  or  a  particular 
kind  of  sinful  deed:  Mt.  12":  xaaa  a'^agzia  xal  I^Xaa^r/^U  d^sO-rjazTat  xclq 
dvGpcoxotq,  -f)  Se  tou  Tzvtu[i(xroq  pXaacpY)[jLta  ou%  dyrOrjosTa'..     See  also  Acts  y*". 

(c)  Collectively,  the  singular  for  the  plural:  Jn.  i":  TSe  b  d;jLvbq  toO 
6eou  6  a't'pcov  tt)v  d[xotpT[av  tou  x6ct[jlou.     See  also  Rom.  39-  ". 

(d)  By  metonymy,  for  a  sin-bearer:  2  Cor.  521;  xbv  [x^  yvov-ra  dfxapTiav 
uxe?  ■^jxtov  d;xo:pTtjcv  exo{i]asv. 

It  is  obvious  that  the  distinction  between  i  and  2,  having  reference  to 
a  diflference  not  in  content  but  only  in  point  of  view,  may  easily  reach  a 
vanishing  point.  Thus  the  context  of  i  Jn.  35  shows  that  "to  take  away 
sins"  means  to  cause  them  to  cease  to  be  done;  in  other  words,  it  is  the 
doing  of  sin  that  is  to  cease,  but  the  writer  has  in  thought  objectified  the 
deeds  and  spoken  of  them  as  things  to  be  removed.  So  also  in  Jn.  S-*,  to 
"die  in  your  sins,"  is  probably  synonymous  with  to  "die  in  your  sin," 
in  8",  the  meaning  in  both  cases  being  to  die  while  still  sinning,  though  it 
is  possible  that  the  plural  phrase  means  to  "die  in  the  condemnation  caused 
by  your  sins."     Cf.  also  Rom.  61°  7^,  and  the  exx.  cited  under  ni^n,  i  (a). 

As  concerns  the  material  content  of  d;xczpTia,  there  was  evidently  room 
for  wide  difference  of  opinion  among  those  who  used  the  term.  Unlike 
such  words  as  xopvefa,  xXox^,  and  (povoq,  which  in  themselves  describe 
the  external  character  of  the  deeds  to  which  they  refer,  and  906vo<;  and 
6?yri,  which  describe  an  inward  disposition,  &'^apiioc  by  etymology  and 
usage  describes  the  acts  denoted  simply  as  failing  to  conform  to  a  standard 
(implied  to  be  right),  and  among  Jews  and  Christians  conceived  to  be  set 
by  God,  One's  conception  of  the  standard  set  by  God  would  therefore 
determine  to  what  things  the  term  axapiU  would  be  applied. 


'AMAPTIA  441 

In  the  type  of  Pharisaism  which  finds  expression  in  Jub.,  and  which 
is  reflected  in  the  gospels  and  in  the  controversial  letters  of  Paul,  we  find 
a  distinctly  legalistic  conception  of  sin.  Basing  the  teaching  on  law  and 
making  much  of  its  specific  and  especially  its  more  external  commands, 
literally  interpreted,  it  tended  to  emphasise  the  external.  This  tendency 
Jesus  opposed  (see  esp.  Mt.,  chaps.  5,  6),  yet  not  to  the  extent  of  mak- 
ing righteousness  and  sin  matters  wholly  of  disposition  or  intention  (c/. 
above  on  Philo).  He  included  both  external  and  internal  acts  under 
the  category  of  sins  (see  esp.  Mk.  7"),  and  demanded  deeds  as  well  as  dis- 
position (Mt.  72<-").  He  did  not  find  his  standard  of  what  was  right  and 
wrong  in  the  statutes  of  the  law,  but  in  some  more  ultimate  criterion. 
Yet  he  does  not  expressly  state  any  single  principle  of  sin  to  which  all  sins 
may  be  reduced.  We  may  roughly  classify  the  acts  and  dispositions  which 
he  reproved  and  evidently  included  under  the  term  sin  as  (a)  sins  of  the 
flesh  and  the  sensual  mind :  fornication,  adultery,  encouragement  of  sensual 
thought,  (b)  Sins  of  conduct  or  attitude  towards  other  men:  theft,  covet- 
ousness,  hatred,  lack  of  compassion,  unwillingness  to  forgive,  (c)  Atti- 
tude towards  truth:  refusal  to  accept  truth  when  it  is  presented,  captious 
demand  for  evidence,  hypocrisy,  and  profession  without  deeds,  (d)  Atti- 
tude towards  God:  ingratitude,  unwillingness  to  trust  him. 

Remembering  that  Jesus  summed  up  all  righteous  action  under  the 
single  term  "love,"  and  observing  that  in  all  the  things  which  he  calls  sin 
there  is  an  element  of  selfishness,  in  the  sense  of  grasping  things  for  one's 
self  regardless  of  the  welfare  of  others,  or  excessive  self-assertion,  this  may 
be  understood  to  be  the  characteristic  quality  of  sin,  viz.,  isolation  of  one's 
self  from  the  world  in  which  one  lives,  refusal  to  live  in  reciprocally  bene- 
ficial relations  to  the  community  of  which  one  is  an  integral  part.  But 
Jesus  does  not  himself  explicitly  state  the  matter  thus.  So  far  as  the 
gospels  report,  he  seems  rather  immediately  to  have  recognised  certain 
acts  as  sin  and  to  have  assumed  that  his  hearers'  consciences  would  give 
concurrent  judgment. 

In  his  writings  the  apostle  Paul  emphasised  the  internal,  yet  not  to  the 
exclusion  of  the  external.  Under  the  conception  of  sin  he  included  outward 
acts  and  inward  thoughts  and  feelings:  on  the  one  side  murder,  fornication, 
drunkenness,  and  on  the  other  envy,  malice,  jealousies,  wraths,  etc. 

In  Rom.,  chap.  7,  he  seems  to  indicate  that  while  he  was  yet  a  Pharisee 
there  was  the  beginning  of  the  perception  that  the  law  extended  its  dominion 
to  the  feelings  as  well  as  to  outward  deeds,  and  that  wrong  feelings  as  well 
as  wrong  outward  acts  were  sin.  The  commandment  "Thou  shalt  not 
covet,"  which  in  his  Pharisaic  days  brought  dormant  sin  to  life  was  a 
prohibition  not  of  action  but  of  desire.  Yet  the  clear  perception  of  the 
spiritual  character  of  the  law  and  the  transfer  of  emphasis  in  the  concep- 
tion both  of  righteousness  and  sin  from  the  external  deeds  to  the  internal 
attitudes  of  heart  and  the  principle  of  love  apparently  came  only  with  his 
conversion. 


442  GALATIANS 

Yet  he  nowhere  clearly  indicates  that  even  after  his  conversion  he  worked 
out  for  the  generic  idea  of  sin  a  definition  corresponding  to  that  which  he 
found  for  righteousness  in  the  idea  of  love.  For  while  in  Rom.  I'^ff  he 
finds  the  ground  of  divine  condemnation  of  sin  in  the  suppression  of  truth 
possessed,  yet  this  is  probably  not  to  be  taken  as  a  definition  of  sin,  but 
as  the  basis  of  guilt.  Jas.  4"  similarly  makes  conduct  not  in  accordance 
with  one's  knowledge  of  good  to  be  sin,  but  does  not  affirm  the  converse, 
and  hence  does  not  thereby  define  sin. 

The  gospel  of  John  takes  fundamentally  the  same  position  as  the  synop- 
tists  and  Paul.  Instead  of  defining  sin,  it  assumes  that  its  character  is 
known,  and  puts  especial  emphasis  on  rejection  of  the  light,  especially  as 
manifested  in  failure  to  believe  in  Jesus,  and  finds  in  such  rejection  the 
ground  of  the  divine  judgment  (3"  9"  15"  i6»). 

The  statement  of  i  Jn.  3*  must  be  understood  in  view  of  the  fact  that  it 
is  part  of  the  author's  polemic  against  the  Antinomians,  who  justified  their 
unrighteousness  on  the  ground  that  they  were  not  under  law;  yet,  in  view 
of  the  whole  character  of  the  letter,  the  law  here  referred  to  must  be  un- 
derstood, not  in  the  legalistic  sense  of  the  term,  but  as  denoting  the  divine 
will  in  general. 

Of  the  origin  of  sin  and  the  relation  of  its  origin  to  personal  responsibility, 
there  is  no  direct  discussion  in  the  synoptic  gospels,  but  there  are  one  or 
two  passages  which  have  an  important  bearing  on  Jesus'  thought  on  the 
subject.  These  gospels  record  him  as  speaking  of  Satan  or  the  devil  as 
tempting  men  to  sin  (Mk.  i^*  Mt.  i;^^^-  '»)  and  of  men  as  exerting  a  like 
influence  on  one  another  (Mk.  8'').  He  speaks  of  physical  conditions 
also  as  being  the  occasion  of  sin.  But  he  never  ascribes  to  any  of  these 
influences  compelling  power.  Indeed,  in  Mk.  71^-23^  discussing  the  question 
of  what  defiles  a  man  morally,  he  expressly  finds  the  cause  of  sin,  both 
internal  and  external  in  the  man  himself,  the  heart.  It  is  of  special  impor- 
tance to  note  that  he  does  not  say  either  that  outward  acts  prove  the  heart 
(that  is,  as  the  context  shows,  the  inner  self,  which  is  the  source  of  action) 
to  be  sinful,  as  if  its  character  were  already  fixed  {e.  g.,  by  heredity)  and 
could  only  manifest  itself,  or  that  inward  conditions  determine  the  out- 
ward, but  that  from  the  heart  proceed  evil  thoughts,  and  that  these  defile 
the  man.  He  thus  makes  the  man  the  generator  of  his  own  character  and 
deeds.  Whatever  he  may  have  thought  of  heredity  or  of  physical  forces 
as  related  to  sin,  they  were  not,  according  to  this  passage,  the  causes  of  it. 

Paul,  agreeing  in  large  measure  with  4  Esd.  and  2  Bar.,  makes  sin  a 
racial  matter,  beginning  with  Adam,  and  passing  down  to  his  descendants, 
both  before  and  after  the  coming  of  law,  not  being  imputed,  however, 
where  there  is  no  law  (Rom.  5^'*^ ).  In  the  individual,  also,  sin  has  its 
two  stages  corresponding  to  the  two  stages  of  the  experience  of  the  race 
(after  Adam).  It  is  first  a  dormant  force  (presumably  hereditary  and 
from  Adam),  then  on  the  coming  of  the  commandment  becomes  an  active 


NOMOS  443 

force  and  an  actual  practice  (Rom.  7^-"),  as  in  the  race  it  issued  in  trans- 
gression (Gal.  319).  In  his  representation  of  responsibility  for  sin  the 
apostle  is  apparently  not  quite  uniform.  Consistent  in  his  view  that 
there  is  guilt  only  where  law  is,  he  seems  in  Rom.  5"-  "  to  imply  that  it 
exists  only  where  there  is  explicit  published  law,  but  in  ii^2i«  clearly  holds 
that  suppression  of  truth,  violation  of  law,  however  revealed,  involves 
guilt.  So,  also,  death  is  in  Rom.  5"'  ^*  traced,  not  to  the  sin  which  being 
against  law  is  imputed,  but  to  the  primal  sin  of  Adam,  shared  by  his  de- 
scendants, but  not  imputed  to  the  individual  descendant  who  was  not 
under  law.  On  the  other  hand,  in  Rom.  7'-",  its  cause  is  found  in  the  con- 
scious disobedience  of  known  commandments.  Personal  responsibility  is 
even  more  explicitly  set  forth  without  reference  to  heredity  in  i»*  2«,  the 
basis  of  condemnation  being,  as  pointed  out  above,  in  the  suppression  of 
truth  and  action  contrary  to  it. 

In  this  conception  of  sin  as  a  force  dormant  in  the  individual  until  the 
coming  of  the  commandment  (Rom.  7^-1'),  the  thought  of  the  apostle  ap- 
proximates the  rabbinic  idea  of  the  evil  impulse  {ye^er  hara).  Yet  the 
Pauline  d^xapxta  differs  from  the  yeger  hara  in  that  the  latter  designates 
not  the  doing  of  sin,  but  a  force  operative  in  the  conscious  life  and  impelling 
one  to  evil  conduct,  while  with  Paul  d:;xapTta  is  primarily  the  doing  of  sin, 
and  when  used  by  metonymy  denotes  the  impulse,  tendency,  or  habit  which 
is  dormant  till  roused  to  life  by  the  commandment.  Nor  is  sin  identified 
with  the  ycQer  hara  in  Jas,  i'^,  where  if  £7ct0u[j.ta  denotes  the  evil  impulse  it 
is  expressly  distinguished  from  sin,  being  made  the  cause  of  it. 

The  fourth  gospel,  like  the  synoptists,  connects  sin  with  the  devil;  but 
as  clearly  insists  upon  personal  responsibility,  and  finds  the  ground  of  con- 
demnation, which  is  death,  in  resistance  to  light  possessed.'  See  above, 
p.  442. 

Similar  is  the  doctrine  of  James  except  that  the  evil  impulse,  £xt6u[xca, 
furnishes  the  force  that  tends  to  sin.  But  the  fatalistic  view  is  expressly 
rejected,  personal  responsibility  affirmed  and  grounded  in  the  possession 
of  knowledge  of  the  good.  As  in  other  N.  T.  writers  death  is  the  penalty 
of  sin.     See  Jas.  i^^-i^  417. 

In  all  these  writers,  therefore,  sin  is  non-conformity  to  the  divine  stand- 
ard of  character  and  conduct,  and,  whatever  the  influence  contributing  to 
it,  involves  individual  guilt,  whenever  its  non-conformity  to  the  standard 
of  right  is  perceived  by  the  wrong-doer. 

XIV.    NOMOS. 

I.     CLASSICAL  USAGE. 

N6[jL0(;  (from  vlfxw)  means  properly  "that  which  is  distributed,  appor- 
tioned, appointed."  From  this  primary  meaning  to  the  meaning  whicii 
it  ca.me  later  to  have,  "law"  very  much  in  the  present,  technical  sense  of 


444  GALATIANS 

the  English  word,  "statute,"  "ordinance,"  or  "a  body  or  code  of  statutes," 
the  development  of  v6[xoq  has  not  as  yet  been  traced  with  sufficient  fulness 
and  exactness  to  make  assured  statements  possible.  The  lexicons  are  all 
deficient  at  this  point.  The  following  outline,  however,  is  believed  to  give 
an  approximately  correct  representation  of  classical  usage.  The  word  first 
appears  in  Greek  literature  in  Hesiod.  From  Hesiod  down  to  N.  T.  times 
at  least,  the  general  idea  underlying  all  its  uses  in  extant  non-biblical  lit- 
erature seems  to  be  that  of  the  expression  of  the  thought  or  will  of  one  mind 
or  group  of  minds  intended  or  tending  to  control  the  thought  or  action  of 
others.  Where  it  first  appears  in  Hesiod,  it  may  perhaps  best  be  defined 
as  an  established  way  of  doing  things  which  seems  imposed  upon  men  or 
animals  by  some  necessity  outside  of  themselves,  this  necessity  being  in 
most,  if  not  in  all  cases,  referred  to  the  will  of  the  gods  (Hes.  Theog.  66,  417; 
Op.  276,  388).  It  is  distinguished  from  St'xTj,  on  the  one  hand,  in  that  it 
is  not  necessarily  moral — in  fact,  v6[jlo(;  may  be  quite  opposed  to  Sfxtj, 
Hes.  Op.  276 — and,  on  the  other,  from  r\%oq,  probably  by  the  greater 
fixity  and  necessity  attaching  to  it.  In  later  authors  two  distinguishable 
senses  appear.  On  the  one  hand,  there  is  found  a  laxer  usage,  sometimes 
closely  approaching,  though  probably  never  quite  arriving  at,  the  mean- 
ing "custom,  convention."  See  Find.  Isth.  2.  55;  Find,  ap.  Hdt.  3";  Hdt, 
439;  Aristot.  Eth.  Nic.  I  32  (1094  bi«).  On  the  other  hand,  it  means  what 
we  most  commonly  mean  by  "law,"  i.e.,  a  rule  of  action  prescribed  by 
authority.     In  this  general  sense: 

1.  It  may  refer  to  a  single  rule,  the  authority  issuing  it  and  enforcing 
it  (a)  being  conceived  of  as  divine  (c/.  ^sch.  Eum.  448;  Soph.  Track.  11 77; 
in  the  plur.  Soph.  Ant.  453);  or  (b)  conceived  to  be  of  human  origin  (Find. 
Nem.  10").  In  the  plural  the  word  is  used  of  a  collection  or  code  of  laws, 
obtaining  in  a  state  (Aristot.  Rhet.  2^3  [1398  bs^]);  so  especially  of  Solon's 
laws  at  Athens;  Draco's  laws  were  called  by  the  older  name,  Qi[nax£q. 

2.  In  the  singular  collectively,  it  may  denote  a  written  civil  code,  v6[jloi; 
'i^ioq,  or  a  body  of  unwritten  principles,  v6[ioq  xotvoq,  equivalent  to  ofxatov, 
the  principles  being  chiefly  ethical  and  common  to  all  men:  Aristot. 
Rhet.  I  ID'  (1368  b'ff)  Rhet.  ad  Alex,  i  (2)  (1421  b^^sff).  According  to 
L.  V.  Schmidt,  Die  Ethik  der  alten  Griechen,  p.  202,  the  sharp  distinction  of 
eGy]  "customs,"  from  vopioc;  "law,"  does  not  appear  until  post-classical 
times,  e.  g.,  Folyb.  6.  47'.  (pucti;  is  at  times  distinguished  from  v6[xo<;  (Flato, 
Prot.  337D:  "For  by  nature  like  is  akin  to  like,  whereas  law  is  the  tyrant 
of  mankind,  and  often  compels  us  to  do  many  things  that  are  against 
nature";  Aristot.  Eth.  Nic.  I  32  [1094  b'*]);  at  other  times  it  is  made  the 
basis  of  vd^Aoc;,  e.  g.,  by  the  Stoics.  But  the  term  w\j.Qq  cpuasox;  did  not, 
either  in  the  Stoics'  usage  (cf.  F.  C.  French,  The  Concept  of  Law  in  Ethics, 
chap.  I,  §  4,  pp.  6Jf.)  or  in  that  of  other  writers  (e.  g.,  Flato,  Tim.  83E, 
where  it  probably  means  simply  "demands  of  nature")  mean  to  the  ancient 
mind  what  "law  of  nature"  means  in  modern  scientific  terminology,  a 


NOMOS  445 

formula  expressing  the  observed  regular  recurrence  of  an  event  or  a  sequence 
of  events  in  nature.  The  meaning,  "musical  mode  or  strain,"  "a  kind  of 
ode,"  in  which  vo^jlo?  is  also  found,  is  easily  derivable  from  the  etymological 
ground  meaning  of  the  word.  It  is,  in  fact,  merely  an  application  of  this 
meaning  to  music.  It  seems  never  to  have  had  any  appreciable  influence 
upon  v6[A0<;  meaning  "law." 

II.    HEBREW  USAGE  OF  m;n. 

nmn  {cf.  n-\"in,  "to  point  out  the  way")  means  primarily  "direction" 
given  to  another.     It  is  of  frequent  occurrence  in  O.  T.,  signifying: 

1.  Direction,  instruction  concerning  a  specific  matter,  such  as  offerings, 
etc.,  (a)  an  oral  direction  or  decision,  as  of  priest  or  judge:  Deut.  1711 
Jer.  i8i«  {cf.  Mic.  3",  and  Driver,  Joel  and  Amos,  p.  230,  in  Cambridge  Bible 
for  Schools),  (b)  A  formulated  rule  or  statute,  concerning  a  specific 
matter:  Lev.  6«:  "This  is  the  law  of  the  burnt  offering."  See  also  Ex.  12" 
Lev.  14^  Nu.  5",  etfreq.  in  Lev.  and  Nu.  In  2  Ki.  17',  quite  exceptionally 
in  the  sense  "custom,"  "manner.'' 

2.  Ethical  and  religious  instruction:  (a)  In  general,  the  instruction  or 
advice  of  parent,  prophet,  or  sage:  Prov.  6*":  "My  son,  keep  the  command- 
ment of  thy  father,  and  forsake  not  the  law  of  thy  mother."  See  also 
Ps.  781  Prov.  42  13!^  (b)  Specifically  the  will  of  God  announced  by  a 
prophet;  reference  being  had  not  to  a  code  or  definitely  formulated  body 
of  statutes,  but  to  the  will  of  God  in  general,  as  defined  by  the  context. 
Hence,  the  revealed  will  of  God:  Mic.  4":  "For  out  of  Zion  shall  go  forth 
the  law,  and  the  word  of  Yahweh  from  Jerusalem."  See  also  Ex.  13' 
i6<-  "  Ps.  408  («)  Zech.  7"  Isa.  ii"  2»  s"^*  42^4,  etc.     Jer.  6^'  Lam.  2K 

3.  A  definitely  formulated  body  of  statutes,  or  ordinances,  whether 
ethical,  religious,  or  civil,  but  in  general  in  accordance  with  the  Hebrew 
conception  of  the  origin  of  the  law,  conceived  of  as  divinely  authorised: 
(a)  The  substance  and  content  of  such  law;  used  especially  of  the  law  of 
Moses  in  whole  or  in  part:  Deut.  i^  (and  elsewhere  in  Deut.),  of  the  body  of 
ethical  and  religious  instructions,  contained  in  that  book;  Ex.  2412,  the  law 
written  on  tables  of  stone;  Josh.  S'l  2  Ki.  i4«  23",  the  law  of  Moses; 
I  Chr.  2212  Ps.  78^'  1"  Dan.  g^",  et  freq.  (b)  The  book  containing  the  law: 
Neh.  8"-  ».  In  i  Ki.  2'  2  Chr.  23I8,  also,  the  reference  is  in  a  sense  to 
the  book,  but  still  to  its  content,  its  requirements,  not  to  the  material 
book — and  these  passages  therefore  belong  under  (a)  rather  than  here. 

III.     USAGE  OF  THE  SEPTUAGINT. 

NdfjLoq,  used  by  the  Lxx  by  far  most  frequently  for  nnin,  but  also 
occasionally  for  n;^n,  pn.  nn,  etc.,  differs  very  slightly  in  force  and  usage 
from  niin,  chiefly  in  that  it  is  employed  somewhat  more  frequently  of 
a  specific  statute,  and  occasionally  as  the  translation  of  dt  for  the  civil 


446  GaLATIANS 

law  of  a  heathen  nation  or  the  royal  decree  of  a  heathen  king:  Ezr.  7": 
vd^JLOv  Tou  GeoCi  xal  v6ixov  xou  ^aatXeax;.  Esth.  i^%  xaxa  "zouq  v6;j,ou(;  Mt]2o>v 
xal  Ilepaoiv.     Esth.  i",  b  vojjloc;  b  b%h  tou  ^aatXiwq. 

IV.    USAGE  OF  THE  APOCRYPHA  AND  PSEUDEPIGRAPHA. 

NoiJLoq  in  the  Apocr.  and  Pseudepig.  differs  from  n-i\-i  in  the  Hebrew^ 
and  v6(jLo;  in  the  Lxx,  chiefly  in  that  on  the  one  side  the  meaning  "direc- 
tion," "instruction,"  is  disappearing,  the  word  tending  to  denote  more 
constantly  a  definitely  formulated  statute  or  code,  and  on  the  other  in  that 
this  latter  conception  is  in  the  process  of  being  generalised  into  that  of 
law  in  the  abstract,  i.  e.,  apart  from  the  question  of  the  particular  form 
of  its  expression.     Usage  may  be  formulated  as  follows: 

1.  A  formulated  statute  or  decree,  whether  ethical,  religious,  or  civil. 
I  Mac.  2",  xbv  v6[xov  -coO  ^aatXitoc;.  10":  TccpsusaOwaav  xolq  v6[xotq  auxuv. 
13'  Wisd.  9':  Iv  auviaet  xpfasw?  xal  v6[jlou.  2  Mac.  2"^^  31,  etc.  It  is  a 
peculiarity  of  the  style  of  2  Mac.  that  it  commonly  uses  the  term  v6[jLot 
(pi.)  to  denote  that  body  of  statutes  and  instruction  which  elsewhere  in 
O.  T.  and  N.  T.  is  usually  called  r\'vr\,  votioq  (sing.). 

2.  Ethical  and  religious  instruction.  This  sense,  so  frequently  expressed 
by  nnin,  is  rarely  expressed  by  v6[Loq  in  the  Apocr.  In  Sir.  44^': 
"Abraham  kept  the  law  of  the  Most  High,"  "  law  "  means  in  general  "will," 
unless  the  passage  involves  an  anachronism  or  the  conception  (found  in  the 
later  Jewish  writings)  of  the  law  as  antedating  Moses.  In  Wisd.  6»8  v6uloi 
apparently  means  "precepts"  or  "instructions"  of  Wisdom.  But  it  is 
evident  that  in  this  period  v6[xo(;  is  surrendering  the  general  meaning 
"instruction"  and  coming  to  denote  something  more  formal  and  fixed. 

3.  A  formulated  body  of  statutes,  ordinances,  or  instructions.  Used 
with  reference  to:  (a)  The  law  of  Israel,  usually  spoken  of  as  "the  law  of 
Moses,"  the  "law  of  the  Most  High,"  or,  simply,  "the  law."  (i)  The 
content  of  the  law,  usually  its  rules  and  precepts:  i  Esd.  i",  Iv  tw  vd^Lw 
xupfou.  5",  ix;  IxtxixaxTat  Iv  x(p  v6;jlw.  8'  Tob.  i^  (S)  Wisd.  i6»  Sir. 
prol.  {bis)  2"  9"  I  Mac.  !"■  62.  se,  57  2  Mac.  1*  2^.  »  Ps.  Sol.  141  et  freq.  In 
Sir.  it  is  sometimes  used  with  special  reference  to  the  ethical  contents 
of  the  law  in  distinction  from  its  ceremonial  prescriptions:  Sir.  35 ': 
b  cTuvxTfjpwv  vopiov  x>.eovd!^£t.  32^^:  6  Zj^zGiy  vo^tov  l[xx>wT)aOr)aexai  auxoO.  See 
also  32".  In  2  Mac.  2^8  lo"*,  it  refers  especially  to  the  promises  of  the 
law.  (ii)  The  book  containing  the  law:  i  Esd.  9"-  ""•  *«;  Sir.  prol.  ter. 
(b)  With  primary  reference  still  to  the  divine  law  given  to  Israel,  v6no<; 
is  used  with  emphasis  upon  its  authoritative  character  as  law,  rather  than 
on  the  form  of  its  embodiment  in  the  law  of  Moses,  and  thus  approximates 
the  conception  of  (divine)  law  as  such,  without  reference  to  the  specific 
form  in  which  it  has  been  expressed.  It  is  difficult  or  impossible,  especially 
by  reason  of  the  laxity  In  the  use  of  the  article  in  the  Apocrypha,  to  draw  a 
sharp  line  of  distinction  between  the  instances  that  belong  here  and  those 


N0M02  447 

which  fall  under  3  a  (i).  But  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  some  of  the 
instances  in  Wisd.  and  Sir.  of  w\^oq  without  the  article,  belong  here.  Wisd. 
2^"  6*  Sir.  ig''":  ev  ■K&afi  oo(fiqi  Tro'Tjatq  v6[xou,  see  also  v.^*.  This  general 
sense  of  the  term  is  especially  ckar  when  with  descriptive  epithets  added 
it  is  used  qualitatively;  thus  in  Sir.  45*,  vo^jLot;  i^wfjs  xal  e-Kiaxri^iriq,  "a  law 
of  life  and  knowledge." 

4.  By  metonymy  w[ioq  denotes  a  force  or  custom  which,  being  put  forth 
IS  a  guide  of  action,  has  the  effect  of  law:  Wisd.  2";  cf.  14'^ 

It  is  especially  important  to  observe  that  n^n  in  Heb.  and  w\Loq  in  the 
Lxx  and  Apocr.  denote  law  in  the  imperative  sense;  it  is  the  address  of  one 
will  to  another  demanding  obedience.  It  is  not  a  mere  statement  of  usage 
or  custom.  It  is  not  the  formula  in  accordance  with  which  certain  things 
customarily  or  invariably  happen.  It  is  a  command,  instruction,  a  body 
of  teaching  or  demands  to  which  obedience  is  required,  Cf.  Classical 
Usage,  p.  444,  fin. 

V.    NEW  TESTAMENT  USAGE. 

In  N.  T.,  as  in  classical  writers,  O.  T.,  and  Apocr.,  v6[i.oq  is  employed  in 
the  imperative,  not  in  the  declarative  sense.  It  is  not  the  formula  express- 
ing a  general  fact,  but  a  principle,  or  statute,  or  body  of  instruction,  which 
calls  for  obedience.  Any  exceptions  to  this  statement  are  due  simply  to  a 
lax  use  of  the  word  as  the  equivalent  of  ypa?-^  or  to  conscious  metonymy. 
The  conception  that  law  proceeds  from  God  so  pervades  N.  T.  that  the 
word  v6iJi,oq  itself  conveys  the  thought  of  divine  law  unless  the  context 
gives  it  a  more  general  reference.  Especially  by  reason  of  the  extensive 
and  varied  use  of  the  term  by  the  apostle  Paul  in  his  controversial  writings, 
its  usage  is  much  more  complex  than  in  the  O.  T.  books. 

To  understand  its  development  it  is  necessary  to  have  in  mind  the  points 
at  issue  in  the  controversy  in  which  Jesus  and,  even  more  explicitly,  Paul, 
were  involved  through  their  opposition  to  Pharisaic  ideas  of  righteousness 
and  law. 

The  common  reference  of  the  term  among  the  Jews  was,  of  course,  to  the 
legislative  system  ascribed  to  Moses.  This  was  par  eminence  b  vd^jioi;.  On 
the  basis  of  this  system  Pharisaism  had  erected  what  at  least  tended  to 
become  a  rigid  external  legalism,  according  to  which  God  demanded  obedi- 
ence to  statutes,  and  approved  or  disapproved  men  according  as  they  ren- 
dered or  failed  to  render  such  obedience.*  Ethical  principles  and  motives 
were  in  large  measure  lost  sight  of,  not  character,  but  deeds  of  obedience  to 
statutes,  counted  as  assets  in  the  counting-room  of  the  Great  Accountant. 

*  It  must,  of  course,  be  recognised  that  different  views  prevailed  among  Jewish,  and  even 
among  Pharisaic  thinkers,  as  is  illustrated,  e.  g.,  in  the  more  strenuous  legalism  of  the  book 
of  Jubilees,  and  the  more  liberal  views  of  the  almost  precisely  contemporary  Testament  cf 
the  Twelve  Patriarchs.  See  Ch.^P.  II  2Q4.  Besides  that  extreme  type  of  legalism  which 
Paul  opposed,  other  views  were  held  then  and  later,  some  of  them  closely  approximating  cer- 
tain aspects  of  Paul's  own  thought.     But  the  evidence  seems  to  indicate  that  the  view  against 


44^  GALATIANS 

The  Gentile  did  not  obey,  he  did  not  even  know,  the  statutes  of  the  law;  he 
had  therefore  no  standing  before  God;  the  publican  did  not  conform  to  the 
statutes  as  Pharisaism  interpreted  them;  therefore  he  was  accursed.  This 
rigid  legalism  was  indeed  tempered  in  one  respect,  viz.,  by  the  ascription 
to  God  of  favouritism  towards  the  Jew  as  the  son  of  Abraham,  whose  cov- 
enant relation  to  God  was  sealed  by  the  rite  of  circumcision,*  a  qualification 
however,  which  served  only  more  completely  to  de-ethicalise  the  law.  Over 
against  this  legalism  reached  by  an  exclusive  emphasis  on  statutes,  both 
Jesus  and  Paul  discover  in  the  law  certain  fundamental  ethical  principles, 
and  declare  that  in  them  the  law  consists,  and  that  by  the  subjection  of  the 
life  to  them  men  become  the  objects  of  divine  approval  (Mt.  y'^  22" 
Gal.  5":  6  ydp  xag  y6[ioq  Iv  evl  X6yi(i.  Rom.  138;  6  yap  dyaxtiv  tov  e-repov 
vd^jLov  •jusxXiQpwx.sv.  There  thus  arises  a  purely  ethical  sense  of  the  word, 
representing  a  conception  of  law  at  the  opposite  extreme  from  that  held  by 
the  Pharisees. 

But  the  controversies  of  Paul  also  forced  him  to  meet  his  opponents  more 
nearly  on  their  own  ground  and  to  employ  the  word  "law"  with  yet  other 
shades  of  discrimination  of  meaning.  The  Pharisaic  doctrine  of  God's 
partiality  for  the  Jew  rested  upon  an  interpretation  of  the  covenant  with 
Abraham  according  to  which  God  had  made  certain  promises  to  the  seed 
of  Abraham.  Instead  of  directly  controverting  the  Pharisaic  definition, 
which  the  legahstic  language  of  O.  T.  rendered  somewhat  difficult,  Paul 
at  times,  and  to  a  certain  extent,  takes  the  Pharisaic  opponent  on  his 
own  ground  and  attacks  his  conception  of  law  through  an  attack  upon  his 
notion  of  the  covenant.  Respecting  this  he  maintains  first  that  it  was  not 
legalistic,  but  ethical,  essentially  a  covenant  not  of  circumcision  and  with 
the  circumcised  seed  of  Abraham,  but  of  faith  and  with  those  that  entered 
into  relation  with  God  through  faith.  This  is  the  substance  of  his  conten- 
tion in  Gal.  3«-9,  where  the  expression  "sons  of  Abraham"  is  practically 
equivalent  to  participators  in  the  Abrahamic  covenant.  Again  he  con- 
tends that  this  covenant  of  faith  was  not  set  aside  by  the  law  that  came  in 
through  Moses,  but  that  it  remained  in  force  through  the  whole  period  of 
the  law,  conditioning  the  law,  so  that,  whatever  function  the  law  had,  man's 
relation  to  God  was  never  determined  by  law  alone  viewed  as  the  expression 
of  a  legalistic  system.     This  is  his  contention  in  Gal.  3^^     In  this  argument 

which  Paul  contended  was  very  influential  in  his  day,  and  it  is  in  any  case  that  with  which 
in  our  effort  to  understand  N.  T.  usage  we  are  chiefly  concerned.  Cf.  Bous.  Rel.  d.  Jud.^, 
pp.  136-150,  esp.  p.  145:  "Was  wir  von  Hillel  und  Schammai  und  ihren  beiderseitigon  Schulen 
wissen,  das  stimmt  ganz  zu  dem  Bilde  das  wir  von  den  Schriftgelehrten  und  Pharisaern  zu 
machen  gewohnt  sind." 

*  The  nature  of  the  position  which  Paul  was  combating  appears  in  the  fact  that  the  stress 
of  liis  argument  in  Rom.,  chap.  2  (esp.  vv."-"),  is  against  the  thought  that  the  Jew,  just 
because  he  is  a  Jew,  possessed  of  the  law  and  circumcised,  is  secure  of  God's  favour.  Only 
as  an  appendix  does  he  in  39",  in  answer  to  the  contention  of  him  who  might  set  up  the 
claim  of  sinlessness,  declare  that  there  is  in  fact  no  one  who  can  successfully]  make  such 
a  claim. 


N0M02 


449 


Paul  does  not  deny  but  rather  admits  that  the  law,  if  viewed  by  itself  and  in 
detachment  from  the  ethicalism  of  the  covenant  that  preceded  it  and  prop- 
erly conditioned  it,  and  from  the  ethicalism  that  underlay  its  very  statutes 
themselves,  was  legalistic,  a  body  of  statutes  demanding  obedience  and 
denouncing  penalties  on  all  who  failed  fully  to  obey  them;  he  could  himself 
speak  of  the  law  in  this  sense  (Gal.  31°.  ")•  What  he  denied  was  that  the 
law  so  understood  was  ever  intended  to  constitute  the  whole  and  sole  basis 
on  which  man  stood  before  God  and  was  judged  by  him.  But  it  will  be 
evident  that  while  Paul's  essential  view  remains  unchanged,  the  precise 
meaning  of  the  term  as  used  by  him  varies  not  only  according  as  he  is  view- 
ing the  law  as  the  embodiment  of  ethical  principles  or  as  a  code  of  statutes, 
but  also  according  as,  while  bearing  in  mind  its  character  as  a  code  of 
statutes,  he  thinks  of  it  in  distinction  from  or  as  combined  with  and  con- 
ditioned by  the  ethicalism  of  the  covenant. 

If  now  it  be  borne  in  mind  that  Paul  also  maintained  that  the  law  as  a 
system  of  statutes  ceased  to  be  in  force  when  Christ  came,  we  may  perhaps 
aid  ourselves  to  grasp  the  apostle's  thought  by  the  following  diagram : 


Abraham 


Moses 


Christ 


a 

b 

c 

d 

e 

f 

g 

h 

k 

1 

m 

n 

Let  abed  represent  the  covenant  with  Abraham,  never  abrogated,  inter- 
preted by  Paul  as  essentially  ethical  in  character  and  permanent.  Let 
klmn  represent  the  same  covenant  as  the  Pharisee  interpreted  it,  making 
it  the  basis  of  a  permanent  favouritism  of  God  towards  Israel.  Let  ef  and 
gh  together  represent  the  law  that  came  in  through  Moses;  ef  its  statutes, 
gh  its  underlying  ethical  principles.  The  statutes  according  to  Paul  are 
in  force  from  Moses  to  Christ;  the  ethical  principles  are  of  permanent 
validity.  Cf.  also  Mt.  518.  But  it  is  not  always  pertinent  to  make  these 
distinctions. 

If,  then,  Paul  is  speaking  in  simple,  historical  fashion  without  reference 
to  the  controversies  that  had  gathered  around  the  term  "law"  and  compelled 
29 


450  GALATIANS 

discrimination  between  Its  different  phases  and  aspects,  or  if  in  the  midst 
of  such  controversy  he  desires  to  speak  of  that  objective  thing  which  both 
he  and  his  opponents  had  in  mind,  however  much  they  differed  in  their 
interpretation  of  its  significance,  then  he  ignores  all  the  distinctions  indi- 
cated by  ef  and  gh  or  the  relation  of  these  to  he  or  /m,  and  means  by  the 
law  simply  the  system  that  came  in  through  Moses.  This  is  clearly  the 
case  in  Rom.  2-8,  xaTTixou^Levo:;  sk  toCi  v6[jlou.  So  also  in  Rom.  2",  8aot  ev 
v6[ji.o)  ri\x7.gxov,  except  that  he  is  here  speaking  qualitatively  of  such  a 
system  as  that  of  Moses,  a  concrete  objection  expressive  of  the  will  of  God 
as  such. 

But  Rom.  2^2-16  shows  clearly  that  alongside  of  this  conception  of  law 
Paul  held  also  another  which  differed  from  this  precisely  in  that  it  lacked 
the  idea  of  expression  in  a  concrete  objective  system.  The  teaching  of  this 
passage  is  of  prime  importance  for  the  understanding  of  Paul's  conception 
of  law  and  his  use  of  the  term.  In  v.i^  Paul  classifies  sinful  men  (those  pre- 
viously described  in  v.*  as  ol  1^  eptetaq  xal  ixEcGouvTet;  t^  dXTQeefqc 
•:rst06tJLevoc  Ik  xfj  dBcxt'ot  and  in  v.«  as  o\  xaTspya^^o^jLevot  zh  v.ay.o'i/),  into 
two  classes,  oaot  dcvcixws  i^jxapTov  and  ojot  ev  vdyLtp  i^pLapTOv.  It  is  evident 
therefore  that  there  is  a  sense  of  the  word  "law"  which  represents  some- 
thing that  not  all  men  possess,  and  the  context  makes  it  clear  that  this  is 
law  such  as  the  Jew  possessed,  law  definitely  promulgated  in  concrete 
objective  form.  But  v.'^  affirms  that  all  in  fact  possess  law,  that  those 
who  are  without  law,  v6[xov  [i.i]  exoy-ze^,  are  in  truth  a  law  to  themselves; 
i.  c,  possess  a  knowledge  of  God's  will,  though  not  in  concrete  objective 
form  as  the  Jews  have  it.  It  does  not  indeed  follow  that  the  term  v6[ioq 
as  used  in  the  expression  eauxolq  etalv  v6\i.oq  signifies  specifically  a  law 
not  in  objective  form.  Indeed  it  is  more  probable  that  the  word  v6(xoq  in 
this  phrase  is  broad  enough  to  cover  any  revelation  of  God's  will,  whether 
definitely  promulgated  or  not.  For  in  the  connection  of  v.",  ou  yocp 
ol  dy.po3CTal  vojjlou  ctxatot  xapd  xoi  Ge(p,  dXX'  ol  icotTjTal  v6[xou  Sixatw- 
OTjjovTat,  with  v.^"^^  it  is  involved  that  v6[i.od  in  v."  covers  such  a  law  as  is 
referred  to  in  v.'^  the  law  the  possession  of  which  is  the  distinguishing 
mark  of  the  Jew;  and  in  the  relation  of  v."  to  v.''  it  is  equally  involved 
that  vopLou  of  v.i'  covers  the  law  which  is  possessed  by  those  who  have  no 
such  objective  law.  For  the  purpose  of  v."  is  to  prove  that  the  Gentiles 
ta  [i.i]  lyovzoL  v6tJL0v  are  also  dxpoaxal  v6;xou  in  that  eaurofq  efalv  v6[jloc. 
But  if  v6[xoq  in  v."  has  this  inclusive  sense,  signifying  revelation  of  God's 
will  without  reference  to  the  form  of  revelation,  then  it  is  superfluous  to 
give  to  v6[xo(;  in  lauToTi;  elalv  voiioq  a  more  specific  sense.  For  though  it 
is  clear  from  the  rest  of  the  verse  that  the  law  referred  to  was  in  fact  not  in 
concrete  objective  form,  the  aim  of  the  apostle  is  plainly  not  by  the  term 
v6[jL0(;  to  affirm  this  specific  quality  but  rather  to  affirm  that  which  it  has 
in  common  with  vd^jLoq  previously  spoken  of.  This  passage  therefore  fur- 
nishes clear  evidence  that  Paul  employed  v6[xoc;  of  divine  law  both  in  a 


N0M02  451 

more  and  in  a  less  specific  sense,  using  it  either  to  denote  an  objective 
revelation  of  God's  will  such  as  is  found  in  O.  T.  (with  the  article  that 
revelation  itself)  or  for  revelation  of  God's  will  as  such  without  reference 
to  the  form  of  its  expression;  in  the  latter  case,  therefore,  with  a  meaning 
broad  enough  to  include  both  such  a  law  as  that  of  O.  T.  and  the  law  which 
the  Gentile  possessed  in  himself.  This  use  of  the  term,  therefore,  not  only 
ignores  the  distinction  between  ef  and  gh,  but  also  eliminates  from  the 
meaning  of  the  term  all  thought  of  the  form  in  which  the  will  of  God  is 
made  known  to  men. 

But  it  is  of  capital  importance  to  observe  that  when  Paul  is  thus  speaking 
of  divine  law  in  the  most  general  sense,  he  afhrms  that  the  doers  of  law  are 
justified  before  God,  Rom.  2^^.  Nor  can  it  be  affirmed  that  this  is  a  purely- 
theoretical  statement  of  which  there  are  and  can  be  no  examples.  For  not 
only  is  there  no  hint  of  hypothetical  character  in  the  categorical  statement 
of  the  verse,  but  the  impossibility  of  joining  v.",  Iv  ^  r^xigq.  xpt'vet  &  6s6?, 
etc.,  with  V.15  compels  the  recognition  of  vv."-  '^  as  a  parenthesis  and  the 
connection  of  v.i^  with  v.",  whereby  the  definitely  objective  and  unhypo- 
thetical  character  of  the  assertion  is  clearly  established.  This  view  of  the 
passage  is  moreover  confirmed  by  the  self-consistency  which  the  argument 
thus  acquires,  and  by  the  perfectly  objective  character  of  the  statement  to 
the  same  effect  in  vv.«-",  in  which  the  apostle  clearly  affirms  that  God  will 
judge  men  according  to  the  motive  and  conduct  of  their  lives,  and  to  those 
who  by  patient  continuance  in  good  work  seek  for  glory  and  honour  and 
incorruption,  will  render  eternal  life,  and  to  every  one  that  doeth  good, 
glory  and  honour  and  peace.  This  is  substantially  the  doctrine  of  the 
prophets,  that  God  approves  and  saves  those  who  work  righteousness, 
whose  purpose  it  is  to  do  God's  will.  (C/.  detached  note  on  Acvcatoq,  etc., 
II  A.  4,  p.  462.) 

But  the  apostle  does  not  always  speak  thus  inclusively  of  both  elements 
of  the  law,  or  so  ignore  the  distinction  between  them.  Indeed  oftener  than 
otherwise  he  seems  to  have  clearly  before  him  the  distinction  between  the 
specific  statutory  requirements  of  the  law  and  its  ethical  principles;  yet  he 
can  apply  the  term  voi^oq  to  either  the  one  or  the  other.  Thus  if  he  is 
speaking,  as  the  exigencies  of  controversy  often  compelled  him  to  speak,  of 
the  law  as  a  body  of  statutes,  distinct  alike  from  the  covenant,  ahc,  which 
preceded  them  and  ran  parallel  to  them,  and  from  the  element  of  ethical 
principle,  gh,  which  underlay  and  ran  through  them,  a  legalistic  system 
which  constituted  not  the  whole  of  that  regime  under  which  by  divine 
appointment  the  Jew  lived  from  Moses  to  Christ,  but  an  element  of  it,  then 
he  calls  this,  ef,  the  law,  and  means  by  v6txo<;  a  purely  legalistic  system. 
This  is  most  clearly  the  case  in  such  passages  as  Gal.  2,^'>-  ":  oaot  yap 
e^  Ipytov  v6{JL0u  e(fflv  uxb  xaxapov  e((j(v'  yiypaxTat  yctp  oxt  kizt.v.cx.'z&.gct'zoq 
xaq  Iq  oOx  l[X[xlvet  xaatv  toT<;  yz'^goi.^x^ivoi.q  h  xcp  ^c^Xftp  tou  v6^ou  tou 
xot^ffat    a'jxi.     8ti     Ss    Iv    v6[X(j)     ouSel?    BixacouTat    xapot    xqi    6eq)    S^Xov, 


452  GALATIANS 

etc.  That  in  this  and  other  like  passages  Paul  is  not  using  v6'tJi.0(;  in  the 
same  sense  as  in  Rom.  2"-'^  is  evident  because  in  the  one  he  expressly  affirms 
that  no  one  is  justified  by  works  of  law  and  as  clearly  implies  that  the  reason 
is  that  law  demands  an  absolutely  complete  and  full  obedience  to  its  de- 
mands, such  as  no  man  in  fact  renders,  while  the  other  implies  that  they 
and  they  only  are  accepted  of  God  who  are  doers  of  law,  thereby  distinctly 
implying  that  in  the  actual  judgment  of  God  men  are  approved  for  doing 
the  things  that  are  required  by  the  law.  The  explanation  of  the  difference 
lies  in  a  difference  in  the  meanings  of  the  term  "law,"  of  which  the  passages 
themselves  furnish  the  evidence.  In  the  passage  in  Gal.  Paul  is  speaking 
not  of  law  in  its  totality  and  actuality  as  the  revealed  will  of  God,  as  is 
seen  in  that  he  sets  the  law  in  antithesis  to  other  declarations  of  scripture 
which  he  evidently  accepts  as  expressing  the  will  of  God  (312),  but  of  the 
legalistic  element  in  O.  T.,  isolated  and  set  off  by  itself,  that  element  which 
if  it  were  expressive  of  the  whole  will  of  God  would  be  simply  a  sentence  of 
universal  condemnation.  In  the  other  passage,  on  the  contrary,  he  is  speak- 
ing of  the  revealed  will  of  God  as  a  whole,  whether  expressed  in  O.  T.  as 
a  whole  or  revealed  in  the  conscience  of  the  Gentile,  but  in  which  in  either 
case  God  is  disclosed  not  as  judging  without  mercy,  condemning  every  one 
in  whom  is  found  any  shortcoming  or  transgression,  but  as  approving  him 
who  does  good,  who  with  patient  continuance  in  well-doing  seeks  for  glory 
and  h  mour  and  incorruption,  and  condemning  those  who  work  that  which 
is  evil,  who  disobey  the  truth  and  obey  iniquity  (Rom.  2«-").  Of  law  in 
the  sense  which  is  gained  by  isolating  the  purely  legalistic  element  of 
O.  T.  and  speaking  of  it  by  itself,  Paul  can  say  very  different  things  from 
that  which  he  says  of  the  law  as  the  will  of  God  broadly  and  justly 
understood. 

It  is  of  great  importance  for  the  understanding  of  Paul  to  recognise  that 
law  in  the  legalistic  sense  was  an  actual,  not  a  merely  hypothetical  exist- 
ence, yet  that  it  was  never  alone  and  by  itself  the  basis  of  God's  action 
towards  men.  There  never  was  a  period  of  pure  legalism  except  in  the 
erroneous  thoughts  of  men.  Might  not  one  argue  in  somewhat  the  same 
way  about  the  law  of  war?  Had  he  maintained  that  this  legalistic  element 
thus  isolated  in  fact  before  the  coming  of  Christ  held  full  sway  in  God's 
government  of  the  world,  unqualified  by  covenant  or  ethical  principle,  he 
would  have  predicated  for  this  period  an  absolute  legalism,  which  would 
have  pronounced  sentence  of  condemnation  on  every  man  who  in  any 
respect  failed  to  fulfil  all  the  commands  of  the  law.  It  might  even  seem 
that  he  does  this  in  Gal.  3»o-".  But  against  this  are  the  reasons  already 
urged:  first,  that  in  this  very  passage  he  cites  O.  T.  as  teaching  the  precise 
contrary  of  this  legalism,  making  faith  the  basis  of  acceptance  with  God 
(Gal.  3");  and  second,  that  in  Rom.  2«-i8,  he  likewise  clearly  makes  the 
basis  of  divine  acceptance,  not  legalistic— a  perfect  conformity  to  all  the 
things  written  in  the  book  of  the  law — ^but  ethical,  character  as  shown  in 


N0M02  453 

purpose  and  conduct.  And  when  we  examine  his  language  in  the  passage 
in  Gal.,  we  find  that  he  does  not  say  that  God  deals  with  men  on  the  basis 
of  such  legalism,  or  that  law  so  understood  actually  held  unqualified  sway, 
but  only  that  law  in  that  sense  in  which  it  can  be  set  over  against  the  other 
teaching  of  scripture,  pronounces  such  sentence.  It  is  necessary,  therefore, 
to  understand  him  as  here  isolating  law  in  thought  and  affirming  of  it  that 
which  is  true  of  it  as  a  legal  system  pure  and  simple,  but  not  affirming  that 
it  constituted  the  total  basis  of  God's  relation  to  men. 

Had  Paul  qualified  this  absolute  legalism  by  the  Pharisaic  notion  of  God's 
covenant  (that  is,  if  separating  ef  both  from  be  and  from  gh,  he  had  com- 
bined it  with  Im  and  called  this  the  law),  he  would  have  used  the  term  prac- 
tically as  the  Pharisee  used  it,  and  if  he  had  beheved  this  to  represent  God's 
actual  attitude  to  men,  he  would  have  held  the  Pharisaic  doctrine.  He 
does  indeed  show  that  he  is  familiar  with  this  notion  of  law,  and  in  speak- 
ing of  the  Jewish  position,  notably  in  Rom.  2l^  he  comes  so  near  to  using 
the  term  in  this  sense  that  we  should  not  seriously  misrepresent  his  thought 
if  we  should  take  the  term  as  representing  this  Pharisaic  thought.  Yet 
even  here  it  is  perhaps  best  to  suppose  that  Paul  was  using  the  term  in  a 
sense  which  represented  for  him  a  reality,  viz.,  as  referring  to  the  law  as  an 
actual  historic  regime.     Cf.  2  (a),  p.  455- 

But  Paul  did  not  always  emphasise  the  purely  legalistic  element  when 
he  resolved  law  into  its  elements.  In  truth,  it  was  rather  the  element  of 
ethical  principle  than  that  of  formulated  statute,  gh  rather  than  ef,  that 
represented  for  Paul  the  true  will  of  God,  the  real  \6[ioq.  And  when  he 
was  free  from  the  stress  of  controversy  which  compelled  him  to  shape  his 
use  of  terms  in  large  part  by  that  of  his  opponents,  he  could  use  the  word 
with  exclusive  emphasis  upon  the  ethical  principles  of  the  law.  This  he 
clearly  does  in  Gal.  S^*'-  ^  T^P  "^^^  vopioq  ev  evl  16yi^  xexX-rjpwTat,  Iv  tw 
dtvaxTjastq  xbv  x^Tjctov  goo  oiq  aeauT6v.  This  he  does  also  in  Rom.  138: 
b  yap  dcyaxwv  xbv  Ixspov  v6tiov  xexT^Yipwxsv.  See  also  v.^".  That  the  term 
v6ixoq  is  used  in  the  former  passage  in  a  sense  which  not  simply  empha- 
sises the  ethical  principle  which  is  at  the  heart  of  the  law,  but  does  so  to  the 
exclusion  of  the  statutory  requirements  of  the  law,  is  clear  from  the  fact 
that,  while  the  apostle  fervently  exhorts  the  Galatians  not  to  yield  obedience 
to  the  command  to  be  circumcised,  he  clearly  implies  that  the  law  as  he  is 
here  speaking  of  it,  is  to  be  fulfilled  by  them.  In  this  passage,  therefore, 
the  element  of  ethical  principle,  gh  in  the  diagram,  is  isolated  and  treated 
as  constituting  the  law.  And  this  meaning  once  clearly  established  by 
such  passages  as  those  cited  is  then  seen  to  satisfy  best  the  requirements  of 
the  context  of  not  a  few  other  passages.*     See  2  (d),  p.  458. 

*  That  the  line  of  discrimination  between  law  to  be  fulfilled  and  law  not  to  be  obeyed  is 
between  the  ethical  principle  and  the  statutes  as  such,  not  between  ethical  and  ceremonial 
statutes,  is  shown  by  Paul's  bold  application  of  his  principle  in  i  Cor.  6-2  (cf.  also  lo^'),  where 
he  refuses  to  condemn  even  unchastity  on  the  ground  that  it  is  unlawful,  but  strenuously 
condemns  it  because  it  destroys  one's  fellowship  with  Christ. 


454  GALATIANS 

It  might  seem  that  this  meaning  of  the  word  is  identical  with  that  assigned 
above  to  Rom.  2'^,  eauxot<;  efalv  y6[i.oq.  Nor  is  it  needful  to  suppose  that 
the  law  as  spoken  of  in  the  two  classes  of  passages  is  of  different  content. 
The  elements  of  the  concept  are,  however,  different  in  the  two  cases.  The 
distinction  which  Rom.  2^*  makes  is  (a)  that  between  law  objectively 
promulgated,  and  law,  whether  objectively  promulgated  or  not,  v6tJL0(;  in 
Ta  [Lii  vdixov  e'xovxa  signifying  a  law  thus  objectively  promulgated  and 
v6^oq  in  eauToTs  e?alv  vofjLoq,  denoting  a  disclosure  of  the  divine  will 
without  reference  to  whether  it  is  so  promulgated  or  not.  In  Gal.  5"  the 
distinction  that  is  in  mind  is  (b)  that  between  statutes  and  ethical  princi- 
ples, and  h  y6[ioq  means  the  law  inclusive  of  ethical  principles,  and  exclusive 
of  statutes  (save  as  these  are  involved  in  the  principles).  These  two  dis- 
tinctions are  by  no  means  equivalent;  for,  while  a  law  not  definitely  promul- 
gated can  not  easily  be  thought  of  as  consisting  in  statutes,  yet  it  is  not 
impossible  that  the  law  which  men  create  for  themselves  or  which  their 
conduct  reflects  should  take  the  form  of  rules  rather  than  principles,  and 
it  is  by  no  means  impossible  that  a  law  definitely  and  formally  promulgated 
should  be  expressed  in  principles,  or  reduced  to  a  single  principle,  rather 
than  in  a  multiplicity  of  specific  statutes.  Indeed  it  is  of  a  law  definitely 
promulgated  that  Paul  seems  to  be  speaking  in  Gal.  51^  and  6=.  Moreover, 
the  two  passages  differ  in  this,  that,  while  in  Rom.  2^*  distinction  (b)  is  not 
at  all  present  to  the  mind,  and  distinction  (a)  furnishes  the  solution  of  the 
paradox  of  the  sentence,  in  Gal.  51^  on  the  other  hand,  distinction  (a)  is 
alien  to  the  thought  of  the  passage  (though  it  is  in  fact  a  definitely  promul- 
gated law  of  which  the  apostle  is  speaking),  and  distinction  (b)  is  distinctly 
present,  and  6  .  .  .  vd^xoq  denotes  law  as  consisting  of  ethical  principles, 
not  law  as  consisting  of  statutory  rules. 

For  the  formulation  of  a  complete  exhibit  of  N.  T,  usage  account  must 
also  be  taken  of  the  fact  that  most,  if  not  all,  of  these  various  senses  of  the 
word  may  be  used  either  specifically  with  reference  to  the  law  in  question, 
this  definiteness  of  reference  being  usually  indicated  by  the  article,  or  with- 
out the  article,  qualitatively,  the  thing  referred  to  being  often  the  same 
historic  fact  that  would  be  denoted  by  6  vd^xoc;,  but  the  word  describing  it 
not  as  the  law,  but  as  a  law  or  as  law,  having  the  qualities  for  which  the 
term  stands.*  Such  an  exhibit  must  also  include  certain  less  frequent  senses 
of  the  word  not  specifically  mentioned  above. 

The  arrangement  of  meanings  in  the  following  tabulationf  is  in  the  main 
that  which  is  suggested  by  genetic  relations.  The  first  meaning,  though  of 
comparatively  infrequent  occurrence  in  N.  T.,  is  probably  closer  to  the 
original  sense,  both  of  the  Greek  v6[xo<;  and  of  the  Hebrew  nnm,  than 

•See  Slaten,  "The  Qualitative  Use  of  N6;xo?  in  the  Pauline  Epistles"  in  AJT.  1919, 
pp.  213-217,  and  S\QN.  pp.  3S-40. 

t  If  any  reader  approaches  such  a  tabulation  of  usage  with  a  presumption  in  favour  of 
finding,  in  Paul  at  least,  but  one  meaning  of  the  word,  rather  than  a  variety  of  meanings, 
such  presumption  ought  to  be  overthrown  by  an  examination  of  the  passages  already  dis- 
cussed. See,  e.  g.,  Rom.  3^'  7«  S''  '•  \  in  each  of  which  Paul  clearly  sets  law  over  against 
law.     Or  compare  Rom.  2"  with  Rom.  3'°  and  Gal.  2",  in  which  formally  contradictory 


NOMOS  455 

those  which  follow.  But  it  is  the  second  meaning  that  is  the  real  starting- 
point  of  N.  T.,  and  especially  of  Pauline,  usage.  To  Paul  6  v6ti-o<;  was,  save 
in  exceptional  cases,  the  revealed  will  of  God,  and  the  primary  reference 
of  the  term  was  to  the  revelation  of  that  will  in  O.  T. 

1.  A  single  statute  or  principle,  ethical,  religious,  or  civil  (c/.  Find.  Nem. 
10.51;  Ex.  i2*«Lev.  6^  etc.):  Rom.  7*^,  ixo  tou  vo^j-ou  toO  dvop6c;,  "from 
the  statute  concerning  marriage";  Rom.  7»  Heb.  8"  iQi*. 

2.  Divine  law,  the  revealed  will  of  God  in  general,  or  a  body  of  statutes, 
ordinances,  or  instructions  expressing  that  will.  Under  this  head  fall  the 
great  majority  of  all  the  N.  T.  instances  of  the  word.  But  for  the  purposes 
of  the  interpreter,  and  for  reasons  indicated  above,  it  is  necessary  to  recog- 
nise four  specific  modifications  of  the  general  sense  above  stated. 

(a)  Divine  law,  expression  of  the  divine  will,  viewed  as  a  concrete  fact,  or 
as  a  historic  regime  of  which  such  expression  is  the  characteristic  feature. 
The  expression  may  be  mandatory,  or  condemnatory,  or  approbatory,  since 
will  may  be  expressed  in  any  of  these  ways.  In  this  use  the  term  is  colour- 
less as  concerns  the  distinction  between  general  principles  and  specific 
statutes,  and  as  respects  the  qualification  of  the  statutory  system  by  any 
other  elements  of  divine  revelation;  it  refers  simply  to  divine  revelation  as 
a  concrete,  historic  fact  without  further  definition  of  it. 

Most  frequently  it  is  the  law  of  O.  T.,  or  more  specifically,  the  Mosaic 
code  that  is  referred  to,  and  this  reference  is  indicated  by  the  prefixing  of 
the  article  designating  the  well-iinown  or  previously  mentioned  law.  So  in 
Mt.  II":  rAyzzc,  ol  xpotp^xat  xal  6  yb\i.oq,  Icoq  'Iwdvvou  expo<?T)TSuaav. 
125  223«  23"  Lk.  2".  24.  2^  39  10"  i6i«  Jn.  i":  h  v6[jlo<;  Sia  Mwuaefoq  klb%-q. 
719a.  b.  23,  49  8  [5].  1'  Acts  6'"  7"  IS*  i8i»  2I20.  "•  "«  22'.  «  23»  Rom.  2^^-  ^O'  "'^ 
319a.  b  416  I  Cor.  98'  8  14'^  Heb.  "j""  ^^'  ''^''-  ^  9"-  "  lo^.  When  the  reference  to 
the  0.  T.  law  is  indicated  by  the  addition  of  Mcouaiw?  or  Kupt'ou  the  article 
is  sometimes  omitted.  See  Lli.  2^3  {cf.  Acts  13",  which,  however,  probably 
falls  under  (c);    Heb.  lo^^). 

When  the  law  viewed  simply  as  a  concrete  fact  or  historic  regime  is  spoken 
of  qualitatively  so  that  while  the  thing  chiefly  or  even  exclusively  in  mind 
is  the  O.  T.  law,  yet  it  is  thought  of  not  specifically  as  the  O.  T.  system  but 
simply  in  its  character  as  law  (historically  or  concretely  viewed),  the  article 
is  regularly  omitted:  Heb.  7'^'  '"  8<  io».*    Naturally  examples  of  this  usage 

assertions  are  made  about  law.  Or,  asain,  compare  Rom.  6><.  7*  and  Gal.  2"  5'  with  Rom.  S* 
and  Gal.  s"'  "'  which  disclose  a  similar  antithesis  of  statement  concernmg  law,  which  can 
be  resolved  only  by  recognising  that  Paul  uses  the  term  i^oao;  in  different,  if  not  even  anti- 
thetical, senses.  ,       ,  tt  1.  t 

*  It  might  seem  as  if  these  and  the  previously  cited  examples  from  Heb.  properly 
belong  under  (c),  "law  viewed  as  a  purely  legalistic  system,"  since  the  author  evidently  has 
specially  in  mind  the  sacrificial  and  ritual  elements  of  the  law,  and  in  7"  characterises  it  as 
a  law  of  carnal  commandment.  But  since  there  is  in  this  epistle  no  antithesis  between  dif- 
ferent conceptions  of  law,  such  as  is  so  clearly  marked  in  Paul,  it  is  gratuitous  to  assign  to 
the  author  of  Heb.  those  specialised -meanings  which  are  demanded  in  the  case  of  Paul;  it 
is  truer  to  the  point  of  view  of  the  author  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  to  assign  all  these 
instances  to  the  category  of  law  viewed  simply  as  a  concrete  historic  resimc. 


456  GALATIANS 

occur  in  close  connection  with  instances  with  the  article.  It  is  this  sense  of 
v6[xo?,  concrete,  objective  expression  of  the  will  of  God,  qualitatively  thought 
of,  that  underlies  both  clauses  of  Rom.  2 '2;  oaot  yap  dtvoixwq  T^^jLaprov,  ayo^iMq 
xal  dxoXoOvTat,  xal  bcoc  ev  \6\xbj  T^txapxov,  oid  vd^xou  xpi8T;aovTat.  It  is 
law  in  this  sense  that  the  Gentiles  lack  and  the  Jews  possess.  It  is  in  the 
same  sense  of  vo^jlo?  that  the  Gentiles  are  described  in  v.i^  as  xa  •^i]  v6[xov 
e'xovTa  and  v6[xov  [xtj  e%ovT£q.  This  is  also  the  most  probable  sense  in 
2»^  23^  and  in  a"*,  b.* 

But  the  context  of  2'-  ^*  in  which  of  those  who  are  described  as  voiJiov  (x-J) 
e'xovTeq  it  is  immediately  afiirmed,  kav-zolq  elah  v6;xoq,  shows  clearly 
that  Paul  could  also  use  the  term  v6(xo<;  without  including  the  idea  of  con- 
crete, objective  expression,  as  in  a  code.  Hence  we  recognise  a  second 
specific  sense  of  y6\ioq  denoting  divine  law: 

(b)  Divine  law  in  general,  the  will  of  God  made  known  to  men,  but 
without  reference  to  the  manner  of  its  expression,  inclusive  therefore  of  law 
as  a  historic  regime,  and  of  any  other  less  objective  forms  of  expression  of 
the  divine  will.f 

As  in  the  preceding  usage,  so  here  also  the  term  may  be  used  with  the 

•It  would  be  easy  to  Judge  that  Rom.  5":  axpi  v6ixov,  5»o:  ro/xo?  Trapeto-JjAOe./,  should  be 
classed  here  on  the  ground  that  these  passages  clearly  refer  to  the  law  as  a  concrete  historic 
fact.  That  they  do  refer  to  the  concrete  historic  fact  is  undoubtedly  true,  but  not  to  it 
simply  as  such.  A  careful  study  of  the  context  makes  it  clear  that  the  apostle  is  thinking 
not  of  the  whole  institution  of  law,  inclusive  of  all  the  elements  of  the  system,  and  of  this 
whole  simply  as  a  historical  fact,  but  only  of  the  legalistic  element  and  aspect  of  the  system, 
of  law  isolated  from  all  other  elements  of  divine  revelation  and  set  over  against  these  other 
elements.     These  instances,  therefore,  belong  not  here  but  under  (c). 

Similarly  Gal.  3>7  might  seem  to  demand  classification  under  the  historic  sense.  For 
while  it  is  evident  that  in  Gal.,  chap.  3,  generally,  it  is  the  law  legalistically  interpreted  that 
Paul  is  contending  against,  yet  in  s''  the  expression  "which  came  four  hundred  and  thirty 
years  afterwards"  seems  to  give  to  the  word  "  law  "  to  which  it  is  attached  an  unequivocally 
historical  sense.  Yet  it  is  also  to  be  recognised  that  in  his  assertion  that  the  law  does  not 
annul  the  covenant  it  is  the  displacing  of  the  covenant  by  the  principle  of  legalism  that  he 
is  contending  against.  So  that  while  it  may  be  said  that  what  he  affirms  both  in  the  par- 
ticipial phrase  and  in  the  negative  predicate  ova  aKvpol  obviously  applies  to  the  law  his- 
torically understood,  yet  it  is  his  thought  of  the  legalistic  element  or  interpretation  of  the  law 
which  leads  Paul  to  make  the  statement.  Thus  his  full  thought  would  probably  be  expressed 
in  some  such  fashion  as  this.  "The  law  which  came  four  hundred  and  thirty  years  after- 
wards, which  you  affirm  established  the  principle  of  justification  by  law,  and  in  which  I  do 
not  deny  such  a  principle  may  be  found,  does  not  annul  the  promise."  It  seems  necessary, 
therefore,  to  assign  all  the  instances  in  this  chapter  to  this  head. 

It  is  noticeable  that  the  use  of  foyaos  in  the  concrete  historic  sense,  frequent  in  other  parts 
of  the  N.  T.  is  infrequent  in  Paul.  It  was  a  natural  result  of  the  controversies  in  which 
Paul  was  engaged  and  in  connection  with  which  he  had  chief  occasion  to  use  the  term 
that  when  he  spoke  of  the  law  or  of  law  it  was  with  some  special  aspect  of  the  law  in  mind 
— either  that  which  his  own  thought  emphasised  or  that  which  his  opponents  made  prominent. 

t  It  is  important  to  observe  that  this  use  of  the  term  does  not  designate  law  without  con- 
crete historic  expression,  as  the  law  of  conscience  or  of  the  mind;  concrete  historic  expression 
is  not  denied  of  the  thing  referred  to,  but  is  eliminated  from  the  definition.  The  relation  of 
(a)  and  Cb)  is  illustrated,  not  by  the  categories,  "black  horse"  and  "not-black  horse,"  but 
by  "black  horse"  and  "horse." 


NOMOS  457 

article  and  be  definite,  or  without  the  article,  and  in  that  case  be  qualitative 
or  indefinite:  Rom.  2^^:  00  yap  o\  dxpoaxal  v6[jlou  ot'xatoi  ■Kapa  [tw]  Gecp, 
iXX'  ol  xotTf]Tal  v6[jLou  otxaco)0T)aovTat.  Cf.  p.  451.  The  qualitative  force 
of  the  term  without  the  article  can  be  expressed  in  English  by  trans- 
lating: "For  not  the  law-hearers  ....  but  the  law-doers,  etc."  Here 
belongs  also,  as  indicated  above,  Rom.  2"^;  lauToTq  hah  y6[Loq.  In 
2 14b;  ^^  T^oQ  v6ixou  xotouatv,  it  is  impossible  to  tell  with  certainty  whether 
ToO  votJLou  means  the  concrete  historic  law  (of  the  Jew),  the  requirements  of 
which  the  Gentile  meets,  though  ignorant  of  the  fact  that  they  are  so 
required,  or  more  generally  the  law  of  God,  without  reference  to  the  form 
of  its  presentation.  In  xb  epyov  xou  votxou,  v^^,  the  latter  is  quite  clearly 
the  meaning,  and  from  this  it  may  perhaps  be  inferred  that  the  meaning 
is  the  same  in  v.^*^. 

Since  meaning  (b)  is  simply  (a)  with  the  elimination  of  the  idea  of  con- 
crete, objective  promulgation,  it  is  easy  to  pass  from  the  one  sense  to  the 
other,  and  sometimes  difiicult  to  decide  in  which  sense  the  term  is  employed. 
This  is  the  case  in  Rom.  2"*>  ^'  2«.  "a,  b_  Yet  it  is  probable  that  in  all  these 
cases  the  term  represented  in  the  apostle's  mind  the  more  generalised  con- 
ception, and  so  that  these  instances  fall  under  (b). 

The  extreme  of  generalisation  of  the  conception  of  the  law  of  God  is 
represented  in  Rom.  3",  Bia  xoiou  vo^jlou,  and  though  in  the  answer  to  this 
question,  dXka  otd  voiAou  xcaxeox;,  the  content  of  the  law  is  indicated  by 
the  word  ict'axeox;,  in  both  question  and  answer  vo^ou  itself  is  wholly 
colourless  as  respects  mode  of  expression.  Similar  to  this  latter  case  is 
Rom.  9",  where  vd^xov  StxaioauvTQq  signifies  a  law  through  which  righteous- 
ness could  be  achieved,  but  the  word  conveys  no  intimation  pro  or  con 
respecting  definite  promulgation  of  such  a  law  in  a  concrete  system. 

The  tv/o  preceding  usages,  differing  by  the  inclusion  or  exclusion  in  the 
concept  of  the  idea  of  concrete,  historic  expression,  are  alike  in  that  both 
ignore  the  distinction  between  general  ethical  principle  and  specific  stat- 
utes. From  these  we  pass  then  to  the  two  uses  to  which  this  latter  idea  is 
of  fundamental  importance,  and  which  are  distinguished  from  one  another 
precisely  in  that  one  emphasises  statutes  and  the  other  principle.  The 
first  of  these  reflects  most  strongly  the  influence  of  Pharisaic  thought,  of 
which  Paul's  defence  of  his  own  conception  compelled  him  to  take  account. 

(c)  Divine  law  viewed  as  a  purely  legalistic  system  made  up  of  statutes 
on  the  basis  of  obedience  or  disobedience  to  which  it  justifies  or  condemns 
men  as  matter  of  debt  without  grace;  the  law  detached  in  thought  and  dis- 
tinguished from  all  other  elements  or  aspects  of  divine  revelation,  whether 
it  be  the  ethical  principle  that  underlay  it,  or  the  covenant  that  preceded  it 
and  qualified  it,  or  the  ethicalism  that  is  demanded  by  the  facts  concerning 
the  law  written  in  the  heart  of  the  Gentile.  All  the  instances  of  the  word 
in  this  sense  occur  in  the  Pauline  epistles.  The  occasion  for  such  a  use  of 
the  word  by  Paul  was,  as  pointed  out  above,  in  the  controversies  in  which 


458  GALATIANS 

he  was  engaged.  The  possibility  of  its  occurrence,  as  representing  a  reality 
and  not  merely  an  idea,  lies  in  the  fact  that  there  are  in  the  O.  T.  certain 
passages  which  taken  by  themselves  and  strictly  interpreted  are  expressive 
of  pure  legalism.  The  apostle  might  perhaps  have  challenged  the  strictly 
legalistic  interpretation  of  such  passages  as  Deut.  27",  which  he  quotes  in 
Gal.  3"*:  "Cursed  is  everyone  who  continueth  not  in  all  the  things  that  are 
written  in  the  book  of  the  law  to  do  them."  He  chose  rather,  admitting 
and  even  insisting  upon  the  strictly  legalistic  meaning  of  these  passages, 
to  take,  in  effect,  the  position  that  such  legalism  was  but  one  element  of 
the  revelation  of  the  divine  will,  citing  against  it  the  Abrahamic  covenant 
(  Gal.  s^^^)  and  the  utterance  of  prophecy  (Gal.  3")  and  the  psalmist 
(  Rom.  4«ff ). 

Used  with  the  article  (occasionally  with  other  defining  qualifications), 
the  word  in  this  sense  refers  to  the  legalistic  element  in  the  O.  T.,  or  to  the 
O.  T.  or  any  part  of  it,  looked  at  as  Paul's  opponents  looked  at  it,  as  through 
and  through  legalistic.  Without  the  article  it  is  quaUtative,  designating 
law  as  such  legalistically  understood,  usually  no  doubt  with  special  thought 
of  the  legalism  of  the  O.  T.  or  of  later  Judaism,  yet  without  strict  or  exclu- 
sive reference  to  these. 

That  instances  of  the  word  in  this  legalistic  sense  should  occur  in  close 
connection  with  other  usages,  and  that  it  is  sometimes  difficult  to  determine 
with  certainty  the  meaning  in  adjacent  instances,  is  not  strange,  since  the 
entity  referred  to  is  in  any  case  in  part  or  in  whole  the  same,  and  many 
assertions  could  be  made  of  law  in  more  than  one  sense  of  the  word.  Espe- 
cially is  it  the  case  that  the  definite  and  the  qualitative  uses  occur  in  close 
connection.  The  following  list  avoids  a  confusing  minuteness  of  classifica- 
tion by  citing  all  the  examples  of  the  legalistic  sense  without  further  sub- 
division:    Acts   13''  Rom.   3^°*'  ^  ^^^^-  284I3.  K.  ISa,  b  clSa,  b,  20   514,  16  y4,  5,  6,  7a,  b, 

c,  8.  9.  12.  14.  16   82b.  3    io<.  5    I   CoT.   Q^O".  ^'  c  ^  (cf.  also  &\o[i.o<;  in  v.")  155* 

Gal.    2''*'  ^'    "•   ^'*'   ^'   '^  3^-   '•   "'"*•   ^'   ^''   '^'   ^''   ^''   ^*'    ^^'  21a,  b,   c.  23,  24  44,    5,  21a,  b  cS, 

*.  18  Eph.  2"  Phil.  35.  «■  »  I  Tim.  i^.  ».  Of  this  list  a  few  examples  will  suf- 
fice to  illustrate  the  usage:  Gal.  3"':  Saoc  yap  e^  epywy  v6[jlo'j  eblv  bizh  xa-cdpav 
elalv.  3":  OTt  sv  y6\xM  oiiSelq  Btxaiouxat  xap(i  tw  6sw  B^Xov.  Rom.  3^1 :  vuvl 
81  X^^P^'S  vdnou  StxaiOffuvT)  Geou  xsfav^pcoTat.  10^:  riXoq  yap  v6[ji,ou  Xptaxbg  eEq 
SixatoauvTjv  Tcavxl  xfo  TCttjxsuovTt. 

But  as  pointed  out  above,  p.  448,  the  legalistic  use  of  y6[ioc,  is  for  the 
apostle  Paul  a  case  of  adaptation,  and  the  meaning  which  is  congenial  to 
his  own  thought  is  almost  the  exact  opposite  viz. : 

(d)  Divine  law  conceived  of  as  reduced  to  the  ethical  principle  which 
constitutes  its  permanent  element  and  essential  demand,  the  perception 
of  which  deprives  the  statutes  as  such  of  authority — law  as  centralised  and 
summed  up  in  love.* 

•  Conformity  to  this  principle  fulfils  law,  but  even  this  is,  in  Paul's  view,  the  result  not 
of  obedience  to  it  in  a  strict  and  legal  sense  of  the  word  "obedience,"  but  of  an  impulse  and 


N0M02  459 

This  use  of  the  word  is  by  no  means  exclusively  Pauline.  It  is  found  also 
in  the  gospels  and  in  Jas.  When  the  reference  is  to  the  O.  T.  law  looked 
at  as  embodying  the  great  ethical  principle,  to  which  it  is  indeed  reducible, 
or  to  the  law  of  God  inclusively  viewed,  without  reference  to  the  mode  of 
its  expression,  the  word  is  used  with  the  article.  When  the  law  is  qualita- 
tively viewed,  the  word  is  without  the  article. 

This  is  clearly  the  sense  of  6  votxoq  in  Mt.  y^^:  ouxoq  ydip  eaxiv  6  w[Loq 
v.(x\  q\  'izgiocfrixai.  The  addition  of  the  words  /.al  o\  Tcpocp^rat  makes  it 
evident  that  it  is  the  law  of  God  as  expressed  in  O.  T.  that  is  specially  in 
mind.  See  also  Mt.  2  2«'.  Not  less  certainly  is  this  the  meaning  in 
Mt.  5"'  18  Lk.  I6l^  if  these  words  come  from  Jesus,  since  it  is  beyond 
question  clear  that  Jesus  regarded  many  statutes  of  the  law  as  invalid  or 
no  longer  valid,  and  only  the  central  ethical  principle  of  the  law  as  of  per- 
petual force.  Gal.  51*,  6  yap  %aq  v6'^oq  Iv  Ivl  Xdyw  r.zTzkrtpixmxi,  Iv  xjp 
'AyaxTjaetq  xbv  xXirjatov  aoG  w?  asauxdv,  and  Rom.  13 '•  ^°  are  clear  vouchers 
for  this  usage  in  Paul,  and  clear  expressions  of  his  view  of  the  fundamental 
meaning  of  the  law.  In  both  cases  it  is  the  law  of  God  with  special  refer- 
ence to  its  expression  in  O.  T.  that  is  in  mind.  It  is  difficult  to  say  with 
certainty  whether  Rom.  y"-  '^^b.  25a  G^l.  5"  6"  should  be  classed  here  or 
regarded  as  examples  of  the  more  general  sense  indicated  under  (b).  Here 
also  belong  probably  all  of  the  instances  in  Jas.:  i"  2^-  »•  lo-  "•  i"  4".* 

3.  By  a  metonymy  due  to  the  prominence  given  by  the  Jews  to  the  law 
of  0.  T.  6  y6[ioq  designates  the  books  that  contain  the  law  even  when 
they  are  thought  of  without  special  reference  to  the  law  which  they  contain, 
but  simply  as  scripture.  Hence  h  y6[ioq  [xal  ol  xpocpfiTa'.]  becomes  a 
name  either  for  the  books  of  Moses  or  for  the  scriptures  in  general  without 
restriction  either  to  the  books  of  Moses  or  to  the  mandatory  portions  of 
other  books:  Lk.  24^^  Jn.  i«  io'<  123^  15"  Acts  13'^  24'^  28'^  Rom.  3"^ 

4.  By  elimination  of  the  idea  of  the  divine  authority  of  law,  which  indeed 
is  not  intrinsic  in  the  word,  but  an  acquired  element  of  its  meaning  as 
usually  employed  in  both  O.  T.  and  N.  T.,  v6^oq  comes  to  mean  law  as 
such  without  reference  to  its  source  or  authority.  The  thing  actually 
spoken  of  may  be  Jewish  or  Roman  law,  or  law  without  discrimination,  but 
in  any  case  without  thought  of  its  character  as  divine  or  human.  It  may 
be  spoken  of  generically  or  definitely  with  the  article,  or  qualitatively  or 


power  from  within,  begotten  and  maintained  by  the  Spirit,  by  the  indwelling  Christ.  But 
this  element  of  the  apostle's  thought  does  not  strictly  belong  to  his  idea  of  law.  Strictly 
defined,  law  as  here  conceived  is  the  will  of  God  comprehended  in  a  single  principle.  That 
the  principle  is  love,  and  that  fulfilment  of  it  is  achieved  by  the  indwelling  Spirit  rather  than 
by  "obedience"  are  both  synthetic,  not  analytic  judgments. 

*  In  Jas.  2"''  ",  while  mentioning  specific  commands,  the  author  as  clearly  affirms  the 
unity  of  the  whole  law  and  in  v.'  finds  this  unity  in  the  principle  of  love.  By  his  characterisa- 
tion of  the  law  in  i'*  2^^  as  a  law  of  liberty  he  emphasises  the  principle  that  the  law  is  not  only 
centralised  in  one  principle  but  even  so  must  address  itself  not  to  the  man  from  without  but 
be  operative  from  within,  being  written  on  the  heart. 


460  GALATIANS 

indefinitely  without  it:  Jn.  7"  8''  i8'i  ig'*-  ^  Acts  iB'^  23"  25*  Rom.  yi*-  ^  7'^ 
I  Tim.  I'. 

5.  By  metonymy,  a  force  or  tendency  which,  tending  to  produce  action 
of  a  certain  kind,  has  the  effect  of  law,  may  itself  be  called  v6^oq:  Rom. 

yU,  i3a,    c,   25b    gia* 

XV.     AIKAI02,   AIKAIOSTNH,   AND   AIKAIOQ. 

Few  words  of  the  N.  T.  vocabulary  have  been  more  frequently  or  more 
thoroughly  discussed  than  those  of  this  group.  There  remains  little  ground 
for  dispute  concerning  their  fundamental  meaning.  Yet  on  some  points 
of  great  importance  for  the  understanding  of  this  epistle  and  the  Pauline 
thought  in  general  interpreters  are  not  wholly  agreed.  It  seems  necessary, 
therefore,  to  undertake  a  fresh  investigation  of  the  whole  subject.f 

I.     CLASSICAL  USAGE. 

A.  Ai'Kaioq  is  fundamentally  a  forensic  or  court  term  in  the  sense  that 
it  denotes  conformity  to  a  standard  or  norm  (Sixtq)  not  conceived  of  as 
defined  in  the  word  itself.  It  differs  thus  from  iyaOos  and  xaXdq,  which, 
so  to  speak,  contain  within  themselves  their  own  norm.  Si'xtq  being  pri- 
marily established  custom,  conceived  of  as  the  norm  for  human  conduct 
(chiefly  for  the  conduct  of  men  towards  one  another),  is  nevertheless  a  norm 
to  which  men  are  bound  to  conform.  St'xatoq  is  accordingly  as  applied 
to  men  and  their  actions  a  moral  term,  and  means,  "  conforming  to  that 
which  is  required,  to  what  is  right  in  relation  to  others."  b  Stxaio^  is  the 
man  whose  action  is  according  to  Sixtj;  he  does  what  is  right;  he  renders  to 

•  It  might  seem  that  toO  i/o/aou  t^?  a/xapTia^  xal  toG  Oafdrov  of  Rom.  8*  must  by  the 
connection  and  the  similarity  of  phraseology  refer  back  to  i/o^o)  aixapria';  in  Rom.  7»,  and  so 
be  assigned  here  instead  of  to  2  (c);  or  else  7"  and  with  it  7=''  "•^'  "•  be  assigned  to  2  (c).  It 
is  undoubtedly  true  that  the  fuller  phrase  in  S^b  does  refer  to  the  shorter  one  in  7";  but  a  care- 
ful study  of  the  passage  will  lead  to  the  conclusion  that  this  reference  does  not  involve  iden- 
tification of  the  things  referred  to.  Speaking  in  7"'  "■  "  of  that  force  for  evil  which  in  v." 
and  "  he  calls  afxapTLa,  and  designating  it  as  a  vojao?  because  it  stands  opposed  to  the  co/xo? 
Tov  Oeov  (vv.".  "),  with  such  a  turn  of  words  as  the  apostle  delights  in  he  substitutes  for  it 
in  8*  its  companion  in  bringing  failure  and  defeat,  the  law  in  its  legalistic  sense.  If,  as  is 
possible,  we  take  lov  vopLov  t^?  aixapria^  ical  OayaTov  as  designating  the  same  thing  spoken 
of  in  7"'',  then  the  change  in  the  reference  of  i/d/io?  will  come  in  between  vv.'  and  ';  for  tov 
vo/jiov  in  v.«  must  evidently  mean  the  law  in  the  proper  sense  of  the  term,  that  which  is  spoken 
of  in  the  first  part  of  chap.  7. 

t  Of  the  abundant  literature  the  following  monographs  and  articles  may  be  cited:  Kautzsch, 
Die  Derivate  des  Stammes  pix  im  alttesl.  Sprachgebrauch.  TiiDingen,  1881;  Cremer,  Biblisch- 
theologisches  Worterbuch  der  neutest.  Grdcitdt^',  pp.  206-330;  Morison,  Critical  Exposition  of  Ike 
Third  Chapter  of  .  .  .  Romans,  pp.  163-207;  Stevens,  Wm.  A.,  "On  the  Forensic  Meaning  of 
AiKaioo-v'i/Tj,"  in  AJT.  1S97,  pp.  443-450;  Davies,  "  The  Righteousness  of  God  in  St.  Paul," 
in  JThSl.  II  198-206;  Drummond,  Jas.,  "On  the  Meaning  of  'Righteousness  of  God'  in 
the  Theology  of  St.  Paul,"  in  Hibberl  Journal,  1902-3,  pp.  83-95;  Ropes,  "Righteousness  and 
'the  Righteousness  ot  God'  in  the  O.  T.  and  in  St.  Paul,"  in  JBL.  1903,  Pt.  II,  pp.  211-227; 
Skinner,  art.  "Righteousness"  (O.  T.)  in  HDB.;  Stevens,  Geo.  B.  art.  "Righteousness"  (N. 
T.)  in  YiDB.;  Addis,  art.  "Righteousness"  in  Encyc.  Bib.;  Sanday  and  Headlam,  The  Epistle 
(0  the  Romans,  pp.  24-39. 


AIKAI02YNH  4^1 

others  their  rights;  he  exacts  also  his  own.  The  word  is  thus  employed 
either  in  the  broad  sense,  "right"  (Horn.  Od.  XVIII  413;  Bacchyl.  10  [11], 
123;  Thuc.  3.  40';  Plato,  Gorg.  507B;  Aristot.  Eth.  Nic.  5.  i>f-  [1129  a'.  ^]),  or 
in  the  more  specific  sense,  "just  "  (Hes.  Op.  270/.;  Hero(n)das  2":  yvwi^H 
Btxat'qc  Ttpt'aiv  BtatTaxe.  Dem.  12O,  rendering  to  each  what  he  has  the 
right  to  claim,  -rb  Stxatov  signifies,  "  that  which  is  right  (in  general)  "  (Hdt. 
I"  7"';  ^sch.Prow.  187;  Aristot.E^/i.iVzc.  5. 141129  a^])  or  "  that  which  isdue 
from  one  man  to  another"  (Thuc.  3.54^ ;  Dem.  572^0,  and  this  either  as  one's 
duty,  one's  rights,  or  one's  (penal)  deserts.  Though  in  the  older  Greek 
literature  (Horn.  Od.  VI  120)  to  be  St'xaioc  included  also  the  discharge  of 
obligations  to  the  gods  and  xh  Bixatov  was  conceived  of  as  having  the 
sanction  of  divine  authority,  yet  especially  in  the  later  classical  writers  its 
predominant  reference  is  to  the  mutual  relations  of  men,  and  the  concep- 
tion of  divine  sanction  is  by  no  means  constantly  present.  Least  of  all  are 
the  gods  themselves  spoken  of  as  §ix.aiot  or  their  conduct  and  character 
conceived  of  as  the  standard  of  human  conduct.  Though  Si'xato?  is  fre- 
quently used  in  a  non-moral  sense  even  here  there  is  usually  a  reference  to 
a  standard  outside  the  thing  itself,  or  a  demand  requiring  to  be  satisfied, 
as  when  the  word  means,  "exact"  (applied  to  numbers),  fitting,  suitable, 
genuine  (Hdt.  21";  Xen.  Mem.  4.  4';  ^sch.  Ag.  1604;  Luc.  Hist,  conscr.  39). 

B.  Atxatoduv-rj  is:  i.  The  character  of  the  Sfxatoq,  and  that  usually 
in  the  narrower  sense  of  justice:  Hdt.  i'«  7";  Aristot.  Rhet.  i.  9^  (1366  b»): 
eaxi  oe  SixaioauvTj  jjlsv  ipsx-?)  IC  y]v  id  auxcov  Ixaaxot  Ix^uci,  %<x\  wq  6  vdjxoq, 
ko'.f.la  Se  St'  ^v  xd  aXkoxgia,  o'jy,  wq  6  v6^o?.  But  cf.  Eth.  N.  5.  i"  (1129 
b"ff  ).     2.  The  business  of  a  judge:  Plato,  Gorg.  464B,  C. 

C.  Atxai6a)  is  used  in  two  chief  senses:  i.  To  deem  right,  to  think  fit, 
etc.:  Hdt.  i";  Thuc.  i.  i40>;  Soph.  Ph.  781.  2.  To  do  one  justice,  and 
chiefly  in  tnalam  partem,  to  condemn,  to  punish:  Thuc.  3.  40*;  Plut.  Cat. 
Maj.  21^  Dion.  Cass.  48.  46^  Polyb.  3.31'.  Cremer  (p.  319)  in  an  ap- 
proximately exhaustive  examination  of  the  usage  of  the  word  in  classical 
and  other  non-biblical  Greek  writers  found  no  instance  of  the  use  of  the 
term  with  a  personal  object  in  the  sense  "to  make  righteous." 

II.  HEBREW  USAGE  OF  prs  AND  ITS  COGNATES. 
Like  the  Greek  Stxaioc;  the  Hebrew  words  from  the  root  pix  are  (so  far  as 
the  evidence  enables  us  to  judge)  fundamentally  forensic  in  sense,  express- 
ing agreement  with  a  standard  or  norm,  not  conceived  of  as  defined  in  the 
word  itself.  Whether  when  the  term  first  passed  from  the  presumably 
original  physical  sense  (of  which,  however,  there  is  no  clear  trace  in  extant 
Hebrew  usage) ,  the  norm  was  conceived  to  be  furnished  by  the  objective 
standard  of  the  object  itself,  or  by  the  idea  of  God  or  of  man  (Kautzsch), 
or  as  seems 'more  probable  by  the  demand  of  the  circumstances  of  a  given 
case  (Cremer)  does',  not  materially  affect  the  meaning  of  the  word  as  used 
in  O.  T.     Actual  extant  usage  may  be  classified  as  follows: 


4^2  GALATIANS 

A.     P7.X  signifies: 

1.  Conformity  to  an  existing  standard,  which  though  conventionally 
established  creates  an  obligation  to  conform  to  it:  Lev.  ig^s;  Deut.  25", 
etc. 

2.  Righteousness,  action  which  is  what  it  ought  to  be,  and  this  in  any 
degree,  whether  conceived  of  as  absolutely  such  as  it  ought  to  be,  or  approx- 
imately so,  or  spoken  of  qualitatively  without  reference  to  the  degree  of 
conformity:  Ps.  18"  45'  Eccl.  s''  yi'  Isa.  i"  321  59*,  etc. 

3.  Righteousness  in  relation  to  others,  justice,  the  rendering  to  each  of 
that  which  is  due,  either  that  which  he  has  the  right  to  claim,  or  that  which 
he  deserves;  esp.  justice  in  judging:  Lev.  1915  Deut.  ii*  Job  31*  Eccl.  5^ 
Isa.  II*  Jer.  11 20. 

4.  Specifically  of  God's  righteousness  in  distinguishing  between  the 
righteous  and  the  wicked,  rendering  punishment  to  the  latter  and  giving 
deliverance  to  the  former.  The  conception  underlying  this  use  of  the 
term  is  that  a  righteous  God  must  distinguish  in  his  dealings  between  the 
wicked  man,  who  neither  fears  God  nor  deals  justly  with  men,  and  the 
righteous  man,  who  though  he  be  not  perfect  but  is  indeed  often  confes- 
sedly a  sinner,  yet  relatively  speaking  lives  uprightly  and  trusts  in  God. 
The  righteousness  of  God  in  this  aspect  of  it  involving  the  deliverance  of 
the  upright  is  often  spoken  of  in  parallelism  with  salvation,  but  without 
losing  sight  of  the  basis  of  such  salvation  in  the  discriminating  righteous- 
ness of  God:  Ps.  717  s5^*-^^  Isa.  411"  42"  458a.  13  515.  with  the  same  under- 
lying conception  the  righteousness  of  the  ones  that  are  saved  is  spoken  of: 
Isa.  62^  2;  yet  here,  also,  without  converting  p-jx  into  a  mere  synonym 
for  salvation.  The  uprightness  of  the  people,  their  loyalty  to  God  is  still 
expressed  in  the  term.* 

B.  n,"?"js  is  used  with  substantially  the  same  range  of  meaning  as 
!5T.^,  only  lacking  instances  of  the  first  sense.  The  second  usage,  2,  is 
Uustrated  in  Deut.  6"  g*  2  Sam.  22^1,  etc.  In  Gen.  is«  there  is  obvious 
reference  to  the  requirement  of  God,  and  s  signifies  that  conduct  or  atti- 
tude of  mind  which  God  desires,  and  which  renders  man  acceptable  to 
him.  The  forensic  sense  of  the  term  is,  therefore,  especially  clear  here, 
throwing  into  the  background  the  usual  moral  content  of  the  term.  Usage  3 
is  illustrated  in  Jer.  2  23Ezek.  45';  usage4inPs.  36' («)•  "  ('")  5ii«  (»*)  Isa.  458'' 
5i«'  «  561  Mic.  79.  For  its  application  to  the  saved  see  Isa.  4818  54'^  In 
one  passage  only  is  the  term  used,  with  an  apparent  forgetfulness  of  the 

•Ropes,  JBL.  1903,  Pt.  II,  p.  219,  holds  that  in  Second  Isaiah  the  ground  of  the  vindi- 
cation of  Israel,  by  virtue  of  which  the  righteousness  of  God  is  salvation,  is  not  in  Israel's 
character  or  suffering,  but  lies  rather  in  Jahweh  himself,  who  for  his  own  name  has  redeemed 
his  servant  whom  he  knew,  chose,  and  loved."  Ropes  calls  this  a  profounder  view  than  that 
of  the  psalmists,  which  finds  the  basis  in  the  moral  excellence  and  conscious  piety  of  the 
worshipper.  This  is  partly  true  respecting  Isa.,  but  only  partly,  and  it  is  not  the  view  which 
controls  Paul,  as  Rom.,  chaps,  i,  2,  show;  Rom.  S'"  is  apparently  the  nearest  approximation 
to  an  expression  of  it. 


AIKAIOSYNH  4^3 

conception  of  discriminating  righteousness,  to  denote  acceptance  by  God 
and  consequent  deliverance  (Ps.  69").  There  are  also  a  few  passages  in 
which  it  is  apparently  used  of  a  just  cause,  a  being  in  the  right  in  a  given 
case.     Cf  I.  under  P^is  and  see  i  Ki.  8'»  2  Chr.  6". 

C.     P^is  (applied  to  persons  only,  except  in  Deut.  4«)  signifies: 

1.  With  a  formal  and  purely  forensic  rather  than  moral  sense,  in  the 
right  in  a  particular  case  or  in  an  assertion:  Ex.  23 »  Prov.  iS^'  Isa.  41"- 
Yet  this  sense  can  not  always  be  sharply  distinguished  from  3  below.  See 
Deut.  251  Prov.  ly^'.  ^s  igs. 

2.  Innocent,  free  from  guilt  in  a  particular  matter:  Gen.  20^ 

3.  Righteous,  in  moral  conduct  and  character,  what  one  ought  to  be, 
whether°ab3olutely  and  perfectly  so:  Ps.  145''  Eccl.  7^°;  or  in  a  more  general 
sense  of  those  who  are  upright  in  purpose  and  life:  Gen.  6'  Ps.  i'  14'  6410 
Prov.  2V-\     In  Deut.  4*  it  is  applied  to  the  law  as  inculcating  righteousness. 

4.  Just,  rendering  to  one  what  is  due,  especially  in  punishing  the  wicked: 
Ps.  ^^'  "  ('•  ")  Jer.  i2i  Lam.  i'». 

These  terms  are,  therefore,  much  more  distinctly  than  the  corresponding 
Greek  terms,  Bt'xato?  and  oixato(j6vY5,  religious  terms.  They  are  applied 
to  God  himself,  and  though  this  use  is  probably  not  the  earliest,  it  has  cer- 
tainly profoundly  affected  the  terms  as  applied  to  men.  See  Ps.  7»-  i"  ('•  ") 
891"  96"  gr-  *  Jer.  ii'°  Ezr.  g^^  Hos.  149  Zeph.  3^.  The  righteous  man  owes 
duties  to  God  as  well  as  to  his  fellow  men:  Ps.  18"-"  Isa.  si^-  ';  and  the 
obligations  of  righteousness  are  imposed  by  divine  authority:  Gen.  i8i« 
Deut.  161S-2''  Isa.  s^"  Ps.  iig^-  ",  etc.  It  is  a  natural  result  of  this  difference 
that  the  conception  of  justice,  that  which  one  owes  to  another  and  which 
that  other  can  claim,  as  compared  with  righteousness,  that  which  is  required 
by  morality  or  divine  authority,  is  much  less  prominent  than  in  the  Greek 
use  of  Bt/.x'.o:;  and  its  cognates.  Indeed  it  is  not  entirely  clear  that  to  the 
Hebrews  the  distinction  existed  at  all.  Justice  is  to  them  perhaps  simply 
righteousness  as  manifested  in  particular  relations,  especially  in  judging. 

D.  In  p-i^  the  legal  and  formal  sense  which  appears  in  p'-^-i  pre- 
dominates, though  not,  it  would  seem,  to  the  entire  exclusion  of  a  moral- 
forensic  sense.     Cf.  Kautzsch,  op.  clt.  pp.  15-17- 

In  the  Kal  conj.  it  means: 

1.  To  be  in  the  right  in  a  given  case  or  in  one's  assertion:  Gen.  38"  Job 
gl5  3312. 

2.  To  carry  one's  case,  to  prevail:  Job  9^  ii^  25^  40'  Ps.  143^  Isa.  43''  ". 

3.  To  be  righteous,  p^l?  in  the  moral  sense  (this  use  Cremer  denies): 

Job  35^  Ps.  19^"  (')• 

The  Niphal  occurs  in  Dan.  8i<  only,  where  it  means,  to  be  put  to  rights, 
to  be  made  such  as  it  should  be. 

The  Piel  means,  to  declare  or  show  one  in  the  right  (Job  32=  33"),  to  show 
one,  or  cause  one  to  appear,  righteous,  but  relatively,  not  absolutely:  Jer.  311 
Ezek.  16".  ". 


464  GALATIANS 

In  the  Hiphil  the  meanings  are: 

1.  To  do  one  justice:  2  Sam.  15^  Ps.  82'. 

2.  To  declare  one  to  be  in  the  right,  to  cause  one  to  carry  one's  case,  to 
give  judgment  for  one;  when  used  of  one  accused,  it  means  to  acquit:  Ex. 
237  Deut.  251  I  Ki.  8'2  2  Chr.  6"  Job.  27'  Prov.  171^  Isa.  5='  50*. 

3.  To  give  one  standing,  to  cause  one  to  be  accepted:  Isa.  53"  Dan.  12=. 
While  it  can  not  perhaps  be  categorically  denied  that  in  these  two  passages 
the  Hiphil  is  a  moral-causative  term,  meaning  "to  make  righteous"  (the  Lxx 
read  ixb  twv  Stxaftov  xwv  xoXXwv,  which  suggests  a  different  Heb.  txt.), 
yet  in  view  of  the  prevailingly  forensic  sense  of  the  term  and  the  fact  that 
it  is  at  least  possibly  applicable  to  these  passages,  there  seems  no  sufficient 
ground  for  taking  it  here  in  a  purely  causative  sense. 

In  the  Hithpael  the  meaning  is,  to  clear  one's  self,  to  cause  one's  self  to 
appear  in  the  right:  Gen.  44»«. 

III.     USAGE  OF  THE  SEPTUAGINT. 

In  the  Lxx  the  terms  hUaaoq,  oi/.a'.oa6vTfj,  and  otxac6to  stand  as  the 
regular  representatives  of  p^is.  p-ri.  np^nx,  and  |-n.x,  and  though  other 
Hebrew  words  are  occasionally  rendered  by  Stxacoq,  etc.,  and  words  of 
the  pns  group  are  sometimes  rendered  by  other  Greek  words  than  Stxatoq, 
etc.,  the  correspondence  is  nevertheless  very  close.* 

A.  Atxaioq.  The  analysis  given  above  for  pnx  may  stand  for 
hUocioq  save  that  there  must  be  added  as  a  meaning  applied  to  things 
(weights  and  measures),  conforming  to  the  accepted  standard  (cf.  pn:^,  i), 
and  as  a  meaning  of  the  neuter,  generally  used  substantively  (representing 
PT)-  '^?"f?,  etc.)  right,  just,  that  which  is  one's  due,  justice:  Deut.  1620 
Prov.  i85  292". 

B.  AcxatoffjvY].  The  analysis  of  r^p^'i^  may  stand  for  Sc/.atoauvYj,  the 
usage  I  under  pi.x  disappearing  through  the  use  of  5(xaio^  to  represent  it 
in  the  passages  which  belong  there. 

C.  Atxatoo)  is  used  to  render  pr^,  the  Piel  and  Hiphil  of  the  latter 
corresponding  to  the  active  of  the  former,  and  the  Kal  to  the  passive  (or  to 
Bix.at6q  el[u,  or  Sfxatoq  cpa(vo[xxO.  In  all  the  examples  cited  under  II  D 
above,  except  Dan.  8^^  the  Hebrew  word  is  represented  in  the  Lxx  by 
some  word  of  the  St'xacoq  group. 

IV.  USAGE  OF  THE  APOCRYPHA  AND  PSEUDEPIGRAPHA. 

A.  A{xaio<;.  In  the  Apocryphal  books  StV.ato?  is  used  as  in  the  Lxx 
except  that  there  are  apparently  no  examples  of  the  meanings,  "in  the 
right"  (unless  in  Susan.  53),  "innocent."  The  meaning,  "righteous," 
applied  both  to  persons,  God  and  men,  and  to  actions,  occurs  in  Tob.  32 149 

*  On  the  noteworthy  exceptions,  cf.  Ryle  and  James.  The  Psalms  of  Solomon,  note  on  i6'5; 
Hatch,  Essays  in  Biblical  Greek,  pp.  4g  /. 


AIKAIOSYNH  4^5 

Wisd.  2" 3'  Sir.  io«  2  Mac.  9'^;  the  meaning  "just,"  applied  to  God  in 
Wisd.  i2>S  to  men  in  Tob.  14'  (?);  to  judgment  in  2  Mac.  g^K  The  use 
of  the  neuter  in  the  sense  "  just,"  that  which  is  right,  one's  rights,  or  one's 
(penal)  deserts  is  specially  frequent;  i  Mac.  7^^  11"  2  Mac.  ii^*  13^-=' 
Wisd.  i4'». 

In  Ps.  Sol.  Sfxatoq  applied  to  men  designates  the  upright  who  in 
general  are  on  God's  side,  and  who  are  approved  of  God;  they  are  not  the 
sinless,  but  like  the  u^prs  of  the  prophets  those  who  observe  the  law  of 
God,  and  trust  in  him  as  distinguished  from  the  sinner:  2'^  3*-"  g*  15',  etc. 
This  is  its  use,  also,  in  the  Ethiopic  Enoch  so  far  as  the  Greek  text  is  extant: 
ii.  2,  8  ioi7  22 »  2$*  273  (Giz)  10'  (Syn).  The  word  is  not  used  of  God  in 
Enoch;  in  Ps.  Sol.  it  is  applied  to  God  and  his  judgments  to  designate  him 
as  righteously  discriminating  between  the  righteous  and  the  sinner  (212.  "•  ^6; 
cf.  V.58;  51  8*  g*  io«),  and  to  the  Messiah  in  a  similar  sense  (i7'0- 

B.  AtxatoCTuvT)  in  the  Apocryphal  books  has  all  the  usages  of  the  same 
word  in  the  Lxx,  except  that  there  are  no  perfectly  clear  instances  of  the 
meaning,  "  justice."  Possible  instances  are  i  Mac.  2"  Wisd.  g^  Sir.  452'. 
When  used  in  the  sense  of  (human)  "  right  conduct"  it  is  with  an  even  clearer 
implication  than  is  common  in  the  canonical  books  that  it  is  righteousness 
which  makes  men  acceptable  to  God,  and  this  righteousness  is  conceived 
of  in  a  more  external,  legalistic  way  than  in  the  prophets:  Tob.  129  14'' 
Wisd.  1 15.  There  are  clear  instances  of  the  term  applied  to  God  to  denote 
his  righteousness  in  discriminating  between  the  righteous  and  the  wicked 
among  men,  whether  in  punishing  the  wicked  or  in  saving  the  righteous: 
Wisd.  51*  i2i«  Sir.  16"  Bar.  i^^  2«'  ''.*  It  is  worthy  of  notice  that  in  the 
book  of  Wisdom,  also,  and  in  i  Mac.  the  term  is  used  with  such  special 
emphasis  upon  the  conception  that  righteousness  {i.  e.  of  men)  is  the  basis 
of  acceptance  with  God  and  consequent  salvation  as  to  be  almost  the  equiv- 
alent of  "acceptance  with  God,"  "condition  of  salvation":  Wisd.  14^  15' 
I  Mac.  2".  Specially  significant  is  Wisd.  15':  xb  yap  i%iax(x:sQai  as 
b'Ko-iCkrjpoq  BtxatoffuvY),  xal  eiosvat  aou  -zh  xpaxo?  pf^a  dOavaataq,  in  which 
the  author  endeavours  to  sum  up  in  one  act  or  moral  attitude  the 
content  of  righteousness,  that  which  makes  one  acceptable  to  God  and 
secures  immortality.  He  differs  from  Tob.  and  from  Gen.  1 5 « in  his  concep- 
tion of  what  constitutes  righteousness,  but  not  in  his  definition  of  the  con- 
cept itself.  To  the  prophets  generally,  it  is  right  living  towards  God  and 
men  that  makes  men  acceptable  to  God;  to  Tob.  right  living,  especially 
almsgiving;  to  the  writer  ot  Gen.  156  it  is  faith;  to  the  author  of  Wisd.  15' 
knowledge  of  God.  But  to  all  of  them  that  which  makes  men  acceptable 
to  God  is  by  virtue  of  that  fact  righteousness,  Btuaioauvr^.  In  Ps.  Sol. 
BixatoajvY}  is  used  in  two  senses  corresponding  to  those  of  Sfxaioq.     The 

*  In  chaps.  4,  5  of  Bar.  a  "righteousness  which  comes  from  God"  is  spoken  of,  reminding  one 
of  Isa.  54"  Rom.  3"  and  esp.  Phil.  3'.     But  the  pist-Christian  date  of  these  portions  of  Bar. 
must  be  borne  in  mind. 
30 


466  GALATIANS 

righteousness  of  men  is  their  good  conduct  which  makes  them  acceptable 
to  God  and  the  objects  of  his  salvation:  i^  5"  g9  141.  The  righteousness  of 
God  is  manifest  in  his  discrimination  between  the  righteous  and  the  wicked, 
not  indeed  in  punishing  without  mercy  all  wrong-doing,  but  in  saving  the 
saints,  the  oi'xacoi,  and  in  punishing  the  sinner:  2^^,  Ps.  8  and  9.  Of  the 
same  nature  is  the  righteousness  of  the  Messiah,  i;^*.  "•  «•  *^,  though  in- 
cluding, also,  personal  freedom  from  sin:  17".  The  usage  of  Enoch  corre- 
sponds to  the  first  of  the  two  senses  just  named:  lo^'-  i*  12^  131"  141  32'. 

C.  Atxa'.ow  is  used  in  Tob.  in  the  passive  with  the  sense,  "  to  be  rightly 
assigned,  to  belong."  In  Sir.  it  means:  (i)  "to  do  justice  to,"  and  this 
with  reference  to  the  sinner  in  the  sense,  "to  punish":  Sir.  42";  (2)  "to 
recognise  or  declare  to  be  right  or  righteous,"  Btxatoq;  Sir,  7^  10"  13".  It 
occurs  most  frequently  in  the  passive:  Sir.  18^;  and  of  sinners,  in  the  sense, 
"to  be  acquitted,  to  be  declared  innocent":  Sir.  91*  23"  26"  34  (31)"; 
once  in  the  sense  "to  be  accepted"  (of  God),  apparently  with  the  idea 
of  forgiveness  rather  than  acquittal,  yet  not  with  exclusive  reference  to 
the  negative  side.  Bcxatow  does  not  appear  in  the  book  of  Enoch.  In 
Ps.  Sol.  it  is  used  exclusively  in  the  sense,  "  to  recognise  as  just  or  right- 
eous," and  with  reference  to  men's  recognition  of  the  righteousness  of  God 
and  his  judgments:  2^^  33.  5  49  8'-  ".  ai  93.  It  occurs  twice  in  Test.  XII 
Patr.:  in  Sim.  6^  in  the  sense,  "  to  acquit ";  in  Dan.  3',  meaning,  "  to  justify, 
to  deem  right." 

V.     SUMMARY  OF  PRE-CHRISTIAN  USAGE. 
From  this  general  survey  of  Greek  and  Hebrew  usage  certain  facts  appear 
which  may  properly  be  summarised  before  taking  up  N.  T.  usage. 

1.  Both  the  Greek  and  Hebrew  words,  and  all  the  terms  of  each  group 
are  in  general,  and  in  Jewish  usage  with  increasing  clearness,  forensic  terms, 
in  the  sense  that  they  imply  a  comparison  with  some  standard;  the  verb  in 
particular  in  a  large  proportion  of  cases  expressing  a  judgment  concerning 
such  conformity,  not  signifying  the  bringing  of  a  person  or  thing  into  it. 

2.  In  Hebrew  usage  and  the  Greek  usage  of  Semitic  writers  the  terms 
are  prevailingly  moral  as  well  as  forensic;  i.  e.,  the  standard  is  ethical,  not 
merely  conventional  or  legal.  The  acts  by  virtue  of  which  a  man  is  esteemed 
righteous  are  acts  which  are  conceived  of  as  having  moral  character.  The 
terms  are  therefore  prevailingly  moral-forensic.  Formally  defined,  right- 
eousness is  that  which  conforms  to  the  true  or  recognised  standard  of  con- 
duct or  meets  the  divine  demand.  Materially  defined,  it  consists  in  cer- 
tain acts  or  in  a  certain  moral  state  believed  to  be  good. 

3.  Alike  in  respect  to  its  formal  definition  and  in  respect  to  the  material 
content  of  the  conception  there  is  a  variation  in  different  periods  and  among 
various  writers,  (a)  There  is  great  difference  in  the  clearness  with  which 
the  standard  is  conceived  of  as  being  set  by  God,  or  divinely  sanctioned. 
Among  the  Greeks  this  sense  of  divine  requirement  was  in  general  feeble. 


AIKAI02YNH  4^7 

In  O.  T.  PTi  sometimes  denotes  conformity  to  a  standard  primarily  con- 
ventional, and  only  secondarily  fixed  by  divine  authority.  In  many  other 
cases  the  conception  of  a  divine  sanction,  though  probably  not  wholly 
absent,  is  thrown  into  the  shade  by  emphasis  upon  the  material  content  of 
righteousness.  In  other  cases,  however,  in  O.  T.  and  later  Jewish  writings, 
notably  such  as  Gen.  15"  Job  g^  Deut.  6«  24I'  Ps.  71^  Wisd.  15'  Tob.  13' 
Ps.  Sol.  1 2,  the  conception  of  righteousness  as  required  by  God  and  as  con- 
stituting the  ground  of  acceptance  with  him  is  clearly  present,  so  that  the 
term  approaches  the  formal  sense,  "  acceptance  with  God."  In  general,  it  is 
clear  that  in  the  latter  part  of  the  pre-Christian  period,  at  least,  the  con- 
ception of  divine  requirement  is  always  included  in  that  of  righteousness, 
and  Stxa:oa6vTj  used  in  reference  to  men  signifies  either  that  conduct  and 
character  which  satisfy  God's  requirement  and  make  one  acceptable  to 
him,  or  more  abstractly,  acceptance  with  him.  (b)  In  respect,  also,  to  the 
material  content  of  righteousness  conceptions  vary.  The  Greek  definition 
of  the  content  of  5tx.atoa6vT)  would  differ  greatly  from  the  Hebrew,  the 
former,  e.  g.,  emphasising  justice  more  than  the  latter.  Among  the  He- 
brews, also,  there  is  no  little  variation;  sometimes  the  emphasis  is  laid  on 
right,  equitable  conduct  towards  men,  sometimes  on  mercy  and  almsgiving, 
sometimes  on  the  strict  observance  of  rites  and  ceremonies,  sometimes  on  a 
trustful,  reverential  atritude  towards  God.  This  variation  simply  reflects 
the  difference  in  the  conceptions  of  what  was  required  by  God  and  accepta- 
ble to  him,  as  held  in  dififerent  ages  and  by  different  men. 

4.  The  Jews  (it  was  otherwise  with  the  Greeks)  prevailingly  ascribed 
righteousness  to  God,  both  in  the  general  sense  that  he  did  what  was  right, 
and  specifically  in  the  sense  that  he  discriminated,  in  his  attitude  towards 
men  and  in  his  dealing  with  them,  between  the  righteous  and  the  wicked. 
Moreover,  while  freely  recognising  the  sinfulness  of  "the  righteous,"  they 
did,  in  fact— this  is  -oecially  true  of  the  writers  of  Isa.  40-66,  many  of 
the  canonical  Psalms,  such  as  Ps.  65,  71,  85,  and  143,  and  of  Ps.  Sol.— 
rely  not  alone  on  the  mercy  of  God  for  salvation,  but  on  his  righteousness. 
So  far  is  this  appeal  to  God's  righteousness  carried  that  in  numerous  pas- 
sages in  Isa.  40-66  and  the  Psalms,  God's  righteousness,  sometimes  even 
the  righteousness  of  the  saints,  is  equivalent  in  the  content  of  the  thing 
referred  to  (not  in  the  definition  of  the  conception  itself)  to  salvation.  In 
Ps.  71^  "thy  righteousness"  apparently  signifies,  "acceptance  with  thee 
and  consequent  salvation  by  thee."  This  usage  of  the  word  does  not  appear 
in  the  latest  pre-Christian  books;  but  the  conception  of  divine  and  human 
righteousness  which  underlies  it  is  unmistakably  present  and  strongly  pre- 
dominant. 

5.  With  rare  and  doubtful  exceptions  the  verbs  oixacoto  and  r>l^  are 
not  moral-causarive  but  judicial  and  forensic  in  force.  It  is  especially 
clear  that  in  Jewish-Greek  xisage  oixa'.oto  is  purely,  or  all  but  purely,  a 
moral-forensic  term  (note  the  usage  of  the  Apocr.  and  of  Ps.  Sol.),  being 


468  GALATIANS 

used  prevailingly  In  the  sense  "  to  recognise  or  declare  as  Sfxato?  "  either 
positively,  "to  recognise  as  righteous"  (Sir.  iS^  Ps.  Sol.  u.  s.  IV  C),  or  in 
the  negative  and  restricted  sense,  "  to  acquit "  (Sir.  23^*  26"),  or  in  a  more 
general  sense,  "  to  accept,"  with  the  implication  of  forgiveness  (Sir.  iS^^). 

VI.    NEW  TESTAMENT  USAGE. 

A.  AUccioq  in  N.  T.  is  clearly  a  moral-forensic  term,  meaning,  in  gen- 
eral, conforming  to  the  true  standard,  meeting  the  ethical  requirements 
under  which  one  is  placed.  In  the  main  it  follows  closely  the  usage  of  the 
Lxx  and  later  Jewish  writings,  but  as  applied  to  men  emphasises  even  more 
than  O.  T.  the  conception  of  divine  requirement,  fulfilment  of  which  renders 
one  acceptable  to  God,  and  as  applied  to  God  has  even  more  exclusive  ref- 
erence to  the  righteousness  of  his  dealings  with  men.  Cf.  the  usage  of  Ps. 
Sol.     Its  uses  may  be  classified  as  follows: 

I.  (a)  Of  persons:  Upright,  righteous  in  conduct  or  purpose,  satisfying 
the  ethical  requirements  of  God  and  so  acceptable  to  him.  Usually  cm'^ 
ployed  qualitatively  without  reference  to  the  degree  of  conformity  to  the 
standard,  or  denoting  approximate  conformity:  Mt.  5^  10"  1317.  43.  49 
23^8.  "  2537.  4a  Lk.  16.  1^  2"  14U  157  i8^  20^0  23^0  Acts  io^=  24'^  Rom.  5^ 
I  Tim.  i»  Heb.  lo'^  12"  Jas.  516  i  Pet.  3'^  4I8  2  Pet.  2^  «  Rev.  22".  In 
Mt.  9"  Mk.  21'  Lk.  532  Acts  3n  7"  22^^  Rom.  s"  Jas.  5^  i  Pet  31* 
I  Jn.  21  37b  the  righteousness  referred  to  is  evidently  conceived  of  as  per-' 
feet,  fully  satisfying  the  divine  requirement.  In  Mt.  2335  2713  Lk.  23",  the 
negative  element,  innocence,  is  emphasised. 

(b)  Of  action:  Right,  such  as  it  ought  to  be,  conforming  to  the  moral 
requirement  of  God:  Lk.  12"  Acts  4"  Eph.  61  Phil,  i'  2  Pet.  i".  In  Rom. 
7"  the  commandment  of  God  is  spoken  of  as  Scxatoq,  i.  e.,  requiring  what 
is  right.  In  i  Jn.  2,'^  the  works  of  Abel  are  said  to  be  righteous,  apparently 
emphasising  their  acceptableness  to  God. 

2.  In  the  cases  named  above  there  is  a  varying  emphasis  upon  the  for- 
ensic element,  acceptable  to  God,  neither  the  moral  nor  the  forensic  element 
being  wholly  absent,  but  the  former  predominating.  In  certain  other  pas- 
sages the  forensic  element  so  clearly  predominates  that  the  term  approxi- 
mates or  even  reaches  the  sense,  acceptable  to  God,  yet  always  with  the 
implication  chat  such  acceptance  rests  upon  some  fact  of  moral  significance. 
Rom.  I"  21'  519  Gal.  3"  Heb.  ii*  i  Jn.  3'^ 

3.  Righteous,  satisfying  the  requirements  of  a  true  ethical  standard  in 
dealing  with  others.  Used  in  this  sense  especially  of  God,  not,  however, 
as  rendering  to  each  his  deserts  without  mercy,*  but  as  discriminating  be- 
tween righteous  and  wicked,  and  treating  each  in  accordance  with  his 
character:  Jn.  17"  Rom.  3^'  2  Tim.  4^  i  Jn.  i^  Rev.  16^;  with  a  like  meaning 
used  of  God's  judgments:  2  Thes.  i=.  «  Rev.  153  16'  192;  of  the  judgment  of 

*It  is  worthy  of  notice  that  neither  in  O.  T.  nor  in  N.  T.  is  righteousness  conceived  of  as 
excluding  mercy;  it  forbids  treating  a  man  worse  than  he  deserves  but  not  better. 


AIKAIOSYNH  4^9 

Christ:  Jn.  5";  and  of  men,  in  the  sense,  right  in  discriminating  according 
to  the  facts:  Jn.  7";  of  the  action  of  men  affecting  others,  it  means,  right, 
that  which  one  ought  to  do  in  relation  to  others:  Mt.  20^  Phil.  48  Col.  41. 
In  these  three  passages  it  is  possible  that  St'xatoq  means,  just,  i.  e.,  what 
others  have  a  right  to  claim.  But  there  is  no  clear  evidence  that  Bc'xatoq 
ever  has  this  sense  in  biblical  Greek.  The  meaning  as  given  above  is 
therefore  more  probable. 

B.  The  usage  of  Stxatocruvrj  corresponds  quite  closely  to  that  of  hlxatoq, 
the  word  denoting,  in  general,  the  character  or  position  of  one  who  is 
Slxato?.     Neither  the  moral  nor  the  forensic  element  can  be  lost  sight  of. 

1.  Conduct  and  character  which  satisfy  the  ethical  requirements  of  God, 
and  so  render  one  acceptable  to  him.  As  in  the  case  of  Bt'xatoq,  so  the 
noun  also  may  be  used  simply  qualitatively,  or  with  reference  to  an  approx- 
imate conformity,  or  of  an  ideal,  perfect  fulfilment  of  divine  requirements: 
Mt.  315  58.  10.  20  61.  "  (?)  2152  Lk.  I"  Jn.  i68'  »"  Acts  10"  1310  24"  Rom.  6"- 
16,  18.  19,  20  gio  io5  1417  2  Cor.  6''  "  9'-  1"  II"  Eph.  4''*  5^  6"  Phil,  i"  i  Tim.  6" 
2  Tim.  31"  Tit.  3^  Heb.  i'  51'  7^  11"  12"  Jas.  i^o  31"  i  Pet.  22"  3"  2  Pet.  28.  ^i 
315  I  Jn.  2"  3^'  »"  Rev.  22". 

2.  Acceptance  with  God.  With  a  stronger  emphasis  upon  the  forensic 
element,  S'.x.atoa6vr]  sometimes  approaches  or  even  reaches  the  sense, 
acceptance  with  God,  or  ground  of  acceptance  with  God.  The  question  at 
issue  between  Paul  and  his  opponents  was  in  what  way  or  on  what  ground 
m3n  became  acceptable  to  God,  he  maintaining  that  it  was  faith  that  ren- 
dered men  acceptable  to  God,  they  that  it  was  certain  inheritances  and  deeds 
comprehended  under  the  term,  "  works  of  law,"  or  "  law."  This  discussion 
give  rise  to  such  terms  as  "righteousness  by  faith,"  and  "righteousness  by 
law,"  in  which  just  by  reason  of  the  fact  that  the  question  at  issue  was 
what  made  men  acceptable  to  God,  the  term  "righteousness"  was  necessarily 
without  emphasis  on  this  or  that  condition  of  acceptance.  In  another 
direction,  also,  the  emphasis  on  the  forensic  element  modified  in  some  cases 
the  meaning  of  the  term.  In  Jewish  thought  acceptance  with  God  involved 
for  one  who  has  sinned  provision  respecting  the  sins  of  the  past.  And 
since,  according  to  Paul,  "all  have  sinned  and  are  destitute  of  the  divine 
approval,"  forgiveness  is  included  in  righteousness,  either  distinctly  and 
explicitly,  or  by  implication.  Thus  the  present  sense  differs  from  the  pre- 
ceding in  two  respects,  viz.,  in  that  the  term  itself  lays  less  emphasis  on 
the  conduct  and  character  which  form  the  basis  of  acceptance  with  God, 
and  that  it  more  distinctly  includes  forgiveness.  Rom.  4'-  s.  «•  «■  "■  i^.  m 
^17,  21  gao,  31  io4.  6.  10  i  QoT .  1'°  Gal.  2^1  3«.  21  2  Tim.  4^  Jas.  2^^  Heb.  II^  On 
Gal.  55  and  Phil.  3',  which  may  with  almost  equal  propriety  be  assigned  to 
this  or  to  the  preceding  class,  see  below,  p.  471. 

These  passages  differ  somewhat  arn'ong  themselves  in  the  degree  of  the 
emphasis  upon  the  forensic  element  and  of  the  consequent  subordination  of 
th3  moral  element,  so  much  so,  indeed,  that  they  might  even  seem  to  fall 


470  GALATIANS 

into  two  distinct  classes.  Thus,  in  Rom.  4",  in  ffcppayfBa  Tfjq  StxatoauvT]? 
•riiq  xt'aTso)?,  a  seal  attesting  the  fact  of  acceptance  with  God  through  faith, 
and  still  more  in  51^,  in  the  expression  o\  ty]v  xsptaaetav  Tf^q  x'^P''^^?  >^a^ 
[x^q  Swpeac;]  x^q  Stxatoauvir^c;  Xajx^divovTeq,  it  seems  clear  that  the  noun 
is  purely  forensic,  expressing  in  itself  simply  the  fact  of  acceptance,  xtaxscoq 
indicating  the  ground  of  acceptance.  On  the  other  hand,  in  Rom.  4^: 
Xoyfl^eTac  tj  -ziaxiq  auTou  etq  Scxatocj'jvTjv  {cf.  4'),  faith  being  spoken  of 
as  reckoned  for,  as  the  equivalent  of,  righteousness,  the  latter  might  be 
thought  to  include  the  conception  of  right  conduct  which  makes  one  accep- 
table to  God,  not  in  the  sense  that  'rzia-ziq  itself  constituted  such  conduct, 
but  in  the  sense  that  it  was  accounted  equivalent  to  such  conduct,  accep- 
table in  lieu  of  it,  the  very  point  of  the  expression  lying  in  the  fact  that 
faith  was  accounted  equivalent  to  something  that  could  not  be  directly 
predicated  of  it.  On  the  other  hand,  it  may  be  maintained  that  in  Rom.  4^^: 
ou  Yd;p  Sta  v6[xotj  ■f)  IxayyEXfa  .  .  .  dWa  ota  BtxatoauvTjq  xicttsw;,  irtaTetog 
is  most  naturally  taken  as  a  genitive  of  description  (appositional),  and  that 
StxatoauvTQ  xtaTewq  means  righteousness  which  consists  in  faith;  and  it 
may  be  further  contended  that  this  is  also  the  meaning  of  StxatoauvT)  in 
VV.5.  5,  6,  12^  these  passages  referring  not  to  a  crediting  of  faith  as  something 
different  from  what  it  really  is  but  a  recognition  of  it  as  being,  in  fact,  of 
the  quality  of  righteousness,  the  moral  attitude  towards  God  which  God 
desires  and  which  therefore  renders  men  acceptable  to  God.  In  this  case, 
also,  we  should  have  a  sense  of  the  word  BtxatoauvT}  in  which  the  moral 
element  would  be  distinctly  present,  but  the  relation  between  faith  and 
righteousness  would  be  not  that  of  an  equivalence  for  purposes  of  justifica- 
tion, created  by  divine  fiat,  but  (qualitative)  moral  identity.  But  it  is 
probable  that  both  these  views  over-emphasise  the  distinction  of  meaning 
among  the  passages  cited  above.  The  conception  of  value  imputed  con- 
trary to  fact  is  not  involved  in  the  phrases  XoytaGYivat  elq  or  XofiaQrivai 
xtvt,  which  simply  express  the  idea  that  a  certain  thing  is  valued  at  a  cer- 
tain value,  or  credited  to  a  person,  without  implication  that  such  valuation 
or  crediting  is  otherwise  than  according  to  the  facts.  See  note  on  chap.  3'. 
Nor  is  the  notion  of  value  attributed  contrary  to  fact  involved  in  the 
teaching  of  Rom.  4'-'.  For  while  this  passage  expressly  affirms  that  God's 
acceptance  of  Abraham  was  not  on  grounds  of  merit,  b^dXr][i.(x,  that  is, 
not  on  a  commercial,  bookkeeping  basis,  by  which  God  demanded  and 
Abraham  rendered  a  quantitatively  complete  satisfaction  of  the  divine 
claims,  yet  it  by  no  means  follows  that  in  evaluating  Abraham's  faith  at 
righteousness,  God  reckoned  it  as  something  else  than  it  was.  It  meets  the 
requirements  of  the  passage  and  it  better  accords  with  the  apostle's  strenu- 
ous insistence  upon  the  conformity  of  God's  judgments  with  reality  (Rom. 
2i-i«,  esp.  vv.'-  8)  to  suppose  that  the  thought  which  underlies  his  language 
here  is  that  faith  is  really  acceptable  to  God,  qualitatively  a  satisfaction  of 
his  requirements,  the  attitude  towards  God  which  he  desires  men  to  sustain. 


AIKAIOSYNH  47 1 

Yet  it  does  not  follow,  nor  is  it  on  the  whole  probable,  that  in  these  verses 
Paul  means  by  the  word  Bt/.acoa6vn  right  conduct,  with  the  emphasis  on 
the  moral  element.  The  atmosphere  of  the  whole  passage  is  so  distinctly 
forensic  that  it  is  better  to  suppose  that  the  word  StxaiotjuviQ  itself  is  em- 
ployed in  a  predominantly  forensic  sense,  meaning,  "  basis  of  acceptance  with 
God,"  and  that  while  there  is  no  implication  that  the  accounting  of  faith  as 
righteousness  involved  an  element  of  fiction,  yet  neither  is  there  any  direct 
reference  to  the  moral  quality  of  faith.*  It  is  the  value  which  God  gave 
to  Abraham's  faith  of  which  the  apostle  is  speaking;  what  it  was  in  that 
faith  that  warranted  such  a  valuation  is  not  here  the  prominent  thought.  ^ 
In  Phil,  3«'  «  SixaioauvT]  yj  Iv  voixw,  ex.  \>6[io\j  is  such  righteousness  as  is 
attainable  in  the  sphere  of  law,  and  from  (obedience  to)  law.  It  is,  in  fact, 
as  the  context  implies,  so  insufficient  as  to  be  worthless,  no  true  righteous- 
ness at  all.  The  moral  and  forensic  elements  are  so  conjoined  in  this  pas- 
sage that  it  is  difficult  to  assign  the  instances  decisively  to  this  head  or  the 
preceding.  The  moral— or  at  least  the  active— element  seems  to  pre- 
dominate in  v.«,  the  forensic  (but  without  exclusion  of  the  moral)  in  v.». 

In  Gal.  s'  the  use  of  the  words  eXxBa  and  dTrexSexoiAeea  show  that 
Sixaioauv-nq  does  not  refer  to  that  divine  acceptance  of  the  believer  of 
which  Paul  usually  speaks  in  using  the  verb  otxatow,  but  to  something  still 
to  be  obtained.  On  the  other  hand,  the  use  of  Si%aioua0e  in  v."  indicates 
that  the  term  is  not  employed  with  an  exclusively  ethical  emphasis,  but 
that,  on  the  contrary,  the  forensic  element  is  distinctly  present.^  These 
facts  require  us  to  take  the  term  as  having  reference  to  that  future  justifica- 
tion of  which  Paul  speaks  in  Rom.  2''.  i".  Yet  inasmuch  as  such  future 
justification  is  itself  based  not  on  faith,  even  conceived  of  as  qualitatively 
righteous,  but  on  the  achieved  character  of  the  justified  person,  exclusive 
emphasis  on  the  forensic  element  is  improbable.  The  righteousness  which 
is  hoped  for  is  ethical-forensic,  with  the  forensic  element  distinctly  but  not 
exclusively  in  mind,  and,  by  the  very  fact  that  it  is  hoped  for,  still  in  the 
future. 

Probably  altogether  similar  is  the  meaning  of  T-f)v  [SixatocuviQv]  StA 
x(aTS(.)<;  XptJToO  and  t-?]v  ex  eeou  Stx.atoajvY)v  licl  Tf}  x(aTet  of  Phil.  3»>  i". 
These  phrases  also  refer  to  the  future  and  the  context  emphasises  both 
ethical  and  forensic  elements  in  such  way  as  to  make  it  impossible  to  exclude 
either  from  these  phrases  or  to  determine  with  certainty  on  which  the 
emphasis  lies.  Concerning  Rom.  i^^  3"'  "  1°%  which  are  closely  related  to 
the  passages  already  considered,  but  yet  constitute  a  group  by  themselves, 
see  4  below. 

3.  Out  of  the  fundamental  meaning  of  the  term  (i,  above)  there  arises 

*  V.'  indicates  that  in  such  acceptance  of  him  who  believes  there  is  involved  forgiveness  of 
past  sins.  But  this,  though  it  confirms  the  judgment  that  the  apostle's  thought  is  moving 
on  the  forensic  plane,  is,  as  compared  with  the  idea  of  positive  acceptance,  only  incidental, 
not  the  key  to  the  central  point  of  view  of  the  passage. 


472  GALATIANS 

through  its  use  in  reference  to  relations  to  others,  the  more  specific  sense- 
righteousness  in  dealing  with  others  in  accordance  with  their  conduct  and 
character.  The  term  is  used  in  this  sense  exclusively  of  God  (and  Christ). 
In  Acts  7"  Rev.  19",  the  discrimination  between  the  righteous  and  the 
wicked,  issuing  in  the  punishment  of  the  latter  and  the  salvation  of  the 
former  is  in  mind  {cf.  also  Rom.  2^  Stxacoxpcafa,  and  2  Thes.  i^.  «).  In 
Rom.  3^.  ".  26  the  necessity  that  the  righteous  God  shall  manifest  his  dis- 
approval of  sin  is  emphasised.  In  2  Pet.  i^  Scxatoa6vY3  toG  GsoCi  denot^" 
the  impartial  righteousness  of  God  manifested  in  the  salvation  of  Gentile? 
as  well  as  of  Jews. 

4.  Inasmuch  as  the  way  of  acceptance  with  God  is  prescribed  and  pro. 
vided  by  God  (being  bestowed  not  on  grounds  of  merit  but  on  condition  of 
faith),   such   acceptance  with  him   may  be   called   God's    righteousness, 
Stxatoauvrj  Gsoii,  the  genitive   denoting   source:   Rom.  H'  321.  "  lo'.     This 
usage  is  most  closely  related  to  the  O.  T.  usage  in  Isa.  and  Ps.  (see  exx 
under  II  A  4,  also  under  IV,  B).     But  the  thought  of  Paul,  so  far  as  ex- 
pressed, differs  in  two  respects  from  that  of  his  predecessors,  the  prophets 
and  psalmists,     (a)  While  the  prophet  finds  in  the  righteousness  of  God 
which  discriminates  between  the  righteous  and  the  wicked,  the  basis  of 
salvation  for  the  righteous,  and  so  associates  the  two  that  the  same  term 
seems  at  times  to  express  both,  or  at  least  to  express  one  with  a  distinct 
implication  of  its  basis  in  the  other,  Paul  rarely  so  conjoins  the  divine  dis- 
criminating righteousness  with  human  salvation.     This  conception   (ex- 
pressed in  N.  T.  in  i  Jn.  i«;  cf.  2  Thes.  i^.  «  Rom.  2^  the  apostle  leaves 
behind  not  by  denying  but  simply  by  ignoring  it;  to  him  the  divine  right- 
eousness is  brought  under  suspicion  not  so  much  by  failure  to  save  as  by 
a  neglect  to  punish  sin  (see  Rom.  3".  2«  and  3  above),     (b)  The  salvation 
of  men  is  with  Paul  grounded  in  the  grace  of  God.     Though  affirming  that 
the  final  judgment  of  God  will  be  on  the  basis  of  conduct  and  character 
(Rom.  2"-i«;  cj.  Gal.  5^  and  discussion  of  it  above),  and  regarding  faith  as 
Itself  satisfying  God's  fundamental  requirement  (see  B.  2  above,  p.  469),  he 
yet  clearly  maintains  that  justification  is  the  gracious  acceptance  of  sinners 
on  the  ground  of  faith.     These  two  peculiarities  of  the  Pauline  thought 
which  are  evidently  but  the  opposite  sides  of  one  fact,  find  their  occasion! 
or  the  occarion  of  their  expression,  in  two  related  facts:  (i)  He  was  opposing 
the  Pharisaic  legalism  which,  being  a  distortion  and  corruption  of  the  pro- 
phetic doctrine  that  the  righteous  God  accepts  and  approves  righteous 
men,  could  only  be  met  by  an  emphasis  upon  the  divine  grace  in  salvation 
which  threw  quite  into  the  background  the  conception  of  the  divine  right- 
eousness as  the  basis  of  salvation.     Even  when  the  apostle  adopts  for  a 
moment    the  prophetic    point    of    view,    emphasising    the    discriminating 
righteousness  of  God  (Rom.,  chap.  2)  it  is  for  the  sake  of  insisting  that  this 
righteousness  will  bring  about  the  punishment  of  impenitent  Israel.     (2) 
Closely  connected  with  this  is  the  fact  that  the  apostle  held  a  stricter  and 


AIKAI02YNH  473 

more  consistent,  though  less  legalistic,  view  of  sin  than  did  those  Pharisees 
and  Pharisaic  Christians  whose  views  he  was  opposing.  While  recognising 
with  the  prophets  the  discrimination  of  men  into  two  classes,  the  righteous 
and  the  wicked,  and  maintaining  that  God  approves  and  accepts  the  former, 
he  yet  maintained,  also,  that  there  were  none  who,  being  perfectly  righteous, 
could  be  accepted  on  grounds  of  personal  merit.  The  righteousness  of  God, 
therefore,  in  its  purely  forensic  aspect  and  apart  from  grace,  could  not  of 
itself  bring  salvation  to  any.  While,  therefore,  it  is  a  tempting  position  to 
take,  that  StxatoajviQ  OsoiJ  in  Rom.  i^^  etc.,  is  the  personal  righteousness 
of  God  conceived  of  as  the  basis  of  salvation,  as  in  Isa.  56',  etc.,  yet  this 
position  is  not  sustained  either  by  the  context  of  the  passages  in  question 
or  by  the  general  position  of  Paul  concerning  the  relation  of  divine  righteous- 
ness and  human  salvation,  or  by  the  history  of  the  usage  of  the  word  in  the 
period  between  Isaiah  and  Paul. 

C.  Atxatow  in  N.  T.  signifies,  to  recognise,  declare,  accept  as  Sc'xaio;;. 
It  is  a  moral-forensic  term,  and  this  not  only  in  that  this  is  the  force  of 
Btxatoq  as  taken  up  into  the  verb,  but,  also,  in  that  the  verb  itself  (like 
dc^ioo)  and  ojtow),  is  declarative  rather  than  strictly  causative.  Its  various 
senses  are  as  follows: 

1.  To  recognise  or  declare  one  to  be  (in  the  proper  ethical  sense)  ^ixatoq. 

(a)  Negatively:  to  declare  or  to  show  to  be  innocent:  Lk.  10"  i  Cor.  4*. 

(b)  Positively:  to  recognise  or  declare  to  be  right  or  righteous,  such  declara- 
tion or  acceptance  involving  no  element  of  grace  or  pardon:  Mt.  iV^ 
Lk.  7"-  "  1615  Rom.  3^  i  Tim.  31". 

2.  With  a  greater  emphasis  upon  the  forensic  element  in  the  meaning  of 
S{x,ato?  (acceptable  to  God),  the  verb  means,  to  recognise  as  acceptable 
(to  God),  to  accept;  in  the  passive,  to  be  accepted  (by  God).  As  in  the 
instances  of  the  corresponding  sense  of  StxaioauvYj,  the  ground  of  accept- 
ance is  not  implied  in  the  word  itself  and  in  many  passages  is  the  very  point 
under  discussion.  It  is,  however,  always  evident  that  the  term  refers  to 
a  judgment  broadly  and  fundamentally  moral;  the  underlying  sense  of 
Stxatoq  is  still  moral-forensic,  not  simply  legal-forensic  save  in  Rom.  6'', 
where  Paul  draws  an  illustration  from  the  purely  legal  realm.  We  may 
recognise  six  sub-classes  of  passages  in  which  the  word  occurs  with  the 
sense  above  indicated:  (a)  Those  in  which  a  positive  ground  of  acceptance 
is  spoken  of  and  this  ground  is  certain  deeds  or  conduct,  there  being  no 
implication  that  the  justification  spoken  of  involves  pardon  for  sin  or  grace: 
Mt.  12"  Rom.  2^'  Jas.  2='-  ".  25,  (b)  Those  in  which  a  positive  ground  is 
spoken  of,  but  this  ground  is  either  faith  or  works  of  law,  the  latter  being 
declared  to  be  inadequate.  In  these  passages  there  is  no  reference  to  par- 
don as  an  element  of  justification,  and  the  justification  is  indicated  to  be 
an  act  of  grace  only  by  the  implication  conveyed  in  Ix  xt'jTswq,  ojx  e^  Ipywv 
v6[iou,  etc.  The  explicit  mention  of  positive  ground  of  justification  in 
the  passages  which  deny  the  possibility  of  justification  on  the  grounds 


474  GALATIANS 

named,  Ipya  v6[jlou,  shows  that  the  term  is  not  merely  negative,  meaning 
simply,  to  pardon:  Rom.  3".  28.  30  42  ^i  Gal.  2^''  1^  3*.  "■  "  5*.  (c)  Those  in 
which  the  word  is  used  with  no  limitation  save  that  of  a  direct  object;  the 
force  of  the  word  is  apparently  the  same  as  in  the  passages  under  (b): 
Rom.  32"  8'o.  ".  (d)  In  Rom.  3=*  4^  5^  i  Cor.  6"  Tit.  3'  there  is  a  distinct 
recognition  that  the  acceptance  referred  to  involves  an  element  of  pardon 
and  grace;  those  who  are  accepted  not  being  in  personal  character  Sfxaioq, 
but  aStxoi;  and  ux68ixo<;.  It  should  be  observed,  however,  that  in  some 
of  the  passages  under  (b)  this  is  only  a  little  more  remotely  implied,  that 
no  sharp  line  of  discrimination  can  be  drawn  between  the  two  classes,  and 
that  the  verb  itself  retains  in  both  cases  the  same  meaning,  (e)  In  Rom.  6^ 
the  context  demands  the  meaning,  to  declare  free  or  set  free,  the  penalty 
having  been  suffered.  In  this  case  the  unrighteousness  of  the  person  is 
presumed,  but  there  is  no  element  of  grace  or  pardon,  the  release  being 
based  on  the  suflfering  of  the  penalty.  Though  this  instance  is  quite  excep- 
tional, it  serves  to  show  how  broad  is  the  meaning  of  the  word.  In  itself 
it  contains  no  assertion  concerning  the  character  of  the  person,  and  no 
implication  of  pardon.  These  are  conveyed,  when  conveyed  at  all,  by  the 
context,  (f)  In  two  passages,  Lk.  iS'''  Acts  is'^,  the  emphasis  upon  the 
negative  element  of  pardon  is  so  strong  as  almost  to  give  to  the  word  the 
meaning,  to  pardon.*  These  are  instances  of  a  semi-metonymy,  by  which 
the  term  which  denotes  the  whole  of  the  act  is  used  with  chief  or  exclusive 
reference  to  a  part  of  it  which  is  involved  in  every  ordinary  case  of  the 
whole  as  applied  to  wrong-doers.  The  reduction  of  Paul's  term,  8txat6w, 
to  a  purely  negative  sense,  "to  pardon,"  is  definitely  excluded  by  the 
evidence.  Over  against  these  two  passages,  neither  of  them  in  Paul's 
epistles,  and  neither  of  them  quite  certainly  referring  exclusively  to  pardon, 
there  is  the  decisive  evidence  of  the  passages  in  which  a  positive  ground  of 
justification,  Ipya  voixou,  is  mentioned  and  its  adequacy  denied.  See  under 
(a)  above.  For  the  context  makes  it  clear  that  works  of  law  are  thought 
of  as  inadequate  not  to  secure  the  forgiveness  of  admitted  sinners,  but  to 
win  approval  on  ground  of  merit,  which  would  leave  no  occasion  for  forgive- 
ness. The  argument  of  Rom.  1I8-320,  as  of  Gal.  s^'>^-  is  to  the  effect,  not 
that  men  who  seek  justification  on  a  legalistic  basis  fail  of  forgiveness  for 
their  sins,  but  that  failing  to  meet  God's  requirements,  and  being  held 
responsible  for  that  failure,  they  are  in  need  of  forgiveness,  and  must  be 
accepted,  if  at  all,  on  grounds  of  grace.  Forgiveness  is  an  element  of  the 
justification  which  men  obtain  through  faith,  by  grace;  but  is  not  included 
in  the  justification  which  they  (vainly)  seek  by  works  of  law.  It  can  not 
therefore  exhaust  the  meaning  of  the  term. 

*  To  these  might  perhaps  be  added  Rom.  4':  rov  SiKaLovfTa  rof  aae^ri,  wer-!;  it  not  for  the 
next  clause,  koyi^erai  r)  wivri^  avrov  ei?  SiKaLoarvvtjv,  which  evidently  involves  a  positive 
clement. 


msTis  475 


XVI.     mSTIS   AND   mSTEYQ. 

I.  CLASSICAL  USAGE.* 

A.  Uhiiq,  used  in  Greek  writers  from  Hesiod  down,  is  employed  in  two 
distinct  senses,  the  active  and  the  passive,  the  latter  the  more  frequent. 

1.  The  active  sense:  faith,  confidence,  trust. 

(a)  As  exercised  towards  another:  Soph.  0.  C.  950;  Plato,  Phaed.  275A. 

(b)  As  enjoyed  by  one,  exercised  towards  him  by  others;  hence  credit, 
trust  in  the  commercial  or  legal  sense:  Dem.  962^;  Polyb.  8.  21';  Plut. 
Cic.  41':  xal  T-?]v  o'jat'av  a'Jxf,q  h  Ktx.Hp(i)v  ev  xiaret  /.XiQpovdttoi;  dcxo^vSt^Oelq 
BcscpuXaTTSV. 

(c)  In  an  intellectual  sense  with  reference  to  a  proposition:  conviction, 
confident  belief;  in  Plato  it  is  distinguished  from  IxtJTTjiXT),  knowledge,  in 
that  the  latter  implies  the  actuality  of  the  thing  believed,  while  iziaxiq 
affirms  only  subjective  certainty  (Plato,  Rep.  601E);  in  Aristotle  from 
S6^3c,  opinion  {Anim.  3.  3^  [428  a^"],  which,  however,  it  is  said  to  follow; 
for  though  Soqa  may  be  true  or  false,  it  is  impossible  not  to  believe  those 
things  which  one  thinks).  In  the  religious  realm,  xtaxiq  denotes  general 
belief  in  the  existence  and  power  of  the  gods,  not  personal  faith  and  con- 
fidence in  them:  Plato,  Legg.  XII  966 D. 

(d)  By  metonymy,  probably  connected  with  (b):  that  with  which  one 
is  entrusted,  an  office,  as  the  expression  or  result  of  the  confidence  reposed 
in  one:  Polyb.  5.  41^ 

2.  The  passive  sense:  trustworthiness,  faithfulness,  or  the  pledge  or 
assurance  of  it. 

(a)  Personal  fidelity,  faithfulness:  Hdt.  8^"^;  Xen.  An.  i.  6';  Aristot.  Mor. 
Magn.  II  ii5  (1208  b^^);  Polyb.  i.  433. 

(b)  Pledge  or  promise  of  good  faith,  assurance  of  fidelity:  Hdt.  3^* 
Thuc.  5.  30';  Xen.  Cyr.  7.  i". 

(c)  Token  of  a  compact,  guarantee:  Soph.  0.  C.  1632;  iEsch.  Fr.  394 
(290). 

(d)  Evidence,  proof,  as  presented  in  court:  Polyb.  3.  100';  or  in  argument: 
Aristot.  Rhet.  3.  132  (1414  a'^). 

B.  riiaTeuw,  found  in  Greek  writers  from  ^schylus  down,  is  used  in  a 
sense  corresponding  to  the  active  sense  of  -Kia^iq: 

I.  To  believe,  to  trust. 

(a)  To  trust,  to  put  confidence  in,  to  rely  upon,  whether  of  persons  or 
things;  the  object  is  in  the  dat.:  Eur,  Or.  1103:  Xen.  An.  3.  i^^  5.  2'; 
Thuc.  s.  1122. 

(b)  In  an  intellectual  sense,  to  believe  a  person,  or  his  word  or  statement. 
The  name  of  the  person,  or  the  noun  denoting  his  word,  is  in  the  dat., 
the  word  expressing  the  content  of  his  statement  in  the  ace:  Soph.  El.  886; 

*  This  treatment  of  classical  usage  is  mainly  based  on  Cremer. 


476  GALATIANS 

Plato,  Phaed.  88C;  ^sch.  Pers.  800;  Eur.  Hel.  710.  Followed  also  by  an 
inf.  with  subj.  ace:  Plato,  Gorg.  524A.  Since  believing  one's  word  and 
putting  confidence  in  one  are  in  experience  closely  related,  a  sharp  dis- 
crimination can  not  always  be  made  between  (a)  and  (b). 

2.  To  entrust,  to  commit,  with  the  ace.  of  the  thing  committed  and  dat. 
of  the  person  to  whom  it  is  entrusted:  Xen.  Mem.  4,  4*^ 

II.    HEBREW  USAGE  OF  V^^^)-  ^I^d?/  I^^s^  aND  ^^^.. 

A.  njiDN  in  O.  T.  The  primary  sense  of  the  root  pN  is,  appar- 
ently, to  be  firm,  lasting,  enduring.  This  sense  appears  in  a  few  uses 
of  the  noun. 

1.  Steadiness,  stability. 

(a)  Of  physical  things,  steadiness,  firmness.  Ex.  ■i'j^'\ 

(b)  Of  institutions,  stability:  Isa,  33':  "And  there  shall  be  stability  in 
thy  times." 

2.  In  a  moral  sense,  steadfastness,  faithfulness. 

(a)  In  judgment  or  statement,  fidelity  to  the  facts,  or  in  conduct,  to  one's 
statements,  especially  to  one's  promises;  faithfulness,  honesty  m  judgment: 
Ps.  33<:  "For  the  word  of  the  Lord  is  right,  and  all  his  work  is  done  in  faith- 
fulness"; Prov.  12":  "Lying  lips  are  an  abomination  10  the  Lord,  but  they 
that  deal  truly  (with  faithfulness)  are  his  delight";  Hos.  2":  "I  will  even 
betroth  thee  unto  me  in  faithfulness";  Isa.  ii^:  "And  righteousness  shall  be 
the  girdle  of  his  loins  and  faithfulness  the  girdle  of  his  reins."  See  also 
Ps.  36'  40"  (10)  8812  (")  89  2  0)' '  0)' •W- '(*)•"(")•"  (")•"(")  92H') 
96"  98'  ioo5  119".  ".  ".  so.  »8  1431  Prov.  121'  Jer.  s^  »  7=8  92  Lam.  3". 

(b)  Fidelity  to  one's  obligations  or  official  duties;  conscientiousness,  hon- 
esty in  dealing:  2  Ki.  1215:  "Moreover  they  reckoned  not  with  the  men 
into  whose  hands  they  delivered  the  money  to  give  to  them  that  did  the 
work;  for  they  dealt  faithfully."     See  also  i  Sam.  26"  2  Chr.  199  31"  34". 

(c)  In  a  more  strictly  religious  sense,  steadfast  adherence  to  God:  Hab.  2*: 
"But  the  righteous  shall  live  by  his  faithfulness." 

3.  A  trust,  an  office:  i  Chr.  9".  "■  "  2  Chr.  31".  ". 

B.  tiDX  and  nw  (the  latter  much  more  frequent  in  O.  T.  than 
the  former)  have  substantially  the  same  range  of  meanings  as  -ijidn,  ex- 
cept that  neither  of  them  seems  to  have  been  used  in  a  physical  sense. 
|iaN  (Deut.  32"  Isa.  26'  Prov.  is^'',  etc.)  is  rendered  by  Tziaziq  in  the 
Lxx  in  Deut.  32"'  only.  ncN  is  translated  by  xfaxtq  in  Prov.  3'  14" 
15"  (i6«)  Jer.  35  (28)'  39  (32)"  40  (33)'.  In  nearly  ninety  instances  it  is 
rendered  by  dcXTJOeta,  which  is  also  frequently  used  in  translating  ^J'"3«. 

C.  fpNT  in  O.  T.  means: 

1.  To  stand  still,  to  be  steady:  Job  39",  of  a  horse. 

2.  To  believe  a  statement,  or  a  person  making  a  statement. 

(a)  Proprie,  without  clear  implication  of  anything  else  than  this;  i  Ki. 


msTis  477 

10^:  "I  believed  not  the  words,  until  I  came,  and  mine  eyes  had  seen 
it."  See  also  Gen.  45=»  2  Chr.  9«  Prov.  14"  Job  g'^  15"  29"*  Jer.  i2«  40" 
Lam.  4»2. 

(b)  To  believe  a  statement,  or  a  person  making  a  statement,  or,  with 
reference  to  a  fact,  to  accept  its  evidence,  with  an  implication  of  conduct 
corresponding  thereto,  especially  a  corresponding  trust  in  the  person  who 
speaks  or  to  whom  the  fact  or  statement  pertains;  usually  with  S,  but  occa- 
sionally with  2:  Gen.  15':  "And  he  beheved  (in?)  Yahweh,  and  he  counted 
it  to  him  for  righteousness."  See  also  Ex.  4^-  ».  ».  9  i  Sam.  27"  2  Chr.  32" 
Ps.  78'^  10612.  2*  Hab.  1=  Isa.  7«  531  Jer.  i2». 

3.  With  a  personal  object,  or  an  object  treated  as  personal,  when  there 
is  no  specific  reference  to  a  statement  made,  to  trust,  to  put  confidence  in; 
usually  with  2. 

(a)  Proprie:  Deut.  1^^:  "In  this  thing  ye  did  not  beheve  (in?)  Yahweh 
your  God."     See  also  Job  41'  1515.  31  3912  Mic.  7^  Judg.  ii='». 

(b)  With  the  idea  of  trust  there  is  sometimes  associated  that  of  recog- 
nition of  one's  character  or  standing;  used  with  reference  to  Yahweh,  his 
prophets  and  his  commandments:  Ex.  14":  "And  the  people  feared  Yahweh 
and  they  believed  in  Yahweh,  and  in  his  servant  Moses."  See  also  Ex.  i9» 
Ps.  ii9««  2  Chr.  202°.  Used  with  reference  to  God  the  emphasis  is  some- 
times clearly  upon  the  element  of  trust,  confidence,  reliance:  Nu.  14" 
Ps.  27"  78"  11610  Isa.  2816  Dan.  6-^  Some  of  these,  perhaps,  belong  under 
(a).  In  other  cases  the  emphasis  is  almost  as  clearly  on  the  recognition  of 
authority  and  character,  which  calls  for  obedience:  Nu.  20"  Deut.  9"  2  Ki. 
171*  Jn.  35  Isa.  4310. 

4.  To  have  assurance  of:  Deut.  28"  Job  24". 

III.    USAGE  OF  THE  SEPTUAGINT. 

A.  ITicTTtq  represents  njiss  in  all  the  phases  of  its  meaning  except 
the  first,  "steadiness,"  "stability."  Though  occasionally  used  to  translate 
other  words,  e.  g.,  fios,  the  meanings  of  which  are  closely  similar  to 
those  of  njiDN,  the  analysis  of  the  meanings  of  the  latter  word  may, 
with  the  omission  of  i,  stand  also  for  %iaxtq. 

B.  ITiaTeuo)  is  the  regular  representative  in  the  Lxx  of  V^^J^  in  the 
Hebrew,  though  the  latter  is  rendered  by  Itixtarsuo)  in  Deut.  i«  Judg.  11" 
2  Chr.  20";  by  xaxaxtaTsuca  in  Mic.  7^,  and  by  the  passive  of  TcefOw  in 
Prov.  26".  The  meanings  of  xtaxsua)  are  the  same  as  those  of  the  Hebrew 
verb,  with  the  probable  exception  of  the  physical  sense,  to  stand  still.  For 
though  the  Lxx  have  xtaTsuw,  in  Job  sg"^*  it  is  not  clear  what  sense  they 
intended  to  give  the  words,  and  the  passage  is  not  sufficient  evidence  that 
the  Greek  word  had  the  physical  sense.  The  usual  construction  with 
xiffxeOd)  in  the  Lxx  is  a  dat.  of  the  person  or  thing  believed  or  trusted 
(representing  both  h  and  a  after  the  Hebrew  verb).  See  Gen.  i5«  45" 
Ex.  41  Jn.  3",  etc.     Other  constructions,  such  as  Iv  with  the  dat.  (Ps.  77 


47^  GALATIANS 

(78)"  Jer,  i2«  Dan.  6^'),  Z-zt  with  a  clause  (Job  9>«  is'O,  and  the  infinitive 
(Job  15"  Ps.  26  (27)1')  are  rare. 

IV.  USAGE  OF  THE  APOCRYPHA  AND  PSEUDEPIGRAPHA. 

A.  Hbxiq.  The  usage  of  the  noun  in  these  books  shows  clearly  the  in- 
fluence of  the  Greek  usage  as  distinguished  from  the  Hebrew.     It  means: 

1.  In  the  passive  sense:  faithfulness,  truthfulness,  sincerity:  Wisd.  3** 
Sir.  15"  4012  41I6  4615  I  Mac.  10".  s?  1435  ^  Mac.  3',  In  4  Mac.  is=<  16"  17' 
the  passive  meaning  seems  more  probable,  though  the  active  sense  is  in  all 
cases  possible. 

2.  In  the  active  sense:  faith,  confidence. 

(a)  Towards  God:  Sir.  i"  (")  4910,  though  in  both  these  cases  the  passive 
meaning  is  possible. 

(b)  Between  men,  credit:  Sir.  22"  27»«  37". 

3.  A  pledge  of  faith  or  friendship:  3  Mac,  310;  cf.  Jos.  A7tt.  20.  62  (32), 

B.  UiaTeuw  means: 

1.  To  believe  a  statement,  or  a  person  making  a  statement. 

(a)  Proprie,  without  clear  implication  that  anything  else  is  involved: 
I  Esd.  4='8  Tob.  2"  s'  (0  10"  0)  14*  (0  bis  Sir.  igi"  Dan.  Susan.  41  i 
Mac.  io^». 

(b)  To  believe,  with  implication  of  the  assumption  of  the  corresponding 
attitude  of  trust  or  adherence;  the  following  are  possible  instances:  Sir.  13 " 
I  Mac.  I'o  (A). 

2.  To  trust,  to  put  confidence  in. 

(a)  Proprie:  Wisd.  16^6  (dat.)  i8«  Sir.  2«'  »•  ^°-  "  11"  1210  35  (32)  "  36"  (»8) 
Dan.  Susan.  53  Lxx  (pass.)  i  Mac.  y  2  Mac.  3". 

(b)  To  put  confidence  in  and  to  accept,  yielding  allegiance  to:  Jdth.  1410 
(dat.)  Wisd.  12'  (ex{  with  ace). 

3.  Absolutely:  to  be  confident,  to  be  at  ease:  Sir.  35  (32)21. 

4.  To  entrust  (dat.  and  ace):  Wisd.  14^  i  Mac.  S^'  2  Mac.  3". 

V.    NEW  TESTAMENT  USAGE. 

Ulaziq  and  xtaTeuw,  as  used  in  N.  T.,  clearly  show  the  influence  alike  of 
the  Greek  usage  of  the  words  and  of  the  Hebrew  thought  of  which  they 
became  the  vehicle.  The  words  are  Greek,  the  roots  of  the  thought  are 
mainly  in  the  experience  and  writings  of  the  Hebrew  prophets  and  psalmists. 
Yet  in  important  respects  the  usage  of  the  N.  T.  has  moved  away  from 
that  of  both  lines  of  its  ancestry. 

Thus  while  Tziaxiq  in  the  Lxx  and  Apocr.  is  almost  exclusively  passive 
in  sense,  and  in  classical  writers  apparently  about  as  often  passive  as 
active,  in  N.  T.  it  is  in  a  large  proportion  of  cases  active,  signifying  not 
"faithfulness,"  but  "faith." 

Again,  while  in  the  Greek  writers  the  terms  are  prevailingly  intellectual 
or  ethical,  i.  e.,  are  used  of  an  intellectual  or  moral  attitude^  in  either  case 


msTis  479 

in  a  sphere  other  than  that  of  religion,  and  in  Jewish-Greek  (following  in 
this  the  Hebrew)  prevailingly  ethical,  in  N.  T.  xtaxtq  is  employed  almost 
exclusively  in  the  religious  realm,  and  xiaxeuw  prevailingly  so.  IIiaTeua) 
is  indeed  used  of  an  acceptance  of  a  proposition  of  religious  signifi- 
cance without  any  corresponding  moral  act  or  attitude  (see  i,  (b),  under 
xiffTSJd)),  but  such  a  use  of  maiiq  is  very  rare.  See  below,  -Klaxiq,  II  i. 
While  always  including  or  involving  acceptance  of  truth,  that  which  is 
called  Tciaziq  in  N.  T.  carries  with  it  also  the  volitional  action  which  such 
acceptance  calls  for.  See  Mt.  g'-s-  "  Mk.  ii22-2<  Rom.  lo'ff-  2  Thes.  2" 
Heb.  ii«  Jn.  20".  It  is  true  that  in  certain  instances  such  as  Heb.  iii-  » 
the  emphasis  is  so  laid  upon  the  apprehension  and  acceptance  of  truth 
rather  than  upon  the  corresponding  volitional  action,  as  to  seem  to  imply 
that  volitional  action  (except  as  involved  in  the  will  to  believe)  is  not 
strictly  speaking  included  in  faith.  But  it  is  clear  from  the  remainder  of 
the  chapter  that  the  writer  intends  to  apply  the  term  %iaxiq  only  to  a 
belief  which  exerts  a  determinative  influence  on  conduct.  If,  therefore, 
volitional  action  is  not  strictly  included  in  the  term  xtaxK;  it  is  involved  in 
the  act  itself.  In  Jas.  21^-",  it  is  true  also  that  maiiq  is  used  of  a  purely 
intellectual  holding  of  a  religious  proposition.  But  this  usage  is  quite 
exceptional  in  N.  T.,  and,  moreover,  the  whole  argument  of  this  passage  is 
aimed  at  showing  that  such  faith  is  futile,  and  the  usage  of  the  rest  of  the 
letter  indicates  that  in  this  passage  the  writer  is  merely  adopting  the  verbal 
usage  of  another  whose  views  he  does  not  hold,  and  whose  usage  of  words 
is  different  from  his  own  usual  employment  of  them. 

Once  again,  while  in  the  Lxx  (representing  TP^ili?)  and  Apocr., 
xta-ceuG),  followed  by  words  referring  to  God  or  persons  or  things  represent- 
ing God,  is  often  used  to  express  the  attitude  of  the  religious  man,  and 
while  this  use  of  the  word  furnishes  the  principal  basis  or  point  of  attach- 
ment for  the  development  of  N.  T.  usage,  it  becomes  much  more  frequent 
and  important  in  N.  T.  than  in  O.  T.  In  short,  both  xfaxi?  and  xtaxeuo) 
are  in  N.  T.  prevailingly  religious  rather  than  intellectual  or  ethical  terms, 
xfaxtc;  is  active  rather  than  passive,  and  both  are  employed  with  much 
greater  frequency  than  in  preceding  literature,  either  Greek  or  Hebrew. 

These  facts  are  to  such  an  extent  characteristic  of  N.  T.  as  a  whole  that 
while  its  several  portions  exhibit  considerable  difference  in  their  emphasis 
upon  the  diflferent  elements  or  aspects  of  faith,  yet  these  differences  do  not 
necessitate  a  separate  lexicographical  treatment  for  the  different  writers. 

The  prominence  of  the  verb  and  the  fact  that  xfartq  is  active,  so  that 
the  idea  expressed  by  it  is  more  definitely  expressed  by  the  verb  with  its 
various  limitations,  make  it  expedient  that  the  verb  should  precede  the 
noun. 

A.     ritaTeuto  has  the  following  meanings: 

I.  To  accept  as  true,  to  believe  a  proposition,  or  a  person  making  a  state- 
ment.   The  thing  believed  is  expressed  by  an  accusative,  or  by  a  clause 


480  GALATIANS 

introduced  by  8Tt;  once  by  an  infinitive  with  subject  accusative  (Acts  is'O; 
once  by  a  dative  (Acts  24**);  once  by  eiq  with  the  accusative  (i  Jn.  5^"'=); 
the  name  of  the  person  making  the  statement,  or  the  impersonal  thing  which 
is  thought  of  as  bearing  testimony,  is  in  the  dative  (Mt.  21"-  '^  Jn.  5",  etc.), 
very  rarely  with  a  preposition  (Mk.  i^^  n^;,  24");  the  verb  is  sometimes  used 
absolutely  when  the  context  indicates  what  limitation  is  intended. 

(a)  The  thing  believed  may  be  any  fact  of  every-day  life:  Jn.  gi*  i  Cor. 
II";   even  a  thing  wholly  false:    2  Thes.  2":   elq  zh  xtaTsuaai  auzobq  t(T) 

(b)  It  may  be  a  proposition  of  religious  significance,  the  verb  designating 
a  merely  intellectual  assent  to  it,  without  implying  (the  context  may  even 
exclude)  any  corresponding  moral  attitude.  This  is  most  clearly  so  in 
Jas.  2i°:  xal  xdc  Sat[j.6vta  ictaTsuouaiv  xal  cppbaouaiv.  Other  probable  ex- 
amples are:  Mt.  242".  "  Mk.  13"  (1613.  ")  Jn.  2"  312  421  8«.  "  Acts  8"  15" 
26"  Rom.  6»  137  I  Thes.  4^*  i  Jn.  41. 

(c)  But  in  the  great  majority  of  cases  the  thing  believed  is  a  proposition 
pertaining  to  God  or  Christ,  the  person  believed  is  God  or  Christ,  or  some 
one  bringing  the  divine  message;  and  it  is  more  or  less  clearly  implied  that 
the  belief  itself  is  accompanied  by  the  conduct  corresponding  thereto,  espe- 
cially by  a  corresponding  trust  in  the  person  who  is  believed,  or  to  whom 
the  statement  pertains:  Jn.  5"^*:  h  xov  Xdyov  [xou  dcxouwv  xal  xtaTsuov  T(p 
it:i[t.<l)cxyzi  [le  e'xet  i;a)-f)v  atwviov.     See  also  Mt.  8"  9"  2i«'  «-  «  Mk.  i'*  (Iv) 

£-J6  g23,  24  Ji23,  24  ir32  L]^_  j  46  ^li,  13,  50  jO'  22"  24"  Jtt.  l'"  (^0  4*''  *"  5"*'  *'•  "• 
46,    47     530,    19     8"     lO"'    *'•    '^'    '*     II^^'    ^^^'    ^''    *"•    "     12'*'    ''     13^'     141°'    "•    *'     16*7.  SO.  SI 

178.  21  ig35  2o»'  ",  29.  SI  Acts  4*  8"  13"  24"  27"  Rom.  45.  1'.  18  io9.  18  2  Cor.  4" 
Gal.  3«  2  Thes.  i^"  Jas.  2"  Heb.  ii«  i  Jn.  3"  51.  5.  10b,  c, 

2.  To  trust,  to  put  confidence  in,  to  commit  one's  self  to;  usually  with  the 
added  idea  of  recognition  of  the  character  or  standing  of  the  one  trusted 
and  allegiance  to  him.  The  object,  which  is  always  a  word  referring  to 
Christ  (except  in  Jn.  12"" — even  here  implied,  not  expressed — i4iActs  16" 
Rom.  4"  9")  is  most  commonly  introduced  by  the  preposition  dq,  but 
sometimes  by  Ixf  with  dat.  or  ace,  and  is  in  a  few  cases  expressed  by  a  sim- 
ple dative.  The  verb  in  this  sense  is  not  infrequently  used  absolutely,  the 
context  supplying  the  object  and  construction.  In  Jn.  14*  Rom.  9"  10" 
I  Pet.  2«  2  Tim.  ii''  Tit.  3*  Heb.  4',  the  idea  of  trust  is  probably  prominent, 
perhaps  to  the  exclusion  of  any  other.  Usually  that  of  acceptance  and 
adherence  is  in  the  foreground:  Gal.  2i«:  y.a\  ^[lelq  elq  Xptarbv  'IirjaoGv 
excaxeuaaixsv.    Mt.  i8«  27"  Mk.  9"  Jn.  i^^    2".  "   3".  i»  (bis)    "  4"  6»-  »»• 

36,   »8,   40      ji,   31,   38,   39,   48      g24,   30,   31      q86,   38,   38     jo*2     ijSS,   2«a,   45,   48     I2ll>   '*■   ^7,   42,   44,   48 

14"  i69  17"  Acts  9«  10"  III'  1423  1681.  34  188  iq4  2219  Rom.  lo^  Phil,  i-' 
I  Tim.  ii«  3i«  I  Pet.  i*  i  Jn.  si"".  ". 

The  construction  xtaTeuw  dq,  which  is  found  in  all  the  passages  cited 
under  2,  except  Mt.  27"  Acts  9"  11"  16"  22"  Rom.  4^*  9"  lo"  i  Pet.  2« 
1  Tim.  I"  (1x0  Jn.  6'"  8"  Acts  16"  i8«''  (dat.)  Jn.  6"  9"  i  Tim.  31*  (abso- 


1112X12  48i 

lutely),  appears  for  the  first  time  in  N.  T.  The  rarity  of  the  construction 
in  the  synoptic  gospels  and  Acts  (Mt.  i8«  Mk.  9^2  Acts  io«  14"  19^),  its 
appearance  in  Paul  and  Acts  alongside  of  the  Lxx  construction  xtaxsuo)  ex{ 
with  approximately  equal  frequency,  and  its  entire  displacement  of  the 
latter  usage  in  the  Johannine  writings,  suggest  the  probability  that  it  first 
came  into  literary  use  in  the  Christian  (perhaps  Pauline)  circles  of  the 
apostolic  age,  as  being  more  exactly  expressive  of  the  Christian  feeling 
respecting  the  relation  of  the  believer  to  Christ,  especially  in  its  aspect  of 
acceptance  and  adherence,  than  any  previously  current  phraseology.  It 
may  have  been  previously  used  colloquially,  or  have  been  coined  colloquially 
in  Christian  circles.     It  is  used  with  an  impersonal  object  in  i  Jn.  51*"=  only. 

3.  To  have  faith,  referring  to  Christian  faith  as  such  without  empha- 
sis upon  any  special  aspect  of  it:  Rom.  i^^:  ouvaixiq  -^dcp  OsoO  ia-zh  elq 
awTTjpfav  xavxl  T(p  xtcrTeuovTc.     See  also  Mk.   9^2  Acts   2"  4'^  5"   (?)    ii^i 

I^IS,    39,    48    14I    1-5,    7    iyl2.    34    igSb,    27    ig2.    13    2l20,   25    Rom.    3^2    4"    lO^.    10    I3II    I5" 

I  Cor.  I'-i  35  1422  152.  11  Gal.  3"  Eph.  ii^.  19  i  Thes.  i^  2".  13  i  Pet.  2^  Jude^. 

4.  To  have  confidence,  to  be  bold:  Rom.  14^:  oq  [jlsv  xtareuei  cpayelv 
xi:vTa.  The  basis  of  this  confidence  is  indicated  by  v.i  to  be  Christian  faith; 
yet  the  verb  here  apparently  means  simply,  to  have  confidence,  the  allu- 
sion to  -Kiaxiq  in  the  Christian  sense  lying  not  in  the  verb,  but  in  its  power 
to  recall  the  xc'axtq  of  v.i. 

5.  To  entrust  (followed  by  ace.  and  dat.,  or  in  the  passive  by  ace): 
Jn.  2":  a-iTo:;  SI  'IiQaoCiq  oOx.  l-iaxcusv  ajxtv  aJTolq.  See  also  Lk.  16" 
Rom.  32  I  Cor.  9"  Gal.  2'  i  Thes.  2*  1  Tim.  i^  Tit.  i'. 

B.     UioTiz  has  the  following  senses: 

I.  The  passive  sense:  faithfulness,  fidelity  to  one's  promises  or  obliga- 
tions. 

1.  Proprle,  of  the  fidelity  of  God  to  his  promises,  or  of  the  faithfulness  of 
men  to  o.i:j  another:  Mt.  23"  Rom.  3'  Gal.  522  Tit.  2i<'. 

2.  Evidence,  assurance:  Acts  17". 

II.     The  active  sense:  faith,  belief,  trust. 

1.  Belief  of  a  proposition,  or  of  a  person,  intellectual  assent  simply  as 
such:  Jas.  2^*-"^^. 

2.  BeUef  of  the  truth  concerning,  and  corresponding  trust  in,  a  person 
including  or  involving  the  attitude  of  vAll  and  conduct  which  such  belief 
calls  for,  especially  the  committal  of  one's  self  to  him  to  whom  the  truth 
pertains.  The  object  of  faith  in  this  sense  is  in  N.  T.  almost  always  ex- 
plicitly or  by  implication  God  or  Christ;  rarely  the  truth  or  a  truth. 

(a)  Apprehension  and  acceptance  of  the  truth  concerning  God  or  Christ 
with  the  emphasis  on  this  intellectual  element:  Heb.  11':  xfaxet  voou^sv 
xaxTjpTCjasOat  xouq  actovaq  pTjaaxc  6sou.     Cf.  v.i. 

(b)  Belief  in  the  power  and  willingness  of  God,  as  revealed  in  the  pre- 
Christian  period,  to  bless,  help,  and  save,  and  a  corresponding  trust  and 

31 


482  GALATIANS 

obedience;  used  of  the  faith  of  Abraham:  Rom.  4'-  "■  i'-  i'-  "•  "  Heb.  ii*- 
».  17;  of  that  of  other  O.  T.  characters:  Heb.  42  n^.  5,  7  (j^^)  n.  u.  2o-3d_ 

(c)  Of  essentially  the  same  type  is  the  faith  in  God  which  Jesus,  in  the 
synoptic  gospels,  enjoins  his  disciples  to  exercise:  Mk.  11":  i^exe  tzigziv 
Qeou.  See  also  Mt.  1720  21"  Lk.  175.  «  iS^;  and  that  which  is  spoken  of  in 
Jas.  1 3-  6. 

(d)  Belief  in  the  power  and  willingness  of  Jesus  to  do  a  certain  thing, 
heal  the  sick,  deliver  from  peril,  forgive  sins,  accompanied  by  a  committal 
of  one's  self  to  him  in  reference  to  the  matter  in  question:  Mt.  9":  xaxd 
TT)v  xfaxiv  ij^tov  YevT)9T]T0>  u[jlIv.  Cf.  V.2*:  xiaxsusTS  oxt  B6va[jLat  touto 
xoifiaoci;  see  also  Mt.  Si"  g*.  "  1528  Mk.  2^  4"  53^  lo^^  Lk.  s^°  7'-  '"  8"-  <»  171' 
i8^^  Closely  akin  to  this  is  the  faith  in  the  name  of  the  risen  Jesus,  which 
secured  the  healing  of  the  sick.  Acts  31*  14^  In  Jas.  51^  it  is  not  clear  whether 
the  faith  referred  to  is  thought  of  as  faith  in  God  or  in  Christ. 

(e)  The  acceptance  of  the  gospel  message  concerning  Jesus  Christ,  and 
the  committal  of  one's  self  for  salvation  to  him  or  to  God  as  revealed  in 
him.  Such  faith  is  often  spoken  of  specifically  as  faith  in  Jesus  Christ,  less 
often  as  faith  in  or  towards  God,  very  frequently  simply  as  faith,  or  the 
faith,  its  specifically  Christian  character  as  based  upon  the  Christian  reve- 
lation and  involving  acceptance  of  the  gospel  message  being  implied  in  the 
context. 

The  large  number  of  cases  which  fall  under  this  head  divide  themselves 
into  several  classes,  differing,  however,  only  in  the  greater  or  less  clearness 
with  which  the  nature  and  object  of  the  faith  is  expressed,  or  in  the  empha- 
sis upon  one  or  another  phase  of  it. 

(i)  Those  in  which  the  object  of  the  faith  is  distinctly  expressed  by  an 
objective  genitive  or  prepositional  phrase.  The  article  is  sometimes  pre- 
fixed and  the  faith  is  definitely  identified  as  the  faith  in  Christ  Jesus  or 
towards  God:  Acts  2021 :  Tifjv  elq  6ebv  [xsTtivotav  y.al  xbxtv  slq  xbv  xuptov 
fj;xwv  'IiQaouv.  See  also  Acts  24=^  Eph.  i"  3"  Col.  i^  2^-  i^  i  Thes.  i'  Jas.  2^ 
Rev.  2"  1412.  Sometimes  it  is  omitted,  giving  the  phrase  a  qualitative 
force:  Rom.  3".  ^e  Qal.  2^^  (bis)  3^2  Phil.  3^'^  Heb.  61  (xfcxewq  1x1  Oeov). 
Occasionally  the  noun  is  without  the  article,  but  the  qualifying  phrase  is 
preceded  by  an  article  agreeing  with  iziaxiq,  giving  the  sense,  "faith,"  or 
"a  faith  which  is,"  etc.     So  in  Gal.  2^"  Acts  2618  i  Tim.  31'  2  Tim.  i"  3". 

(ii)  Those  in  which  Tziaiiq  is  accompanied  by  a  subjective  genitive  or 
equivalent  phrase  indicating  by  whom  the  faith  is  exercised.  The  article 
is  in  this  case  almost  invariably  present.  The  object  of  the  faith  is  usually 
indicated,  more  or  less  definitely,  by  the  context,  but  occasionally  directly 
expressed,  such  cases  falling  at  the  same  time  under  the  preceding  head: 
Lk.  2232  Rom.  i8-  12  I  Cor.  2'  i^'''  ''  2  Cor.  i^^^  lo's  Phil.  2I'  Col.  i*  2» 
I  Thes.  i»  3--  5.  «.  7.  10  2  Thes.  i*  2  Tim.  2'^  Phm.  5.  6  jjeb.  13'  Jas.  i« 
I  Pet.  !'•  "  2  Pet.  i5  I  Jn.  5<  Jude  -»  Rev.  2I'  1310.  Without  the  article: 
Tit.  iK 


msTis  483 

(iii)  Those  in  which,  though  there  is  neither  objective  nor  subjective 
limitation,  the  distinctly  Christian  character  of  the  faith  is  clearly  implied 
in  the  context.  The  article  sometimes  occurs  marking  the  faith  either  as 
that  just  previously  spoken  of,  as  in  Rom.  3'"^  2  Cor.  i"^  Phil.  3'^,  or  as 
that  referred  to  in  the  accompanying  phrase,  as  in  Gal.  i",  or,  most  fre- 
quently, as  the  well-known  (Christian)  faith,  as  in  Gal.  610.  For  other 
examples  with  the  article,  see  Acts  6'  (izo'kuq  xs  oxKoq  xwv  kpewv  uxiqx,ouov 
Tfj  xfoxet)  Acts  138  14"  i5«  165  Rom.  3"  io»-  ^^  (the  article  is  possibly  gen- 
eric in  this  case)  ii^o  i  Cor.  16"  2  Cor.  4*'  13^  Gal.  i"  3"-  ^s.  25  Eph.  31^  4" 
6"  Phil.  !«•  "  Col.  i2»  2^  I  Thes.  i'  2  Thes.  32  i  Tim.  1"^  3'  41.  «  5*.  12 
610.  12,  21  2  Tim.  i5  218  38,  10  47  Tit.  i^'  2^  Heb.  12^  i  Pet.  i'  5'  Jude  '.  Cf. 
also  Eph.  45.*  When  the  article  is  omitted  the  noun  has  a  qualitative 
force,  as  in  Acts  11"  14"  Rom.  i*.  i'  (ter)  51  q'"-  "  io«  1626  2  Cor.  8'  Gal.  3«'  «. 
8.  9,  24  55,  6  £ph.  28  6"  I  Thes.  58  2  Thes.  i"  i  Tim.  i".  *•  e.  ".  i^a  2'.  15  412  511 
2  Tim.  2"  Tit.  i*  21°  s''  Heb.  lo^'  i  Pet.  i^  2  Pet.  ii.f 

(iv)  Those  which  refer  to  Christian  faith  as  a  belief  in  the  power  and 
willingness  of  God  to  work  through  men  in  the  gifts  of  the  Spirit;  used  both 
definitely  and  qualitatively:  Rom.  12'-  «  i  Cor.  i2«  i^^-  ". 

(v)  Those  which  speak  of  Christian  faith  with  special  reference  to  the 
element  of  reliance  upon  God  for  acceptance  with  him  apart  from  works  of 
law  and  merit,  and  its  consequent  power  to  free  one  from  the  scruples  of 
legaUsm  or  asceticism;  used  both  definitely  and  qualitatively:  Rom.  14^-  "•  " 
(bis)  I  Tim.  4«  (?). 

(f)  Faith  without  reference  to  the  distinction  between  faith  in  God  as 
revealed  in  the  O.  T.  period  and  faith  as  the  acceptance  of  the  gospel  mes- 
sage; the  term  thus  signifies  faith  as  the  attitude  towards  God  of  the  man 
who  accepts  and  believes  whatever  accredits  itself  to  him  as  from  God,  and 
commits  himself  in  trustfulness  and  obedience  to  God,  whether  towards 
God  as  known  in  the  O.  T.  period  or  as  revealed  in  Christ.     In  the  nature 

*  In  certain  of  these  cases  by  a  semi-metonymy,  faith,  as  the  central  principle  of  Chris- 
tianity and  the  determinative  factor  of  the  Christian  life,  stands  almost  for  Christianity 
itself,  without,  however,  wholly  losing  its  own  proper  meaning  of  (active)  faith.  See  i  Tim. 
I'*  3'  4'  5'  6'».  "  2  Tim.  38  Tit.  i"  2'  Jude  ».  Out  of  this  usage  there  undoubtedly  grew  in 
time  the  use  of  jtiVtis  to  denote  Christianity  and  in  particular  the  beliefs  of  Christianity. 
But  it  is  doubtful  whether  this  stage  of  development  is  reached  in  N.  T.  Gal.  i»  2  Tim.  4^ 
sometimes  regarded  as  examples  of  this  usage,  are  certainly  not  such,  and  are  not  even  to  be 
classed  with  those  cited  above.  iriaTi?  in  these  two  passages  has  its  proper  and  usual  N.  T. 
sense  of  (active)  faith  in  Christ. 

t  These  anarthrous  cases  form  a  transition  from  those  in  which  the  reference  is  distinctly 
to  the  belief  of  the  gospel  and  faith  in  Christ,  or  in  God  as  revealed  in  Christ,  to  those  in  which 
(see  f.  below)  faith  is  spoken  of  without  reference  to  the  extent  of  the  revelation  and  with- 
out distinction  between  its  0.  T.  type  and  its  N.  T.  form.  Respecting  some  of  the  passages 
cited  above,  e.  g.,  Gal.  3'.  »•  »,  it  may  fairly  be  questioned  on  which  side  of  the  line  they 
belong.  That  the  line  of  distinction  can  not  be  sharply  drawn  and  that  N.  T.  writers  easily 
pass  from  one  conception  to  the  other -is  a  result  and  evidence  of  the  fact  that  faith,  whether 
directed  towards  the  God  revealed  in  0.  T.  or  towards  Christ  or  God  as  revealed  in  the  gospel, 
is  conceived  of  as  always  essentially  the  same  in  character. 


484  GALATIANS 

of  the  case  the  word  in  these  instances  is  qualitative  and  hence  without 
the  article  or  accompanied  by  the  generic  article.  See  Rom.  3"-  "•  '"  4"-  "^ 
g3o,  32  2  Cor.  5'  Gal.  3'-  "  Heb.  6^2  lo^s-  "  n*  Jas.  2\  In  Rom.  i"<=  Gal.  3", 
though  the  quotation  is  from  O.  T.  and  hji-n  of  the  original  meant 
"faithfulness,"  Paul  evidently  takes  Tciaxtq  in  the  active  sense — an  inter- 
pretation which  is  not  wholly  without  basis  in  the  O.  T.  passage,  since 
nji::N  there  denotes  a  steadfast  adherence  to  God  which  implies  faith 
in  the  active  sense  as  an  essential  element  of  the  experience.  In  Rom.  4^^^ 
if.  TzhzEiji:;  'A^paxjx  means  "of  an  Abrahamic  faith,"  i.  e.,  possessing  a 
faith  which  like  that  of  Abraham  was  exercised  outside  of  the  regime  of  law. 

Two  elements  of  the  apostle  Paul's  conception  of  faith  are  worthy  of 
special  attention.  On  the  one  hand,  he  conceived  of  faith  in  Christ  as 
issuing  in  a  vital  fellowship  of  the  believer  with  Christ,  by  which  Christ 
becomes  the  compelling  and  controlling  force  in  the  believer's  moral  lifi 
(Gal.  a^o  5«).  On  the  other  hand,  he  laid  great  stress  upon  the  essential 
identity  of  such  faith  in  God  as  existed  in  the  O.  T.  period  and  the  Chris- 
tian type  of  faith.  The  doctrine  of  faith  in  Christ  is  defended  by  an  appeal 
to  the  faith  of  Abraham,  and  the  permanence  and  continuity  of  the  prin- 
ciple of  faith  as  the  determinative  element  of  God's  demand  upon  men 
urgently  maintained.  The  union  of  these  two  elements  in  his  idea  of 
Christian  faith,  viz.,  its  higher  possibilities  and  normal  destiny,  and  its 
essential  identity  with  the  more  primitive  faith  of  an  older  period  is  an 
important  fact  for  the  understanding  of  his  thought. 

Neither  idea,  however,  is  peculiar  to  Paul.  The  former  permeates  the 
fourth  gospel,  though  usually  expressed  in  terminology  other  than  that  of 
Paul.  The  latter  appears  in  almost  all  parts  of  N.  T.  According  to  the 
synoptic  gospels  Jesus  teaches  men  to  believe  in  God  and  invites  them  to 
have  faith  in  him,  apparently  assuming  that  the  production  of  the  one  faith 
will  generate  the  other,  and,  indeed,  expressly  affirming  that  he  that  receives 
him  receives  him  that  sent  him  (Mk.  q'O-  The  fourth  gospel  expresses  the 
same  thought  more  explicitly  in  terms  of  faith  (i2«)  and  reiterates  it  in 
other  forms.  In  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  Christians  are  exhorted  to 
maintain  their  faith  in  Christ  by  0.  T.  examples  of  faith  in  God. 

It  is  involved,  implicitly  if  not  explicitly,  in  this  recognition  of  the  essen- 
tial identity  of  pre-Christian  and  Christian  faith  that  while  all  faith  has  of 
necessity  an  intellectual  element,  the  intellectual  content  of  faith  is  not  a 
fixed  quantity.  Faith  may  differ  in  different  persons  and  in  the  same  per- 
son at  different  times.  It  is  capable  of  development  and  of  waning,  and 
this  both  in  respect  to  the  content  of  the  truth  apprehended  and  in  respect 
to  the  intensity  or  firmness  with  which  it  is  exercised.  See  Mt.  15"  Lk.  7' 
175.  6  22"  Acts  65 14"  i6«  Rom.  i^'  4^^-  ^o  126 1  Cor.  13"  2  Cor.  8'  iqi^  Phil,  i''^ 
Col.  1='  25  I  Thes.  31"  2  Thes.  i'  i  Tim.  41  5"  610  Jas.  2^'  ^\ 

To  what  extent  Paul  influenced  early  Christian  usage  of  the  words  xtaxeuto 
and  x^TCi;  and  the  idea  of  faith  associated  with  them;  to  what  extent  he 


nisTis  485 

was  himself  influenced  by  earlier  Christian  thought,  is  not  easy  to  determine 
with  accuracy.  In  the  synoptic  gospels,  aside  from  a  single  instance  which 
by  its  exceptional  use  of  Pauline  phraseology  (Mt.  i8«;  the  phrase  xtcTeuw 
d(;  in  Mk.  g"  is  in  all  probability  not  original,  but  a  harmonistic  addition 
from  Mt.  i8«,  and  in  the  latter  an  editorial  modification  of  the  source), 
betrays  an  influence  of  the  Pauline  usage,  the  conception  of  faith  is  simple 
and  relatively  elementary.  On  the  one  hand,  it  includes  the  idea  of  trust 
in  God  frequently  expressed  in  O.  T.  by  n->?3  and  in  the  Lxx  by  xlxoiOa 
and  e>vxfl;to,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  that  of  confidence  in  the  willingness 
and  ability  of  Jesus  to  do  certain  things,  usually  to  heal  sickness  or  rescue 
from  danger,  rarely  to  forgive  sins.  It  is  never  so  used  as  to  imply  that 
faith  in  Jesus  necessarily  involved  any  formal  definition  of  his  person  or 
mission;  it  is  not,  for  example,  employed  in  relation  to  Peter's  confession  of 
the  messiahship  of  Jesus  (Mk.  8"  and  parallels). 

When  the  early  church  accepted  Jesus  as  the  Messiah,  and  confession 
that  he  was  Lord  and  Christ  became  the  keynote  of  the  new  religious  move- 
ment that  attached  itself  to  his  name,  both  the  volitional  and  the  doc- 
trinal element  of  faith  (cf.  under  xtaxeuo),  i  (c)  and  2)  became  more  definite 
and  more  prominent.  Yet  the  simple  use  of  the  word  "faith"  continued 
(Acts  3i«),  and  it  is  not  possible  to  determine  from  the  early  chapters  of 
Acts  precisely  to  what  extent  confession  of  Jesus  in  explicit  doctrinal  terms 
became  associated  with  the  word  izioiiq.  The  noun  is  infrequent,  and  the 
verb  occurs  almost  wholly  in  narrative  passages,  which  doubtless  reflect 
the  usage  of  the  period  when  Acts  was  written  rather  than  of  that  of  the 
events. 

There  can  be  little  doubt  that  it  was  largely  to  Paul  that  the  Christian 
movement  owed  that  strong  emphasis  on  faith,  and  the  prominence  of  the 
word  in  the  Christian  vocabulary  which  is  reflected  in  N.  T.  as  a  whole. 
Clearly  the  emphasis  on  "faith"  and  "works  of  law"  as  antithetical  con- 
ceptions is  mainly  due  to  him.  That  Jesus  was,  like  Paul  after  him,  a  non- 
legalist,  the  evidence  seems  clearly  to  prove.  But  there  is  no  reason  to 
think  that  he  developed  a  sharp  antithesis  between  law  and  faith.  The 
early  church  believed  in  Jesus  as  the  Christ,  but  it  was  not,  for  the  most 
part  at  least,  consciously  anti-legalistic,  and  it  apparently  did  not  occur 
to  the  early  apostles  to  set  faith  and  works  or  faith  and  law  in  antithesis  to 
one  another.  To  Paul,  also,  we  doubtless  owe  the  conception  of  faith  as 
creating  a  mystical  union  with  Christ,  which  appears  in  his  letters,  and  of 
the  influence  of  which  the  post-Pauline  literature  gives  evidence.  In  this 
case  as  in  so  many  others,  Paul  was  a  most  important  factor  in  the  creation 
of  the  Christian  vocabulary,  not  by  inventing  words,  but  by  making 
them  the  bearers  of  his  new  thought  or  emphasis. 

See  the  excellent  discussion  in  W.  H.  P.  Hatch,  "  The  Pauline  Idea  of 
Faith,"  in  Harvard  Theological  Studies,  II,  Cambridge,  1917. 


486  GALATIANS 

XVII.    nNEYMA  AND  SAPS.* 
I.    nNETMA. 

A.  nvsG[jLa  appears  first  among  Greek  writers  in  /Eschylus.  Its  mean- 
ings in  writers  down  to  and  including  Aristotle  are  "wind,"  "air,"  "breath," 
"life."  The  meaning  "spirit"  does  not  appear.  Xenophanes  is  said  by- 
Diogenes  Laertius,  IX  2.  3  (19),  to  have  been  the  first  to  say  that  the  soul, 
^uxf],  is  T^su[ia,  but  the  context  shows  that  by  this  statement  Xenophanes 
did  not  mean  that  the  soul  is  (immaterial)  spirit,  but  rather,  as  against  the 
views  of  his  predecessors  that  the  soul  lives  after  death  as  a  shade,  he  affirms 
that  everything  that  comes  into  being  is  also  subject  to  extinction,  and  that 
the  soul  is  but  breath  or  air.  To  Anaximenes,  a  contemporary  of  Xenopha- 
nes, Plutarch,  Plac.  phil.  i^,  ascribes  the  words:  olov  -fj  '^luxh,  (p-qaiv,  tj  TjtxeTspa 
diQp  ouaa  auyxpaxet  i}\i.aq  xal  oXov  xbv  xoat^ov  nz\ieu[L(x  xal  ii^p  Tueptexet. 
The  passage  shows  that  in  Xenophanes'  day  it  was  held  that  the  soul  was 
air;  it  suggests  that  dcYjp  and  xveu^a  are  nearly  synonymous  terms,  and  that 
both  are  used  of  a  substance  supposed  to  control  the  world,  and  hence  in 
some  sense  of  cosmic  significance.  Cicero  says  that  Anaximenes  made  air 
God,  but  he  did  not,  so  far  as  we  know,  say  either  that  TuveO^JLa  was  God  or 
that  God  was  Tcveu^jia,  nor  do  we  know  of  any  other  pre-Aristotelian  writer 
who  did  so.  Of  Heraclitus,  who  found  the  origin  of  all  things  in  fire,  yet 
also,  according  to  Aristotle,  said  that  the  origin  of  all  things  was  soul, 
'I'uxr},  Siebeck,  op.  cit.,  says  that  he  thinks  of  xveG[xa  as  that  which  con- 
nects the  soul  with  the  surrounding  air,  which  is  itself  thought  of  as  more 
or  less  soul  or  spirit.  Epicharmus  speaks  of  earth  {i.  e.,  the  body)  as  going 
to  earth  in  death,  and  of  xv£U[xa  as  going  above.  Yet  no  pre-Aristotelian 
writer  apparently  uses  xveufia  as  an  individualising  term  or  as  the  equiva- 
lent of  soul.  From  Xenophanes  down  to  N.  T.  times  '^'uxh,  soul,  is  an 
individual  and  functional  term  whose  definition  was  not  in  that  of  which  it 
was  composed  but  in  its  functions;  it  is  the  seat  of  life,  feeling,  thought. 
xveufxa,  on  the  other  hand,  is  a  term  of  substance,  defined  not  by  its  func- 
tions, which  are  very  variable,  but  by  its  qualities.  Cf.  the  terms  "knife" 
and  "steel,"  "sword"  and  "bronze."     Aristotle  distinguishes  between  in- 

*  For  fuller  discussion  see  Holsten,  Zum.  Evangelium  des  Paulus  u.  Petrus,  pp.  365  Jf ., 
Rostock,  1868;  Wendt,  Die  Begriffe  Fleisch  und  Geist,  Gotha,  1878;  Dickson,  St.  Paul's  Use 
of  the  Terms  Flesh  and  Spirit,  Glasgow,  1883;  Gunkel,  Die  Wirkungen  des  heiligen  Geistes, 
Gottingen,  1888;  Schoemaker,  "The  Use  of  nn  in  the  O.  T.  and  of  TTvevfua  in  the  N.  T.,"  in 
Journal  of  Biblical  Literature,  1904,  pp.  13-67;  Wood  The  Spirit  of  God  in  Biblical  Literature, 
N.  Y.  1904;  Siebeck,  "Neue  Beitrage  zur  Entwickelungsgeschichte  des  Geist-Begriffs,"  in 
Archiv  fUr  Geschichte  der  Philosophie,  Bd.  XXVII,  1914,  pp.  1-16;  Burton,  Spirit,  Soul,  and 
Flesh :  The  Usage  of  Ili'evju.a,  ^'u^'?  and  2apf  in  Greek  Writings,  and  Translated  Works  fror.t 
the  Earliest  Period  to  180  A.  D.  and  of  their  Equivalents  .  ...  in  the  ...  .  Old  Testament, 
Chicago,  1918;  also  articles  of  which  the  above-mentioned  monograph  is  an  expansion  and 
revision,  published  under  the  same  title  in  AJT.  Oct.,  1913;  Jan.,  1914;  July,  1914;  Oct., 
1914;  July,  1915;  Oct.,  1915.  The  following  discussion  is  in  part  a  reproduction  and  in  part 
a  condensation  of  this  book  and  these  articles. 


nNEYMA  487 

born  air,  auix?uTov  xveutxa,  and  air  which  is  inhaled  from  without.  But  he 
also  speaks  of  xvsGiia  in  a  sense  which  he  expressly  distinguishes  from 
%veO[loc  meaning  the  air  of  which  wind  is  composed,  and  apparently,  also, 
from  the  autxtpuxov  xvcGyLz,  describing  it  as  the  substance  which  is  in  both 
plants  and  animals,  and  permeates  all,  Std  xavxbq  StTjxs'.,  and  is  both  living 
and  generative,  Mund.  4  (394  b. '"').  Thus  in  ancient  writers  •^n'su^a  is 
neither  the  soul  nor  God,  but  a  substance  identical  with  or  akin  to  air, 
but  possessing,  according  to  some  writers,  intelligence,  according  to  others 
being  the  substance  of  which  the  soul  is  composed,  and  to  others  a  sort  of 
soul-stuff  or  world-stuff,  the  basis  of  all  life,  if  not  of  all  existence. 

In  post-classical  Greek  writers,  the  principal  meanings  of  xvsutj.a,  in  order 
of  frequency,  are  "wind,"  "life,"  "air."  The  meaning  "breath"  drops  out, 
or  is  absorbed  in  the  meaning  "life."  In  one  passage  in  Dionysius 
Halicamassensis  {Antiq.  I'O  the  word  is  used  of  a  demon,  perhaps  under 
Hebrew  influence.  The  Stoics  made  much  use  of  the  term  xvsO[xa. 
Chrysippus  afhrmed  that  the  ultimate  reality  was  xveO[Aa  moving  itself 
(Stob.  Ed.  i.  17O  and  the  Stoics  generally  held  this  monistic  view.  Their 
xveQtJ<2c  has  both  material  and  "spiritual"  qualities.  Affirming  that  the 
soul  is  a(I);j,x,  by  which  the  Stoics  meant  not  only  that  it  was  real  but  that  it 
possessed  physical  qualities,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  that  it  is  xveu[xa  (Zeno 
calls  it  xveuixa  evOspixov;  and  Chrysippus,  according  to  Galen,  a6[x?uTov 
^yLlv  auvsxs?  xavxl  xQ>  autAaxt  B'.fjxov),  they  indicate  both  that  the 
xveOixa  has  intellectual  qualities  and  that  the  soul  itself  has  physical  qual- 
ities. The  xveuixa,  of  which  the  soul  is  composed,  is  aw^a,  but  is  permeated 
with  Xoyo?,  and  the  organs  of  sense-perception  are  called  xveuixaxa  vospa, 
the  xvsuyLa  extending  from  the  governing  part  of  the  soul  to  the  organs  of 
sense-perception.  Posidonius  was,  so  far  as  we  know,  first  among  the 
Greeks  to  say  that  God  was  xvsO;jLa,  to  which  he  added  vospbv  xal  xupwBeq. 
Two  hundred  years  before  Posidonius,  Menander  used  the  phrase  xveujia 
eslov  in  a  way  to  show  that  some  of  his  contemporaries  ascribed  to  it  the 
control  of  human  affairs,  but  how  far  it  was  individualised  and  personalised 
does  not  appear,  and  it  remains  that  with  rare  if  any  exception,  xv£Li[xa  is 
to  the  end  of  the  first  Christian  century  still  a  term  of  substance,  not  of 
functions,  and  a  name  not  of  God  or  the  human  soul,  but  of  the  substance  of 
which  both  are  composed,  a  refined  and  ethereal  substance,  yet  still  a  sub- 
stance and  not  yet  thought  of  as  immaterial.  Akin  to  this,  but  probably  to 
be  distinguished  from  it,  is  xveutxa  as  a  permeating  principle  or  force.  Aris- 
totle's language  leaves  it  uncertain  whether  in  his  day  it  was  thought  of  as 
extending  to  all  existence  or  to  animate  things  only.  Plutarch  discusses 
the  distinction  between  the  souls  of  men  and  irrational  animals,  the  prin- 
ciple of  growth  in  plants,  and  the  force  of  cohesion  in  stones,  but  does  not 
call  either  of  the  latter  xvsuiia.  Galen,  in  the  second  century,  calls  the  power 
of  cohesion  l-/.Ttx.ov  xvs'Jii.^,  and  finally  Sextus  Empiricus,  in  the  third  cen- 
tury, groups  all  these  things  together  under  the  common   term  xvsO^a. 


488  GALATIANS 

The  use  of  similar  language  in  Philo  shows  that  this  terminology  was 
already  in  use  in  the  first  century.  In  this  century,  in  which  the  N.  T. 
arose  and,  as  will  presently  appear,  xveO^jLa  was  in  very  common  use  among 
Christians,  it  occurs  rather  rarely  in  extant  Greek  Uterature,  but  is  found 
in  Plutarch,  Cornutus,  Epictetus,  and  Dio  Chrysostom.  It  has  the  fol- 
lowing four  senses:  "wind,"  "air,"  "breath,"  "the  medium  or  bearer  of 
psychic  energy"  (nervous  fluid).  The  most  notable  fact  here  is  the  almost 
total  absence  of  the  meaning  "spirit." 

B.  The  term  in  Hebrew  which  corresponds  most  nearly  to  TyzO'^a  in 
Greek  is  nn.  It  bears  three  meanings,  which,  in  order  of  frequency, 
are:  "spirit,"  "wind,"  "breath."  The  genetic  order  is  probably  "wind," 
"spirit,"  "breath."  As  spirit  it  denotes  the  Spirit  of  God,  the  spirit  of 
man,  and  an  evil  spirit  or  demon,  nn  is  also  probably  originally  a  term 
of  substance,  and  retained  throughout  the  O.  T.  period  a  trace  of  this 
meaning  in  the  clinging  to  it  of  a  quantitative  sense,  as  is  illustrated  in 
Elisha's  request  for  a  double  portion  of  Elijah's  spirit  (2  Ki.  2^).  But 
by  an  early  development  ot  meaning  ni-)  came  to  be  used  of  the  Spirit 
of  God,  as  that  through  which  the  power  of  God  was  manifested  (Gen.  i^), 
and  in  the  later  period  as  the  power  of  God  operative  in  the  ethical  and 
religious  life  of  the  people  (Isa.  611  Ps.  51"  ["j).  In  O.  T.  it  was  also  used 
of  the  spirit  of  man,  first  probably  meaning  "strength,"  "courage,"  "anger," 
etc.  (Judg.  8'  Prov.  i8'0,  then  the  seat  of  these  and  other  qualities,  and 
finally  the  seat  of  mentality,  though  this  last  usage  is  late  and  rare  (Job  20'). 
Alike,  therefore,  in  the  starting  point  and  in  the  general  range  of  usage 
there  is  a  large  measure  of  parallelism  between  the  Hebrew  nn  and  the 
Greek  xveutxa,  which  made  it  inevitable  that  the  latter  should  become  the 
translation  and  recognised  representative  of  the  former.  But  there  is  also 
a  marked  difference  between  the  usage  of  the  two  words,  especially  in  the 
fact  that  the  Hebrews  so  much  earlier  associated  the  term  with  God,  making 
it,  however,  not  a  predicate  of  God  (the  O.  T.  never  says  God  is  nn),  but 
an  individualising  name  for  an  expression  or  manifestation  of  God. 

C.  In  Jewish-Greek  literature,  including  Greek  works  by  Jewish 
authors,  down  to  100  a.  d.,  whether  translations  of  Semitic  originals  or  origi- 
nally composed  in  Greek,  xveu[xa  bears  three  meanings,  in  order  of  fre- 
quency, as  follows:  "spirit,"  "wind,"  "breath."  As  "spirit"  the  term 
denotes  the  Spirit  of  God,  the  spirit  of  man,  and  superhuman  beings  both 
good  and  evil.  Genetic  relations  can  scarcely  be  spoken  of,  usages  being 
inherited  rather  than  developed.  In  the  Lxx  we  find  for  the  first  time  the 
expression  xveO[xa  OsoO  (Gen.  i'  4138)  ^nd  xv£0[xa  ay.ov  (Ps.  50  [51]"),  the 
latter  a  translation  of  the  Hebrew  v-\p  nn,  probably  modelled  on  the 
xveupia  OsTov  which  Menander's  usage  proves  to  have  existed  among 
the  Greeks  and  which  itself  occurs  occasionally  in  the  Lxx  (Job  27^  33^. 
The  entire  usage  in  Jewish-Greek  shows  far  more  influence  of  the  Hebrew 
view  than  of  Greek  thought. 


nNEYMA  489 

D.  N.  T.  usage  of  xvsu[xa,  like  that  of  other  Jewish-Greek  literature,  is 
strongly  influenced  by  the  ideas  which  come  from  O.  T.,  which  it  follows 
much  more  closely  than  it  does  that  of  Greek  writers  in  general.  Yet  it 
also  shows,  especially  in  Paul,  peculiarities  of  its  own,  which  were  probably 
in  the  main  not  derived  from  outside  but  developed  within  the  circle  of 
Christian  thought.  Of  the  characteristics  of  N.  T.  usage  which  dififeren- 
tiate  it  from  non- Jewish-Greek,  and  to  a  certain  extent  from  all  previous 
usage,  the  following  are  the  most  important:  (a)  xveu[jLa  is  no  longer  pre- 
vailingly a  substantial  term,  as  in  Greek  writers,  but,  with  few  exceptions, 
individualising  as  in  Jewish-Greek,  following  the  Hebrew,  (b)  Its  most  fre- 
quent use  is  with  reference  to  the  Spirit  of  God.  For  this  there  is  only  the 
slightest  precedent  in  the  non- Jewish  Greek  writers.  N.  T.,  especially 
Pauline,  usage  shows  a  marked  advance  even  on  Jewish-Greek,  (c)  The 
relation  of  xveu;xa  to  ^uxn  is  almost  wholly  new,  having  only  partial  prece- 
dent in  Philo.  Whereas  in  Greek  writers  generally  t|;ux"Q  is  the  term  which 
definitely  conveyed  the  idea  of  life  and  mentality,  and  xvEUfxa  is  a  term  of 
substance,  in  itself  conveying  no  idea  of  mentality,  and  ranging  all  the  way 
from  "wind"  or  "air"  to  an  extremely  refined  substance  of  which  God  and 
the  soul  are  composed,  and  while  in  the  nearly  contemporaneous  Hermetic 
literature  xvsQixa  is  definitely  graded  below  ^oxr]  in  the  scale  of  being, 
xveu[X3c  in  N.  T.  assumes  a  position  of  definite  superiority  to  the  ^vxt- 
This  is  due  not  to  the  degradation  of  <l)o-xi],  but  to  the  elevation  of  xveu[jLa. 
The  former  is  still,  as  in  the  Greek  usage  generally,  the  general  term  for 
the  seat  of  life,  feeling,  thought,  and  will.  But  icveufxa,  having  now  become 
an  individualised  term  and  as  such  a  name  both  for  the  soul  of  man  and  the 
Spirit  of  God,  is  used  as  the  seat  of  the  moral  and  religious  life  of  man. 
(d)  Tcveu[jLa  is  now  used  as  a  generic  term  for  incorporeal  beings,  including 
in  Paul  those  who  have  heavenly  bodies.  For  this  usage  there  is  no  exact 
previous  parallel,  though  it  has  its  basis  in  the  application  of  the  term 
xvsijtxa  to  God  and  to  the  demons.  A  product  of  this  usage  and  the  pre- 
ceding, or  at  least  related  to  them,  is  the  antithesis  here  formed  for  the 
first  time  between  (J^uxtxoq  and  xvsuyi,aTt/.6<;,  which  in  Paul  is  applied  to 
bodies,  designating  them  as  suitable,  on  the  one  hand,  to  a  'I'uxf},  a  soul 
in  an  ordinary  material  body,  and  on  the  other  to  a  xveO^a,  i.  e.,  a  soul 
no  longer  embodied  in  the  ordinary  sense  (i  Cor.  15"^);  but  also  to  men 
in  a  religious  sense,  distinguishing  one  who  has  not  and  one  who  has  the 
Spirit  of  God  (i  Cor.  2'^^).  The  latter  usage  appears  also  in  Jude,  v.". 
(f)  There  is  a  clear  distinction  between  the  work  of  the  Spirit  of  God  in 
producing  the  so-called  xaptuixaxa,  such  as  tongues,  prophecy,  etc.,  and  the 
operation  of  the  same  spirit  in  producing  ethical  results,  and  a  depreciation 
of  the  former  as  compared  with  the  latter.  This  appears  first  in  Paul,  and 
is  perhaps  original  with  him.  See  Gunkel,  Die  Wirkungen  des  heiligen 
Geistes,  pp.  62-97,  esp.  TT  ff.  ~ 

The  meanings  of  xveuyia  in  N.  T.  arranged  in  the  order  of  their  probable 
genetic  relationships  are  as  follows: 


490  GALATIANS 

I.  Wind:  Jn.  3'^:  to  Tveu'^a  Sxou  QiXst  xvel  xal  t:?Jv  (pwvfjv  auTou  dxouetq, 
dtXX'  oux  olSat;  x60ev  epxsxai,  xal  xou  uxdYSt.     See  also  Heb.  i'. 

II.  Breath,  breath  of  life:  2  Thes.  2*:  xal  tots  ixoxaXu90T)aeTai  6  <2vo;xo<; 
8v  i  x6pto<;  ['Ir^aouc;]  dveXet  T(p  xveu^iaxi  tou  (jTOtia-cov;  aj-cou.  See  also  Rev. 
II"  13". 

III.  Spirit:  an  incorporeal,  sentient,  intelligent,  willing  being,  or  the 
element  by  virtue  of  which  a  being  is  sentient,  intelligent,  etc. 

A.  Embodied,  viz.,  human  spirit,  that  element  of  a  living  man  by  virtue 
of  which  he  lives,  feels,  perceives,  and  wills;  variously  viewed: 

1.  As  the  seat  of  life,  or  that  in  man  which  constitutes  him  a  living  being. 
Lk.  8":  xal  exlaxpetl^ev  xh  xveuyia  auifiq,  xal  dviax-q  izapaxQWo^-  See  also 
Mt.  27"  Lk.  23"  Jn.  19"  Acts  7"  Jas.  2'«. 

2.  As  the  seat  of  emotion  and  will,  especially  of  the  moral  and  religious 
life,  including  thought  as  concerned  with  religion:  Mk.  14":  ypri-fogel'zs 
xal  xpoaeuxetjOs,  Yva  [X-?j  eX0T]Te  elq  xeipaa'tJiov"  xb  [xsv  xveutxa  xp60u[xov 
T)  S^  aap^  dcaOevTjq.  See  also  Mt.  26"  Mk.  S'^  Lk.  i*'  Jn.  4".  "^  uaa  1321 
Acts  i7»«  18"  19"  20"  Rom.  i'  2^^  7«  8»«  12^1  i  Cor.  4"  7"  i6»»  2  Cor.  2"  71-  " 
Gal.  61.  8.  "  Eph.  4"  Phil.  4"  2  Tim.  4"  Phm.  ='  Jas.  4^  2  Pet.  3<.  It 
sometimes  seems  to  denote  the  human  spirit  as  permeated  with  or  dom- 
inated by  the  divine  Spirit,  either  ethically  (Jn.  3'^),  or  ecstatically  (i  Cor. 

I4U.   16,   18). 

3.  As  the  seat  of  consciousness  and  intelligence:  i  Cor.  2":  xiq  ydp 
oIBev  dtv0pa)xwv  ra  xou  i;v0pa)xou  el  [i-Jj  xb  xveOixa  xou  d;v0pa)xou  xb  sv  aLixtp;  see 
also  Mt.  5'  Mk.  28Lk.  i'". 

4.  Generically,  without  reference  to  these  distinctions:  Rom.  81":  d  lk 
Xpiaxbq  Iv  b[i.lv,  xb  ix.ev  aGi[ia  vexpbv  Sia  (i[xapx(av,  xb  Se  xveO[xa  !^(o-?)  Bia 
5txatoa6vT]v.  See  also  i  Cor.  5».  *  Phil,  i"  Col.  2^  i  Thes.  5"  Heb.  4'^  i2»  (?) 
Rev.  22«. 

B.  Unembodied  or  disembodied  spirit:  more  exactly,  a  sentient,  intelli- 
gent, volitional  being  whose  mode  of  life  is  not  conditioned  by  a  body  in 
the  ordinary  sense  of  the  term;  used  of  various  beings  so  conceived,  the 
specific  reference  being  indicated  by  limitations  of  the  word  or  by  the  con- 
text; thus  of: 

I.  The  Spirit  of  God,  viewed  as: 

(a)  The  cause  of  extraordinary  phenomena  in  human  experience,  such 
as  prophecy,  tongues,  healings,  etc.:  i  Cor.  i2<:  Statpsaetc;  Ss  xaptatxixcov 
dah,  xb  5e  auxb  xvsu[JLa.     See  also  Mt.   lo^"  i2i'-  "•  "•  «  22"  Mk.  3"  i23« 

13"  Lk.  1^5,  17.  41.  67  225.  28.  27  4I8  ^qII  J2IO.  12  Jn.  7»9  (Ms)  20"  ActS  I^-  «.  '6 
2*,  17,  18,  33,  S8  48,  25,  31  [-3,  »,  32  ySl,  65  glS,  17,  18.  19,  29  q17  IQ".  **•  <'>  *'  II^'''  ^V  16,  28 
132,   4,    9,   52   158.   28   i6«   I9«.    «   20"'   "   2I<'   "    28"  Rom.    151'    I    Cor.    2^°'   '^b,   13,    14   ^lO 

123.  7,  8,  9.  11.  IS  i^i  Gal.  3*-  »•  5  Eph.  36  I  Thes.  s"  i  Tim.  4^  Heb.  2*  3'  9*  lo'^ 
2  Pet.  I'-i  I  Jn.  4*»'  «»  Rev.  i"  2'-  »»•  i'-  "  3«'  '=•  "  4'  141'  17'  21"'.  In  Acts  16' 
I  Pet.  i"  Rev.  191°  (?),  the  Spirit  in  this  sense  is  identified  with  that  of  the 
risen  Jesus. 


HNETMA  491 

(b)  Active  in  an  extraordinary  way  in  the  conception  of  a  child:  Mt.  i^': 
eup^Bi)  Iv  faaxpX  e'xouaa  ex.  xveupiaToq  &yio\j.      See   also   Mt.    i^o    Lk.  i". 

(c)  Operative  in  the  human  spirit  for  the  production  of  ethical  results: 
Rom.  8^:  Yva  ib  Stxai'toixa  -cou  v6ijlou  xXiQpweTi  ev  Tjtxcv  xolq  [li]  xa-rd  adpxa 
TuepixaToOatv  dXXd  xaxd  xveuixa.     See  also  Mt.  3^1  Mk.  i«  Lk.  31"  Jn.  3^-  «»■  »^ 

I4I7.  28    1^26   1613  Acts  9"  Rom.    55  82-  '.    S.   9.  13.  H.  15b.  Ua.  23,  26,  27  gl   14I7    15I3,   16,   30 

I  Cor.  2*  3"  6".  "  2  Cor.  i"  3'-  «•  '■  "•  "  4"  5'  6"  13*'  Gal.  4«  s^^-  '«■  i^-  i«-  '^-  « 
Eph.  I"'  1'  2i8'  "  3!'  4''  '"  61'-  i»  Phil.  21  3»  Col.  i^  i  Thes.  !=•  «  48  2  Thes.  2I'  2 
Tim.  I"  Tit.  3^  Heb.  10"  i  Pet.  1=  4"  Jude  vv.  i'-  20.  In  Rom.  S'"  Phil,  ii" 
Heb.  g^*,  the  Spirit  in  this  sense  is  identified  with  that  of  the  risen  Jesus. 

(d)  The  mind  of  God:  i  Cor.  2":  ouxwq  Y.a\  xd  toG  OsoCi  ov^sXq  eyvwxev 
e!  iJLTf)  rb  xveOiJia  toO  6eou. 

(e)  Operative  in  the  external  world:  Acts  8^^:  oxs  Se  ivsPiQaav  ex  toO 
uSctToq,  xveGixa  xup(ou  t^pxaaev  xbv  4>iXtxxov.     Cf.  I  above. 

(f)  Generically,  without  specific  reference  to  the  form  of  activity:  Lk.  4": 
xal  uxiaTpe4iev  b  'Ir,couq  ev  t^  Buvd^et  toO  xveutAaToq  elq  x-Jjv  TaXO-aiay. 
See  also  Mt.  31'  4^  28''  Mk.  ii".  "  Lk.  3^^  41  (ji^)  nu  jn.  132,  33  (j^^)  334 
Acts  i»  6'-  5.  10  io3'  II"  Rom.  8"  (bis)  Gal.  s'*  4"  Eph.  4<  518  Heb.  6*  1  Pet.  ii* 
I  Jn.  3'*  4"  5«'  '  Rev.  221'. 

2.  The  spirit  of  man  separated  from  the  body  after  death: 

(a)  In  a  heavenly  mode  of  existence:  Acts  23^:  ojSev  xaxbv  eupfaxopiev 
ev  T(I)  dvGpwxcj)  TOUTO).  et  Se  xveu[j,a  eXdXr^aev  auxw  t^  ayysXoq — .  See  also  i 
Cor.  5'  Heb.  12". 

(b)  A  ghost,  spectre,  shade,  visible  on  earth:  Lk.  24":  xTOTQ0evTe<;  Be  xal 
e[jLcpo^ot  yevo^JLevot  IBoxouv  xveu^a  6ea>pelv.     See  also  Lk.  24'^ 

(c)  In  Sheol:  i  Pet.  31':  ev  w  xal  toI<;  ev  lyuXaxTJ  xveu[xaacv  xopeuOelq 
exTjpu^ev. 

3.  An  angel:  Pleb.  i":  ou^l  xavxeq  etalv  >.ecToupYtxd  xveu[;,aTa  elq  Sta- 
xov{av  dxoaTeXXdixeva  Sid  Touq  [liXko^/xaq  xXr^povotJLStv  acoTTipfav; 

4.  A  demon:  Acts  8^:  xo>v>.ol  ydp  twv  exovTov  xveuixaxa  dxdOapxa  Poiovxa 
qxovfj  [xeydXi]  l^^pxovTo.  See  also  Mt.  8i«  lo^  i2«.  «  Mk.  i".  =«•  "  3»i.  »» 
^2,  8,  13  6'  7"  91T.  20.  25  (^J5)  Lk.  4"-  3«  6"  y''!  8'.  "  9'»-  «  lo^o  ii^^.  26  j^u  Acts 
5i«  i6".  >8  1912.  13.  15.  16  I  Tim.  41  Rev.  i6i'-  "  18^. 

5.  Without  reference  to  these  distinctions,  referring  qualitatively  to  any 
being  not  corporeally  conditioned,  or  to  all  such,  or  to  a  group  (other  than 
any  of  the  above),  defined  by  the  context;  used  both  of  beings  conceived  of 
as  actually  existing,  and,  especially  as  a  descriptive  term  in  negative  ex- 
pressions, of  beings  presented  merely  as  objects  of  thought:  Jn.  4'^*^:  xveu^xa 
6  6;6q,  xal  Touq  xpoaxuvouvxaq  a'Jxbv  ev  xveufxaxt  xal  dXr^Oefcjt  Sec  xpoaxuveiv. 
(The  first  instance  only  falls  under  this  head.)  Rom.  81^:  06  ydp  ila- 
^exe  xveu[xa  BouXstaq  xdXiv  e[<;  cpopiov,  dX'Xd  eXi^exe  xveuyia  uloOeai'aq.  See 
also  Lk.  9"  Acts  23*  Rom.  i^  11'  i  Cor.  2"*  121"  14"'  "  15*^  2  Cor.  ii<  12'* 
Eph.  2«  2  Thes.  2'  i  Tim.  31^*  2  Tim.  i'  i  Pet.  3I8  4'  i  Jn.  41  {bis)  '^-  '■  "^ 
Rev.  1*  31  4'  5°- 

*  Cf.  I  Enoch  20«,  enl  t<Z  Tr^/ev'/uaTt. 


492  GALATIANS 

C.     Generically,  without  reference  to  the  distinction  between  embodied 
and  unembodied  spirit:  Jn.  6"  (bis)  i  Cor.  6'^  Heb.  12*  (?). 


II.     SAPS. 

Sdp^  bears  throughout  Greek  literature  the  meaning  "flesh,"  but  is  some- 
times used  by  metonymy  for  the  whole  body.  In  the  Lxx  it  translates 
'\t'2,  and  takes  over  from  the  Hebrew  certain  other  derived  meanings, 
e.  g.,  "kindred,"  and  "a  corporeal  living  creature."  In  N.  T.  certain  further 
developments  of  meaning  appear,  and  the  word  becomes  one  of  the  most 
important  for  the  purposes  of  interpretation,  especially  of  the  Pauline  epis- 
tles.    Its  meanings  are  as  follows: 

1.  Flesh:  the  soft,  muscular  parts  of  an  animal  body,  living  or  once 
living:  Lk.  24":  tpTjXaqjTjaaTS  [is  r.a\  TSexe,  Zzi  xvcu^xa  aapxot  xxl  baxioc  oux 
exei  xaOwq  e^ts  Oewpslxs  exovxa.  See  also  Jn.  6"  (bis)  ".  53,  54,  65.  56,  63  i  Qor. 
153'  iquater)  s"  Jas.  5^  Rev.  ly'*  igi*  (quinquies)  ". 

2.  Body:  the  whole  material  part  of  a  living  being:  2  Cor.  12^:  otb  "va 
[li]  Lc^repafpwsxai,  ISoGt]  -^xoi  ay,6\o'\)  x'n  aapxc.  See  also  Mt.  26"  Mk.  14'* 
Jn.  1 15  (?)  Acts  22«'  "  Rom.  2"  i  Cor.  5^  2  Cor.  4"  71  lo'"  Gal.  2"  3'  4".  "  6» 
(bis)  13  Eph.  2"i''  15  529  Phil.  i«.  24  Col.  i".  ^*  2^-  ^-  "  i  Tim.  3i«  Heb.  91°.  " 
10"  i2«  I  Pet.  318-  21  41  (bis)  2.  8  I  Jn.  2i«  4=  2  Jn.  '  Jude  '•  »•  ".  By  meton- 
ymy, for  embodiment,  incarnation:  Heb.  5^  With  al[i7.,  the  whole  phrase 
signifying,  the  body:  Heb.  2i^ 

3.  By  metonymy:  the  basis  or  result  of  natural  generation. 

(a)  The  basis  of  natural  generation  and  of  kinship  (the  body,  or  the  body 
plus  whatever  is  concerned  with  generation  and  kinship) :  Jn.  36'*:  xb  yeyevvr}- 
ixevov  Ix  xfjq  aapxbq  a&pc,  scxtv.  (Only  the  first  instance  falls  under  this  head. 
Cf.  6  below.)     See  also  Rom.  4^  9'-  *•  »  i  Cor.  iqis  Gal.  4".  29  Eph.  211*. 

(b)  As  a  collective  term,  equivalent  to  "kindred":  Rom.  ii":  e"  Tti^q 
xapa!^T]Aa)jto  [xou  x9)v  aapxa  xal  atojo)  xtvaq  e^  aJxtov.  In  this  use  the  term 
passes  beyond  the  limits  of  the  physical  and  comes  to  include  all  the  ele- 
ments of  a  human  being. 

4.  A  corporeally  conditioned  living  being:  usually  referring  exclusively 
to  man,  yet  sometimes  including  all  corporeal  living  beings,  and  in  any  case 
designating  the  beings  referred  to  not  as  human  but  as  corporeal:  Mt.  161': 
liaxdtpioq  el,  Stfjiov  Baptwva,  oxt  aag^  xal  a.l\x<x  oijx  dxsxaXucpsv  aot  iXk*  h 
xaxTQp  [XOU  h  Iv  fxotq]  o'jpavotq.  See  also  Mt.  ig'-  *  24"  Mk.  io«  1320 
Lk.  3«  Jn.  I"  172  Acts  21^  Rom.  i'  3"  8'^.  0  (?)  i  Cor.  i"  6i«  Gal.  ii«  2i« 
Eph.  5»i  6"  I  Pet.  I '4. 

5.  By  metonymy:  the  creature  side,  the  corporeally  conditioned  aspect 
of  life,  the  external  as  distinguished  from  the  internal  and  real,  or  the  secular 
as  distinguished  from  the  strictly  religious:  Jn.  8":  u[xet<;  xaxa  x-fjv  aapxa 
xpfvsxs,  lyo)  o'j  xp(v(o  ouSiva  (cf.  7").  See  also  i  Cor.  i"  7"  2  Cor.  $^* 
(jbis)  7»  io»  II"  Gal.  61'  Eph.  6»  Col.  3"  Phm.  i*. 


sAPa  493 

6.  The  product  of  natural  generation  apart  from  the  morally  transform- 
ing power  of  the  Spirit  of  God;  all  that  comes  to  a  man  by  inheritance 
rather  than  from  the  operation  of  the  divine  Spirit.  The  term  as  thus  used 
does  not  exclude,  may  even  specifically  include,  whatever  excellent  powers, 
privileges,  etc.,  come  by  heredity,  but  whatever  is  thus  derived  is  regarded 
as  inadequate  to  enable  man  to  achieve  the  highest  good:  Phil.  3^:  d -ziq 
Soxcl  d'XXoq  xsxo'.Oivai  Iv  aapy.'.,  lyo)  [laXkov.  Note  the  context.  See  also 
Jn.  s^^  Rom.  615  -5,  is,  25  gsa  2  Cor.  i^^  Phil.  3'. 

7.  That  element  in  man's  nature  which  is  opposed  to  goodness,  that  in 
him  which  makes  for  evil;  sometimes  thought  of  as  an  element  of  himself, 
sometimes  objectified  as  a  force  distinct  from  him,  this  latter  usage  being, 
however,  rather  rhetorical:  Rom.  8«:  -zh  yap  9p6vY]tJLa  tyj?  capx,b?  OdvaToq. 
See  also  Rom.  8<-  '■  '-  »■  '•  ^^  {his)  "  13"  Gal.  s"-  i«.  i'-  "•  ";  perhaps  Eph.  2» 
{his)  Col.  2"'  !'•  "  2  Pet.  21'''  i«,  though  in  all  these  latter  cases  adp^  may 
itself  mean  simply  body,  and  the  implication  of  evil  lie  in  other  members 
of  the  sentence. 

In  6  all  the  good  that  comes  to  man  by  nature  is  credited  to  the  adp^,  the 
evil  of  it  is  its  moral  inadequacy;  in  7  the  right  impulses  are  credited  to  the 
voOq  or  the  saw  d'vOpwxoq,  and  the  cdp^  becomes  a  force  positively  and 
aggressively  evil. 

It  has  often  been  contended  (see  Schweitzer,  Pa^il  and  His  Interpreters, 
p.  86)  that  the  adp^,  which,  according  to  Paul,  is  a  force  that  makes  for 
evil  (6  above),  is  at  the  same  time  the  body  (2  above),  and  that  it  is  to  the 
compelling  force  of  the  body  as  such  that,  in  his  view,  sin  is  due.  If  this  is 
the  case  he  must  logically,  at  least,  hold  that  the  touch  of  the  flesh  is  essen- 
tially polluting,  and  that  there  can  be  no  salvation  except  through  the  release 
of  the  soul  from  the  body.  That  Paul  associated  the  tendency  to  sin  with 
the  body  is  undoubtedly  true  (i  Cor.  9")  and  is  evidenced  by  the  very  fact 
of  his  using  adp^  for  the  power  that  makes  for  evil.  But  that  he  identified 
cap^  as  meaning  body  and  adp^  as  meaning  the  force  that  makes  for 
moral  evil,  that  he  ascribed  either  to  the  flesh  as  physical  or  to  the  evil 
impulse  which  he  called  adp^,  compelling  force,  seems  thoroughly  disproved 
by  the  evidence.  It  is  often  assumed  that  this  view  was  the  current  con- 
ception in  Paul's  day.  It  is  true  that  from  before  the  time  of  Plato  there 
is  manifest  a  tendency  to  regard  the  body  as  by  virtue  of  its  materiality 
injurious  to  the  intellectual  or  moral  interests  of  man.  Apparently,  also, 
comparatively  early  in  the  Christian  period  the  Gnostics  had  developed  the 
view  which  Paul  is  alleged  to  have  held,  viz.,  that  "flesh"  and  "spirit" 
represent  an  antithesis  which  is  at  the  same  time  substantial  and  ethical, 
that  sin  in  the  universe  is  a  necessary  consequence  of  the  matter  in  it,  and 
that  it  must  be  where  matter  is.  But  the  evidence  does  not  seem  to  war- 
rant the  conclusion  that  this  development  had  already  taken  place  in  the 
N.  T.  period.  Weber,  in  his  Theologie  des  Talmud,  maintained  that  rab- 
binism  found  the  seat  of  the  evil  impulse,  ye^er  hara,  in  the  flesh.     But 


494  GALATIANS 

Porter*  has  shown  the  incorrectness  of  that  view,  and  Bous.  affirms  that 
Palestinian  Judaism  did  not  find  the  cause  of  sin  in  matter  {Rel.  d.  Jud.^, 
pp.  459/-)-  While,  therefore,  it  is  evident  that  there  was  in  Paul's  intellec- 
tual world  a  soil  out  of  which  he  might  have  developed  such  an  idea,  it  is 
his  own  letters  that  must  show  whether  he  did  or  not,  and  they,  in  fact, 
show  that  he  did  not.  The  conspectus  of  usages  given  above  shows  that 
the  term  was  no  longer  the  simple  one  that  it  was  in  classical  Greek.  It 
had  taken  on  new  meanings  from  the  Hebrew  "ib*3,  and  developed  still 
others  not  found  in  the  Hebrew  word.  In  this  process  of  development,  the 
steps  of  which  it  is  fairly  easy  to  trace,  the  distinctly  physical  sense  is  left 
behind.  Even  in  3  b,  as  also  clearly  in  4  and  5,  the  term  is  no  longer  purely 
material.  Nor  is  it  so  in  6.  Under  the  term  as  so  used  (see  Phil.  3")  the 
apostle  includes  all  that  comes  as  the  sequel  of  natural  generation,  both 
physical  and  immaterial,  both  good  and  evil,  but  especially  the  good. 
When  he  finally  passed  by  another  metonymy  to  isolate  under  this  same 
term  "flesh"  the  evil  element  of  heredity  it  is  very  improbable  that  he  at 
the  same  time  added  the  idea  of  the  exclusively  physical,  which  had  already 
been  dropped  at  a  much  earlier  point.  And  this  conclusion  is  confirmed  by 
the  fact  that  we  find  usage  6  in  a  later  letter  than  that  in  which  7  appears, 
which  indicates  that  in  the  development  of  meaning  7  the  apostle  has  not 
left  6  behind.  To  these  considerations  it  is  to  be  added  that  Paul  nowhere 
ascribes  compelling  power  to  the  aap^  in  either  sense  of  the  word.  The 
life  in  the  flesh  may  be  a  life  of  faith  and  of  victory  over  evil  (Gal.  2"),  and 
in  faith  there  is  a  force  to  overcome  the  flesh  in  its  worst  sense  (Rom.  6^-  « 
Gal.  5i«.  22,  23).  Finally  it  must  be  said  that  so  far  from  sharing  the  feeling 
that  is  expressed  by  Plato,  Seneca,  and  Plutarch,  that  true  blessedness  is 
achieved  only  by  getting  rid  of  the  body,  Paul  retained  the  feeling,  derived 
from  his  Hebrew  ancestry,  that  the  soul  could  not  be  wholly  happy  with- 
out a  body.  Cf.  1  Cor.,  chap.  15;  2  Cor.,  chap.  5;  i  Thes.  5";  Rom.  8". 
We  conclude,  therefore,  that  while  to  Paul  the  body  is  inferior  to  the  soul 
and  needs  to  be  kept  in  subjection,  and  while  there  is  a  force  in  man  that 
makes  for  evil,  which  he  calls  aap^,  yet  this  force  is  not  the  body,  and  neither 
it  nor  the  body  exercises  a  compelling  influence  for  evil  upon  the  soul  of 
man. 

It  might  perhaps  have  been  expected  that  inasmuch  as  Paul  frequently 
uses  xvsCi[jLa  and  aap^  in  antithesis  it  would  always  be  the  same  meanings 
that  would  be  contrasted.  Such,  however,  proves  not  to  be  the  case.  On 
the  contrary,  the  numerous  meanings  of  the  two  terms  give  rise  to  a  num- 
ber of  antitheses  between  them.  In  Gal.  68  i  Cor.  5'  2  Cor,  4"  Rom.  2".  " 
Col.  25,  the  contrast  is  between  the  flesh,  or  the  body,  and  the  spirit  of  man, 
an  antithesis  that  in  most  Greek  writers  would  have  been  expressed  by 
cfo^a  and  ^^yri;  but  in  most  of  the  passages  cited  there  is  an  emphasis  on 
the  religious  capacity  of  the  7cveu[xa  that  would  not  have  been  conveyed 

*  "The  Yeger  Hara:  A  Study  in  the  Jewish  Doctrine  of  Sin,"  in  Biblical  and  Semitic  Studies, 
hy  Members  of  the  Faculty  of  Yale  University,  New  York  and  London,  1901. 


SAPS  495 

by  iiQxh-  In  Gal.  68  the  sowing  to  the  flesh  is  the  devotion  of  one's  goods 
(see  v/)  and  energies  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  demands  of  the  body;  sowing 
to  the  spirit  is  devoting  these  things  to  the  development  of  the  spirit-life, 
which  is  both  intellectual  and  religious.  In  Gal.  3'  the  flesh  is,  as  in  the 
preceding  cases  (see  esp.  Rom.  2"-  "),  the  physical  flesh,  that  in  which  the 
cricumcision  which  they  were  urged  to  accept  took  place;  but  the  spirit  is 
the  Spirit  of  God,  which  they  received  (v.^)  when  they  accepted  the  gospel, 
and  by  which  miracles  were  wrought  among  them  (v.^).  In  Gal.  4"  a&g^, 
as  in  Rom.  g"-  s- »,  is  clearly  the  basis  of  natural  generation,  the  contrast  being 
with  the  promise  in  fulfilment  of  which  Isaac  was  bom  extraordinarily;  in 
the  application  of  the  allegory  b  yevvriQs.\q  xaxcc  acipxa  (v.")  refers  to  the 
Jew  who  depends  upon  his  heredity  for  salvation  (the  word  thus  verging 
towards  meaning  6)  in  contrast  with  one  whose  life  is  according  to  the  Spirit 
of  God,  or  possibly  with  one  who  has  been  born  according  to  the  Spirit,  an 
idea  suggested  in  Rom.  6*  and  further  developed  in  Jn.  3'.  In  Rom.  1% 
despite  the  similarity  of  the  phrases  to  those  in  Gal.  4".  ^\  a&p^  is  probably 
to  be  taken  as  denoting  a  corporeally  conditioned  being,  and  -jcveuixa  as  a 
generic  term  for  an  unembodied  being  (III  B  5),  xaxa  meaning  "viewed  as" 
and  the  whole  passage  indicating  the  high  rank  of  Jesus,  first,  among  earthly 
(corporeally  conditioned)  beings,  and,  secondly,  among  holy  heavenly  (not 
corporeally  conditioned)  beings.  Somewhat  similar  is  the  contrast  in 
I  Tim.  3!*,  but  adp^  probably  denotes  the  body  or  the  corporeally  condi- 
tioned mode  of  life,  and  xvsufjLaTt,  by  a  further  metonymy  suggested  by 
the  desire  to  parallel  Iv  aapxf,  denotes  an  incorporeal  mode  of  being  rather 
than  an  incorporeal  being.  In  Phil.  3'  xveD[xa  manifestly  denotes  the  Spirit 
of  God,  and  aap^,  as  already  pointed  out,  all  that  man  obtains  by  heredity. 
In  Rom.  75  adcp^  probably  means  the  totality  of  the  life  apart  from  the  Spirit 
(as  in  Phil.  3O,  while  rveutJLa  in  7*  stands  for  the  human  spirit  as  the  seat 
of  religious  life.  In  Rom.  8*-'^  there  is,  as  indicated  above,  a  gradual  transi- 
tion from  this  meaning  of  tjap^  to  the  more  positively  ethical  sense,  while 
in  VV.12-  "  there  is  probably  a  return  to  the  earlier  meaning.  Throughout 
these  verses  xvsu[j,a  denotes  the  Spirit  of  God,  and  sometimes  the  Spirit  of 
Christ  identified  with  the  Spirit  of  God.  The  absence  of  the  article  gives 
the  phrases  in  which  it  is  lacking  a  qualitative  force,  by  which  it  approxi- 
mates to  the  generic  sense,  as  inclusive  of  the  divine  and  human  spirit,  but 
the  term  probably  always  retains  in  the  apostle's  mind  a  reference  to  the 
divine  Spirit.  In  Gal.  51'-"  the  flesh  is  the  force  that  makes  for  sin,  and 
xveutxa  is  the  divine  Spirit,  the  omission  of  the  article  having  the  same  effect 
as  in  Rom.,  chap.  8. 


496  GALATIANS 


XVIII.     AIA0HKH.* 

I.     CLASSICAL  USAGE. 

Of  the  usage  of  Greek  writers  to  and  including  Aristotle,  an  extended  ex- 
amination has  been  made  by  Dr.  F.  O.  Norton. f  Of  two  hundred  and  twelve 
writers  whose  extant  remains  were  examined  the  word  was  found  in  only- 
nine,  viz.,  Aristophanes,  Lysias,  Isocrates,  Isaeus,  Plato,  Demosthenes,  Aris- 
totle, Dinarchus,  and  Hyperides.  Among  these  writers  Isaeus  is  the  most 
important.  The  following  is  substantially  Norton's  tabulation  of  uses, 
slightly  changed  as  to  form: 

1.  Arrangement,  disposition,  testamentary  in  character. 

(a)  In  the  plural,  of  the  single  provisions  of  a  will,  but  not  designating  the 
will  as  a  whole:  Isse.  i''^,  d  yap  Stq,  w  avSpsq,  wq  obioi  tpaatv,  Iv  zalq  vuv 
Ysypatxsxlvaiq  StaOTjxatq  e'Btoxsv  aiixolq  ttjv  ooaiixv:  "For  if  now,  O  men, 
as  these  men  say,  in  the  present  written  provisions  he  gave  you  the  prop- 
erty. .  .  ." 

(b)  In  the  plural,  of  the  sum  total  of  the  provisions  of  the  will,  so  that 
the  plural  is  equivalent  to  "will"  and  can  be  so  translated:  Lys.  19": 
h  yap  Kovovoq  Gavaroq  xal  a\  SiaOi^xat,  a:;  StsOsxo  Iv  KuTcp(p,  aaqjwq 
eSYj'Xwaav  oxi  xoXXostov  [lipoq  riv  to:  xpTj^axa  wv  u'^zlq  xpoceSoxaTs:  "For 
the  death  of  Conon  and  the  will  which  he  made  in  Cyprus  plainly  showed 
that  the  money  was  a  very  small  part  of  what  you  expected."  See  also 
Isse.  2><;  Dem.  271^ 

(c)  In  the  singular,  of  a  will  or  testament  as  a  whole:  Plato  Legg.  XI  923C, 
8?  2v  8ia8Y]x,T]v  ypi^T)  to:  abzou  ^laiiQiixsvoq:  "whoever  writes  a  will  dispos- 
ing of  his  possessions."     See  also  Aristoph.  Vesp.  584,  589;     Dem.  46". 

2.  An  arrangement  or  agreement  between  two  parties  in  which  one  ac- 
cepts what  the  other  proposes  or  stipulates;  somewhat  more  one-sided  than 
a  auvOifjvcT].  It  may  include  provisions  to  be  fulfilled  after  the  death  of  the 
party  making  the  stipulations,  but  is  not  strictly  testamentary  in  character. 
Isae.  6":  xal  yp&']ixq  StaOTjxiQV,  e?'  olq  ebYjyays  xbv  xalSa,  xxTatt'SeTac 
[xeta:  toutcjv  nuOoScoptp:  "And  having  written  out  an  agreement,  by  which 
he  introduced  the  boy  (into  his  (fpa-zpia),  he  deposited  it,  with  their  con- 

*  For  other  I'terature,  see  Westcott,  The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  pp.  208-302;  Fricke,  Das 
Exegetische  Problem  Gal.  3^,  pp.  16-18,  Leipzig,  1870;  Schmiedel,  art.  "Galatians"  in  Encyc. 
Bib.  II  i6og;  Conrat,  "Das  Erbrecht  in  Gal.  3"-4'"  in  ZntW.  vol.  V.  pp.  204  J".;  Riggenbach, 
"Der  Begriff  der  Ata^rjicrj  in  Hebraerbrief,"  in  Theologische  Siudien  Theodor  Zahn  .  .  . 
dargebracht,  Leipzig,  igo8;  Norton,  A  Lexicographical  and  Historical  Study  of  AiaOTjKTj,  from 
the  Earliest  Times  to  the  End  of  the  Classical  Period,  Chicago,  igo8;  Ferguson,  The  Legal  Terms 
Common  to  the  Macedonian  Inscriptions  and  the  New  Testament,  pp.  42-46,  Chicago,  igi3. 
Behra,  Der  Begriff  AiaOriKr)  im  Neuen  Testament,  Naumburg,  igi2;  Lohmeyer,  Aiafl>jK7j:  Ein 
Beitrag  zur  Erkldrung  des  neutestamentlichen  Begrijfs,  Leipzig,  igi3;  reviewed  by  MoEFatt, 
in  Review  of  Theol.  and  Phil.  igi3,  p.  338;  Moulton  and  Milligan,  Vocabulary  of  the  Greek 
Testament,  p.  148;  Vos,  "Hebrews,  the  Epistle  of  the  Diatheke,"  in  Princeton  Theological 
Review,  igi5,  pp.  587-632;  igi6,  pp.  1-61. 

t  Op.  cil.  supra. 


AlAOHKH  497 

currence,  with  Pythodorus."  The  close  relation  between  the  two  general 
meanings  of  the  word  are  illustrated  in  Isce.  4^^,  in  which  Bta9T]xir],  meaning 
a  will,  is  classed  among  au^jL^oXata,  agreements  or  contracts:  xspl  ^ev  yd? 
Tiiv  d'XXwv  ffu^^oXatwv  oij  xdvu  x^t^s-rcov  lobq  toc  tjisuofj  [kagxopoOvzaq 
eXsyxecv  "C^dvxoq  ydp  x,al  xapovxoc;  tou  xpa^ovroq,  /.axa^apTupouaf  xspl 
Bs  Tojv  B'.aOiQxwv  xwc^  av  xt^;  yvoiT}  tous  p-t]  TdcXTjSfj  Xlyovxaq,  xxX.  See  also 
Isae.  10"  Plato,  Legg.  XI  922  A-C.  In  Aristoph.  Av.  435-461,  StaOTjxY] 
denotes  a  compact:  [xd  xbv  'A7c6X>.a)  'yu  fxev  oj,  r]v  [x-?]  BtdOcovxat  y'  olfSe 
Sca0TQx.T5v  e[jLol  'rjvxsp  6  xi'Otjxos  xfj  yuvatxl  StiGexo  6  [laxonpoTCoioq,  ^yjxs  Sdxvstv 
xouxouq  sixe. 

Among  Norton's  further  conclusions  from  his  investigation  are  the  fol- 
lowing: (a)  The  custom  of  will-making  among  the  Greeks  arose  from  the 
adoption  of  an  heir,  (b)  Adoption  inter  vivos  was  irrevocable  except  by- 
mutual  agreement;  but  adoption  by  will  became  operative  at  death,  and 
such  adoption  and  the  will  might  be  revoked  at  the  discretion  of  the  tes- 
tator, (c)  A  StaOT]y.Y)  in  the  sense  of  a  covenant  was  revocable  only  by 
mutual  consent. 

II.    USAGE  OF  THE  HEBREW  ^'''.h 

In  the  Lxx  ScaO-^xT)  occurs  over  three  hundred  times,  in  a  very  large 
majority  of  cases  as  the  translation  of  nna.  This  Hebrew  word  uniformly 
signifies  "covenant,"  "compact."  It  is  often  used  of  a  mutual  agreement ' 
between  men,  most  commonly  between  kings  or  peoples:  Gen.  14"  21"-  " 
Ex.  23"  Deut.  7^  Josh.  9«-  ''•  ''•  ^s,  le  j  Sam.  iii  2  Sam.  s^^'  "•  "  5^  i 
Ki.  512  20"  2  Chr.  23'  [Lxx  otherwise] '  Isa.  33^  Ezr.  16",  etc.  It  is  still 
more  commonly  employed  of  a  covenant  between  God  and  men,  in  which 
case  the  initiative  being  thought  of  as  wholly  with  God,  the  compact  as- 
sumes in  general  the  form  of  a  gracious  promise  on  God's  part  to  do  certain 
things,  accompanied  by  the  imposition  of  certain  conditions  and  obligations 
upon  men.  The  word  in  its  various  instances  emphasises,  now  the  mutuality 
of  the  relation  (Gen.  172-";  cf.  Lev.  269-  ^^  and  context);  now  the  promises 
of  God  (Gen.  g'-  "  151'  Lev.  26^5  Ps,  gg^f--  «♦);  and  now  the  obligations  laid 
upon  the  people  and  assumed  by  them  (Ex.  igs  24'''  »;  cf.  Gen.  17'^;  but 
in  general  carried  the  suggestion  both  of  divine  initiative  and  of  mutuality. 
Only  rarely  are  men  said  to  make  a  covenant  with  God  (2  Ki.  iji^  23'  2 
Chr.  34"),  and  even  in  these  passages  the  act  is  perhaps  thought  as  an 
acknowledgment  of  the  obligation  imposed  by  God. 

The  word  is  of  frequent  occurrence  in  the  Zadokite  Fragment,  the  product 
of  a  sect  of  Jews  who  withdrew  to  Damascus,  where  they  established  "the 
New  Covenant,"  "the  Covenant  of  Repentance."  This  work  is  assigned 
by  Charles  to  a  period  between  18  b.  c.  and  70  a.  d.  See  Schechter,  Frag- 
ments of  a  Zadokite  Work,  Cambridge,  igio;  Ch.ylP.  II,  pp.  785-834. 
The  nna  here  spoken  of  is  always  a  covenant  with  God,  or  established  by 
God.  Thus  6=:  "In  accordance  with  the  covenant  which  God  established 
32 


49^  GALATIANS 

with  Israel."  In  4-'  '  it  is  conceived  of  as  existing  from  the  time  of  Abra- 
ham. The  "New  Covenant  entered  into  in  the  land  of  Damascus"  (9-^) 
is  apparently  a  covenant  to  return  to  the  law  of  Moses  (19'-").  See  also 
i4.  12.  15  21 4»  51  712  8»'  II-  "•  "  911.  12.  15.  25.  37,  41.  49,  61  iq2  ^2  i6''  ^^  20^  (Charlcs' 
notation). 

III.     USAGE  IN  JEWISH-GREEK. 

The  Lxx  use  SiaSTjxTQ  in  the  sense  of  the  Hebrew  .-in.3.  The  basis  of 
this  usage  is  on  the  one  side  in  the  use  of  the  term  Bia6-f]x.T)  by  classical 
writers  to  denote  a  compact  not  testamentary  in  character,  as  in  the  ex- 
amples cited  under  2  above  (esp.  Aristoph.  Av.  435-61),  and,  on  the 
other,  in  the  fact  that  the  ordinary  Greek  word  for  "compact,"  auv0-^xT], 
was  probably  felt  to  be  inappropriate  to  express  the  thought  of  the  Hebrew 
nna,  the  latter  being  commonly  used  not  for  a  compact  between  two 
parties  of  substantially  the  same  rank,  but  for  a  relationship  between 
God  and  man  graciously  created  by  God,  and  only  accepted  by  man. 

Of  special  significance  as  showing  that  the  employment  of  the  word  in 
this  sense  was  not  a  mere  translator's  expedient,  but  that  it  reflected  a  real 
usage  of  the  language  is  the  fact  that  the  O.  T.  Apocrypha,  both  Alex- 
andrian and  Palestinian,  use  Sta6T]x,T]  uniformly  in  the  sense  of  "covenant," 
with  the  possible  exception  of  a  few  instances  in  which  by  metonymy  it 
means  "a  decree,"  "ordinance"  (Sir.  14"'  i'  16"  45^'))  and  that  both  of  the 
covenant  of  God  with  men,  usually  with  Israel  (2  Esd.  10'  Wisd.  18-= 
Jdth.  9I'  Sir.  1 1^0  1712  24"  28'  398  42^  44".  '«•  "•  "  455-  7.  i*-  24.  25  4711  Bar.  2" 
I  Mac.  1 15.  57.  63  220,  27,  60.  64  ^10  2  Mac.  i^  73"  815),  and  of  a  compact  between 
men  (Sir.  38"  41 ''  i  Mac.  i^i  ii^).  In  the  latter  sense  auve-^y.Tj  is  also  used, 
and  in  2  Mac.  it  is  uniformly  the  case  that  StaOirjxTQ  is  used  of  God's  cove- 
nant with  Israel,  and  auv0T]XT]  of  covenants  between  men.  Only  once  in 
the  Apocrypha  is  auvBi^xTj  used  of  a  covenant  of  God  with  men  (Wisd.  i22')- 

In  the  sense  of  "covenant"  it  occurs  also  in  Ps.  Sol.  91'  lo^  171^;  Test.  XII 
Pat.  Benj.  3*  (perhaps  a  Christian  interpolation).* 

In  the  sense  of  "testament,"  meaning  not  an  instrument  conveying 
property,  but  the  message  which  one  about  to  die  leaves  to  his  posterity, 
it  is  found  in  Test.  XII  Pat.  Reub.  i';  Naph.  ii;  Gad.  i^;  Ash.  i^;  Jos.  i\ 
and  in  the  title  of  the  work  and  of  each  of  the  twelve  parts  of  it. 

Not  possessing  the  two  treatises  on  Bta0Y3x.at  which  in  Mid.  nom.  52  (6) 
Philo  says  he  had  written,  we  are  dependent  on  the  exegesis  of  a  few  pas- 
sages for  our  knowledge  of  his  usage.  The  word  occurs  in  Leg.  alleg.  Ill  85 
(28);  Sac.  Ah.  57  (14);  Quod  dei.  pot.  67  (19);  Quis  rer.  div.  313  (62);  Mut. 

*  The  same  idea  is  expressed  in  Jub.  i«.  "  6*- »».  "-  i«.  »'• »»  14  "■  "  is*-  »•  "•  "■  i«-  "-  "-  "-  "- 
".  M  16"  20'  21*.  »  22".  '0  23»«.  »'  24"  30"  33'  48';  but  as  the  Greek  of  none  of  these  passages 
is  extant,  they  can  be  cited  only  as  evidence  of  the  currency  of  the  idea  in  Jewish  circles  in 
the  second  century  B.  c,  not  directly  of  the  usage  of  SiaOrjKrf.  The  covenants  here  spoken 
of  are  the  covenant  with  Noah  (6*^-),  with  Abraham  (i4"-  "  is*-  '•  ")  with  Moses  on  Mt. 
Sinai  (i').  etc.  The  covenant  with  Abraham  is  interpreted  with  special  reference  to  circum- 
cisioQ. 


AIA0HKH  499 

nom.  51,  52  (6);  57,  58  (8);  263  (45);  Som.  II  223,  224  {33);  Spec.  leg.  II 
(Third,  Fourth,  and  Fifth  Com.)  16^.  These  passages,  of  which  the  most 
significant  are  those  from  Mid.  nom.,  do  not  seem  to  sustain  the  verdict  of 
Cremer,  p.  1008,  and  of  Riggenbach  {op.  cit.  p.  313)  that  Philo  uniformly 
uses  the  word  in  the  sense  "testament."  Only  in  Spec.  leg.  II  i6«  is  this 
clearly  its  meaning.  Elsewhere  "covenant"  is  the  more  probable  meaning. 
Both  in  the  quotations  from  the  Lxx  and  also  in  his  own  language  he  uses 
phrases  that  imply  mutuality.  See  Mut.  nom.  52,  58.  Note  also  that 
in  58  he  says  that  there  are  many  kinds  of  StaGrixat,  and  in  Som.  II  that 
the  StaO-oxT)  is  established  as  on  the  foundation  of  the  soul  of  the  righteous 
man;  neither  of  which  things  could  appropriately  be  said  of  wills.  It  is 
true  that  Philo  repeatedly  emphasises  the  element  of  grace  which  the 
B'.aGrjXTj  involves;  but  this  fully  comports  with  the  fact  that  8ta9Y]x,TQ  is  in 
his  thought  and  usage  not  a  contract  in  general  (for  this  he  uses  auvOtixTQ  in 
Leg.  ad  Cat.  37  [6]  but  a  covenant  between  God  and  man,  and  that  he  is 
fully  in  agreement  with  the  O.  T.  conception  of  the  nature  of  that  covenant. 
There  is,  moreover,  an  entire  absence  in  the  passages  of  any  of  those  things 
which  are  characteristic  of  a  will  as  distinguished  from  a  covenant,  as,  e.  g., 
its  becoming  effective  after  the  death  of  the  testator;  an  idea  which  is, 
indeed,  excluded  by  the  fact  that  God  is  the  maker  of  the  8ta8T)XY].  Even 
if  (as  is  probably  not  the  case)  Philo's  usage  is  based  on  the  idea  of  a  testa- 
ment, it  has  so  departed  from  its  starting  point  as  to  constitute  practically 
a  new  sense  of  the  word. 

In  Josephus  8ta9T]XT)  uniformly  means  "a  will,"  "testament,"  or  "testa- 
mentary provision,"  the  plural  being  most  frequent,  meaning  a  "will." 
In  Ant.  13.  349  (13O  it  refers  to  the  will  of  Cleopatra;  in  Ant.  18.  156  (6^) 
to  that  of  Bernice;  always  elsewhere  apparently  to  the  will  of  Herod  the 
Great.  See  Ant.  17.  53  (s'),  78  (4O,  146  (60,  188  (8'),  iQS  (80,  224-249 
(9<-0  passim,  332  (iiO;  Bell.  i.  4S1  (23'),  573  (29'),  S88  (30O,  600  (30O,  625 
(32O,  645  (32O,  664  {zz'),  669  {zz^);  2.  2  (lO,  20-38  (23-0  passim,  99  (60- 
For  a  treaty  between  nations,  or  agreements  between  men,  Josephus  uses 
auv9T)x.T]  (auv6f]xa0  Ani.  5.55  (i^O,  6.230  (iiO;  Bell.  1.586  (30O,  7- 221 
(7O  et  freq.;  and  for  the  making  of  an  agreement  CTuvTfGsaOat,  Ant.  i.  212 
(12O,  300  (19O,  339  (21O  et  freq.  The  absence  of  Bia9T)x,rj  in  the  sense  of 
"covenant"  is  apparently  to  be  explained  by  his  failure  ever  to  speak  of  the 
covenant  of  God  with  his  people,  though  it  is  also  significant  of  his  feeling 
that  5ta9T)XY]  was  not  the  suitable  word  in  his  day  and  circle  of  thought  for 
an  agreement  between  equals  that  in  referring  to  agreements  of  this  char- 
acter which  in  the  Lxx  are  called  Bta9fixat  he  uniformly  employs  some 
other  form  of  expression.     See  Riggenbach  (Joe.  cit.  sup.). 

IV.     USAGE  IN  LATER  NON-JEWISH  GREEK. 

In  the  Greek  papyri  edited  by  Petrie,  Mahaffy,  Grenfell  and  Himf, 
Hogarth,  Goodspeed,  et  al.,  Bta9TQXTr]  occurs  frequently,  always  in  the  sense 


500  GALATIANS 

of  "testament,"  "will."  Many  of  these  are  dated  in  the  first  and  second 
centuries,  a  few  as  early  as  the  reign  of  Augustus.  See,  e.  g.,BGU.  I  19. 
ii.  s;  75.  ii.  8;  187=;  326.  i.  i,  3;  327*;  3401";  361,  n  jg.  n  388.  iii.  5;  uS'^; 
464^;  592.  i.  6,  10;  ii.  7;  61330;  III  786.  ii.  3;  8968;  IV  1037";  1113';  1149^^ 
ji^i?.  22j  Pdp^  Q(j,  Cairo,  29.  iii.  3;  Pap.  Lond.  I  77^^  etc.;  II  i27»'  '';  261"; 
P.  Oxyr.  I  7512.  s';  105'  d  freq.;  106".  ";  107';  II  2492^;  III  482";  489 
etfreq.     Cf.  M.  and  M.  Voc.  p.  148. 

The  following  passage  from  Arius  Didymus  of  the  first  century  a.  d. 
(quoted  by  MuUach,  Frag.  Phil.  Gr.  II,  p.  87<ff-  is  significant.  oOSiva 
yoiJv  ouTCOc;  (i:jL6v  elvat  xal  Or^ptciST]  t-?)v  ^uaiv,  oq  oux  av  axouodt^ot  [jleto:  tt^jv 
ea'jToO  TsT^euT-^v  euBat^ovelv  xa  xsxva,  x.al  xaXcoq  i7:x^6i.-^z\.y  IxocXXov  t^  tou- 
vavTt'ov.  'Axb  TauTTQq  youv  Ti^c;  (piXoaxopyfaq  xal  BtaOiQxat;  xeXsuTav  [jLsXXovxai; 
8taT(6scr9at,  /.al  tu)V  ext  xuo^opou^xsvcov  tppovxtt^eiv,  eicixpoTTOuq  axoXcTCOvxaq  xal 
XTjBe^ovas,  xal  xolq  cpi'Xxaxotq  xapaxiOs'tAsvoui;  xal  xapaxaXouvxac;  extxoupscv 
auxoI<;:  "No  one  certainly  is  so  cruel  and  brutal  in  his  nature  that  he 
would  not  be  concerned  that  his  children  should  after  his  death  be  pros- 
perous and  get  on  well  rather  than  the  contrary.  It  is  this  parental 
affection,  indeed,  that  leads  those  about  to  die  to  make  a  will  and  to 
provide  for  those  who  are  still  unborn,  leaving  them  stewards  and  guard- 
ians, and  committing  them  to  their  best  beloved  and  exhorting  them  to 
care  for  them." 

From  the  usage,  therefore,  of  writers  before  N.  T.  or  approximately  con- 
temporaneous with  it  there  emerge  two  distinct  meanings  of  the  word. 
"Testament"  or  "testamentary  provision"  is  the  most  frequent  use  in 
classical  writers,  and  is  the  invariable  sense  in  Josephus  and  the  papyri. 
The  meaning  "covenant"  is  very  infrequent  in  classical  writers,  but  is  the 
almost  invariable  meaning  in  the  Lxx,  in  the  O.  T.  Apocr.,  both  translated 
and  original,  both  Alexandrian  and  Palestinian,  and  in  the  Pseudepigr. 
and  Philo.  The  essential  distinction  between  the  two  meanings  is  that  in 
a  testament  the  testator  expresses  his  will  as  to  what  shall  be  done  after  his 
death,  esp.  in  respect  to  his  property;  the  covenant  is  an  agreement  between 
living  persons  as  to  what  shall  be  done  by  them  while  living.  This  distinc- 
tion requires  qualification  only  by  the  fact  that  in  rare  cases,  as  is  il- 
lustrated by  the  exx.  from  Isaeus,  a  StaOrixTi  may  be  both  contractual  and 
testamentary  in  character.  It  is  of  prime  importance  to  observe  that  in 
the  StaOTjxT}  {r\>-\':i)  between  God  and  men,  so  often  spoken  of  in  O.  T.,  the 
initiative  is  with  God,  and  the  element  of  promise  or  command  is  promi- 
nent; but  that  it  still  remains  essentially  a  covenant,  not  a  testament.  In 
their  emphasis  on  the  former  fact  some  modern  writers  seem  to  lose  sight 
of  the  latter. 

V.    NEW  TESTAMENT  USAGE. 

If  with  the  facts  above  established  in  mind,  the  N.  T.  examples  are  ex- 
amined, it  becomes  evident  that  in  the  great  majority  of  these  "covenant" 


AIA0HKH  50I 

in  the  O.  T.  sense  of  rr-na  and  as  just,  defined  is  the  more  appropriate  mean- 
ing. See,  e.  g.,  Mt.  26**  Mk.  14"  (with  their  allusion  to  Ex.  24*)  Lk.  i" 
(with  its  clear  reference  to  the  covenant  of  God  with  Israel;  cf.  also  i  Mac. 
!«■  «')  Lk.  22=''  (with  allusion  to  Jer.  31")  Acts  3"  and  T>  (with  their  explicit 
reference  to  Gen.  12'  and  ly").  In  the  passages  in  Hebrews,  7"  8«-  »-'», 
etc.,  despite  the  contrary  arguments  of  Cremer,  Riggenbach,  et  al.,  the  most 
probable  meaning  of  the  word,  except  in  gi*-  ",  is  "covenant,"  the  mean- 
ing which  it  clearly  has  in  the  passages  quoted  from  the  Lxx.  It  is  note- 
worthy that  the  argument  continues  after  these  verses  on  the  same  lines  as 
before  them  and  unaffected  by  them.  They  are  most  probably  a  paren- 
thetical attempt  of  the  author  to  enforce  his  position  by  appeal  to  the  facts 
concerning  Bco:9t]xt]  in  a  different  sense  (as  a  modern  preacher  discussing 
law  in  the  imperative,  moral,  sense  will  parenthetically  confirm  his  argu- 
ment by  appeal  to  the  characteristics  of  law  in  the  wholly  different  sense 
in  which  it  is  used  in  modern  science),  or  possibly  even  a  gloss  of  an  early 
scribe.  Cf.  M.  and  M.  Voc.  s.  v.  The  identification  of  the  old  covenant 
with  the  law  is  paralleled  in  Sir.  24^'  Ps.  Sol.  lo^;  2  Cor.  s<^-  »*,  etc. 

This  is  also  the  usage,  prevailingly  at  least,  of  Paul.  Rom.  g*,  with  its 
reference  to  the  privileges  of  Israel;  Rom.  11",  with  its  quotation  of  Isa.  59"; 
I  Cor.  ii«,  which,  whether  it  be  interpreted  in  the  light  of  Mk.  142*  (written 
later  than  Paul,  but  doubtless  reflecting  a  tradition  antedating  his  writing), 
or  of  Jer.  31",  yields  the  same  meaning;  2  Cor.  36.  ",  with  their  contrast 
between  the  new  covenant  and  the  old,  the  latter  clearly  referring  to  the 
O.  T.  law;  Gal.  4'^  and  Eph.  2'%  are  all  most  naturally  interpreted  as  speak- 
ing of  a  "covenant"  in  the  O.  T.  sense;  none  of  them  (except  Hcb.  g^^^) 
sustains  the  meaning  "testament." 

So  far  from  its  being  self-evident  (as  Cremer  aflarms)  that  the  word  means 
"testament"  in  Gal.  2'^-"  the  evidence  of  such  meaning  must  be  found 
in  the  passage  itself,  without  presumption  in  its  favour.  That  evidence  is 
apparently  conflicting.  Certain  elements  of  the  context  are  consistent 
with  the  meaning  "testament,"  and  apparently  in  its  favour.  Thus  v." 
speaks  of  that  which  is  to  be  obtained  through  the  ZiaQ-qv-r]  as  xlrtpoyo[ii<x, 
a  word  commonly  translated  "inheritance."  Again,  in  v.",  with  evident 
reversion  to  the  thought  of  the  xXripovo'^iix,  the  phrase  xax'  iiza-^fEklay 
y.>vT)pov6^ot,  "heirs  according  to  promise,"  occurs.  The  word  xkr^pov6[koi 
in  turn  becomes  the  occasion  of  the  analogical  argument  of  4^-^,  in  which 
yCk-qpovoiioq  clearly  means  "heir,"  not,  indeed,  one  who  has  received  his 
inheritance,  nor  necessarily  one  who  is  to  receive  it  after  the  death  of  his 
father,  but  one  who  is  to  enter  into  a  possession  not  yet  his.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  Bta6T)x-r]  of  which  31^  speaks  is,  in  the  O.  T.  passage  there  referred 
to,  clearly  a  covenant.  Either,  therefore,  the  apostle,  availing  himself  of 
the  ambiguity  of  the  Greek  word,  speaks  of  that  as  a  testament  which  in 
the  passage  to  which  he  is  referring  was  conceived  of  as  a  covenant,  or  begin- 
ning with  the  idea  of  the  covenant  he  has  at  some  point  between  31^  and  4^ 


502  GALATIANS 

introduced  the  idea,  if  not  of  the  testament,  at  least  the  related  notion  of 
an  heir.  As  bearing  on  the  decision  between  these  alternatives  the  follow- 
ing facts  must  be  considered:  (a)  It  is  against  the  theory  that  StaO'^x.T)  in 
3"  is  a  will  that  it  is  expressly  said  to  have  been  made  by  God.  For  a  will 
becomes  effective  only  on  the  death  of  the  maker  of  it.  The  case  of  a 
father  making  a  will  and  his  son  receiving  an  inheritance  on  the  death  of 
the  father  may  be  used  to  illustrate  by  analogy  the  relation  of  God  and  the 
believer,  as  is  perhaps  the  case  in  41^-;  but  it  is  more  difficult  to  suppose 
that  the  incongruous  element  of  the  death  of  God  should  either  be  involved 
in  the  argument  of  vv.i^-i'  or,  though  implied  in  the  language,  be  ignored  in 
silence  when  the  will  is  directly  called  God's,  (b)  The  oiaQ-qxri  of  v." 
must  be  a  covenant,  not  a  will,  for  of  the  StaOiQXT]  here  spoken  of  it  is  said 
oJScU  iOsTEc  ri  IziStaTaaccTat,  and  this  is  true  of  an  agreement,  which 
once  made  can  not  be  modified  (except,  of  course,  by  mutual  agreement  of 
th^  parties  to  it,  an  exception  too  obvious  to  receive  mention),  but  is  not 
true  of  a  will.  Ramsay's  argument  (Cow.  pp.  349-370)  that  because  Paul 
speaks  of  the  Sta6rjy.T]  as  irrevocable  he  must  have  had  in  mind  a  will,  and 
specifically  a  Greek  will  by  which  a  son  was  adopted  into  a  family  and  made 
an  heir,  fails  of  convincingness,  and  his  conclusions  have  been  disproved 
by  Norton  at  several  points,  (i)  His  contention  that  a  Greek  will  of  this 
period  ipso  facto  involved  the  adoption  of  a  son,  so  that  one  accustomed  to 
Greek  usage  would  at  once  understand  by  SijcO-^xtq  a  will  adopting  a  son, 
is  not  borne  out  by  the  evidence  (Norton,  op.  cit.  pp.  39-55.  Cf.  also  the 
passage  quoted  above  from  Ar.  Did.,  from  which  it  appears  that  at  the  date 
of  that  passage  a  will  was  thought  of  primarily  as  a  provision  for  the  chil- 
dren of  one's  body),  (ii)  The  evidence  does  not  show  that  a  Greek  will, 
whether  involving  adoption  or  not,  was  irrevocable  (Norton,  pp.  63-68). 
That  adoption  within  the  lifetime  of  the  father  was  irrevocable  after  it  had 
gone  into  effect  does  not  carry  with  it  the  irrevocability  of  a  will  adopting 
a  son  at  death,  still  less  the  irrevocability  of  wills  in  general.  Nor  can  the 
mention  of  adoption  in  4^  be  accepted  as  evidence  that  Paul  here  has  in 
mind  an  adoptive  will;  so  essential  an  element  of  his  argument  must  have 
been  stated  here,  not  remotely  suggested  many  lines  later.  The  evidence 
of  the  papyri  and  of  Josephus  can  not  be  cited  for  the  custom  in  respect  to 
Greek  wills,  but  as  showing  what  ideas  Paul  would  associate  with  the  word 
BiaOTQXTj,  meaning  "a  will,"  it  is  not  without  significance  that  both  the 
papyri  and  Josephus  show  clearly  that  the  wills  of  which  they  speak  are 
revocable.  In  respect  to  Josephus,  see  5e//.  i.  664  (33'),  668  /.  iss*); 
Ant.  17.  78  (42).  (iii)  Ramsay  overlooks  the  fact  that  if  v.^'  be  from 
Paul  he  here  makes  Christ  the  son  and  heir,  and  that  it  is  foreign  to  Paul's 
thought  in  this  epistle  to  think  of  Christ  as  son  and  heir  by  adoption.  Cf. 
Schm.,  art.  "Galatia,"  in  Encyc.  Bib.  II  i6oq. 

To  suppose  that  v."  ignores  the  maker  of  the  will,  aflSirming  in  effect  that 
no  one  but  the  maker  of  the  will  can  modify  't,  is  to  reduce  it  to  absurdity, 


AIA0HKH  503 

since  the  precise  purpose  of  the  argument  is  to  show  that  God,  the  maker 
of  the  Sta0^x.T3,  could  not  by  the  law  that  came  in  later  nullify  the  former. 
Nor  can  the  force  of  this  fact  be  evaded  by  appealing*  to  v."  as  evidence 
that  Paul  thought  of  the  law  as  given  by  angels,  hence  not  from  God;  for 
St'  dcyye^"^  does  not  describe  the  law  as  proceeding  from  the  angels,  but  only 
as  being  given  by  their  instrumentality,  and  the  whole  argument  of  vv."-^' 
implies  that  the  law  proceeded  from  God.  Only  then,  in  case  the  apostle's 
argument  in  vv.i^-i'  involves  the  application  to  the  Sta6T)XTj  ....  GsoO  of 
statements  true  of  a  BtaOTix-n  dtvepwxou  only  after  the  death  of  the  testator, 
which  would  deprive  the  argument  not  only  of  convincingness  but  even 
of  speciousness,  can  the  StaO-rjxT)  be  a  will. 

If  with  this  evidence  against  the  meaning  "testament,"  we  reconsider 
the  evidence  of  vX-qpoyo'^ia:  and  v.\r]pQy6\xoq,  we  do  not  find  that  this  fur- 
nishes any  substantial  evidence  in  favour  of  it.  For  Y.'kripovo[i.i(x  does  not 
at  all  uniformly  mean  "inheritance"  in  the  strict  sense  of  the  word,  but  often 
"possession,"  occurring  as  the  translation  of  n^qj  and  in  reference  to 
the  possession  which  is  promised  to  the  seed  of  Abraham  in  the  covenant. 
See  note  on  x"XY)povo[i.ta,  chap.  3'K  xk-qpoyo^iim,  in  31^,  therefore,  consti- 
tutes no  argument  for  taking  SiaOTjxT]  in  31'  in  the  sense  of  "will."  On  the 
contrary,  by  association  it  rather  suggests  the  covenant.  xXT^povoiAoq,  in 
3",  undoubtedly  reverts  to  the  Y.Mgoyo\ii(x  of  3I8.  In  the  Lxx,  where 
this  word  occurs  infrequently,  it  always  means  "an  heir,"  and  this  is  also 
its  meaning  even  in  the  passages  cited  by  L.  &  S.  for  the  meaning  "pos- 
sessor" (Isoc.  109  e;  Dem.  603  fin.).  See  also  Plut.  Cic.  41'.  Yet  in  these 
latter  passages  the  word  is  used  tropically,  and  though  in  Rom.  S^^  it  means 
"heir,"  it  can  not  be  taken  in  the  strict  sense  of  that  word.  So  here,  also, 
as  the  reference  to  x>.Y)povoiJL{av  implies,  it  probably  means,  not  "one  in- 
heriting under  a  will,"  but  "destined  recipient  of  the  promised  possession." 
The  u>e  of  yCkfipow-^oi  at  this  point  doubtless  leads  to  its  employment  in 
the  illustration  in  4"^-  probably  with  a  closer  approximation  to  the  usual 
sense  of  the  term,  though  even  here  there  is  no  reference  to  a  will  or  the 
death  of  the  father,  and  the  term  quite  possibly  means  "one  who  is  to  come 
into  possession  of  property  at  a  later  time."  But  whatever  the  exact  sense 
of  %\T,povi[ioq  here,  it  is  more  reasonable  to  recognise  a  shift  of  meaning 
at  this  point,  or  a  gradual  shift  from  3^=  to  this  point,  than  from  this  point 
to  carry  back  into  Btx6T)XT)  in  vv.i«.  ",  the  meaning  "testament,"  which  is 
at  variance  with  the  evidence  of  that  passage  itself. 

If  appeal  be  made  from  the  evidence  of  the  passage  to  the  usage  of  the 
readers,  and  it  be  said  that  to  them  otaOTjx-r]  could  mean  only  "testament," 
it  must  be  answered  (a)  it  is  not  certain  that  the  meaning  "covenant"  was 
wholly  unknown  to  them.  See  the  evidence  respecting  classical  usage 
above,  (b)  The  assumption  (of  Ram.,  e.  g.)  that  the  Galatians,  being 
Gentiles,  must  have  understood  StaOY)x-r]  in  the  common  Greek  sense,  ignores 
*  Schmiedel,  art.  "GaUtiam,"  in  Encyc.  Bib.  U  1611. 


504  GALATIANS 

the  fact,  of  capital  importance  for  the  interpretation  of  Gal.  2^^^-,  that 
throughout  chaps.  3  and  4  Paul  is  replying  to  the  arguments  of  his  judaising 
opponents,  and  is  in  large  part  using  their  terms  in  the  sense  which  their 
use  of  them  had  made  familiar  to  the  Galatians.  See  detached  note  on 
Sons  of  Abraham,  p.  156.  Nor  is  the  general  assumption  that  Paul's 
usage  is  governed  by  that  of  his  Greek  readers  sustained,  but  rather  dis- 
credited, by  a  study  of  Paul's  vocabulary  in  general,  which  clearly  shows 
that  he  is  strongly  influenced  by  the  usage  of  the  corresponding  Hebrew 
terms.  Cf.,  e.  g.,  xveO^jLa  and  adp^,  v6[jlo<;,  SixatoauvT]  and  a^iapxla. 
Whether  Paul,  like  many  modern  preachers,  used  his  own  vocabulary  in  his 
own  sense  and  left  to  his  readers  to  gather  that  sense  from  his  way  of  using 
it,  or  whether  the  meanings  which  Greek  words  had  acquired  among  the 
Greek-speaking  Jews  were  more  familiar  to  the  common  people  among 
the  Greeks,  or  among  Christians  in  particular,  than  the  remains  of  the  literary 
Greek  of  that  period  would  lead  us  to  suppose — whatever  the  reason,  a 
study  of  the  apostle's  use  of  words  shows  clearly  that  he  was  not  at  all 
limited  in  his  use  of  them  to  meanings  that  can  be  proved  to  exist  by  the 
evidence  of  contemporary  Greek  writings.  His  own  writings  must  furnish 
the  decisive  evidence  as  to  the  meaning  which  he  attached  to  them. 

To  take  xaTct  avOpcoxov  as  meaning  "I  am  using  terms  in  a  Greek,  not  a 
Hebrew  sense,"  as  Ramsay  in  effect  does,  is  quite  unjustified  by  the  usage  of 
'  that  expression.  If,  indeed,  it  could  be  shown  that  according  to  the  usage 
familiar  in  Galatia  a  testament,  Sca6i^xT),  was  irrevocable,  then  it  would  be 
evident  that  Paul's  argument  would  on  that  account  have  appealed  more 
effectively  to  the  Galatians,  since  the  most  discriminating  readers  would 
observe  the  double  sense  of  the  word.  But  even  in  that  case  it  would 
remain  probable  that  by  8ta6T]XT)  Paul  meant  simply  a  covenant. 

The  contention  of  Halmel,  Uber  romisches  Recht  im  Galaterbrief,  that 
BtaO-/)XTj  refers  to  a  Roman  will,  is  refuted  by  the  fact  that  the  Roman  will 
was  revocable  by  the  maker  of  it. 

In  favour  of  the  view  advocated  by  Hauck  in  Th.St.u.Kr.  1862,  pp.  517/., 
and  adopted  also  by  Bous.  (SNT.  ad  loc),  that  Sia0T]XTr]  signifies  a  stipula- 
tion (legal  instrument),  in  a  sense  broad  enough  to  cover  both  "will"  and 
"covenant,"  there  can  be  cited  some  classical  examples  of  StaOiQXTQ  referring 
to  an  agreement  that  included  stipulations  of  a  testamentary  character 
{cf.  Norton,  pp.  30-38),  but  against  it  is  the  fact  that  it  brings  the  statement 
oj  iOsrel,  etc.,  into  conflict  with  the  facts,  since  it  is  now  well  established  that 
both  Greek  and  Roman  wills  were  revocable  by  the  maker.  For  that  reason 
the  BtaOTjxT)  here  must  not  be  broad  enough  to  include  a  will. 

It  remains,  therefore,  that  while  it  is  by  no  means  impossible  that  Paul 
should,  availing  himself  of  the  more  common  usage  of  StxO-rjxT]  in  the  Greek- 
speaking  world  at  large,  have  converted  the  "covenant"  with  Abraham 
into  a  "will,"  and  based  an  argument  concerning  it  on  the  usage  of  the 
Greek  world  in  respect  to  wills,  yet  the  evidence  of  usage  and  the  passage 


snEPMA  505 

tends  strongly  to  the  conclusion  that  this  is  not  what  he  did,  but  that, 
though  in  4^  he  arrived  by  successive  shadings  of  thought  at  the  idea  of 
an  heir,  by  8(a0YjXT]  31'' »'  he  meant  not  "will,"  but  "covenant,"  in  the  sense 
of  the  O.  T.  nn3.  This  conclusion  is  in  harmony  with  the  usage  of 
N.  T.  generally  (except  Heb.  g^^^)  and  with  the  whole  context  in  Gala- 
tians.  A  covenant  or  compact  duly  executed  is  irrevocable;  not  to  fulfil 
it  is  a  breach  of  faith.  "It  is  evident,  first,  that  the  essential  thing  in  the 
covenant,  distinguishing  it  from  ordinary  contracts  or  agreements,  was  the 
oath  under  the  solemn  and  terrible  rites  in  use — a  covenant  is  an  intensified 
oath,  and  in  later  times  the  term  'oath'  is  usual  as  a  synonym  of  covenant. 
And,  secondly,  as  the  consequence  of  these  solemnities,  that  the  covenant 
was  an  inviolable  and  immutable  deed.  Hence  a  frequent  epithet  applied 
to  covenants  is  'eternal'  (2  Sam.  23^,  Lk.  248).  The  penalty  of  breaking 
the  covenant  was  death  through  the  curse  taking  effect"  (Davidson,  in 
UDB.  I  510;  see  more  fully  there,  and  cf.  Gen.  15'^-'^  26"  3i"«).  The 
O.  T.  covenant  involved  promises  (see  eicayyeXfat,  v.^^),  and  might  be 
spoken  of  with  practically  exclusive  reference  to  the  element  of  promise  or 
with  special  reference  to  the  possession  (x>.T5povo[x(a)  which  they  receive  to 
whom  the  covenant  pertains. 

To  the  conclusion  that  it  is  in  this  sense  that  Paul  uses  the  word,  it  should 
be  added  that  for  the  determination  of  his  argument  in  its  essential  and 
important  features  it  is,  after  all,  a  matter  of  little  consequence  whether 
StaGTjxT]  meant,  for  him,  a  covenant  01  a  testament.  The  proposition  for 
whith  he  is  contending  is  clear,  namely,  that  the  principle  of  faith  which 
he  conceives  to  have  been  revealed  to  Abraham  in  the  promises  to  him  is 
not  displaced,  as  the  basis  of  God's  relationship  to  men,  by  the  legalism 
which  he  discovers  in  the  law.  Whether  he  conceived  of  the  revelation  to 
Abraham  as  a  divinely  initiated,  yet  in  a  sense  mutual,  covenant,  or,  trop- 
ically speaking,  a  will,  and  whether  in  his  effort  to  present  his  thought  to 
the  Galatians  he  availed  himself  of  the  characteristics  of  covenants  between 
men,  or  of  the  usage  in  respect  to  wills  is  a  matter  of  the  surface  of  his 
thought  rather  than  the  substance. 

XIX.    SnEPiMATI  AND  SHEPMASIN. 

For  the  interpretation  of  the  argument  which  is  made  to  turn  on  the 
distinction  between  axepixaxt  and  ax^pfxaaiv  the  following  data  must  be 
considered: 

I.  The  word  >'T.,  rendered  by  aiuepfxa  in  the  Lxx,  is  used  sometimes 
of  the  seed  of  plants  (Gen.  i"-  '"•  "•  etc.)  sometimes  of  the  semen  virile 
(Lev.  i5*«'  *'•  i«),  but  is  most  commonly  a  collective  noun  meaning  "pos- 
terit}'."  In  a  few  cases  it  is  used  of  a  single  person  (Gen.  4"  21''  i  Sam.  i^i 
2  Sam.  7"  I  Chr.  17"),  but- in  most  if  not  in  all  of  these  instances  desig- 
nates such  person  not  as  an  individual  but  as  constituting,  or  (qualitatively) 


506  GALATIANS 

as  belonging  to,  the  posterity  of  the  parent  spoken  of.  The  plural, 
o?"'?."^!,  occurs  in  i  Sam.  8",  meaning  "seeds  of  grain,"  "grain."  In  post- 
biblical  language  a  plural  nh^"^.!  and  ni»o  is  found,  meaning  "races"  or 
"families,"  in  the  former  case  races  existing  side  by  side.  See  Levy,  Neu- 
hebraisches  u.  Chaldaisches  Worterbuch,  Leipzig,  1876-1889. 

2.  In  Greek  writers  axspfxa  has  nearly  the  same  usage  as  the  Hebrew 
yy,,  but  occurs  much  more  frequently  in  the  plural,  (a)  For  the  seed 
of  plants,  it  occurs  in  the  singular  or  plural,  and  from  Hesiod  down.  See 
Hes.  Op.  446,  471;  Xen.  Oec.  i;*-  i";  Epict.  Diss.  4.  8".  In  the  papyri  the 
plural  is  the  common  term  for  grain.  See  Pfl/>.  ^wA.  II  61' (b.  c.  163); 
Pap.  BM.  II  97,  98,  201;  III  122,  etc.  (all  from  the  first  century  a.  d.);  BGU. 
I  20'-  >■>,  31^  (second  century  a.  d.)  etfreq.  Pap.  Kar.  contains  91  examples 
in  as  many  grain  receipts,  many  of  them  dating  from  A.  d.  158-9;  (b)  the 
meaning  semen  virile  is  illustrated  in  Pind.  Pyth.  3",  etc.,  Eurip.,  and  in 
Epict.  Diss.  I.  9*;  I.  13';  (c)  as  a  singular  collective  for  offspring,  posterity, 
it  is  among  the  Greeks  a  poetic  term  (^sch.  Fr.  295,  Cho.  503);  (d)  the 
use  of  the  word  for  an  individual  is  also  chiefly  poetic  in  Greek  writers; 
thus  in  the  singular  in  Pind.  01. 9";  lEsch.  Prom.  705;  Cho.  234;  Soph.  Ph.  364, 
etc.  The  use  of  the  plural  axlp-jxaxx  for  descendants  is  rare  in  classic  writers 
(^sch.  Eum.  909,  Soph.  0.  C.  600;  once  even  in  Plato,  Legg.  IX  8S3C). 

3.  In  Jewish-Greek  a%kg\ia  is  used  (a)  of  the  seeds  of  plants:  in  the  singu- 
lar in  Gen.  !"■  i'.  "  Deut.  28'8  i  Ki.  18",  etc.;  in  the  plural  in  i  Sam.  8" 
Ps.  i26«  Isa.  6i"  Dan.  (Th.)  i^^.  is;  i  Enoch  28^  (for  the  seeds  of  trees);  (b)  of 
the  semen  virile,  Lev.  151''  i'-  i^;  (c)  in  the  singular  as  a  collective  term  for 
posterity:  Gen.  9^;  15'-  «,  and  very  frequently  in  Lxx.  So  also  in  Ps.  Sol. 
9"  17s  i8S  of  the  seed  of  Abraham  and  David.  In  i  Enoch  22'  it  is  used 
of  the  posterity  of  Cain,  and  in  the  phrase  axiptia  dvGptoxwv,  meaning 
"men."  In  a  few  passages  it  is  apparently  used  of  a  race,  nation,  or  group 
of  people  without  distinct  reference  to  their  descent  from  a  common  ances- 
tor: Prov.  ii>«:  oxipfAa  Btxafwv;  Isa.  57^  65";  so  also  in  Ps.  Sol.  i7«'  ";  (d) 
in  the  singular  for  a  single  person,  in  Gen.  4"  21"  i  Sam.  i"  2  Sam.  7" 
I  Chr.  17";  (for  ynT)  Deut.  25';  (for  j?)  Susan.  56;  but  in  all  these 
instances  the  term  itself  is  probably  not  individualising,  but  is  to  be  under- 
stood as  the  Hebrew  term  is  explained  above;  (e)  in  the  plural  for  descend- 
ants: Dan.  (Th.)  11";  4  Mac.  181;  Jos.  Ant.  8.  200  (7*).  Of  oxepixaxa  used 
in  the  sense  of  ni^y-^r  of  late  Hebrew,  meaning  "lines  of  descent,"  there 
are  apparently  no  examples  in  either  Jewish  or  non-Jewish  Greek. 

4.  In  N.  T.  ax^pjxa  is  used:  (a)  for  vegetable  seed,  both  in  the  singular 
as  a  collective  term  (Mt.  13"  etfreq.)  and  in  the  plural  (Mt.  13"  i  Cor.  15"); 
in  Rom,  9"  figuratively  for  the  remnant  of  a  nation  from  which  it  may 
spring  anew;  (b)  for  semen  virile:  Heb.  11";  (c)  in  the  sense,  "race,"  "pos- 
terity": Mk.  12"'  "•  «  Jn.  7«  8"  Rom.  i»  41',  etc.  An  instance  of  the  noun 
used  by  implication  of  a  single  person,  qualitatively,  as  in  the  Lxx,  occurs 
in  2  Cor.  11". 


snEPMA  507 

5.  The' retention  of  the  xaf  in  the  phrase  xal  tw  oTzip^iazi  in  Gal.  31'  in- 
dicates that  the  apostle  has  in  mind  a  passage  in  which  not  simply  tw  axepnaTt, 
but  xtX  TO)  GTCep^jLaxt  occurs;  hence,  Gen.  131^  or  17^,  in  both  of  which  the 
promise  pertains  to  the  possession  of  the  promised  land,  or  17',  in  which 
the  promise  of  God  is  that  he  will  be  the  God  of  the  seed  of  Abraham. 
Both  these  promises  would  doubtless  be  interpreted  by  Paul  as  involving 
the  promise  of  divine  favour,  the  promise  that  they  to  whom  it  pertained 
should  be  the  people  of  God. 

6.  In  the  O.  T.  passages  to  which  Paul  must  be  supposed  to  refer  in 
Gal,  3"  it  is  beyond  all  question  clear  that  'jy,  in  Hebrew  and  axip^ia  in  the 
Lxx  are  used  collectively,  signifying  "posterity."  See  esp.  Gen.  13'"  15* 
17'-^  Yet  it  must  also  be  noticed  that  the  promise  that  the  land  should 
be  given  to  the  seed  of  Abraham  does  not  necessarily  involve  the  participa- 
tion of  all  the  seed  in  that  possession  (the  assertion  that  a  man  left  his  prop- 
erty to  his  family  does  not  necessarily  mean  that  all  the  members  of  the 
family  share  in  it);  and,  moreover,  that  even  in  Gen.  (see  21^^  quoted  by 
Paul  in  Rom.  9^),  there  is  a  clear  intimation  of  a  division  among  the  de- 
scendants of  Abraham  and  the  promise  to  Abraham's  seed  is  restricted  to 
the  descendants  of  Isaac.  This  does  not  modify  the  meaning  of  the  terms 
;?");  and  axep^Jia,  but  by  suggesting  a  distinction  among  the  seed  of  Abraham, 
perhaps  prepares  the  way  for  the  thought  that  there  is  a  seed  which  is  the 
heir  of  the  promises,  and  a  seed  which  is  such  only  in  that  it  is  descended 
from  Abraham. 

7.  Of  the  suggestion  thus  afforded  by  Gen.  21''  Paul,  in  fact,  avails  him- 
self in  Rom.  g^^-,  using  the  word  axspfxa  in  v.',  qualitatively,  of  Abraham's 
descendants  without  distinction,  but  in  v.*  to  designate  those  who  are  heirs 
of  the  promise.  In  the  following  verses  of  this  passage,  also,  he  argues 
that  the  separation  between  the  seed  of  Isaac  and  Ishmael  was  followed 
by  other  like  divisions,  culminating  in  the  creation  of  a  new  people — 
those  that  are  called,  not  from  the  Jews  only  but  also  from  the  Gentiles 
(v.«). 

8.  In  Rom.  4"-i8  Paul  interprets  the  seed  of  Abraham,  to  whom  the  prom- 
ises were  to  be  fulfilled  in  the  collective  sense  and  as  including  all  that 
believe,  both  Jews  and  Gentiles.  This  is  also  the  view  distinctly  expressed 
in  the  immediate  context  of  the  present  passage  (v.^^). 

9.  In  this  same  passage,  vv.-*''  "\  the  apostle  has  also  expressed  the 
thought  that  believers,  the  seed  of  Abraham,  are  all  one  person  (elg)  in 
Christ  Jesus.  The  sentence  is  ambiguous,  but  its  thought  may  be  kindred 
with  that  expressed  in  i  Cor.  la^^,  that  believers  constitute  one  body,  and 
that  body  Christ,  or  akin  to  the  identification  of  a  race  or  family  with  its 
ancestor;  cf.  Rom.  9^-  ''•  ^^-  ".  Thus  for  the  interpretation  of  XptaT6<;  in 
the  present  verse  as  referring  to  all  believers  as  a  single  body  or  race  desig- 
nated by  its  head,  there  are  if  not  exact  parallels,  yet  close  analogies,  and 
these  in  the  immediate  context. 


5o8  GALATIANS 

These  considerations  suggest  three  possible  interpretations  of  Gal.  3": 

(a)  That  axlptxa  is  to  be  taken  as  meaning  an  individual  descendant 
(c/.  I  and  3  above),  and  h6q  as  one  person,  ffTcep^xaTa  as  meaning  descend- 
ants, and  xoXXwv  many  persons,  and  Xptatoq  is  to  be  understood  of  Jesus 
personally.  The  thought  then  is,  "He  says  not  to  the  seeds,  meaning  many 
persons,  but  to  his  seed,  meaning  one  person,  viz.,  Christ." 

(b)  That  c-zip'^ct  means  a  single  line  of  descent,  ev6q  one  such  line, 
axip[xaTa  lines  of  descent,  TzoXkdM  many  such  lines,  and  Xpcjxoq  is  to  be 
understood  of  the  one  line  of  spiritual  descendants,  that  spiritual  race  of 
which  Christ  is  the  head;  so  Dalmer  and  Zahn.  Cf.  also  Bacon,  JBL.  1917, 
PP-  139  !•>  who  makes  the  plurality  which  Paul  denies,  that  of  Jew  and 
Gentile  (see  Rom.  4^^),  bond  and  slave,  etc.,  and  the  unity  the  one  undi- 
vided body  of  Christ. 

(c)  That  CTxipixa  and  axlptxaxa  are  to  be  understood  as  designating 
respectively  one  and  many  individuals  (as  in  i),  and  XptcToq  as  a  personal 
name,  yet  as  standing  not  for  Jesus  alone  and  strictly  as  an  individual,  but 
for  him  as  the  head  of  a  race  or  community;  cf.  9  above. 

Could  it  be  shown  that  axiptxaxa  was  in  Paul's  day  current  in  the  sense 
which  is  expressed  by  m»o  in  late  Hebrew,  the  second  of  these 
interpretations  would  probably  have  the  strongest  claim  to  acceptance  as 
being  most  consistent  with  the  attested  usage  of  words  and  the  apostle's 
usual  interpretation  of  Abraham's  seed,  though  it  would  involve  a  use  of 
Xptaxoq  not  precisely  paralleled  elsewhere  in  Paul.  Nor  is  it  impossible 
that  Paul,  assuming  it  to  be  self-evident  that  cxIptJLa  in  this  connection 
could  mean  nothing  else  than  posterity,  has  invented  for  it  so  used  a  plural; 
as  in  English  one  might  say,  "He  speaks  not  of  posterities,  but  of  posterity" 
(cf.  Ltft.  ad  loc,  who  in  defence  of  a  different  interpretation  makes  a  similar 
suggestion).  If  the  absence  of  evidence  of  such  a  use  of  axip'^ocza,  and 
especially  the  fact  that  Paul  must,  it  would  seem,  have  expressed  this  idea 
more  clearly  than  by  the  bare  words  0,;  eaxtv  XptaToq  without  intimation 
of  their  mystical  or  corporate  meaning  (cf.  i  Cor.  1212  and  Sief.  ad  loc.) 
deter  us  from  adopting  this  view,  it  will  be  necessary  to  choose  between 
(a)  and  (c).  Of  these  the  first  is  open  to  no  serious  objection  on  purely 
lexical  grounds.  For  while  the  use  of  the  singular  axip'^x  is  not  precisely 
identical  with  that  found  in  the  passages  cited  in  3  (d)  above,  it  is  approxi- 
mately so  (see  esp.  Gen.  4-5),  and  the  classical  examples,  2  (d),  clearly  show 
that  such  a  meaning  is  not  foreign  to  Greek  usage;  the  sense  ascribed  to 
the  plural  is  verified  both  by  classical  and  late  Greek  usage.  But  its  inter- 
pretation of  XpiaToq  in  a  strictly  individual  sense  implies  a  conception  of 
the  seed  of  Abraham  as  a  single  person  which  is  in  conflict  with  the  apos- 
tle's everywhere  else  expressed  notion  of  the  seed  of  Abraham  and  even 
with  the  immediate  context  (v.").  The  third  view  is  open  to  the  objection, 
obviated  by  the  second,  that  it  takes  the  word  axipjxx  (in  the  singular)  in  a 
sense  different  from  that  which  it  has  elsewhere  in  Paul.     But  since  it  takes 


snEPMA  509 

the  word  in  a  sense  vouched  for  by  examples  from  Greek  writers,  and 
retains  the  apostle's  usual  conception  of  the  thing  referred  to,  it  must  prob- 
ably be  preferred  to  either  of  the  other  possible  views.  The  argument 
thus  interpreted  may  be  paraphrased  as  follows:  And  when  God  said  " and 
to  thy  seed"  he  spoke  not  of  many  persons,  the  descendants  of  Abraham 
in  general,  but  of  one  person,  and  that  one  Christ,  who  is  the  head  of  that 
people  to  which  belong  all  that  are  joined  to  him  by  faith. 

But  it  is  difficult  to  accept  even  the  most  probable  of  these  interpreta- 
tions as  an  expression  of  the  apostle's  thought,  not  because  he  is  incapable 
of  adopting  a  rabbinic  method  of  interpretation,  but  because  of  the  inhar- 
moniousness  of  such  an  interpretation  with  his  other  references  to  the 
passage,  and  because  the  sentence  contributes  little  to  the  force  of  his  argu- 
ment at  this  point.  It  is,  moreover,  not  in  harmony  with  the  thought  of 
vy_28.  29^  where  the  word  "seed"  is  used  collectively  and  predicated  not  of 
Christ  but  of  those  who  are  Christ's.  These  considerations  raise  the  ques- 
tion whether  the  whole  sentence  from  06  Xeyet  to  Xpiazoq  is  not  a  primitive 
corruption,  and  due  to  an  early  editor  rather  than  to  Paul.  There  is  signifi- 
cant evidence  to  which  due  attention  has  not  usually  been  given  (yet  cf. 
Lake,  The  Earlier  Epistles  of  St.  Paid,  pp.  366/.)  that  at  so  early  a  period 
that  the  evidence  of  it  is  now  chiefly,  though  not  wholly,  internal  and  not 
documentary,  the  epistles  of  Paul  were  collected  and  edited.  To  this 
process  we  may  assign  the  bringing  together  into  one  epistle  of  the  parts 
of  three  or  more  letters  that  are  now  to  be  found  in  so-called  2  Cor.; 
the  similar  gathering  into  one  of  all  the  extant  fragments  of  Paul's  letters 
to  the  Philippians;  the  addition  of  161-"  to  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans;  the 
appending  of  the  doxology  of  Rom.  1625-27^  if  not  also  the  benediction  of 
2  Cor.  13I',  both  of  these  latter  quite  unhke  the  conclusion  of  Paul's  other 
letters;  and  doubtless  certain  other  editorial  changes  in  the  original  text. 
That  these  processes  were  not  accomplished  solely  by  paste  and  scissors,  but 
involved  some  addition  of  at  least  short  phrases  or  sentences  is  evident.  It 
is  not,  therefore,  improbable  that  in  connection  with  this  process  occasional 
comments  on  the  text  were  added  either  directly  to  the  text  or  to  the  margin, 
but  in  either  case  so  early  as  to  have  become  incorporated  into  the  parent 
of  all  extant  manuscripts.  As  respects  the  present  sentence  it  is  evident 
that  the  omission  of  it  leaves  a  consistent  connection,  touto  81  Xiyto  taking 
up  the  thought  appropriately  after  xal  xw  axsp^jLaTi  auxou  and  that  the  in- 
terjected sentence  is  complete  in  itself,  and  such  a  comment  as  an  early 
editor  might  make.  The  objection  to  the  first  of  the  above-named  inter- 
pretations that  it  conflicts  with  the  apostle's  conception  of  Christ  as  else- 
where expressed  would,  of  course,  not  apply  if  it  is  an  editorial  remark, 
and  on  this  hypothesis  this  interpretation  is  probably  to  be  preferred  to 
either  of  the  others. 

Ltft.'s  view  that  axspixaxa  is,  so  to  speak,  a  coined  plural,  "a  forced  and 
exceptional  usage,"  and  that  the  apostle  "is  not  laying  stress  on  the  particu- 


510  GALATIANS 

lar  word  used,  but  on  the  fact  that  a  singular  noun  of  some  kind,  a  collective 
term  is  employed,  where  to:  xixva  or  ol  dxdyovot,  for  instance,  might  have 
been  substituted,  encounters  the  difficulty  that,  making  the  contrast  be- 
tween seeds  and  seed,  between  many  and  one,  a  contrast  not  between  many 
persons  and  one  person,  but  between  many  persons  and  one  body  of  per- 
sons, it  is  unsupported  by  intimation  of  the  passage  that  such  is  the  nature 
of  the  intended  contrast;  rather  does  the  clause  oq  eaTtv  Xpiazbq  seem 
directly  to  exclude  it.  To  have  expressed  this  thought  would  have  required 
a  collective  term— awixaroq,  e.  g.,  after  ev6g  or  at  least  oq  eaxtv  -zh  a(b[i.a 
XptaTou  in  place  of  oq  etjxiv  Xpiaxdq.  Ell.  apparently  wavers  between 
understanding  axsptxcc  and  Xptaxoq  of  Christ  personally  and  taking  them 
inclusively  as  denoting  "not  merely  the  spiritual  posterity  of  Abraham  but 
him  in  whom  that  posterity  is  all  organically  united." 

XX.     TA  ZTOIXEIA  TOT  K02M0T.* 

The  meaning  of  to:  axotxeia  tou  ■/.6a[A0L»  has  been  discussed  from  the 
early  Christian  centuries,  and  is  still  in  dispute.  aTocxelov  is  found  in 
Greek  writers  from  Plato  on;  in  later  Greek  writers  it  is  of  very  frequent 
occurrence.  It  is  related  to  axolxoq,  "a  line,"  "a  row,"  "a  rank,"  and  its 
fundamental  meaning  is  apparently  "standing  in  a  row,"  hence  "an  element 
of  a  series." 

Grouping  in  one  conspectus  usage  from  Plato  to  Plutarch,  with  occasional 
use  of  later  passages,  yields  the  following  table  of  meanings: 

I.  An  element  of  speech,  a  letter  of  the  alphabet,  or,  more  exactly,  the 
dementary  sound  for  which  it  stands:  Plato,  Crat.  422A:  (6v6[X3tTa)  5 
tbaxepel  cToixsta  twv  aXkay  ia-zX  xal  ^.dywv  xal  dvo^xiiTwv,  "(names)  which 
are,  as  it  were,  elements  of  all  other  words  and  names."  See  also  Plato, 
Polit.  277'^,  etfreg.;  Plut.  Quest  com.  IX,  Prob.  31;  Philo,  Opif.  mund.  127 
(42).  It  is  expressly  distinguished  from  the  syllable,  because  the  latter  can 
be  broken  up  into  diverse  elements,  in  Aristot.  Mctaph.  6.  i7>2  (1041  b"); 
Poet.  20.  if.  (1456  b^off);  Categ.  9(12).  3  (14  a"ff). 

KaTd:  cTotxelov  means  "alphabetically,"  or  by  metonymy,  "in  order," 
Plut.  Defect,  orac.  23. 

By  metonymy,  the  elements  or  ultimate  parts  of  anything  are  called 

♦Of  the  abundant  literature  upon  the  subject  the  following  works  are  of  special  note: 
Neander,  Planting  and  Trainins  of  the  Christian  Church,  Bk.  Ill,  chap.  9;  Bk.  VI,  chap  i; 
Schneckenburger,  "Was  sind  die  aroix^la  roO  Koa/jLov?"  in  Theo!.  Jahrbuch,  1848,  pp.'  444-453;' 
Hilgenfeld,  Der  Galaterbrief,  pp.  66/.;  Hincks.  "The  Meaning  of  the  Phrase  ri  (rjoLxtla. 
ToO  /coo-Mov  in  Gal.  4'  and  Col.  2«,"  in  JBL.  1896,  Pt.  I,  pp.  183/.;  Spitta,  Der  zweite  Brief 
Petrus  u.  d.  Br.  d.  Judas,  pp.  263/.;  Everling,  Die  paiilinische  Angelologie  u.  Ddmonologie, 
pp.  6s/.;  Diels,  Elementum;  Deissmann,  art.  "Elements"  in  Encyc.  Bihl.;  Pfister,  "Die 
o-Toixeto  ToO  /c6o-/xou  in  den  Briefen  des  Apo.steU  Pauius,"  in  Philologus,  LXIX  19^0,  pp. 
410/.;  Kennedy,  St.  Paul  and  the  Mystery  Religions,  pp.  24/.,  61  Jf.;  Clemen.  Primitive 
Christianity,  pp.  106  /.,  109/.;  Reitzenstein,  Poimandres,  pp.  71,  74,  80.;  Sieffert,  Der  Brief 
an  die  Galater  (in  Meyer  series,  gth  ed.),pp.  235/-;  Dibelius,  Die  Geistenvelt  im  Glauhen  des 
^aftlus,  pp.  78-85,  .T27-230. 


STOIXEIA  TOY  KOSMOT  51 1 

atoixeta:  as  of  things  in  general:  Xen.  Mem.  2.  i*,  Plato,  Polit.  278C;  of  a 
state:  Aristot.  Pol.  5.  9^  (1309  h^');  cf.  Isoc.  18  a  (2'«);  of  a  discourse: 
Aristot.  Rhet.  i.  6^  (1362  a");  2.  22"  (1396  b^'.  ");  Dion.  Hal.  Comp.  verb.  2. 

2.  One  of  the  component  parts  of  physical  bodies.  According  to  Diogenes 
Laertius  first  used  by  Plato  in  this  sense.  Empedocles  employed  the  term 
ptl^wtxara  and  Anaxagoras  a'^zip[i7.-za,  though  Aristot.  Metaph.  i.  4*  (985  a"); 
2.  3'  (998  a"),  ascribes  the  use  of  aTotxs'ov  to  Empedocles,  and  Diogenes 
Laertius  (II  i^;  IX  3 2)  employs  it  in  speaking  of  the  views  of  other  pre- 
Socratic  philosophers.  Sometimes  identified  with  ipx'f))  sometimes  distin- 
guished from  it:  Plato,  Tim.  48B:  Xeyo^jisv  dtpxac;  aJTd:  Ti6e(xevot  Qioiyzlct.  xoH 
TCczvToq:  "We  call  them  (fire,  water,  air,  earth)  principles,  regarding  them  as 
elements  of  the  totality."  See  also  Plato,  Thecet.  201E;  202B,etc.;  Aristot. 
Meteor,  i.  i^  (338  a=*),  etc. 

By  metonymy,  anything  that  is  small,  simple  and  indivisible  is  called 
axotxs'ov.  Aristot.  Metaph.  4.3*  (ioi4b^).  Likewise,  by  metonymy,  the 
term  arotxelov  is  applied  to  a  genus,  because  it  has  one  definition:  Aristot. 
Metaph.  4.  3'  (1014  b'). 

Among  the  Stoics,  as  testified  by  Diogenes  Laertius  and  other  witnesses, 
the  term  was  in  common  use  for  the  four  elements,  earth,  water,  air,  fire, 
which  were  distinguished  from  the  two  ipxai,  Oedq  (Xdyoq)  and  uXt)  (oOa(a). 
See,  e.g.,  Diog.  Laert.  VII  i^sf-  (134/.);  Ill  ii'  (24);  V  i'^  (32);  VIII  2" 
(76);  IX  32  (21),  Similarly  in  other  writers  influenced  by  Stoicism:  Wisd. 
yi7  iQisj  philo,  Quis  rer.  div.  197  (41),  etc.;  4  Mac.  121';  Epict.  Diss.  3"-  "; 
Plut.  Aristid.  6*;  Herm.  Vis.  3.  13';   Just.  Mart.  Dial.  62*;  Athenag.  22*.  ». 

By  Philo  and  Plutarch  the  term  was  applied  also  to  the  sea,  as  one  of  the 
parts  of  the  earth:  Plut.  Quest,  conv.  VIII,  Prob.  8f;  Aq.  an  Ign.  8^;  Philo, 
Opif.  mund.  (131)  45. 

In  Orac.  Sib.  2'"*  it  is  said:  t6t6  x^psuce'.  axoiyjlx  Tcp6xavTa  Ta  y.6c[i.ov, 
and  the  at.  t.  /,.  are  defined  as  d-qg,  yala,  GaXaaaa,  <pao?,  %6'koq,  ri[i.(X'zac, 
vuxTe?;  in  8'"  as  dtT)p,  yata,  Q&Xaaaoc,  cpdo?  icupbq  at9o[JLsvoio,  r.od  TcdXoq 
oupivtoq,  xal  v6^,  xal  i^tJ^otTa  x4:vtx.  In  3'<',  where  the  language  is  otherwise 
very  similar  to  2^°^,  Td:  is  omitted  and  xda^xou  apparently  limits  the  verb  in 
the  sense  of  "order."  As  x-lpsutJ^'  naturally  requires  a  genitive  to  com- 
plete its  meaning  and  the  16c.  after  its  noun  is  in  any  case  awkward,  it  is  a 
question  whether  it  should  not  be  omitted  in  2-^^  and  8".  In  any  case,  we 
have  here  an  exceptional  conception  of  the  jTotxsta,  including  two  of  the 
Stoic  four  elements,  the  sea,  which  Philo  and  Plutarch  also  call  axocxetov, 
and  four  others  which  may  be  called  semi-astronomical. 

By  metonymy  axoixetov  denotes  that  in  which  qualities  inhere:  Plut. 
Defect,  orac.  10. 

3.  A  premise  or  fundamental  proposition  of  a  demonstration :  Aristot. 
Metaph.  2.  3'*^-  (998  a'^):  xal  twv  StaYpaiJL[JL(4T:G)v  Tauxa  axot-x^la  "kiyo^ev 
(Lv  al  iizolsi^eiq  evuxipxouatv.  See  also  Plut.  Marcell.  17^  and  cf. 
Aristot.  Metaph.  4.  3*  (1014  a"^)  cited  under  4  below.     Apparently  it  is 


512  GALATIANS 

in  this  sense  that  the  word  was  applied  by  later  writers  to  Euclid's  work  on 
mathematics,  and  that  of  Archimedes.  Aristot.,  Mctaph.  4.  3*  (1014  b'ff) 
apparently  using  axotxetov  and  apxt  as  synonyms,  calls  the  unit  and  the 
point  (ipxa(,  but  only  by  implication  atotxeiov.  In  Topica  8.  3'  (158  b"), 
8.  14  (i2)»  (163  b");  Cat.  9  (12)*  (14  a'')  aToixetov  is  applied  to  a  line  or 
circle.  It  is  in  a  kindred  sense,  also,  that  Aristot.  uses  cTotxsiov  of  the 
even  and  the  odd,  the  limited  and  the  unlimited,  as  the  fundamental  ele- 
ments of  things,  Metaph.  i.  52  (986  aO- 

Aristoph.  Eccl.  652,  in  which  xb  axoixetov  means  the  shadow  on  a  sun- 
dial, seems  to  imply  the  meaning  "a  line."     See  also  Plut.  Soil.  anim.  29. 

4.  With  a  force  closely  akin  to  the  preceding,  sometimes  scarcely  dis- 
tinguishable from  it:  a  simple  or  elementary  principle  of  knowledge  or 
instruction.  Isoc.  18  a  (2i«):  xauxa  ydp  axotxela  xpwxa  xal  ixiytcyxa 
ySfi<sT(]<;  xoXtxet'aq  eaxcv.  Nicolaus  Com.  i.  30  (Meineke  Com.  Frag.  IV 
579):  Gxotxela  ixev  xaOx'  eaxt  xfjq  oXtjc;  -zix^riq.  See  also  Plato,  Legg. 
VII  790C;  Aristot.  Metaph.  4.  3^  (1014  a'O;  Plut.  Lib.  ed.  16;  Cornut.  14; 
Heb.  5";  and  cf.  Xen.  Mejn  2.  V,  cited  under  i. 

5.  Aristotle,  having  in  mind  the  previous  senses  of  the  word,  employs  it 
as  an  inclusive  term  to  cover  two  or  more  of  them,  defining  it  as  "that  from 
which  as  a  constituent  first  principle,  indivisible  into  other  kinds  of  things, 
things  of  another  kind  are  produced":  Mctaph.  4.  3^  (1014  a^'-^i):  axotxelov 
Xeyexat  1^  ou  ouyxetxat  xptoxou  lvuxd:pxovxoi;  dtSiatplxou  xw  ecSei  elq  Ixepov 
el^oq.  Cf.  Metaph.  2.  3^^-  (998  a"^);  6.  171^  (1014  b");'  12.  10  (1086b); 
Categ.  9  (12)4  (14  a's").  Plutarch  in  Com.  not.  48,  49  says:  ou  ycip  cxotxelov 
ouS'  dgx^  fb  [j,e[xtY[X£vov,  aXk'  i^  &v  (xejAixxat,  and  a  little  later  refers  to  the 
four  xpwxa  aioix^la.  Cf.  also  Prim.  frig.  7.  But  in  Plac.  phil.  i'-'  he  dis- 
tinguishes axotxsiov  from  dpxT],  expressly  defining  axoixsla  as  auvGsxa,  com- 
posite, as  distinguished  from  dcpxrj,  which  is  not  dependent  upon  anything 
that  existed  before. 

6.  A  heavenly  body,  star,  sun,  constellation,  etc. 

(a)  A  constellation:  Diog.  Laert.  VI  9'  (102):  ouToq  {sc.  MsviBr^ixoq),  xaGa 
qjTQOty  'Ixxd^oxoi;,*  zlq  xocoOxov  xepaxefaq  t^Xaaev,  waxe  'Eptvvuo?  ivaXa^wv 
ax^[i.a  xepc^et  .  .  .  ■^v  Se  aixo)  ifj  eaGr)?  auTY]  .  .  .  xlXoq  'ApxxStxbq  ex^  x^q 
xecpaXfiq,  e'xtov  evutpaaiiiva  xd  SwBexa  axotxeta.  So  also  in  "A  Syriac  Life  of 
Clement  of  Rome,"  in  Bulletin  of  John  Rylands  Library,  Vol.  IV,  No  i 
p.  88. 

•  Diels,  Elementiim,  p.  45,  places  Hippobotos  at  latest  in  the  6rst  Christian  century;  bu«- 
von  Christ,  Gesch.  d.  gr.  Lit.  II  i^,  p.  68,  declines  to  fix  his  date  except  as  after  Sotion.'who 
belongs  in  the  second  century  b.  c,  and  before  Diogenes  Laertius  {ca.  200  a.  d.).  It  must 
also  be  remembered  that  the  employment  of  irroi.xela  by  Diogenes  Laertius  in  reciting  the 
statement  of  Hippobotos  is  not  conclusive  evidence  that  Hippobotos  used  the  word,  for 
Diogenes,  though  stating  in  III  i>»  (24)  that  Plato  was  the  first  to  employ  it  in  philosophy, 
elsewhere  uses  it  in  quoting  the  opinions  of  pre-Socratic  philosophers.  See  II  1';  IX  3*  (21).' 
Our  first  decisive  evidence  of  the  use  of  CTToixeioc  in  an  astronomical  sense  is,  therefore,  that 
of  the  Christian  writers  of  the  middle  ef  the  second  century. 


STOIXEIA  TOT  KOSMOT  513 

(b)  In  the  general  sense  of  a  heavenly  body,  a  star  or  planet:  Just.  Mart. 
Trypho,  23':  bpazz  oxt  xd;  azoix^la.  ouv.  dpyel  o'jBI  acz^paxfl^si.  Just.  Mart. 
Apol.  II  5':  b  8ebq  xbv  xdvra  xoatAov  xotiQffaq  y.3.\  xa  sxt'ysta  dvGpwicott;  uiro- 
i&^aq  xal  xd  oupdvta  axoixeia  ^l<i  au^r^atv  /.apxoJv  x,al  wpwv  [jLexa^oAd<;  xocii-Yjaac;. 
Ep.  oJ  Diogn.  72 :  ou  (5c.  xoO  OeoO)  xd  ^lutjx-rjpca  xtaxdx;  xdvxa  (puXdacjst  xd 
ffxotxs'a.  See  also  Theoph.  ad  AiUol.  i^  and  Theod.  Comm.  on  Gal.  and 
Col.  Cf.  Aristides,  Apol.,  chaps.  Ill,  IV,  V.  But  the  usage  seems  to 
show  that  the  term  here,  while  including  the  heavenly  bodies,  includes 
also  fire  and  earth — hence  that  the  word  means  not  the  stars  or  sun,  but  the 
physical  elements  of  which  these  are  composed.  Cf.  exx.  from  Orac.  Sib. 
under  2. 

By  metonymy  a  great  man,  a  light,  a  star:  Eus.  Hist.  Eccl.  Ill  31;  V  24, 
in  both  cases  quoting  from  Polycrates. 

7.  A  spirit  or  demon.  This  meaning  might  possibly  be  ascribed  to  the 
word  in  Manetho  4'"  {ca.  300  b.  c.)  :  xauxa  xot  oupavfwv  daxpcov  axotxsla 
xexuxxat.  But  the  context  does  not  require  anything  other  than  the 
familiar  classical  usage  of  the  word  (physical)  elements,  and  in  view  of  the 
date  of  the  passage  any  other  meaning  is  improbable.  Everling,  Die 
paulinische  Angelologic  und  Ddmonologie,  cites  as  an  example  of  this  usage 
Test.  Sal.  §  34.*  On  the  basis  of  mss.  HLPVW,  C.  C.  McCown  in  his 
(unpublished)  work,  Testatnentum  Salamonis,  reads  as  follows  (§VIII): 
X3tl  ■^X6ov  xve6[xaxa  Ixxd  cuv8eSe[JLeva  xal  cutxxexXeYtxsva  eu(xop<pa  tw  etSet  xal 
suoxTQtia.  eyo)  Se  SoXo^tov  tSwv  xauxa  e0a6[JLaaa  xal  sxT)pa)xr,ffa  auxd*  b\Lzlq 
x(ve<;  eaxd;  ol  5s  elxov  ■^[is.lq  satxsv  f  axotx^ca  xou  xo(j[xox,pdxopo(;  xou  ax6xou?. 
xa(  9iQatv  h  xpioxo?-  lyw  zl^i  ^  'AxdxT),  etc.  Deissmann  {Encyc.  Bib.  art. 
"Elements")  cites  the  Orphic  Hymns  65*,  in  which  Hephaestus  is  called 
axotxs'ov  i^s\i.(fiq,  and  the  Hermes  Trismegistus,  in  which  the  gods 
come  as  axoixsia  before  the  supreme  God.  This  evidence,  confirmed 
also  by  modern  Greek  usage,  leaves  no  doubt  that  axotxslov  did  even- 
tually come  to  mean  an  "angel,"  "spirit,"  or  "god."  What  is  not  clear 
is  that  this  usage  belongs  to  the  first  century  a.  d.  That  the  Jewish 
writers  ascribed  a  spirit  or  angel  to  various  physical  objects  is  clearly  shown 
from  I  Enoch  6o"-2i;  Jub.  2"^^-  cited  by  Bous.  {Rel.  d.  Jud.-,  p.  372),  but 
not  that  they  were  called  axoixela.  Bous.  cites  2  Enoch  16^  as  evidence 
of  this.  But  aside  from  the  fact  that  we  have  not  the  Greek  text  of  this 
book  and  hence  can  not  say  for  certain  that  axotxsia  occurred  in  this  pas- 
sage, the  occurrence  of  the  word  "elements,"  between  the  words  "spirits" 
and  "angels"  scarcely  proves  that  this  word  itself  means  "angels."  Chaps. 
12'  and  151  identify  the  elements  of  the  sun  with  the  Phoenixes  and  Chal- 
kydri,  which  are  flying  creatures,  with  feet  and  tails  in  the  form  of  a  lion, 

*  This  is  the  notation  of  Conybeare  in  his  translation,  published  in  Jewish  Quarterly  Review, 
DC  1-45. 

t  For  (TToixeta,  etc.,  VWGl.  read  ra  \ey6fi.eva.  (ttoix^Io-  ol  KoatxoKpdTope^  tov  <tk6tovs 
TouTov.  P:  e<  to)v  rpidnovTa  rpidv  (XToi\eiiiiv  tov  K6<riMOV  tov  (tk6tov<;.  HI:  o'Toi;^6itt  tow 
KoaryiOKpo-Topos,  omitting  Kal  4>r]ai.v  6  n-pIiTo;,  etc.,  and  adding  to  opyavov  tov  6[eov]. 

33 


514  GALATIANS 

a  crocodile's  head,  and  twelve  wings  like  those  of  angels,  but  do  not  make 
them  angels  or  spirits.  Tatian,  Oratio  ad  GrcBcos,  chap.  12,  says  that  there 
is  a  spirit  (xveQtta)  in  the  stars,  the  angels,  the  plants,  the  water,  in  men, 
in  animals.  This  is  the  same  inclusive  use  of  icvsOixa  which  appears  in 
Sextus  Empiricus  (B  SSF.  pp.  139/.),  but  involves  no  use  of  ctoixsTov  in 
this  sense.  In  chap.  21  Tatian  says  he  can  not  be  persuaded  to  worship 
Twv  (jTotxsfwv  T-?)v  u7:6cjTczatv.  But  the  GToixsca  are  apparently  the  material 
elements  of  the  world  into  which  by  allegorical  interpretation  the  Greeks 
resolve  their  deities  (see  context),  not  the  deities  themselves. 

Apparently,  therefore,  there  is  no  definite  evidence  that  axotxetov  meant 
"spirit,"  "angel,"  or  "demon"  earlier  than  Test.  Sal.,  which  in  its  present 
form  is  post-Christian,  and  may  not  be  earlier  than  the  third  or  fourth  cen- 
tury, to  which  McCown  assigns  it.  See  Deissmann,  op.  cit.  col,  1260;  cf. 
Harnack,  AUchristliche  Litteratnr,  I  858. 

Of  the  various  meanings  of  xdafxoq  (in  Greek  literature  from  Homer 
down)  the  following  only  need  to  be  taken  into  account: 

1.  The  world  in  the  physical  sense,  with  greater  or  less  inclusiveness, 
but  not  with  exclusive  reference  to  the  earth:  Wisd.  ii^^:  ou  y°=P  iQTt^pet 
•f)  xavToSuva^6<;  aou  x^^P  "^^^  xrfjaaa  xbv  x6apLov  [e^]  d[x6pcpou  uXt]<;.  Jn.  17': 
r.gh  ToO  Tbv  x6qxov  elvat.  Acts  17":  6  0ebq  6  %oir\(saq  xbv  x6a[xov  xal  xAvxa 
id:  ev  auTw.     See  also  Plat.  Tim.  27A;  Aristot.  Ccd.  1^°  fin.  (280  a^O- 

2.  The  firmament,  the  universe  exclusive  of  the  earth:  Isoc.  78  c:  tyji;' 
ydtp  YTJi;  dicdoTQc;  ifiq  uxb  tw  x6a[xw  v.ei\dvriq  hix<x  'Z£i[t.ri[i.i'/r,q,  xal  vfiq  [ikv 
'Aclaq,  "vriq  5e  Eupoixriq  y.aXoufxevTjq.  .  .  .  Deut.  4I':  xal  [li)  dyai^l^aq  elq 
■zhv  o'jpavbv  xal  ?S<bv  xbv  t^Xiov  xal  ttjv  cieXTjvrjv  xal  "zobq  daxigaq  xal  xdtvxa  rbv 
x6(j[Ji.ov  ToO  oupavou  'Kkavr,Qs.\q  xpoaxuvrjo-nq  auToi<;  xocl  XaTpeuqfjq  auxolq,  2 
dxivst^JLEv  Kupioq  b  Qshq  aou  au-ud  xdatv  TOtq  eOveatv  lolq  uxoxdrw  tou  oupavou. 
C/.  also  Philo,  Vita  Mosis,  HI  133  (14). 

3.  The  world  of  humanity:  Wisd.  2-^:  ^Gdvcp  Bs  ota^oXou  edva-roq  e((7ijX0?v 
etq  xbv  x6a[ji.ov.  Rom.  3«:  exel  xox;  xptvel  b  Gebq  xbv  if.6Q[).ov.  See  also 
Jn.  3i«.  "•  i»  Rom.  51*  11". 

4.  The  sinful  world,  humanity  as  alienated  from  God:  2  Cor.  71":  ■^  Sl 
Tou  x6a[JL0u  XuxYj  6dvaTov  xaTepydt,eT7t.     See  also  i  Jn.  31-  "  151'. 

5.  The  mode  of  life  which  is  characterised  by  earthly  advantages,  viewed 
as  obstacles  ^.o  righteousness:  Gal.  6":  U  ou  s^jloI  x6a^o<;  laTaupwxac  xdy^ 
x6aiJi.(j>.     See  also  Mt.  16"  i  Jn.  2^^  Jas.  i"  4*. 

The  phrase  xd  oxotxe^a  "^ou  x6atxou  occurs  in  N.  T.  three  times.  Gal.  4* 
and  Col.  2»'  "».  Instances  of  its  earlier  occurrences  have  not  been  pointed 
out,  the  nearest  approximation  being  perhaps  in  Wisd.  7'^  e(Blvat  aOaxaatv 
x6a[ji.ou  xal  evipystav  axotxefwv,  where  xda^oq  is  used  in  the  first  sense 
named  above  and  oroixe^wv  apparently  in  the  second  of  its  meanings. 
Orac.  Sib.  2'''«;  8'"  contain  the  phrase  axoixsta  xd  x6qxou,  but,  as  pointed 
out  above,  the  text  is  open  to  suspicion.  Of  the  various  meanings  that 
have  been  proposed  for  the  phrase  the  following  are  most  worthy  of  con- 
sideration: 


2T0IXEIA  TOY  KOSMOT  515 

1.  The  meaning  suggested  by  Wisd.  71',  viz.,  the  physical  elements  of 
the  universe.  This  interpretation  is  adopted  by  Beng.  and  Zahn,  who 
find  in  it  a  reference  to  the  fact  that  the  Mosaic  law  not  only  fixes  its  sacred 
days  and  periods  by  the  movements  of  the  heavenly  bodies,  but  contains 
many  commands  pertaining  to  physical  matters;  in  a  similar  sense  by 
Holsten;  by  Neander  {Planting  and  Training,  Bk.  Ill,  chap.  9;  Bk.  VI, 
chap,  i)  with  reference  to  material  elements  in  both  Judaism  and  heathen- 
ism (he  makes  no  mention  of  the  heavenly  bodies),  and  by  various  others 
with  varying  specific  application. 

2.  The  meaning  attested  for  (s'zoixela  by  Justin  Martyr,  et  al.y  and  ex- 
pressly advocated  as  that  of  1^  ot.  t.  x6a[jL.  in  Gal.  and  Col.  by  Theodorct 
in  his  commentaries  on  those  epistles,  viz.  the  heavenly  bodies,  which  the 
Galatians  worshipped  before  their  conversion  and  to  which  they  would  be 
doing  reverence  again  if  they  should  adopt  the  Jewish  observance  of  days 
and  weeks  and  months.  "For  before,  he  says,  ye  were  deemed  worthy  of 
the  calling,  ye  served  those  that  are  not  by  nature  gods,  deifying  the  ele- 
ments; but  now  [the  Master,  Christ,  has  freed  you  from  this  error;  and  I 
do  not  know  how  you  are  going  back  into  the  same  error.  For  when  ye 
keep  Sabbaths  and  new  moons  and  the  other  days,  and  fear  the  transgres- 
sion of  these  ye  are  like  those  who  deify  the  elements."  Theodoret  on 
Gal.  4.  This  interpretation  generally  adopted  by  the  fathers  has  also 
found  wide  acceptance  in  more  recent  times.  Hilg.  (Galaterbrief,  pp.  66  ^.) 
holds  to  this  interpretation,  but  v/ith  the  added  suggestion  that  the  apostle 
is  thinking  of  the  heavenly  bodies  as  living  beings,  gods  of  the  Gentiles  and 
in  his  own  view  lower  gods  {cf.  Deut.  4^^),  which  have  an  influence  on  the 
lives  and  destinies  of  men,  and  which  as  heavenly  bodies  control  the  cycle 
of  Jewish  feasts.  So  similarly  Diels,  Elementum,  pp.  50/.;  Bous.  SNT. 
ad  loc;  Clemen,  Primitive  Christianity,  p.  106  Jff.;  contra,  Kennedy,  St.  Paul 
and  the  Mystery  Religions,  pp.  24,  25,  60/. 

3.  The  spirits  that  are  associated  with  the  aioix^la  in  the  physical  sense, 
whether  stars  or  other  existences,  and  so  angels  and  spirits  in  general.  So 
Ritschl,  Rechtfertigung  u.  Versohnung,  Vol.  II,  pp.  252  /.  (who  finds  in  the 
passage  a  reference  to  the  angels  through  whom  the  law  was  given,  but  who 
are  also  associated  with  the  phenomena  of  nature  [Ps.  104*],  the  thunderings 
of  Mt.  Sinai  being  the  evidence  of  their  presence  at  the  giving  of  the  law) ; 
Spitta,  Zw.  Br.  Petrus  u.  Judas,  pp.  263  f.;  Everling,  Die  paulinische 
Angelologie  und  Ddmonologie,  pp.  65^.,  with  inclusion  of  the  angelic  powers 
to  which  the  Jews  were  subjected  and  the  deities  of  the  Gentiles.  Similarly, 
Dib.  Gwt.  pp.  78^.,  but  with  characterisation  of  the  difference  between  this 
and  the  preceding  view  as  unimportant. 

4.  The  elements  of  religious  knowledge,  possessed  by  men:  a  description 
applicable  both  to  the  Gentile  religion  of  the  Galatians  and  to  Judaism 
before  Christ.  Under  this  term  are  mcluded  ritual  observances,  but  the 
reference  is  not  to  them  exclusively  nor  to  them  as  ritual,  but  as  elemen- 


5l6  GALATIANS 

tary,  adapted  to  children.  So  substantially  Tcrt.  {Adv.  Marc.  V  4)  Hier. 
Erasm.  Calv.  Wies.  (but  with  reference  to  O.  T.  only)  Mey.  Ell.  Ltft.  Sief. 
et  al.  with  reference  to  Jews  and  Gentiles. 

The  ancient  world  undoubtedly  believed  in  numerous  supernatural  beings, 
intermediary  between  God  and  men.  No  doubt,  also,  Paul  shared  this 
belief  to  a  large  extent.  He  believed  in  Satan  and  angels,  and  apparently 
in  numerous  "principalities  and  powers."  He  seems  to  have  attributed 
real  existence  to  the  heathen  gods,  though  denying  their  deity;  quite  prob- 
ably he  identified  them  with  the  "principalities  and  powers."  Thus  they 
played  for  him  an  important  part  in  the  religion  of  the  Gentiles.  In  Judaism, 
also,  the  angels  had  a  place  in  that  the  law  was  given  through  them;  and 
though  they  are  not  represented  as  hostile  to  God  or  Christ,  they  might  be 
thought  of  as  such  in  the  sense  that  they,  or  the  law  which  came  through 
them,  were  in  rivalry  with  Christ.  It  is  also  true  that  atoix^lcc  was  very 
widely  used  of  the  elements  of  the  physical  world,  and  that  there  was  a 
tendency  to  extend  this  use  from  the  four  ultimate  elements  to  the  parts  of 
the  world  in  a  looser  sense,  including  the  sea  and  the  sky,  day  and  night. 
In  Christian  writers  later  than  the  N.  T.,  possibly,  also,  in  other  writers 
who  antedated  Paul,  the  heavenly  bodies  are  called  aioix^loc.  Before  de- 
ciding, however,  that  it  was  to  any  of  these  things,  either  the  elements  of 
the  physical  world,  or  the  heavenly  bodies,  or  to  any  spirits  which  inhabited 
them,  that  Paul  referred,  the  following  facts  must  be  considered: 

1.  Precisely  the  phrase  toc  cTotxsIa  toO  x6a[j,ou  has  not  been  observed 
elsewhere  than  in  the  two  passages  in  the  Pauline  epistles.  Neither  Sap.  7' 
nor  Orac.  Sib.  2'^°^;  8'",  nor  Manetho  4^^*  have  just  this  phrase,  nor  furnish 
more  than  a  suggestion  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  Pauline  expression.  Nor 
can  it  be  assumed  to  be  identical  with  the  xa  crrotxeia  of  the  philosophers 
or  the  to:  oupavta  cro'-xsta  of  Justin  Martyr.  The  decisive  word  as  to  the 
meaning  of  Paul's  phrase  must  be  found,  if  at  all,  in  Paul  himself. 

2.  There  is  no  clear  evidence  that  xa  axotxela  had  in  Paul's  day  come 
to  be  used  of  deities  or  other  like  beings;  for  even  if  the  evidence  of  Diogenes 
Laertius  be  supposed  to  prove  the  use  of  axotxelov  in  an  astronomical  sense 
in  the  first  century,  the  fact  that  a  star  might  be  called  axotxelcv  and  that 
a  star  might  be  worshipped  does  not  give  to  crzoixeloy  the  meaning  "deity"; 
as  the  fact  that  a  cow  is  an  animal  and  is  worshipped  does  not  make  "ani- 
mal" mean  "god."  While,  therefore,  ta  axoix^la  tou  x6a[xou  might  mean 
the  stars  or  planets,  the  view  that  it  means  the  spirits  that  dwelt  in  or  con- 
trolled the  heavenly  bodies  has  but  indirect  and  slender  support. 

3.  The  use  of  toc  crrotxsta  in  v.'  as  synonymous  with  xa.  ax.  x.  xoa[x.  of 
V.'  suggests  that  probably  the  emphatic  element  of  the  phrase  is  conveyed 
by  oxocxeia-  This  is  confirmed  by  the  addition  of  the  adjectives  daOeW) 
xal  Tcxwxti-  Cf.  also  Heb.  51^  in  which  the  axoix^la  are  depreciated  because 
of  their  elementary  character. 

4.  The  context  of  the  phrase  in  v.'  and  of  the  synonymous  expression  in 


2:toixeia  tot  kosmot  517 

V.',  esp.  the  reference  to  the  possible  acceptance  of  the  Jewish  law  by  the 
Gentile  Galatians  as  a  re-enslavement  to  the  elements,  shows  that  what- 
ever the  precise  meaning  of  the  words  aTot^ela  and  /,6c[xou,  the  whole  ex- 
pression b-Ko  .  .  .  SeoouXwixevot  (v.^)  and  the  similar  language  of  v  «  refers 
inclusively  to  the  condition,  both  of  the  Jews  as  men  under  law,  and  of 
idol-worshippers.     See  in  com.  ad  loc.  on  the  reference  of  Tjfxeiq. 

5.  The  tacit  assumption  that  xd:  axotxeTa  toG  y.oatAou,  to  which  the 
Galatians  were  formerly  in  bondage,  were  precisely  the  same  as  those  to 
which  they  were  on  the  point  of  returning,  is  unwarranted.  It  is,  indeed, 
to  be  assumed  that  the  phrase  has  the  same  meaning  in  both  cases,  but  it  is 
entirely  possible  that  it  is  descriptive  rather  than  directly  identifying,  and 
denotes  a  category  inclusive  of  those  things  to  which  the  Galatians  were 
enslaved  and  those  to  which  they  are  now  in  danger  of  returning. 

6.  The  contention  of  Everling,  Bousset,  and  Dibelius  that  because  v.* 
affirms  that  the  Galatians  were  in  bondage  to  gods  that  by  nature  are  not 
such,  therefore  the  axoix^'ioc  to  which  v.'  speaks  of  them  (and  the  Jews) 
as  being  in  bondage  must  be  personal  beings,  gods,  is  without  good  founda- 
tion. The  same  fact  may  be,  and  often  is  expressed  both  in  personal  and 
impersonal  terms.  Does  it  follow  from  Rom.  61^  and  "  that  6  t6tco<;  StBa^^q 
is  God?  Especially  is  it  the  case  that  personal  terms  may  be  used  by 
way  of  illustration  to  describe  an  impersonal  fact.  It  no  more  follows  that 
the  aTotxsIa  are  personal  because  of  the  previous  lxiTp6xou<;  xal  o{xov6tJLouq 
than  that  6  v6^oq  is  personal  because  personified  as  %aiZay(j)-(6q.  With 
the  recognition  of  this  fact  and  of  the  absence  of  any  reference  to  spirits 
in  this  connection  the  chief  support  of  Everling's  view  falls  to  the  ground. 

7.  On  the  other  hand,  the  close  connection  of  ore  ■^[xev  vTjxtot  in  v.^  with 
6xb  Td;  ffTotxeta  obviously  suggests  the  meaning  "elementary  teachings." 
Not  only  so,  but  the  whole  passage  from  3"  to  4'',  if  not  also  to  4^  is  per- 
meated with  the  thought  that  the  Jewish  system  which  the  Galatians  are 
being  urged  to  take  up  is  imperfect,  adapted  to  childhood,  and  the  whole 
purpose  of  the  argument  is  to  dissuade  the  Galatians  from  accepting  this 
system  on  the  ground  that  it  is  childish,  fitted,  like  their  old  idol-worship, 
for  the  infancy  of  the  race.  Like  other  passages  of  the  epistle,  it  appeals 
not  only  to  their  reason,  but  to  their  emotions. 

8.  The  adjectives  daOevii  and  xrwxii  have  no  appropriateness  as  applied 
to  the  heavenly  bodies,  and  but  little  with  reference  to  the  physical  elements 
of  the  material  universe,  but  appropriately  describe  the  elements  of  an 
imperfect  religious  system  as  compared  with  the  full  truth  of  the  revelation 
in  Christ. 

9.  The  mention  of  days,  months,  and  years  in  v.^"  suggests  the  possibility 
of  a  reference  to  the  heavenly  bodies  by  whose  movements  the  recurrence  of 
these  periods  is  fixed.  The  mention  of  meat  and  drink  in  the  context  of 
Col.  2»'  "0  (see  v.")  suggests  a  possible  reference  of  azoix^la  to  the  material 
elements  of  the  earth.     But  this  latter  explanation  will  with  difficulty 


5i8  GALATIANS 

apply  to  Gal.  4''  ^  as  the  planetary  explanation  will  not  apply  to  Col.  28-  '". 
The  element  that  is  common  to  both,  and  is  emphasised  in  Col.,  is  that  the 
GToix^loc  represent  an  imperfect  type  of  teaching;  in  Gal.  described  as  tem- 
porary and  ended  by  the  coming  of  Christ,  in  Col.  as  proceeding  from  men 
(v.'),  and  also  as  temporary  and  abolished  in  Christ  (i<-  i')-  While,  there- 
fore, it  is  possible  that  in  Gal.  Paul  has  reference  to  the  heavenly  bodies  as, 
on  the  one  side,  formerly  objects  of  worship  by  the  Gentiles,  and,  on  the 
other,  as  governing  the  cycle  of  Jewish  observances,  and  in  Col.  to  the 
physical  elements  of  the  universe,  it  is  more  probable  that  the  phrase  means 
the  same  in  both  cases,  and  in  both  cases  has  reference  to  the  elementary 
and  imperfect  teachings  of  religion. 

10.  Aside  from  the  debatable  question  of  the  meaning  of  xa  ct.  t.  x6c:ix. 
it  is  entirely  clear  that  the  things  which  Paul  was  dissuading  the  Galatians 
from  accepting  were,  in  fact,  requirements  of  the  law;  as  those  from  which 
he  dissuaded  the  Colossians  were  dogmas  of  religion  urged  in  the  name  of 
Judaism  or  some  system  of  kindred  spirit.  To  find  the  ground  of  the 
description  of  obedience  to  them  as  a  bondage  to  xd  axotxsta  toO  x6qxou 
in  a  remote  and  unsuggested  connection  between  them  and  the  heavenly 
bodies,  or  the  physical  elements  of  the  universe,  or  the  spirits  of  these 
elements,  when  the  phrase  is  directly  applicable  to  them  in  a  sense  appro- 
priate to  and  suggested  by  the  context  and  sustained  by  contemporary 
usage,  is  to  substitute  a  long  and  circuitous  course  of  thought  for  a  short, 
direct,  and  obvious  one. 

While,  therefore,  the  discovery  of  convincing  evidence  that  crotxeTa 
was  in  current  use  as  a  designation  of  the  heavenly  bodies  conceived  of  as 
living  beings,  or  of  spirits  that  inhabit  all  existences,  might  make  it  possible 
that  it  was  to  these  that  Paul  referred,  this  would  become  probable  only 
on  the  basis  of  new  evidence,  and  even  then  the  contextual  evidence  is 
against  it.  The  evidence  as  it  stands  favours  the  simple  view  proposed  by 
Tert.  and  advocated  by  Erasm.  Th.  Crem.  Ltft.  Sief.  et  al.  The  words 
Tou  x6c7^ou  are  most  naturally  understood  as  referring  to  the  world  of 
humanity  {cf.  Col.  2«,  xapdBoaiv  dcvOpwxtov,  and  2'^,  ivx&Xixa-za  xal  8iBaa- 
xaXiaq  Twv  dvGpwTcwv),  yet,  in  view  of  the  inclusion  of  the  law  in  the 
content  of  the  phrase,  not  as  a  genitive  of  source,  but  of  possession,  the 
whole  expression  meaning  "the  rudimentary  religious  teachings  possessed 
by  the  race."* 

♦  If  the  fact  that  <TTOixela  is  rather  infrequently  used  in  the  sense  of  elementary  teachings, 
while  the  physical  sense  is  very  common,  seems  to  necessitate  understanding  to.  <jt.  t.k.  as  in 
some  sense  physical  or  related  to  the  physical  sense,  the  interpretation  most  consonant  with 
the  evidence  would  be  to  understand  <n.  in  that  loose  and  inclusive  sense  in  which  it  is  em- 
ployed in  Orac.  Sib.  as  including  both  the  physical  constituents  of  the  world,  and  the  sky 
and  stars.  To  the  a-voix^la.  in  this  sense,  the  Jews  might  be  said  to  be  enslaved  in  the  ordi- 
nances pertaining  to  physical  matters,  such  as  food  and  circumcision,  and  also  as  the  context 
suggests  in  the  observance  of  days  fixed  by  the  motions  of  the  heavenly  bodies,  while  the 
bondage  of  the  Gentiles  to  them  would  be  in  their  worship  of  material  images  and  heavenly 
bodies. 


'ArAHH  519 

XXI.    'ArAOAQ  AND   'ArAHH. 

I.  The  verb  dtyaTcAw  is  used  in  classical  writers  from  Homer  down,  signify- 
ing with  reference  to  persons,  "to  be  fond  of,"  "to  love,"  "to  desire";  with 
reference  to  things,  "to  be  contented  with,"  "to  take  pleasure  in."  If  we 
seek  a  more  definite  statement  of  the  content  of  the  term,  it  appears  that 
there  are  three  elements  which  with  more  or  less  constancy  and  in  varying 
degrees  of  emphasis  enter  into  the  thought  expressed  by  the  word:  (a)  "to 
admire,"  "to  approve,"  "to  recognise  the  worth  of,"  "to  take  pleasure  in," 
(b)  "to  desire  to  possess"  (c)  "to  be  well-disposed  towards,"  "to  wish  to 
benefit."  The  first  of  these  elements  appears  distinctly  in  Plato,  Rep. 
330B,  C,  yet  blended  with  or  shading  into  the  second:  toutou  evexa  T)p6tJLT)v, 
^v  S'  eydj,  otc  pio'.  Bo^aq  ou  acpdSpa  iyaTcav  to:  xpifjaaTa,  touto  5e  xotouctv  cj<; 
ih  xoXu  0?  av  ^■^j  auTol  XTTjacovxac"  ol  Se  xTTja(i;i.evoi  StxX^  ri  ol  aXXoi  dccxd:!^ov- 
Tat  aijTd:.  waxep  yap  ol  xotYjxal  xa  auTwv  xotTQ^xara  /.al  ol  xaxspec;  Touq  xalSa;; 
dcyotxwci  TauTf)  ts  Btj  xal  ol  xpTOtJi-ocTtaa^evot,  xspl  to:  xgr^'^a-zoi.  axouSd;!^ouctv 
6>g  epyov  sauTwv,  xal  xaxa  ttjv  xpsi'av  ■flxc?  ol  aXXot.  The  third  element  is 
present,  if  at  all  in  this  example,  only  by  suggestion  in  the  words  xal  ol 
xaxspsq  ToCig  izixlla.q  dyaxcoct.  There  is,  indeed,  but  slight  trace  of  this 
element  of  meaning  in  the  word  as  used  by  non-biblical  writers  of  the  pre- 
Christian  period. 

II.  In  the  Lxx  dyaxdw  translates  several  Hebrew  words,  but  in  the  great 
majority  of  cases  (about  130  out  of  160)  the  Kal  of  anx,  which  is  also 
rendered  in  a  few  cases  (10)  by  (ptXiw.  ans  is  used  with  much  the  same 
range  of  meaning  as  our  English  word  love.  Thus,  e.  g.,  it  is  used  of  the 
love  of  a  parent  for  a  child.  Gen.  25";  of  a  husband  for  a  wife.  Gen.  29i8'  ^2; 
of  sexual  love  in  which  the  element  of  passion  and  desire  of  possession  is 
prominent,  2  Sam.  131'  *;  of  the  love  of  friend  for  friend  and  of  a  people  for 
a  leader,  i  Sam.  18^-  '•  1*;  of  God's  love  for  Israel,  Deut.  4"  Hos.  ii^;  of  the 
love  of  men  for  God,  Ex.  20*  Deut.  6*  ii^;  of  the  love  of  men  for  material 
things,  Hos.  9I;  and  much  more  frequently  for  the  love  of  immaterial  things, 
good  or  evil,  such  as  righteousness  or  peace,  and  their  opposites,  Ps.  4^  (2) 
ii7  (6)  336  Prov.  121.  It  is  evident  that  into  the  thought  of  the  Hebrew 
word  enter  all  three  of  the  elements  named  above,  the  emphasis  upon 
the  several  elements  varying  in  the  various  instances  very  greatly,  even 
in  some  cases  to  the  exclusion  of  one  element  or  another.  The  element  of 
admiration,  approval,  recognition  of  worth,  is  doubtless  always  present, 
whether  one  speak  of  the  love  of  men  for  women,  of  men  for  men,  of  men 
for  God,  of  men  for  righteousness,  or  even  of  God  for  men.  In  the  case 
of  the  love  of  men  for  God  it  becomes  worship,  adoration,  or  at  least 
approaches  this;  in  the  case  of  friends,  it  involves  mutual  admiration; 
when  it  is  goodness  that  is  loved,  it  is  the  object  of  approval  and  delight. 
The  desire  to  possess  is  likewise  usually  present;  in  a  gross  form  in  such  a 
case  as  2  Sam.  1$^-*  Hos.  91;  of  an  elevated  type  in  the  love  of  men  for 


520  GALATIANS 

righteousness.  The  desire  to  benefit  can  not,  of  course,  be  included  when 
the  object  is  impersonal;  it  may  be  said  to  be  driven  out  by  desire  to 
possess  in  such  a  case  as  2  Sam.  13'-^  in  the  case  of  men's  love  for  God  it 
becomes  desire  to  serve  the  person  loved  (Deut.  ii».  ");  in  the  case  of 
God's  love  for  men  and  in  such  injunctions  as  Lev.  19I8.  z*  Deut.  ioi»  the 
desire  to  benefit  is  the  prominent  element. 

III.  In  the  N.  T.  usage  of  dyazdo)  the  same  elements  appear,  the  word 
being  used  of  personal  friendship  where  the  element  of  admiration,  usually 
accompanied  with  desire  to  benefit,  is  prominent  (Mk.  10"  Lk.  7*  Jn.  11* 
13");  of  God's  attitude  towards  Jesus,  where  approval  is  evidently  the  chief 
element  of  the  thought  and  the  word  approximates  the  meaning  of  exX^yw, 
"  to  choose  "  (Jn.  3'^  Eph.  i^);  of  the  love  of  God  for  men  of  good  character^ 
where  the  meaning  is  much  the  same  save  in  degree  of  emphasis  (2  Cor. 
9O;  of  the  love  of  God  and  of  Christ  for  even  sinful  men  (Jn.  3 is  Gal.  220 
Heb.  i2«  I  Jn.  4^^^),  where  benevolence,  desire  to  benefit,  is  the  chief  ele- 
ment; of  the  love  which  men  are  bidden  to  have  for  God  and  for  Christ,  and 
of  Christ's  love  for  God,  in  which  admiration  is  raised  to  adoration,  and  in- 
cludes readiness  to  serve  (Mt.  22"  Jn.  1415,  21.  31  Rom.  8^8  i  Cor.  S'  i  Jn. 
4"") ;  of  the  love  which  men  are  bidden  to  have  for  one  another,  even  their 
enemies,  in  which  the  willingness  and  desire  to  benefit  is  prominent,  and  in 
the  case  of  enemies  admiration  or  approval  falls  into  the  background  (Mt. 
22"  Jn.  13'^e  Rom.  13 B.  a  Eph.  5^5.  =»  i  Jn.  2>o);  and  finally  of  the  love  of 
things,  when  admiration  and  desire  to  possess  are  prominent,  to  the  entire 
exclusion  of  desire  to  benefit  (Lk.  ii«  Jn.  i2«  i  Jn.  2^^). 

As  concerns  dyaxaw  and  cptXico,  it  is  to  be  observed  that  while  in  the 
biblical  writers,  at  least,  the  two  terms  have  a  certain  common  area  of 
usage  in  which  they  may  be  used  almost  interchangeably,  yet  in  general 
(ftXiw  emphasises  the  natural  spontaneous  affection  of  one  person  for 
another,  while  ayaxdco)  refers  rather  to  love  into  which  there  enters  an  ele- 
ment of  choice,  and  hence  of  moral  character.  It  is  consistent  with  this 
distinction  that  dyaxdia)  is  never  used  with  the  meaning  "to  kiss"  (which 
(fiXib)  sometimes  has)  and  is  rarely  used  of  sexual  love  (but  see  2  Sam.  13'.  * 
Cant.  I'.  *.  7  31-',  as  against  the  too  strong  statements  of  Grimm  and  Cremer, 
s.  V.  (ptXelv;  and  cf.  also  exx.  in  Th.);  that  <fi\elv  is  never  used  in  the  com- 
mand to  men  to  love  God  or  men,  and  very  rarely  of  God's  love  to  men 
(but  see  Jn.  16");  but  that  either  term  may  be  used  of  honourable  love 
between  man  and  man,  into  which  there  enters  more  or  less  of  the  element 
of  choice  and  decision.  Cf.  Jn.  ii».  '6  (qjtXio))  with  ii^  (dyaxciw)  and  Jn.  20* 
with  21'. 

IV.  'AydixT),  unlike  the  verb,  and  certain  others  of  its  cognates  which  oc- 
cur from  Homer  down,  appears  first  in  the  Lxx,  and  thereafter  is  almost 
wholly  limited  to  biblical  and  Christian  writers.  Cf.  M.  and  M.  Voc.  s.  v. 
In  the  Lxx  (can.  bks.)  it  is  used  chiefly  of  love  between  the  sexes  (see  2 
Sam.  i3>5  and  the  eleven  instances  in  Cant. ;  but  are  these  latter  possibly  due 


'ArADH  521 

to  an  allegorical  interpretation  of  the  book?).  But  in  Wisd.  and  in  Philo  it 
is  employed  in  a  nobler  sense;  in  Wisd.  3'  and  Philo,  Quod  deus  immtit.  69  (14) 
of  the  love  of  God,  and  in  Wisd.  6^»  of  the  love  of  wisdom.  C/.  M.  and  M. 
Voc.  s.  V.  This  sense  becomes  the  prevaiUng  one  in  N.  T.,  wholly  displacing 
the  use  with  reference  to  love  between  the  sexes.  Nor  are  there  any  clear 
instances  of  ^7(^x75  in  reference  to  ordinary  human  friendship,  personal 
affection.  The  desire  to  possess  is  also  rarely  present  as  a  prominent  ele- 
ment; 2  Thes.  210  is  apparently  the  only  N.  T.  instance,  and  here  apprecia- 
tion is  perhaps  equally  prominent.  On  the  other  hand,  dytixY]  is  used  freely 
of  God's  approving  attitude  towards  Jesus  (Jn.  151°  17");  of  the  love  of  God 
and  of  Christ  towards  men,  even  sinful  men  (Rom.  $""  *  8'^.  S9  i  jn.  31.  i« 
49.  10.  16);  of  the  love  which  men  are  bidden  to  have  for  God  (Lk.  ii«  Jn.  5" 
I  Jn.  2>-  15  418  53;  the  only  clear  example  in  the  PauHne  epistles  is  2  Thes.  3'); 
and  with  especial  frequency  in  Paul  of  the  love  which  men  have  or  are 
enjoined  to  have  towards  one  another  (Jn.  is>'  Rom.  12'  131"  14"  i  Cor. 
j^i.  2.  '.  <.  8.  "  141).  It  must  again  be  emphasised  that  these  several  ele- 
ments are  not  mutually  exclusive,  only  one  being  present  in  a  given  instance 
of  the  word;  the  distinction  is  one  of  emphasis  and  prominence,  not  of  ex- 
clusive expression. 

The  use  of  dyaxTjastq  in  Gal.  5",  quoted  from  Lev.  19",  follows  the  Lxx,  and 
is  in  accordance  with  the  uniform  habit  of  the  biblical  writers  to  use  dyaxdo) 
rather  than  (ptXeo  of  the  love  which  men  are  bidden  to  exercise  towards  their 
fellow  men.  The  verb  in  this  passage  and  the  noun  in  all  the  instances 
occurring  in  this  epistle  (s'-  "•  ")  while  including  the  element  of  apprecia- 
tion, recognition  of  worth,  which  is  fundamental  to  all  the  meanings  of 
both  verb  and  noun,  evidently  lay  chief  stress  upon  the  desire  and  will  to 
benefit,  which  issues  in  efforts  for  the  well-being  of  another.  The  verb  in 
Gal.  2"  has  essentially  the  same  meaning  and  emphasis,  but  being  used  by 
Paul  of  the  love  of  Christ  for  himself,  a  confessedly  sinful  man,  still  further 
emphasises  the  element  of  benevolence. 

It  is  love  of  this  tj'pe,  of  which  recognition  of  worth  is  the  foundation, 
and  desire  to  benefit  the  leading  element,  that  Paul  exalts  in  his  remark- 
able panegyric  in  i  Cor.  chap.  13,  and  of  which  he  says  in  Rom.  131"  that  love 
is  the  fulfilment  of  law,  and  in  Gal.  5«: 

"/»  Christ  Jesus  neither  circumcision  availeth  anything  nor  uncircumcision, 
hut  faith,  working  through  love.'' 


INDEXES. 


I.    ENGLISH  WORDS,  SUBJECTS,  AND  AUTHORS. 

Authors,  ancient  and  modern,  are  cited  in  this  list  only  when  they 
are  specially  important  or  their  opinions  are  quoted  and  discussed. 
Their  names  are  printed  in  small  capitals.  Words  in  italic  type  are 
those  which  occur  in  the  translation  of  the  letter.  A  number  in  bold- 
face type  indicates  a  page  on  which  the  word  is  discussed.  Words  in 
ordinary  Roman  type  denote  subjects  referred  to  in  the  Epistle  or  in 
the  Commentary,  including  the  Introduction  and  the  Appendix. 
Grammatical  forms  and  syntactical  usages  are  referred  to  only  when 
they  are  regarded  as  for  some  reason  specially  important. 

Apostleship,  3>  93.  94.  363/- 


Abraham,  153,  155,  I59.  162,  175, 
180,  186,  208,  252;  faith  of,  153, 
162;  seed  of,  180/.,  208  ff.]  sons 
of,  155.  156  /.,  252. 

Accursed,  25,  28,  30;  see  also 
"Cursed." 

Accusative  of  content,  37,  138,  337. 

Acts,  chaps.  10,  II,  15;  166;  i823; 
see  Index  III. 

Adoption,  220,  221;  cf.  226. 

Ages,  the  two,  14,  427  /. 

Allegorical  interpretation,  254  /., 
esp.  268. 

Angel,  25,  189,  242. 

Anger,  304,  307. 

Annul,  178,  180,  182,  184;  cf.  140, 
275,  276,  287. 

Antioch,  102;  cf.  78,  loi,  104/., 
116/. 

Aorist :  epistolary,  348 ;  resultative, 
76,  351;  participle  of  coincident 
action,  69;  cf.  218;  participle  of 
subsequent  action,  xxxv  ff. 

Apostle,  2,3,  54,  60,  363  /. 

Apostles,  the  Twelve  indirectly  re- 
ferred to,  3,  71,  86/.,  89;  cf.  94; 
attitude  towards  Gentiles,  116^. 


Arabia,  55,  57,  258. 

Article:  with  nouns  joined  by  xa{, 

xxxij^.,  62;  restrictive,  84,  319, 

et  freq. 
AsKWiTH,  E.  H.,  xlix. 
Authority:  of  Old  Testament,  Ix/.; 

of  apostles  in  Christian  church, 

\xnff.,  2,  87,  380. 
Autographic    portions   of   letters, 

348. 

Baptize,  203,  204/. 

Barnabas,  69,  94,  108/.;  cf.  xlii. 

Bartlet,  v.,  li/.,  241. 

Barton,  G.  A.,  234. 

Bauer,  Bruno,  Ixix/. 

Baur,  F.  C,  Ixvi,  Ixx. 

Believe,  123,  153,  196,  475/- 

Benedictions  of  Paul's  letter,  361/. 

Bentley,  R.,  260. 

Bless,  159,  162. 

Blessing,  175. 

Bondage,  227,  230,  258,  262,  270; 

cf.  211,  215,  224. 
BoussET,  W.,  38,  69,  504,  517- 


523 


524 


INDEXES 


Brethren,  8,  35,  36,  177,  236,  264, 

267,  286,  291,  325,  362. 
Brother  of  the  Lord,  60  /. 
Bruno  und  Sachau,  213. 
Burden,  329,  333  /. 

Call  (an  act  of  God),  18^,,  49,  282, 

291. 
Carousing,  304,  310. 
Cephas,  58/.,  94/.,  102,  in;  see 

also  ^^ Peter.'' 
Chase,  F.  H.,  xxiv/.,  xxxi,  xxxiii, 

xxxiv. 
Child,  211  /.,  215,  248,  262,  264, 

267. 
Christ,  18,  24,  32,  62,  123,  124,  125, 
ij  135,  136,  140.  168,  181,  200,  203, 
\  208,  248,  270,  272,  275,  319, 
\  329,  349;  395  ff-\  see  also 
\  ^^  Jesus  Christ." 
Christ,  the,  24,  25,  319,  329,  349/., 
<    398/. 

Christ  Jesus,  83,  120, 123, 202, 207, 
I    242,  279  (319,  349  /.);  see  also 
i    "  Jesus  Christ," 
Chronology  of  Paul's  life.  Hi  {cf. 

xliv#.),  59,  67/.,  86. 
Church,   10,  44  /.,  62  ff.,  417  ff.; 

churches  of  Galatia,  10;  of  Judea, 

62  #. 
Cilicia,  62. 
Circumcision,  the  circumcised,  liv, 

Iviii,  75  /.,  79  /.,  91,  93  /.,  96, 

107/.,  157/.,  272,  273,  274,  27s, 

279/.,  286,  349,  351  I;  355- 
Companions    of    Paul    when    he 

wrote  the  letter,  8  /. 
Conative  use  of  verbs,  30/.,  32/., 

45,  64,  115,  351. 
Concessive   clauses   and    phrases, 

75,  115,  119- 
Conversion  of  Paul,  49,  50/.,  55/., 

132  /.,  408. 
Corruption,  339,  342. 


Covenant,  178/.,  182/.  (226),  257, 
496/. 

Creation,  a  new,  355  /.,  356. 

Cremer,  H.,  501. 

Cross,  145/.,  287,  349,  354;  cf.  173. 

Crucify,  crucifixion,  135  /.,  143, 
145/-,  319,  354. 

Curse  of  the  law,  168-171. 

Cursed,  164,  173;  see  also  "Ac- 
cursed." 

Damascus,  58. 

Dative:  after  verbs  of  speaking, 

gS;  cf.  181;  of  relation,  134. 
Death  of  Christ,  11/.,  1 35/.,  1 39/., 

143,  145,  173/.,  354. 
Deceive,  330  /.,  339  /. 
Deliver,  13,  168,  219. 
Desire,  297,  299/.,  300,  319. 
DiBELius,  M.,  439,  515,  517. 
Die,  132,  140. 
Disposition,  319,  320/. 
Division  (dissension),  304,  309. 
Division  of  territory  between  Paul 

and  the  Twelve,  97  /. 
Drunkenness,  304,  310. 

Early  Christianity:  character  of, 
45/m  65,  77  f;  83/.,  92;  attitude 
towards  legalism  and  towards 
Paul,  65,  72/.,  77/.,  83/.;  head- 
quarters of,  in  Jerusalem,  54;  in 
Judea,  63. 

Elements  of  the  world,  215  {cf.  230), 
510/. 

Ellicott,  C.  J.,  192,  333,  353,  510. 

Emasculation,  289/. 

Enmity,  304,  306. 

Envying,  304,  310,  323,  325. 

Epistolary  aorist,  348. 

Epistolary  plural,  9. 

Eschatology,  14,  311/. 

Eternal,  339,  343,  431  /. 

EVERLING,  O.,  513,  515,  517. 


INDEXES 


525 


Faith,  64,  120  /.,  123,  138,  147, 
151,  155,  159,  162,  166,  167,176, 
196,  198  /.,  201  /.,  277,  279  /., 

345/m475#. 
Faithfulness,  312,  316. 
False  brethren,  77  /. 
Farrar,  F.  W.,  61. 
Father,  applied  to  God,  5,  11,  15, 

223/.,  384/. 
Fellowship  of  Gentile  and  Jewish 

Christians,  104-114,  116. 
Flesh,  53,  123/.,  138,  148/.,  237, 

241,  252,  265,  291  /.,  297,  300, 

303,  319.  339.  349  /.,  351  /•, 

492/. 
Flesh  and  blood,  53  /. 
Food,  question  concerning,  in  the 

early  church,  103/.,  116/. 
Fornication,  304,  305. 
Free,  206,  252,  263,  267,  270. 
Freedom,  82,  270,  291. 
Fricke,  G.  a.,  190/. 
Fritzsche,  K.  F.  a.,  74. 
Fruit  of  the  Spirit,  312  /. 
Fulfil,  293  ff.,  329  /. 
Fulness  of  the  time,  216,  218. 
Future  indicative  in  final  clause, 

83/. 

Galatia,  10. 

Galatia,  xvii  ff.,  xxv/.,  number  of 
Paul's  visits  to,  xlv,  1  ff.,  237, 
239  ff.,  245  /.;  churches  of,  xxi 
f.,  xxixff.,  liii/.,  10. 

Galatians,  143. 

Galatians,  Paul's  letter  to:  time 
and  place  of  writing,  xliv  ff.', 
occasion  and  purpose,  liii  ff.', 
contributions  to  life  of  Paul  and 
history  of  apostolic  age,  Iv  /.; 
questions  at  issue,  Ivii  ff. ;  genu- 
ineness and  integrity,  Ixv  ff.', 
reminiscences  of,  and  quotations 
from,  Ixviii;  analysis  of,  Ixxii^.; 


text  of,  Ixxiv  jf.;  see  also  "Text 
of  the  letter  to  the  Galatians." 

Galatians,  the  people,  xvii^.,  xlii. 

Gallio,  lii. 

Genitive,  objective  or  subjective: 
after  ixoxdiXu^*'.!;,  41 ;  after  'ic(aTt(;, 
121. 

Gentiles,  2,  53,  70,  75  /.  (82,  86), 
93/m  96/.,  103  /.,  Ill,  119, 
159/.,  175,206/.;  Paul's  preach- 
ing to,  147,  156,  311- 

Gentleness,  312,  317,  325,  328. 

Genuineness  of  the  letter  to  the 
Galatians,  Xxv  ff. 

GiFFORD,  E.  H.,  xxxvi/. 

Glory,  16. 

Glorying,  332  /.,  35i  /-.  354- 

God,  5,  II,  15,  30,  44,  61,  65,  88, 
134,  138,  140,  153,  159,  165,  182, 
186,  190,  192,  202,  216,  221, 
224/.,  227,  229,  242,  310/.,  339, 

357. 
God:  word  for,  omitted,  19,  49,  94, 
152,  282;  teaching  of  the  letter 
concerning:  he  is  one,  190;  is 
called  Father,  5,  11,  384  Jf-,  esp. 
387,  390  jf.;  object  of  Abraham's 
faith,  153;  made  a  covenant 
with  Abraham  and  promises  to 
him,  which  are  not  annulled  by 
the  law,  180-186;  justifies  the 
Gentiles  by  faith,  159;  and  no 
man  by  works  of  law,  165;  cf. 
119,  123;  sent  his  Son  into  the 
world  to  deliver  them  that  were 
under  law,  216-219;  Christ's 
gift  of  himself  for  our  sins,  in 
accordance  with  his  will,  15;  set 
apart  Paul  from  his  birth,  called 
him,  and  revealed  his  Son  in 
him,  49  ff.',  wrought  for  the 
apostleship  both  of  Peter  and 
of  Paul,  93;  jointly  with  Jesus 
Christ  direct  source  of  Paul's 


526  INDEXES 

apostleship,  5;  in  order  to  live 
to  him  Paul  abandoned  law, 
132-134;  was  glorified  by  Jew- 
ish Christians  because  of  Paul's 
work,  65;  called  the  Galatians 
into  the  grace  of  Christ,  18/.; 
cf.  49;  jointly  with  Jesus  Christ 
source  of  grace  and  peace,  10/.; 
accounts  those  who  are  in  Christ 
as  his  sons,  202;  and  sends  the 
Spirit  of  his  Son  into  their 
hearts,  221;  those  who  do  the 
works  of  the  flesh  will  not  in- 
herit his  kingdom,  310  /.;  in- 
voked as  witness  that  Paul 
speaks  the  truth,  61;  eternal 
glory  ascribed  to  him,  16. 

Gods,  227. 

Goodness,  312,  316. 

Gospel,  22,  24,  25,  30,  37,  53,  70, 
85,  91,  109,  237,422/. 

Gospel :  its  unity  and  variety,  91  /. ; 
source  and  content  of  Paul's, 
38-43. 

Grace,  10,  18/.,  49,  94/.,  140/., 
276/.,  361,  423/.;  of  Christ,  19; 
of  God,  140. 

Greek  (Gentile),  75/.,  206/. 

Gregory,  C.  R.,  Ixxv. 

Guardians  and  steivards,  211  ff. 

Hagar,  258  /. 

Hand,  giving  of  as  a  pledge,  94  ff. 

Haussleiter,  J.,  121. 

Heathen   deities,    Paul's  idea   of, 

22-jf. 

Heir,  208,  211,  224/. 
HoLSTEN,  Carl,  260. 

HOLTZMANN,   H.  J.,  Ixxi. 

Hope,  211,  279. 

Household  of  the  faith,  345  /, 

Hypocrisy,  108  f. 

Idolatry,  304,  306. 
Imperative  as  protasis,  297. 


Imperfect  tense,  45,  104,  107. 

In  Christ  (Jesus),  62,  83,  124,  175, 
202  (cf.  203),  207  /.,  279  (cf. 
283#.). 

Inherit,  267,  310. 

Inheritance,  18^  ff. 

Integrity  of  the  letter  to  the  Gala- 
tians, IxvjT". 

Interpolations  (possible)  in  the 
letter  to  the  Galatians,  182,  192, 
259 /•,  511. 

Interpretation  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, Paul's,  see  "Old  Testa- 
ment," 

Isaac,  264/. 

Israel  of  God,  357. 

James,  60/.,  94/.,  103;  cf.  71,  107. 
Jealousy,  304,  307. 
Jerome,  61. 

Jerusalem,  54,  58,  67,  261,  263. 
Jerusalem:  Paul's  visits  to,  58  /., 
67,  115;  church  of,  78,  84,  116; 
cf  99. 
Jesus,  319,  359,  392,  394, 
Jesus  Christ,  5,  11,  41,  143,  175^ 
196,  354,  361,  393,  394,  395/.; 
see  also  "Christ"  and  "Christ 
Jesus." 
j  Jesus  Christ:  the  Son  of  God,  51, 
'     138/.,  216,  221 ;  born  of  woman, 
born  under  law,  216  /.;  died, 
139,  140  (cf.  11),  on  the  cross, 
143,    145    (cf    168-175);   raised 
from  the  dead  by  the  Father, 
6/.;  source  and  agent  of  Paul's 
apostleship,  5;  source  of  grace, 
18,  20,  361;    jointly  with  God 
the  Father  source  of  grace  and 
peace,  11;  gave  himself  for  oux- 
sins,   II  /.   (cf.   139);  "calling" 
not  ascribed  to,  19;  the  gospe! 
of,  24;  Paul  a  servant  of,  32;  is 
the  content  of  the  revelation  b> 


INDEXES 


527 


which  Paul  received  his  gospel, 
41-43,  50,  51;  sent  forth  from 
God,  216,  to  deliver  them  that 
are  under  law,  219,  that  they 
might  receive  the  adoption,  220; 
the  sons  of  God  receive  his 
Spirit,  221;  he  is  the  basis  and 
cause  of  Christian  liberty,  83, 
270;  object  of  faith,  120/.,  123, 
138  /.,  196  /.;  cf.  202;  basis  of 
justification,  124;  his  crucifixion 
participated  in  by  Paul,  135;  he 
lives  in  the  believer,  136/.;  cf. 
248;  not  distinguishable  in  ex- 
perience from  the  Spirit,  137; 
manifested  his  love  in  his  gift  of 
himself  for  men,  139  {cf.  11);  his 
death  evidence  that  righteous- 
ness is  not  through  law,  140;  set 
forth  to  the  Galatians,  crucified, 
143;  delivered  men  from  the 
curse  of  the  law,  168-171;  be- 
came a  curse  for  us,  171  ^.,  in 
order  that  we  might  receive  the 
blessing  of  the  Spirit,  176;  the 
law  a  means  of  bringing  men  to 
him,  200;  by  baptism  into  him 
they  acquire  his  standing,  203; 
in  him  all  distinctions  are  abol- 
ished, 206  ff. ;  those  who  are  his 
are  heirs  of  the  promise  to  Abra- 
ham, 208;  they  who  have  the 
Spirit  of  the  Son  recognise  God 
as  Father,  223;  relation  of  Gen- 
tile believers  to  Christ  de- 
stroyed by  receiving  circumci- 
sion, seeking  to  be  justified  in 
law,  272,  275;  in  him  neither 
circumcision  nor  uncircumcision 
avails  anything,  but  faith  work- 
ing through  love,  279  /.;  they 
who  are  his  have  crucified  the 
flesh,  319;  the  Galatians  ex- 
horted to  fulfil  the  law  of  the 


Christ,  329;  his  cross  an  occa- 
sion of  persecution,  349,  and  the 
ground  of  glorying,  354;  the 
apostle  received  as  Jesus  Christ 
by  the  Galatians,  242;  bears  in 
his  body  the   marks  of  Jesus, 

359/- 
Jew,  Jews,  108,  III,  119,  206. 
Jewish   Christians,   108  /. ;  eating 

with  Gentiles,  lix/.,  116. 
Jews:    religion    of,    46;    attitude 

towards  Gentiles,  lix,  104. 
John,  94. 
JosEPHUS:    use    of    geographical 

terms,  xxxiii;  use  of  StaGTQXf^,  499. 
Joy,  312,  314- 
Jubilees,  doctrines  of  the  book  of, 

158. 
Judaisers,     see     "Opponents     of 

Paul." 
Judea,  62  /.,  435  /.;  churches  of, 

62/. 
Justify,  119,  123/,,  159,  165,  201, 

275,  460/. 

Kindness,  312,  315. 
Kingdom  of  God,  310  ff. 

Lake,  K.,  1,  509. 

Law,  119/.,  123/.,  132/.,  140,  147, 
I5i»  163/.  (esp.  170),  182,  184, 
187,  192  ff.,  198,  200,  216,  218, 
219,  252,  274,  275/.,  293/.,  302, 
318,  329,  351  /•,  443  ff- 

Law:  curse  of,  163  ff.,  168-172; 
freedom  of  Gentile  Christians 
from,  82,  270,  291  /.;  of  Jewish 
Christians,  112  ff.;  to  be  ful- 
filled by  Christians,  293  /. ;  the 
law  of  the  Christ,  329;  see  also 

443/. 
Leaven,  283. 
Legalists  in  the  early  church,  see 

"Opponents  of  Paul." 


5^^ 


INDEXES 


Letters  (epistles),  forms  of,  among 

ancients,  lo,  i6  /, 
Life,  eternal,  339,  343. 

LiGHTFOOT,  J.  B.,  XXxiii,  1,  6l,  II5, 
129,  288,   509  /. 

Live,  III,  134,  136  /.,  166/.,  321; 

by  the  Spirit,  321;  cf.   136  /., 

297/.,  302. 
LOMAN,  A.  D.,  Ixx. 
Long-suffering,  312,  315. 
Lord,  II,  60,  211,  283,  354,  361, 

393,  399  #. 
Love,   139,  279  /.,  293,  296,  312, 

314,  519/. 

McCowN,  C.  C,  513. 

McGiFFERT,  A.  C  li/.,  241. 

Magic,  144. 

Male  and  female,  206. 

Manen,  W.  C.  van,  Ixx. 

Marks  of  Jesus,  359  /. 

Mediator,  i8()  f. 

Mercy,  357. 

Meyer,  H.  A.  W.,  141. 

Miracles,  151  /. 

MoFFATT,  J.,  xxxii,  xxxix. 

Muratorian  canon,  Ixix. 

Mutilate,  288. 

Nabateans,  57. 

Negatives  with  participles,  229. 

North-Gaiatian  view:  stated,  xxiii; 

advocates  of,   xxiv;   conclusion 

concerning,  xiiv. 
Norton,  F.  O.,  498/.,  502. 
Nouns  used  qualitatively,  4,   21, 

40,  43,  70  89,  120,  186,  209,  228, 

282,  298,  311,  352. 

Observance  of  days,  etc.,  2^2  f. 

Occasion  and  purpose  of  the  letter 
to  the  Galatians,  liii  ff. 

Old  Testament:  Paul's  interpreta- 
tion of,  159  ff.,  166  /.,  173  ff., 
181  #.,  253/.   (esp.  256),  268; 


quotations  from,  123,  153,  159, 
164,  166,  167,  173,  181,  252', 
264,  267,  293  /.,  296. 
Opponents  of  Paul,  liv/.,  3,  24/., 
75,  77  ff.,  82,  107,  156  ff.,  246,' 
281-289;  questions  at  issue  be- 
tween them  and  Paul,  Ivii  /,, 
75,  104  #.,  233,  274. 

Participles,    use  of,   69,    75,    103, 
115,    119,    145,    151,    172,    199, 
218,  228,  253,  255/.,  275,  281, 
331,  345,  353- 
Parties  (dissensions),  304,  309. 
Paul,  I,  272. 

Paul:  chronology  of  his  life,  lii,  19, 
67  ff. ;  life  in  Judaism,  43-47  pas- 
sim; persecution  of  the  church, 
44/-,  64;  revelation  of  Christ  to 
him,  41/.,  49  jf.;  abandonment 
of  law,  132/.;  sojourn  in  Arabia, 
55/.;  return  to  Damascus,  58; 
first  visit  to  Jerusalem  after  his 
conversion,    58-60;    sojourn   in 
Syria   and   Cilicia,    62;   second 
visit  to  Jerusalem,  67  ff.;  com- 
panions when  he  wrote  to  the 
Galatians,  8  /. ;  preacher  of  the 
gospel  to  the  Galatians,  25  /., 
30,  143/-,  147,  237/.,  310/.;  ill- 
ness  in    Galatia,    xxix,    237  /.; 
number  of  visits  to  Galatia,  xlv, 
240/.;  enthusiastic  reception  by 
Galatians,  242  ff.;  desire  to  visit 
them  again,  250;  relation  to  the 
Twelve,  54,  58/.,  86/.,  94-100; 
relation   to   early    Christianity, 
45  /•,  65;  opponents,  liv  /.,  3, 
24/-,  75.  77  ff.,  82,  107,  156/., 
246,  281-289;  persecuted,  286; 
personal  sufferings,  359  /. ;  rela- 
tion to  Barnabas,  69,  94,  108/.; 
cf.  xlii;  to  Titus,  69;  relation  to 
Peter,  94-98,  102-113;  apostle- 


INDEXES 


529 


hip,  1, 2, 3;  cf.  37-43,  48, 53, 

8,  62,  66,  93,  100,  372  /.; 
ource  of  his  gospel,  35-43.  55; 
:s  content,  42  /.,  49-51.  53, 
I  /.;  conception  of  God,  see 
inder  "God";  conception  of 
esus  and  attitude  towards  him, 
.,5.  11,32,34.51,123,135-139; 
ee  also  under  "Jesus  Christ"; 
;onception  of  the  law,  120,  132 
J.,  147,  272,  275;  see  also  under 
'Law";  his  own  relation  to  law, 
[32;  his  concern  for  the  unity 
)f  the  church,  73,  113;  care  for 
;he  poor,  99  /. ;  revelation  expe- 
•iences,  41,  49/-.  69 /. ;  eschatol- 
jgy,  14,  16,  312;  use  of  O.  T. 
scripture,  see  "Old  Testa- 
ment"; enforcement  of  his  ap- 
peal by  use  of  his  own  name, 
272;  of  a  statement  by  appeal 
to  God,  61;  salutations  of  his 
letters,  i6ff.\  authentication  of 
his   letters   by    his   own    hand, 

347/- 

ace,  10,  312,  314/-,  357.  A^^ff• 

dagogue,  200  /. 

rsecution:  of  Christians  by  Paul, 

44/.,  64;  of  Paul  by  others,  286; 

of  Paul's  opponents,  349  /. 

'ter,  91,  93.  I04  /•.  i07,  I09  /•; 

see  also  "  Cephas.'' 

larisees,  Josephus's  account  of, 

IILO:  idea  concernmg  creation  ot 
man,  6;  use  of  Stae-rjXTQ,  498/. 
:erson,  a.,  and  Naber,  S.  A., 
Ixx. 

romise,  176,  180/.,  182,  184/., 
186,  189,  192,  196/.,  208,  252/., 
264. 

ualitative    use    of    nouns,     see 
"Nouns  used  qualitatively." 
34 


Ramsay,  W.  M.,  xxxii,  li,  24,  156, 
213,  239,  420,  502/. 

Religion,  Paul's  view  of  the  es- 
sence of,  Ixiv. 

Rendall,  F.,  xlvii,  192. 

Resurrection  of  Jesus,  relation  to 
Paul's  apostleship,  6  /. 

Reveal,  49,.  199,  433/- 

Revelation,  41,  43  (50  /•),  69,  433  /• 

Righteous,  166,  460 #. 

Righteousness,  140,  I53  /•.  WS> 
277  /.,  460  ff. 

Salutations  of  Paul's  letters,  10, 
16/. 

SCHMIEDEL,   P.,  XXV,   XXxix. 

Scripture,  159/-,  ^95,  267. 

Scripture,  quotations  from,  and 
Paul's  use  of,  see  "Old  Testa- 
ment." 

Seed,  180  ff.,  189,  208,  505  #•;  of 
Abraham,  180/.,  189,  208. 

Self-control,  312,  317/. 

Self-seeking,  304,  308/. 

SlEFFERT,  F.,  XXV,  73,  76,  90,  I50/. 

Sin,  II,  125/.,  195,  436/. 
Sinai,  257  /. 
Sinner,  119,  125,  127/. 
Slave,  206,  211,  224;  cf.  32,  34. 

SODEN,  H.  VON,  Ixxxi/. 

Son  of  God,  sons  of  God,  49,  51, 
138  /.,  202,  216  /.,  221  /.,  224, 

394,  404  ff- 
Sons  of  Abraham,  155,  156/.;  cf. 

252,  267. 
SouTER,  A.,  Ixxiv. 
South-Galatian  view:  stated,  xxiii; 

advocates   of,   xxiv;   conclusion 

concerning,  xliv. 
Sowing  and  reaping,  339,  34^  /• 
Spirit,    147  /.,    151,   176,  221  /., 

265,  277/.,  297,  300,  302,  312/., 

321/.,  325  (328),  339,  342,  361/., 

486/.;  of  God's  Son,  221  /. 


530 


INDEXES 


Spiritual,  325,  327,  489. 

Steck,  R.,  Ixx. 

Stoics:  their  conception  of  xveu[jLa, 

487;  their  use  of  cxotxeiov,  51 1. 
Strife,  304,  307. 
Syria,  62. 

Table  fellowship  between  Jewish 
and  Gentile  Christians,  lix  /., 
103/.,  116. 

Teach,  40,  335,  336. 

Teaching  and  teachers  in  the  early 
church,  335  ff. 

Tertullian:  his  N.  T.  canon, 
Ixix;  interpretation  of  cxotxelov, 
516,518. 

Text  of  the  letter  to  the  Galatians, 
Ixxiv  ff.,  II,  13,  26,  36,  40,  51, 
55,  59,  69,  85,  88/,  95,  108,  109, 
114,  122,  139,  143,  176,  183,  189, 
193,  194,  208,  216,  223,  231,  243, 
249,  253,  259/,  265,  270/,  275, 
304,  311,  324,  330,  335,  344, 
345/-,  348,  350,  352,  355/. 

Time  and  place  of  the  writing  of  the 
letter  to  the  Galatians,  xliv  ff. 

TiSCHENDORF,   C,   Ixxiv  _^. 

Titles    and    predicates    of    Jesus, 

392  #. 
Titus,  69,  75;  cf.  80/. 


Tradition,  46  jf. 

Transgression,  188,  325,  327. 

Transgressor,  130/. 

Truth,  281;  of  the  gospel,  85,  109. 

Turner,  C.  H,  1. 

Twelve,  the :  attitudetowards  Paul, 
91,  97;  Paul's  relation  to  them, 
3,  38,  58  ff.',  standing  in  the 
early  church,  71,  86/,  89,  91  /, 
94/.,  102/,  iiiff. 

Uncircumcision,  gi  ff.,  279,  355. 
Uncleanness,  304  /. 
Unity  of  the  church,  Paul's  con- 
cern for,  73,  113. 

Walk,  297/,  321/,  357. 
Wantonness,  304  /. 
Weizsacker,  C,  79,  83. 
Westcott  and  Hort,  text  of  the 

letter  to  the  Galatians,  Ixxiv. 
Wieseler,  K,  73,  128. 
Witchcraft,  304,  306. 
Works  of  law,  119  /,  123  /,  147, 

151,  163. 
Works  of  the  flesh,  303  ff. 
World,  354,  514. 

Zahn,    xxxvii,    xl  /,    57,    79,    90, 
128/.,  326. 


II.     GREEK  WORDS  AND  PHRASES. 

This  index  includes  all  the  words  in  the  Epistle,  and  a  few  important 
words  discussed  in  the  Introduction  or  Appendix.  The  lists  of  occur- 
rences in  the  Epistle  are  complete,  except  when  otherwise  indicated. 
When  examples  of  special  usages  are  given,  the  completeness  of  the 
lists  of  these  is  not  guaranteed.  A  number  in  bold-face  type  indicates 
a  page  on  which  the  word  is  discussed. 


dX>vY]Xa)v,  293,  297,  300,  323,  329. 

aXkoq,  22  /.,  283,  420  /. 

a[iapxia,  II,  125/.,  195,  436/. 

d:^a?T6)X6<;,  II9,  125,  127/. 

dttxV,  16,  361  /. 

av,  with  ind.,  32,  193;  with  subj., 
189. 

ava^ac'vd),  67,  69. 

dvayxa^w,  75/.,  Ill,  115.  349;  al- 
ways of  the  attempt  to  subject 
Gentile  Christians  to  the  law. 

dvi:0£ixa  and  dviOr^ixa,  25,  28,  30. 

dvaX{ffX,a>,  297. 

avaxXiQpoa),  329,  330. 

dvacraTdw,  288,  289. 

dvaaTpo4)T],  43,  44. 

dvaTt'OiQ^t,  70,  71  • 

dyepy^oixa:,  54,  58. 

dvT)p,  264. 

iv8iaTTQ[i,i,  102. 

d'vOpcoTCoq,  3,  4  /.,  30,  32  (bis),  37, 
38,  40,  88,  119,  120,  177,  178, 
274,  325,  339;  xard  d'vOptoTCOv, 
37,  38,  177- 

ivoTjToq,  143,  148. 

(xvxiif.si[i.ai,  300. 

'AvTCOXS'.a,  102. 

dxsxMxoax'.,  277,  278. 

dTC^pXo:j.a'.,  55. 

dxo,  3,  4,  II,  18,  86,  103,  147,  257, 
275- 
531 


c,  223  /. 
'A^padtx,   153,   155,   159,   162,   175, 

180,  186,  208,  252. 
<iw%q,  335,  338,  345- 
dyaGfoauvT],  312,  316. 
dyaxdo),  139,  293,  296,  519/. 
dYaxTQ,  279/.,  293,  312,  314,  520/. 
"Ayap,  258  (bis). 
(^yyeXoq,  25,   189,  242. 
dyvodo),  62. 
ayo),  302. 
dSeXqjot',  8,  35,   36,    177,    236,  264, 

267,  286,  291,  325,  362. 
dtBeX(pbq  ToG  xup^ou,  60  /. 
dcBtxiw,  237. 
dOsTico,  140,  178,  180. 
cd'^oc,  53- 
aYpecjts,  304,  309. 
aStov,  13,  16,  426/. 
aSwvtoq,  339,  343,  431/. 
dxaOapCTi'a,  304,  305. 
dvcoT),  147,  151. 
dxouo),  43,  64,  252. 
dxpo^uaxia,  91,  92/.,  279,  355. 
dy.upoG),  182,  184. 
dXT)0eta,  85,  109,  281;   riaXriQzia  xoO 

ejayyeX(ou,  85,  109. 
dX-riOeuo),  244. 

<iXXd,  5,  75,  91,  195,  etfreq. 
dXXdaao),  250. 
dXXTjyop^o),  253,  254/. 


53^ 


INDEXES 


dtxo6vr]o-xw,  132,  1 40. 
dxoxaXuxTO),  49,  199,  433^. 
dToy.(k'kv<i)iq,  41,  43,  69,  433/- 
axoxdxTO),  288,  289  /. 
axoXasx^avo),   220. 
dizopioi,  250. 
ixocToXiQ,  93,  94. 
dxdaToXoq,  2,  3,  54,  60,  363  /. 
apa,  125,  126,  140,   155,  208,  287, 

288,  345. 
'Apa^ta,  55,  57,  258. 
dtpetjxto,  32  (bis). 
oc'paYjv,  206. 
apTW  28,  29,  30,  250. 
dcjeXyeta,  304,  305. 
dcaOiveta,  237,  238. 
daQevqq,  230. 
auxdq,  intensive,  99,  351;  personal, 

6,  38,  49,  ei  freq. 
icpopft^o),  49,  52,  107. 

dc^OplXTQ,  291,   292. 

a'xptq,  189,  211. 

^(XTiCC.ti,  203,  204/, 

Bapva^aq,  69,  94,  108/. 

^apoq,  329,  330. 

^aatXeca  Geotj,  310,  311/. 

^aoxai'vo),  143  /. 

^ajTaCo),  285,  286,  329/.,  333,  359. 

^t^Xfov,  164. 

^X^TCti),  297. 

^od:(i),  264. 

FaXciTat,  143;  c/,  xvii^.,  xxv/. 
FaXaxia,  lo;  c/.  xvii^.,  xxv/. 
FaXaTixdq,  xxxi  jf. 
rap,  30,  31,  89,  93,  163,  193.  207, 

243,  278,  291,  300,  330,  351,  et 

freq. 
yI,  149. 

Yevv(ia),  252,  258,  265. 
fi'^oq,  46. 
ylyoyucci,   126,    171,  175,    182,    192, 

200,  216  (bis),  236,  244,  323,  354. 


Ytvtoaxo),  94,  155,  229,  230. 

YvtopfCo),  35. 

YP(i[X[xa,  347  /. 

Ypa?T],  159,  160,  195,  267. 

Ypi<p(o,  61,  164,   173,  252,  264,  347. 

YUVT),  216. 

Scixvo),  297. 

A(x\xaav.6q,  58. 

Ss,  41,  49,  61,  etfreq.;  adversative, 
41,  107,  119,  124,  137,  etc.;  con- 
tinuative,  49,  71,  102,  137,  138, 
165,  208,  etc.;  resumptive,  182, 
211,  297;  untranslated,  64;  va- 
riant reading  for  yi^p,  36,  etc. 

Bsxaxevxe,  59. 

ScxaTeaaapec;,  67. 

Se^tdq  8tSw[JLt,  94,  95  /. 

Seopiat,  236. 

SIxoiAa',  242. 

SfiXot;,  165. 

Std:,  with  gen.,  3,  5,  6,  41,  49,  67, 
68,  120,  122,  132,  140,  176,  186, 
189,  202,  224,  252,  279,  281,  293, 
354;  with  ace,  77,  22,7. 

Sta0Tf)XTQ,  178/.,  182/.  (226),  257, 
496/. 

Bcaxovoq,  125/. 

BtapiivG),  85. 

Staxdiaaa),  189,  190. 

Btacpipti),  87,  211. 

StSiijxG),  40. 

S{S(i)[i,t,  II,  94,  193,  196,  243; 
Souvac  lauxdv,  II,  12. 

Scxatoq,  166,  460  Jf. 

BtxoctocruvT),  140,  153  /.,  193,  277/., 
460  #. 

C'.xat6(i),  119,  123  {bis),  124,  159, 
165,  201,  275,  460/. 

8t6,  267. 

8[xo<JTaata,  304,  309. 

Stcoxo),  44,  64,  265,  286,  349. 

Soxi(o,  71,  72,  86,  89,  94,  96,  330, 
331. 


INDEXES 


533 


SoxoOvTsq,    o\,  71,   72,  86,    89,   94, 

96. 
SoxttJi,al^(o,  332. 
S6^a,  16. 
Bo^c4i;o>,  65. 
SouXefa,  258,  270. 
SouXeuG),  227  /.,  230,  262,  293. 
5ouXo^,  32,  34,  206.  211,  224. 
8ouX6w,  215. 
Suvatxat,  193. 
86va[jLt<;,  151  /. 
SuvaT6(;,  243. 
860,  252,  257. 
8o)?eav,  140/. 

Idv,  25,  120/.,  272,  285,  300,  325, 
339;  after  rel.  pronoun,  285,  300, 
339;  ed:v  [XT)  exceptive,  120/. 

lauToQ,  II,  107,  139,  330,  332   ibis), 

339- 
syefpo),  6,  7/. 
sYxpaTsta,  312,  317 /. 
eyti,  38/.,  132,  136,  236  (bis),  272, 

283,  286,  359;    see   also   i][t.e'iq; 

other  forms  sing,  and  plur.  freg. 
eOvtxwt;,  III,  II5- 
eOvoq,   2,  53,   70,  93-  96.  103,  III, 

119,  159  (bis),  160,  175. 
el,  22,    30,  32,  60,  III,  124,    130, 

140,    149,    184,    193,    208,    224, 

243, 286,  297,  302,  321,  330,  354; 

ei  (J.T1  exceptive,  22,  60,  354. 
etSov,  60,  91,  109,  347. 
elStoXoXaTpia,  304,  306. 
e-xfj,  149  {bis),  234. 

£tV.(i),   84. 

el[il,  22,  24,  e!  freq.;  i^fi-sOa,  215. 
elxov,  III. 

elpTjvTQ,  10,  312,  314/-,  357,  424/- 
eiq,  22,  55,  67,  72/.,  93/.,  96,  97/m 

200,  291,  etfreq.;  slq  xevov,  72/. 
elq,  181,  190   (bis),  206,   252,  257, 

293- 

h',e,  1,3,  25,  49,  107, 119/-,  122, 


{cf.    epya    v6;jlou),    1 55,     1 84,    et 

freq. 
ixaazoq,  332,  333. 
ey.^iXXo),  267. 
exxXsi'o),  246. 

lxx>vT]afa,   10,  44/.,  62/,,  417  #• 
exXuw,  334/. 
exxiTCXO),  276  /. 
exxTUO),  241  /. 
eXsoq,  357. 

IXeuOepc'a,  82,  270,  291   (bis). 
eXeueepoq,  206,  252   (bis),  263,  267 

l>.eu6e?6o),  270. 
"EXk-qv,  75/.,  206/. 
eXxiq,  277,  279. 
eixauToCi,  130. 
l(jL[xlv(i),  164. 
e[J.6?,  43,  347- 
e^jLTcpoaOsv,  III. 

ev,  18,  20,  43,  49,  62,  65,  70,  83, 
136/.,  151.  275,  etfreq.;  ev  xupfq), 
283  ff.;  ev  XptaTW  ('iTfjooO),  62, 
83,  122,  124,  175,  202  {cf.  203), 
207  /.,  279  {cf.  283  ^.). 
ivapxo^iai,  148/. 
£vB6a>,  203/. 

svspyiw,  93/.,  151,  279,  281. 
heaxdiq,  1 3,  432/. 
eveuXoy^ojjLa;,  162. 
hijin,  270. 
i    evi,  206  (ter). 
I    hioLMibc,,  232,  234, 
evtJTTQ[JLt,  see  eveaTox;. 
evxax^d),  344. 
evxoxTW,  281. 
svwx'.ov,  61. 
e^ayopdt^co,  168,  219. 
i^oLigiM,  13. 
e^axoax^XXw,  216,  221. 
sqopuaao),  243,  244. 
e^ouOevIti),  241. 

lxaYTeX(a,  1 76,  180/.,  182,    1 84/., 
186,  192,  196/.,  208,  252/.,  264. 


534 


INDEXES 


ixa-(^iXko[i.(xi,  189. 

iTCctTa,  58,  62,  67  /. 

exf,  with  gen.,  173,  181;  with  dat., 

291;  with  ace,  211,  230,  357. 
extBtaxajjo),  178,  180. 
iizSu^iiio,  299,  300. 
eTC'.0U[x(a,  297,  299,  319. 
extxaxapaToq,  1 64,  1 73. 
ext(JLiva),  59. 
6xiOTp^?(i),  230. 
IxcxeXio),  148/, 
ixiipOTZOq,  211,  212  _^. 
IxtxopTQy^o),  151,  152. 
epy<ii;o[j.at,  345. 
spyo'^*   332;    epya  v6;xou,    II9,    120, 

123  (bis),  147,  151,  163;  epyaTfj; 

aapx6q,  303  /. 
lpTfj[xoq,  264. 
epc0ta,  304,  308/. 
eptq,  304,  307. 
Epxetxac,    62,    102,    103,    107,     189, 

198,  201,  216. 
epd),  180. 

exepo?,  22/.,  60,  332,  333,  420/. 
e-rt,  32,  33,  286  (bis). 
6Toq,  58,  67,  182. 
e6aYYe>.(!;oiJLat,   25,   26,  30,   37,   53, 

64,  237. 
eiaYT^Xcov,  22,  24,  37,  70,  85,  91, 

109,  422  /. 
euSox^o),  49,  52. 
eOe^wq,  53. 
euXoyico,  162. 
euXoyia,  175. 
euxpoaoix^d),  349,  350. 
6up{ax(i),  125. 
eu(ppa(v(i),  264. 
e'xOpa,  304,  306. 
ex9p6q,  244. 
e'Xw,  83,  252,  264,  332,  345. 

t;a(i).  III,  134/.,  136  (bis),  138,  166, 

167,  321. 
^r]\oq,  304,  307. 


'C,r]\6(ji,  246  (/er),  247. 
^Y]X(i)TY)q,  46,  47. 
!;y3t4(o,  32,   124. 
tiuy6(;,  270. 
Ilu'^Tj,  283. 
i;u;ji.6(i),  283. 
^wTQ,  339,  343. 
I^woxot^o),  193,  195. 

rfkiY.oq,  348  (v.  1.). 

^■^elq,  25,  96,    119,    123,  215,  271; 

cf.  265. 
tiipx,  59,  232  /. 

Oau^dl^ti),  18. 

OiXri[ia,  15. 

GeXw,  24/.,  147,  230,  246,  250,  252, 
300,  349,  351- 

0e6q,  5,  II,  15,  30,  44,  61,  65,  88, 
134,  138,  140,  153,  159,  165,  182, 
186,  190,  192,  202,  216,  221, 
224,  227,  229,  242,  310/.,  339, 
357;  to  be  supplied  in  thought, 
19,49,  94i  152,  282;  without  art., 
5,  II,  88  /.,  134,  202,  224/.,  227 
(bis),  229  {bis),  242,  310,  339. 

Oep(i;o>,  339  (ter),  341,  344. 

OfjXu,  206, 

eu;x6q,  304,  307. 

'laxw^oq,  60,  94,  103. 

tSe,  272,  273. 

"Stoq,  71,  333/.,  344/. 

(Sou,  61,  273. 

'l£poa6Xu(xa,  54,  58,  67. 

'IspouffaXifjtJL,  261,  263. 

'Ir]aouq,  319,  359,  392,  394. 

'Itqjouc;  'KpiGz6q,  5,  II,  41,  143, 
175,  196,  354.  361,  393,  394, 
395  #• 

Tva,  expressing  purpose,  53,  83,  85, 
123,  134,  175,  196,  201,  220,  246, 
300,  307,  349,  351;  introducing 
a  complementary  clause,  96,  99; 
Yva  [XT],  300,  349. 


INDEXES 


535 


♦Iou8a(a,  62  /.,  435  /• 

'IouBait;(i>,  III,  115- 

'louSa'ixd)!;,  Ill,  iiS- 

'IouSaIo<;,  108,  III,  119.  206. 

'IouBaiffiJL6<;,  43,  46. 

'Ijaix,  264. 

'Iapa?]X  Tou  OsoD,  6,  357. 

laTOpIo),  58  /. 

laX^d),  279,  281. 

'lowtvT]!;,  94. 

xaOo)?,  91,  I53»  310- 
xa(,   meaning    "and,"   8   et  freq.; 
"also,"  30,  93,  215,  236;  "even," 
123,  288. 
xaiv6<;,  355. 

%aig6q,  232,  233  /.,  344,  345- 
xaXlo),  18,  20,  49,  282,  291. 
xaX6q,  344. 
xaXwq,  246,  281. 
xavtjv,  357,  358/. 
xa?S(a,  221. 
xap'7c6^,  312  /. 

xaxa,  with  gen.,  192,  300  (bis),  318; 
with  ace,  15,  37,  44,  69,  7o,  7i, 
102,  no,  143,  177,  208,  252,  264, 
265;  cf.  xxxiv;    xaxd:    avOptoxov, 
37,    102,    103,    143;    ^^^°^   aapxa, 
252,  265;  xax'  {S(av,  71/. 
xaTaytvcSaxo),  102,  1 03. 
xaTa5ouX6a),  83. 
xaxaXuo),  130,  131- 
xatapa,  163,  171. 

xaxapYiw,  182,  184,  275,  276,  287. 
xaxapxt'Co),  325,  327  /. 
xaxaaxoxdo),  82  /. 
xaxeaOt'o),  297. 
xaxYix^o),  335,  336  /. 
xauxaoiiat,  351,  354. 
v.oc(iXT,[La,  332  /. 
KdXxai,  KeXxof,  xvii  ff. 
xsv6So^oq,  323,  324- 
xsv6?  (elq  xsvdv),  72,  73- 
xT]p6ajo>,  70  (97  /.),  286. 


Kr3?aq,  58/.,  94/-,  102,  III. 
KiXtxfa,  62. 

xXT]povoti.lto,  267,  310. 
xXT]povoiJi.(a,  184,  185/.,  503. 
x>.Y)pov6^oq,     208  /.,     211,     224  /., 

503- 

yjkiixa,  61. 

xotXfa,  49. 

xotvwviw,  335,  336. 

xo'.vtovfa,  94. 

xoTudo),  234. 

xoxoq,  359. 

xdaiAoq,  215,  354,  514. 

xpdi:t!,(o,  223. 

xpssxd:vvu[jn,  1 73. 

xpt^a,  285. 

xxbiq,  355,  356. 

xuptoq,  II,  60,  211,  283,  354,  361, 
393,  399  #•;  refers  to  Christ  ex- 
cept in  211;  with  art.,  60,  354, 

361. 
xup6to,  178,  179. 
xwixoc;,  304,  310. 

XapL^civto,  88,  147,  176. 

Adro),  28,  177,  181,  182,  211,  252, 

267,  272,  297;  Xdyw  U,  211,  297; 

cf.  182. 
XoY^^otJiai,  153.  154- 
U-roq,  294,  296,  335,  337- 
Xotxo?,  108,  359. 

tj,axapta^6<;,  243. 

(jLaxpoOu^(a,  312,  315. 

[xaXicrxa,  345. 

lJLa>Xov,  263;  tJi>a>^>^ov  SI,  229,  230. 

lx,av9civco,  147. 

^apxupeo),  243. 

tJLapxupo'tiai,  274. 

;xI8t],  304,  310. 

^h,  227,  252,  257;  cf.  xxxi. 

[jLej{xT]<;,  189,  190. 

txexi,  with  gen.,  69,  103,  262,  267, 

361;  with  ace,  58,  182. 
liexaaxplcpo),  24,  25. 


536 


INDEXES 


(JieTaT(6T;u,t,  i8,  19. 

li.iX9iq,  248. 

iXTQ,  with  hortatory  subj.,  323,  344; 
with  imper.,  270,  339;  verb 
omitted,  291;  with  opt.  ([I'tj 
T^votTo),  126,  192,  354;  with 
Xva  in  a  clause  of  purpose,  300, 
302,  349;  after  a  verb  of  precau- 
tion, 297,  325,  328;  after  a  verb 
of  fear  (expressed  or  implied), 
72,  73  ff;  234;  with  participle, 
227,  229,  344;  see  also  zi  ^xtj  and 
eav  ^TQ. 

[irjMq,  330,  359;  [xif]5b'iv,  330/. 

[iriv,  232,  233. 

IXTfJTTgp,  49,  263. 

[xtxpoq,  283. 

HVT][jLoveua),  99. 

ti.6vov  (adv.),  64,  99,  246,  291,  349. 

[i6voq,  147,  332. 

[xop?)6w,  248. 

lAUXTTJpfCw,   339,  340. 

vexp6<;  (ex,  vexpdJv),  6. 

VTQXtOq,  211  f.,  215. 

v6ixoq,   119/.,   123/.,   132/.,   140, 

147,  151,  163,  164,  165,  167, 
168/.,  182, 184, 187, 192, 193/., 
198, 200, 216, 218, 219, 252, 274, 
275  /.,  293  /.,  302,  318,  329, 

351  /.,  445  ff-;  with  art.,  164, 
167,  168,  182,  187,  192,  200,  274, 

329- 
vOv,  64,  138,  148,  229,  261. 

6,  T),  t6,  6,  8,  ID,  etfreq.;  with  an 
adverb,  293,  cf.  359/.;  with  par- 
ticiple, 6,  18,  24,  37,  49,  64,  71, 
86,  et  freq. ;  with  prepositional 
phrase,  75;  prefixed  to  a  sen- 
tence, 293;  cf.  258  /.;  with  prop- 
er names  and  appellatives,  385, 
392,  393,  394- 

olSa,  119,  227/.,  237. 


oUeloq,  345  /. 

otxoSoixito,  130/. 

ofxov6[xo?,  211  f. 

oXoq,  274,  283. 

o^otoq,  304. 

oix.oiq,  178. 

ovTox;,  193. 

bTZQioq,  87. 

oxwq,  13. 

6p0oTCo5sa),  109,  no. 

opoc,  258. 

oq,    16,  22,  25,  30,  61,    70,    83,   84, 

99,  130,  138,  143,  164,  181,  189, 

230,  248,  300,  310,  339;  with  eiv, 

300,  339. 
oarcq,  82,   253,  257,   258,  275,   285, 

304;  with  edtv,  285. 
Ste,  49,  102,  107,  109,  215,  216. 
oTt,  causal,  102,  123,  etfreq.;   with 

objective  clause,  37,  44,  et  freq. 
oj,  ojx,  oux,  3,  22,  32,  etfreq.;    ou 

[J-TJ,   267,   297. 

ouSi,  3,  38,  54,  75,  84,  206  {his), 
351;  meaning  "not  even,"  75, 
84,  351- 

ojSst'q,  87,  89,  165,  178,  211,  22,7, 
272,  283. 

oux  aXkoq  eI  (xtq,  22  /. 

ouxirt,  136,  184,  201,  224. 

o5v,  151,  187,  192,  243,  270,  345. 

o'jpotvdt;,  25. 

oCixe,  40,  279  {his),  355  (6i5). 

o5to<;,  99,  147,  155,  349,  etc. 

ouTwc;,  adverb  of  intensity,  18,  148; 
of  comparison,  215,  265;  of  man- 
ner, 329. 

ojxf.  III,  114. 

h<fZlkiTTiq,  274,  275. 

o?eXov,  288. 

6?eaX[x6q,  143,  243, 

xa0T3[i,a,  319,  320/. 
liai'bafMyiq,  200,  20I. 
xatSfaxTj,  252  (W5),  267  {his). 


INDEXES 


537 


xdX'.v,  28,  58,  67,   130,  230    (bis), 

231  /.,  248,  270,  274. 
xd:vTOTS,  246. 
•icapdt,  with  gen.,  38,  39;  with  dat., 

165;  with  ace,  25,  27,  30. 
xapa^aaiq,  1 88. 
xapa^axTjc;,  130,  13 1. 
xapaSt'Sotxi,  139. 
xapaSoatg,  46,  47  /. 
Tzagaka^il^iydi,  30,  38,  39. 
xapaxTWtia,  325,  327. 
xapaTTip^di,  232,  233, 
xapsi^i,  246,  250. 
xapeforaxToc,  77,  7S. 
xapetaipXOtJ-a',  82,  83. 
xapixw,  359- 
%aq,  sing,  without  art.,  123,  274; 

sing,  with  art,,   173,  293,   296; 

plur.  without  art.,  iii,  202,  207, 

211,  335.  345;   plur.  with  art., 

8,  159,  164,  195. 
T&axui,  149  /. 

xaxifip,  5,  II,  15,  211,  223,224,384/. 
xaxptxoq,  46. 
ITaOXoq,  I,  272. 
xetOto,  30,  281,  283. 
x£tp(it;a),  325,  329. 
xetpaayLdq,  241. 
xeta'tJ-ovTQ,  282,  283. 
xepf,  13  {v.  /.). 
xeptxaxlo),  297,  2r;0. 
xsptaaoxiptix;,  46- 
xepiT^ixvo),   75,   272,   273,  274,  275, 

349,  351- 

xeptTOixTf],  91  /.,  93,  94,  96,  107, 
108,  279,  286,  355. 

niTpoq,  91,  93. 

XTjXty.oc;,  347,  348. 

xtoxeuw,  91,  123,  153,  196,  475  #• 

xfoxiq,  64,  120,  121,  123,  138,  147, 
151,  155,  159,  162,  166,  167,  176, 
196,  198,  199,  201  (bis),  202, 
277,  279/-,  312,  316,  345,  475/- 

xt3x6<;,  162. 


xXocvaw,  339,  340. 

xX7ip6a),  293,  294/. 

xXTjpwfxa,  216,  218. 

izk-qaioy,  293. 

xvcutxa,  147,   148/.,  151,   176,  221, 

265,  277,  278,  297,  300  (bis),  302, 

312,  313,  321  /.,  325,  328,  339 

(bis),  342,  361,  486/. 
xvsO^jLa  aytov,  first   appearance   of, 

488;   Tcveuixa  Gslov,  487  /.,  xveO(j.a 

05OU,    488. 

xvsu[jLaTtx.6c;,  325,  327,  489. 

xot^o),  99,  164,  167,  274,  300,  344. 

xo>.u<;,  46,  181,  264. 

xovYjp6q,  13. 

xopSito,  44,  64. 

xopvsia,  304,  305. 

xotI,  43,  44,  64,  87  /. 

xou,  243. 

xpiaao),  310. 

xpauTTj?,  312,  317,  325,  328. 

xpo,  54,   103,   198;   with  inf.,  103, 

198. 
xpoypi^w,  143,  144. 
xpoelBov,  159. 
xpoelxov,  310. 
xpoepd),  28. 

xpoeuaYYeXtL,o;ji,a'.,  159,  l6o. 
xpo63a[xfa,  211,  212. 
xpoxaXlo),  323,  324. 
xpox,6xT(i),  46. 
xpox.up6a),  182,  183. 
xpoXa[JL^cii:va>,  325,  326  /. 
xpoXeyw,  310,  311. 
xpo;  with  ace,  54,  59,  84,  85,  86, 

109,  no/.,  246,  250,  345  (bis). 
xpoaavaTfOrjijL'.,  53,  54,  89  /. 
%poaTlQ-(][i.i,  188. 
xpoCTwxov,    62,    88,    102;     xp6a(i)xov 

Xa^i^&vbi,  88;  xaxdi:  xpoaoixov,  102, 

103. 
xp6xepoq  (to  xpoTSpov),  237,  239/. 
xTtox6q,  99,  230. 
xox;.  III,  230. 


538 


INDEXES 


pi^yvu^c,  264. 

oap5,  53,  123  /.,  138,  148  /.,  237, 
241,  252,  265,  291  /.,  297,  300 
(bis),  303,  319,  339  (bis),  349, 
350  /.,  351  /•,  492  #.;  cidp5  xal 
«IlAa,  53,  54. 

aeauToO,  293,  325. 

Scvi:,  257,  258. 

oxavSaXov,  287. 

(jxoxlo),  325,  328. 

axs(pa),  339  iter);  cf.  341. 

c%ip[iix,  180,  181   (6w) /.,  189,  208, 

505/. 
(jTCOuSii^o),  99. 
oTaupd?,    145  /.,  287,    349  /.,  354; 

cf-  173- 
0Taup6a),  143,  145/.,  319,  354. 
OTelpoc;,  264. 
cmfjxG),  270,  271. 
oT^frt^a.  359,  360. 
OTOixetov,  215,  230;  ra  axoix^la.  tou 

%.6o[>.ou,  215,  510^. 

CTTOtxio),   321,   322,   357. 

axOXo?,  94,  96. 

06,  III,  325;  see  also  ufxet*;;  other 

forms  sing,  and  plur.  freq. 
a6v,  8,  75,  162,  319. 
auvaxdtYti),  1 08. 
auvej8{o),  1 03. 
(juvT3Xtxt(iTTQ<;,  46. 
cuvtarivo),  130,  131. 
auvxXefw,  195,  196,  199, 
auvxapaXaix^iivG),  69. 
ouvcjTaup6(i),  135  /. 
ffUvoTotx^w,  261  /. 
ouvuxoxpfvotxac,  108. 
Supfa,  62. 
awixa,  359. 

Tapijato,  24,  285 

xaxii>><i,  18/.,  20. 

T6xv(ov,  249  (v.  I.). 

texvov,  248,  262,  264  (bis),  267. 


TsXiw,   297. 

TSTpax6atoi,  182. 

TfxTO),  264. 

zlq,  143,   187,.  267,  281,  286. 

Ttq,  24,  30,  86,  103,  279,  325,  330, 

355. 
TfToq,  69,  75. 
TOtouToq,  311,  318,  325. 
ToaouToq,  I49. 
t6ts,  227,  265,  332. 
TO'Jvavrfov,  91, 
TpsTq,  58. 

Tp^xw,  y2,  281,  282. 

xptiixovTa,  182. 

uloBecrfa,  220,  221;  cf.  226. 

ul6q,    49,  138,  155,   202,  216,  221, 

224  (bis),  252,  267  (ter);    b  \j\hq 

TOU  6eou,  138  /. ;  b  ulhq  ajxou  (sc. 

ToCi  02ou),  49,   51,  216  /.,  221/.; 

u\hq,  ulol  (0eoD)  applied  to  men, 

202,  221,  224  (bis);  394,  404  ff.; 

ulol  'Appaa;x,    155;     cf.    156  /., 

252,  267. 
b[islq,  207,  208,  236,  264,  291,  325. 
u'^iispoq,  351. 
uxapxto,  46,  III,  115. 
uxip,  with  gen.,    11,  12,  139,  171; 

with  ace,  46. 
uxsp^oXiQ,  44,  45. 
ux6,  with  gen.,  37,  182,  229,  297; 

with    ace:    uxb    d:[xapT(av,     I95; 

uxb  Ix'.Tpdxous;  xal  oExov6{jloU(;,  21 1 ; 

uxb  xaTApocv,  163;  uxb  v6[iov,  198, 

216,  252,  302;    uxb   xatSaYwydv, 

201 ;   uxb  "zdc  axotxsla  tou  xdqxou, 

215- 

uxdxptaiq,  108,  109. 
uxooriXXo),  107. 
uxoaTpi(p(i),  58. 
uxoTayT),  84. 

ipavepdq,  303,  304. 
<f(xp[i.av.l(X,  304,  306. 


INDEXES 


539 


(peovito,  323, 325. 

<f%yoq,  304,  310. 

(pQopd,  339,  342. 

(fo<pio[i.ai,  107,  234. 
qjopTt'ov,  333  /. 
(fpevaxaT(i(i),  330,  331. 
(ppov^o),  283. 
(ppoupio),  198. 
(puXasati),  351. 
(pOpana,  283. 
<p6atq,  119,  227,  22S. 
(puVT^,  250. 

Xapa,  312,  314- 
X<xpi'C,o\i(xi,  186. 
Xaptq,   10,  18,  49,  94/.,  140,  141/-. 

276/.,  361,  423/. 
Xe(p,  189,  347. 
XPTjardTY).;,  312,  315. 
Xptaxd?,    18,  24,  25,  32,  62,    123, 

124,  125,  I35»  136,  140,  168,  181, 


200,  203,  208,  248,  270,  272,  275, 
319.  329.  349.  392,   395  /•;   i 

XptaTO.;,  24,    25,    319,  329.    349. 

398/. 
X?t(rub<; 'lT)aoOc;,  83,  120,   I23,  202, 

207,  242,  279;  see  also  122,  393, 

394  #•.  and  'iTjaoOt;  Xpiaxd?. 
Xp6voq,  211. 

t;;EUO(iSe>.ipo(;,  77,  78. 
tJ^euSoiJiat,  61. 

w,  143. 

toBfvd),  248. 

wpa,  84,  85. 

(!)<;,   28,    181,   236    (bis),  242,   293, 

345- 
caaxsp,  265. 
fixne  with  ind.,  108,  162,  200,  224, 

244. 
(iyeX^o),  272,  273. 


III. 


BIBLICAL  PASSAGES,  NOT  IN  GALATIANS,  DISCUSSED 
IN  THIS  COMMENTARY. 


Gen.,  chap.  12:  157. 
Gen.  12^  160/. 
Gen.  1 315,  181  /.,  507. 
Gen.,  chap.  17  (esp.  w.  ''•  •); 

cf.  181  f.,  507. 
Gen.  21",  267. 

Lev.  i85,  167. 
Lev,  19",  296. 

Deut.  272',  164. 
Deut.  32«-",  384. 

Ps.  2^  384. 

Isa.  54S  264. 

Hab.  2*.  166/. 

Mt.  43. «,  411. 
Mt.  5«  390. 
Mt.  II",  412. 
Mt.  16",  412. 


157; 


Mt.  27* 


411. 


Mk.  i^,  412. 
Mk.  I",  410/. 
Mk.  3",  411. 
Mk.  3^366,  378/. 
Mk.  3l^  378. 
Mk.  g\  410/. 
Mk.  1332,  412. 
Mk.  14",  411. 

Lk.  1^2,  412/. 


Lk. 


Lk.  3",  412. 
Lk.  43.  »,  411. 
Lk.  6^»,  366. 
Lk.  6*°-  ^s,  390. 
Lk.  io22,  412. 

Jn.  I",  414. 


413. 


Acts 

J  21-2 

,  367.  370,  379- 

Acts, 

chaps.  10,  II,  15:  1115 

Acts 

131.3 

.373. 

Acts 

16', 

xxxi  /. 

Acts 

1 823, 

xxxviii  ff. 

Rom. 

jl7 

433,472/. 

Rom. 

I'. 

S409. 

Rom. 

2^2. 

456. 

Rom. 

2"-",  450/.,  452. 

Rom. 

2". 

457- 

Rom. 

2", 

454- 

Rom. 

3"- 

^.  472. 

Rom. 

3". 

457. 

Rom. 

41-6 

"-".470/. 

Rom. 

4"- 

'^  507. 

Rom. 

5", 

456. 

Rom. 

chap.  7:441. 

Rom. 

83ff 

,  408. 

Rom. 

I0« 

403. 

Rom. 

16^ 

372. 

I  Cor 

9\ 

370, 373. 

I  Cor 

93fl 

•,  370. 

I  Cor 

123 

,403. 

I  Cor 

12=8,  379. 

I  Cor 

15= 

A  370/.;  c/.  373, 

I  Cor 

i5'S  409. 

540 


Indexed; 


541 


2  Cor. 

3\  374. 

2  Cor. 

4^-6,  408. 

2  Cor. 

8",  373- 

2  Cor. 

I0^  375- 

2  Cor. 

II",  374. 

2  Cor 

II",  375- 

Phil.  : 

2",  403- 

Phil. 

2",  373- 

Phil.  3'- ''".471  ■ 


Col.  1"-'^  409- 

Col.  2".",  514,  517/. 

I  Thes.  4",  430- 

Jas.  i^',  390- 

Heb.  7'''  ".  8S  loS  455- 

Rev.  2-,  375- 


) 


Burton,  E.  D.  W.  BS 

Epistle  to  the  Galatians.     ^+91 

.16 
V.35