Skip to main content

Full text of "A critical and grammatical commentary on St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians : with a revised translation"

See other formats

Clieolo^lcal Collection, 
of the 
















Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year I860, by 

In the Clerk s Office of the District Court of the District of Massachusetts. 

A n rf o v e r : 
Klrctrotyped and Printed by W. F. Dravtr. 

1 IV 



THE Commentaries of Professor Ellicott, modest and unas 
suming as they are in tone, really mark an epocli in English 
sacred literature. They are as different from other English 
commentaries as De Wette s are from the Germans who pre 
ceded him ; and what De Wette has been to German exegesis, 
Ellicott is and will be to the English. I speak of scholarship 
and mode of exhibition mainly ; but the remark is also true in 
another respect, for, as De Wette was in his time the soundest 
and most favorable type of German rationalism as applied to 
the exposition of Scripture, Ellicott now most fitly represents 
the clear common sense and reverential piety so happily char 
acteristic of the best biblical expositors in the English church. 
Protestant Germany only could have produced a De Wette, 
and Protestant England only, an Ellicott. 

It is the professed object of both these writers, by a severe 
and purely grammatical analysis of the language of the sacred 
penmen, to ascertain precisely the ideas which they meant to 
convey ; and to express the results of this analysis in the 
simplest and briefest manner possible, without reference to 
theological systems, or ecclesiastical prepossessions, or practical 
inferences. This method must lie at the foundation of all true 
exegesis, and, to those who receive the Bible as the word of 
God, must form the basis of all Christian theology. Yet it is 
a method very seldom followed with any good degree of strict 
ness, and it is not a method which is generally particularly 
interesting to theologians and preachers. It differs from the 
usual stylo of commentary as pure wheat differs from mer- 


chantablo flour. Though the ascertainablc purity of the wheat 
is acknowledged to be a great advantage, there is the trouble of 
grinding it before it can be made into bread. Theologizing 
and sermonizing commentary, though everywhere intermingled 
with the speculations and prepossessions of the commentator, 
is generally preferred to a severe and strictly linguistic exege 
sis, because, though less pure, it furnishes the material more 
ready for immediate use. l>ut which method is it that really 
takes the Bible as the sufficient and only authoritative rule of 
Christian faith and practice, and follows out to its legitimate 
results the fundamental principle of Protestantism ? There 
can be but one answer to this question ; and it is this, the only 
truly biblical and Protestant method of commentary, which 
Professor Ellicott has conscientiously, consistently, and suc 
cessfully pursued. 

It is the crowning excellence of these commentaries, that 
they are exactly what they profess to be, critical and gram 
matical, and therefore, in the best sense of the term, cxe- 
getical. It is no part of the author s object to theologize or to 
sermonize, or to make proof-texts, or to draw inferences or to 
repel them, but simply to interpret the language of the sacred 
writers ; and this object he accomplishes. lie first, with the 
utmost care and the most conscientious laboriousness, gives the 
reader a correct text, by means of a widely extended comparison 
of original MSS., ancient translations, and the best editions. 
The amount of hard work evidently expended on this part of 
his undertaking is, to one who knows how to appreciate it, 
almost appalling. His results are worthy of all confidence. 
He is more careful and reliable than Tischendorf, slower and 
more steadily deliberate than Alford, and more patiently 
laborious than any other living New Testament critic, with the 
exception, perhaps, of Tregelles. Having thus ascertained the 
text, he then goes to work lexically and grammatically upon 
every word, phrase, and sentence which it oilers ; and here 
again is everywhere seen the real l.ilur Umae of the untiring 
and conscientious scholar. Nothing escapes his diligence, noth 
ing wears out his patience. His exegetical conclusions are 
stated briefly and modestly, and with the utmost simplicity. 


His references to other opinions and other writers, and to all the 
requisite authorities, are abundantly copious for the purposes 
of the most thorough study. The marginal indications of the 
course of thought are exceedingly judicious and helpful ; and 
the full translations given at the close of each Commentary 
harmonize with all the other parts of the work. Here the 
constant marginal quotations from the older translators give 
the reader the best possible opportunity for an extensive com 
parison, which would otherwise, in most cases, be quite impos 
sible, for want of access to the books. 

The reader will be gratified to learn something of the his 
tory of the unpretending scholar who has already done so 
much, and who gives promise of so much more. CHARLES 
JOHN ELLICOTT is of an old Devonshire family, a branch of 
which early emigrated to America, and still has descendants 
here. He was born in 1819, the son of Rev. Charles Spencer 
Ellicott, Rector of Whitwell in Rutlandshire. He studied at 
the grammar schools of Oakham and Stamford, and afterwards 
entered St. John s College, Cambridge, of which society he be 
came a Fellow in 1844. In 1848 he married and took the 
Rectorship of Pilton, in Rutlandshire, which he held till the 
beginning of 1856 ; when, for the sake of having access to 
large public libraries, he resigned his living and returned to 
Cambridge. In 18.38 he was appointed one of the select 
preachers before the University, and prepared and published a 
volume of sermons on the " Destiny of the Creature " (Rom. 
8 : 19 ff.). He received the same appointment again the next 
year, and was also made Hulsean Lecturer. In this capacity 
he delivered a course of lectures on the connection of the 
events in the life of Christ, which are now in press, and will 
soon be published. In 1858, also, he was appointed to succeed 
Professor Maurice in the professorship of Divinity at King s 
College, London, which office he still holds. On the 20th of 
February, 1860, while on a journey from Cambridge to London, 
in fulfilment of the duties of his office, he came very near 
losing his life by a shocking accident on the Eastern Counties 
Railway. Three persons in the same compartment with him 


were instantly killed, and he had both legs broken, and his 
arm and head were severely scalded. His life was saved by 
his throwing himself upon the bottom of the carriage at the 
moment when the shock was greatest. He has now recov 
ered from his injuries and is pursuing his work with undimin- 
ished zeal and success. He has already published on all the 
epistles of Paul, except Corinthians and Romans, and these lie 
has now in hand, and will in due time complete. 

The American publisher will issue the successive volumes, 
as rapidly as circumstances will permit, in the same order with 
the English (the next being the epistle to the Ephesians), till 
the whole series is in the hands of our scholars. It is to be 
hoped also that the American publishers of Alford s work on 
the Greek Testament will speedily complete that, as the last 
volume is now in press in England. It is a different kind of 
commentary from Ellicott s, though equally useful in its own 
way. It includes the whole of the New Testament, and has 
more of what critics call introduction in the shape of extended 
and elaborate prolegomena to the several books, and is design 
edly of as popular a cast as, from the nature of the case, a 
scholarly commentary on a Greek book can be. The two works 
cannot at all interfere witli each other. Both are an honor to 
the English theological literature of the present generation ; 
each in its own sphere supplies an urgent want ; and they both 
ought to be accessible to American students at as cheap a rate 
as possible. 


Aug. 30, 1860. 


THE following commentary is the first part of an attempt to elucidate St 
Paul s Epistles, by systematically applying to the Sacred Text the present 
principles of grammar and criticism. 

It is the result of several years devotion to the study of biblical Greek, 
and owes its existence to the conviction that, in this country, the present very- 
advanced state of philology has scarcely been applied with sufficient rigor to 
the interpretation of the New Testament. Our popular commentaries are too 
exclusively exegetical, 1 and presuppose, in the ordinary student, a greater 
knowledge of the peculiarities of the language of the New Testament thau it 
is at all probable he possesses. Even the more promising student is sure to 
meet with two stumbling-blocks in his path, when he first maturely enters 
upon the study of the Holy Scripture. 

In the first place, the very systematic exactitude of his former discipline in 
classical Greek is calculated to mislead him in the study of writers who 
belonged to an age when change had impaired, and conquest had debased 
the language in which they wrote ; his exclusive attention to a single 
dialect, informed, for the most part, by a single and prevailing spirit, ill pre 
pares him for the correct apprehension of writings in which the tinge of na 
tionalities, and the admixture of newer and deeper modes of thought are both 
distinctly recognizable ; his familiarity with modes of expression, which had 
arisen from the living wants of a living language, ill prepares him correctly 
and completely to understand their force when they are reproduced by aliens 
in kindred and customs, and strangers, and even more than strangers in 
tongue. Let all these diversities be fairly considered, and then, without enter 
ing into any more exact comparisons between biblical and classical Greek, it 
will be difficult not to admit that the advanced student in Attic Greek ia 
liable to carry with him prejudices, which may, for a time at least, interfere 
with his full appreciation of the outward form in which the Sacred Oracles 

1 1 must explain the meaning in which. I use this word when in contradistinction to 
" grammatical." By a grammatical commentary, I mean one in which the principles of 
grammar are either exclusively or principally used to elucidate the meaning: by an txtget- 
ical commentary, one in which other considerations, such as the circumstances or known 
sentiments of the writer, etc., are also taken into account. I am not quite sure that I am 
correct in thus limiting " exegetical," but I know no other epithets that will serve to con 
vey my meaning. 


arc enshrined. No better example of the general truth of these observations 
could be adduced than that of the illustrious Hermann, who, in his disquisi 
tion on the first three chapters of this very epistle, has convincingly shown, 
how even perceptions as accurate as his, and erudition as profound, may still 
signally fail, when applied, without previous exercise, to the interpretation of 
the New Testament. 

A second stumbling-block that the classical student invariably finds in his 
study of the New Testament, is the deplorable state in which, till within the 
last few years, its grammar has been left. It is scarcely possible for any one 
unacquainted with the history and details of the grammar of the N. T. to 
form any conception of the aberrant and unnatural meanings that have been 
assigned to the prepositions and the particles ; many of which cling to them 
in N. T. lexicons to this very day. 1 It requires a familiar acquaintance with 
the received glosses of several important passages to conceive the nature of 
the burdens hard to be borne, which long-suffering Hebraism that hidden 
helper in all need, as Liicke* calls it has had to sustain ; and how genera 
tions of excellent scholars have passed away without ever overcoming their 
Pharisaical reluctance to touch one of them with the tip of the finger. Then, 
again, grammatical figures have suffered every species of strain and distor 
tion ; enallage, hendyadys, metonymy, have been urged with a freedom in the 
N. T. which would never have been tolerated in any classical author, however 
ill-cared for, and however obscure. Here and there in past days a few pro 
testing voices were raised against the uncritical nature of the current inter 
pretations ; but it is not, in Germany, till within a very few years, till the 
days of Fritzsche and Winer, that they have met with any response or recog 
nition ; and, among ourselves, even now, they have secured only a limited 
and critical audience. 

It thus only too often happens, that, when a young man enters, for the first 
time, seriously upon the study of the N. T., it is with such an irrepressible 
feeling of repugnance to that laxity of language, which he is led to believe is 
its prevailing characteristic, that he either loses for the language of inspira 
tion that reverence which its mere literary merits alone may justly claim; or 
else, under the action of a better though mistaken feeling, he shrinks from 
applying to it that healthy criticism to which all his previous education had 
inured his mind. The more difficult the portion of Scripture, the more sen 
sibly are these evils felt and recognized. 

It is under these feelings that I have undertaken a commentary on St 
Paul s Epistles, which, by confining itself to the humbler and less ambitious 

1 That this language is in no wny overstrained may be easily seen by the notices In 
Winer * Grammar, on any leading preposition or conjunction. j/ is a difficult preposition 
in the N. T., but it would require n considerable amount of argument to mnke us believe it 
could ever, even in Het>. xiii. 9, bear the meaning of ex ! See Winer, Gr. $ 52, a, p. 466 (Ed. 6> 

2 Lucke, on John in. 20, vol. iii. p. 241. 


sphere of grammatical details, may give the student some insight into the 
language of the New Testament, and enable him with more assured steps, to 
ascend the difficult heights of exegetical and dogmatical theology. My own 
studies have irresistibly impelled me to the conviction, that, without making 
any unnecessary distinctions between grammar and exegesis, we are still 
to recognize the necessity, of first endeavoring to find out what the words 
actually convey, according to the ordinary rules of language ; then, secondly, 
of observing the peculiar shade of meaning that the context appears to im 
part. Too often this process has been reversed ; the commentator, on the 
strength of some received interpretation or some dogmatical bias, has stated 
what the passage ought to mean, and then has been tempted, by the force of 
bad example, to coerce the words per Hebraismum, or per enallagen, to 
yield the required sense. This, in many, nay, most cases, I feel certain, has 
been done to a great degree unconsciously, yet still the evil effects remain. 
God s word, though innocently, has been dealt deceitfully with ; and God s 
word, like His Ark of the Covenant, may not, with impunity, be stayed up 
by the officiousness of mortal aid. 

I have, then, in all cases, striven, humbly and reverently, to elicit from the 
words their simple and primary meaning. Where that has seemed at variance 
with historical or dogmatical deductions, where, in fact, exegesis has 
seamed to range itself on one side, grammar on the other, I have never 
failed candidly to state it ; where it has confirmed some time-honored inter 
pretation, I have joyfully and emphatically cast my small mite into the great 
treasury of sacred exegesis, and have felt gladdened at being able to yield 
some passing support to wiser and better men than myself. l This, however, 
I would fain strive to impress upon my reader, to whatever party of the 
Church (alas ! that there should be parties) he may chance to belong, that, as 
God is my witness, I have striven to state, in perfect candor and singleness of 
heart, all the details of interpretation with which I have come in contact. I 
have sought to support no particular party, I have desired to yield counte 
nance to no peculiar views. I will candidly avow that on all the fundamen 
tal points of Christian faith and doctrine my mind is fully made up. It is not 
for me to sit in judgment upon what is called the liberal spirit of the age, but, 
without evoking controversies into which I have neither the will nor the abil- 

1 Amidst all these details, I have, I trust, never forgotten that there is something higher 
than mere critical acumen, something more sure than grammatical exactitude; something 
which the world calls the theological sense, but which more devout thinkers recognize 
as the assisting grace of the Eternal Spirit of God. Without this, without also a deeper 
and more mysterious sympathy with the mind of the sacred writer whom we are presuming 
to interpret, no mere verbal discussions can ever tend truly to elucidate, no investigation 
thoroughly to satisfy. I trust, indeed, that I have never been permitted to forget these 
golden words of him whom of all commentators I most honor and revere : oi>5* y&p Sft 
rck prifjutra yvfuva. flfra^fiv, tird iro\\a fytrai TO OLTOIT rj^ara ou5< T^V \fiv ca& iaur^f 
ftaaaut(tiv, a A A a r rj & i ay o iff. r poff f x* I* TOV y pd<? o v TO s. Chry sort. 
torn. x. p. 674 B (ed. Beued.) 


ity to enter, I may be permitted to say, that upon the momentous subject of 
the inspiration of Scripture, I cannot be so untrue to my own deepest con- 
Tictions, or so forgetful of my anxious thoughts and investigations, as to affect 
a freedom of opinion which I am very far from entertaining. I deeply feel 
for those whom earth-born mist and vapor still hinder from beholding the full 
brightness and effulgence of divine truth ; I entertain the most lively pity for 
those who still feel that the fresh fountains of Scripture are, in all the bitter 
ness of the prophet s lamentation, only waters that fail ; I feel it and en 
tertain it, and I trust that no ungentle word of mine may induce them to 
cling more tenaciously to their mournful convictions, yet still I am bound to 
gay, to prevent the nature of my candor being misunderstood, that through 
out this commentary the full 1 inspiration of Scripture has been felt as one of 
those strong subjective convictions to which every hour of meditation adds 
fresh strength and assurance. Yet I have never sought to mask or disguise a 
diffirulty : I have never advanced an explanation of the truth of which I do 
not, myself at least, feel convinced. I should shrink from being so untrue to 
myself, I should tremble at being so presumptuous towards God ; as if He 
who sent the dream may not in His own good time send the interpretation 
thereof. That there are difficulties in Scripture, that there are difficul 
ties in this deep Epistle, I both know and feel, and I have, in no case, shrunk 
from pointing them out; but I also know that there is a time, whether in 
this world of unrest, or in that rest which remaineth to God s people, I know 
not, when every difficulty will be cleared up, every doubt dispersed: and 
it is this conviction that has supported me, when I have felt and have been 
forced to record my conviction, that there are passages where the world s wis 
dom has not yet clearly seen into the depth of the deep things of God. 

Before I wholly leave this momentous subject, I would fain plead its 
importance in regard to the method of interpretation which I have endeav- 
ored to follow. I am well aware that the current of popular opinion is now 
Bteadily setting against grammatical details and investigations. It is thought, 
I believe, that a freer admixture of history, broader generalizations, and 
more suggestive reflections, may enable the student to catch the spirit of his 
author, and be borne serenely along without the weed and toil of ordinary 
travel. Upon the soundness of such theories, in a general point of view, I 
will not venture to pronounce an opinion ; I am not an Athanase, and can 
not confront a world ; but, in the particular sphere of Holy Scripture, I may, 
perhaps, be permitted to say, that if we would train our younger students to 
be reverential thinkers, earnest Christians, and sound divines, we must habit 
uate them to a patient and thoughtful study of the words and language of 

1 I avoid using any party expressions. I would not wish, on the one hand, to class myself 
With such thinkers us Calovius, nor could I subscribe to the Formula Consensus Hrlvttiei; 
but I am far indeed from recognizing that admixture of human imperfection und even 
error, which the popular theoeophy of the day now liiids in the Holy Scripture. 


Scripture, before we allow them to indulge in an exegesis for which they are 
immature and incompetent. If the Scriptures are divinely inspired, then 
surely it is a young man s noblest occupation, patiently and lovingly to note 
every change of expression, every turn of language, every variety of inflec 
tion, to analyze and to investigate, to contrast and to compare, until he has 
obtained some accurate knowledge of those outward elements which are per 
meated by the inward influence and powers of the Holy Spirit of God. 
As he wearisomely traces out the subtle distinctions that underlie some 
illative particle, or characterize some doubtful preposition, let him cheer 
himself with the reflection that every effort of thought he is thus enabled to 
make, is (with God s blessing) a step towards the inner shrine, a nearer 
approach to a recognition of the thoughts of an Apostle, yea, a less dim 
perception of the mind of Christ. 

No one who feels deeply upon the subject of inspiration will allow himself 
to be beguiled into an indifference to the mysterious interest that attaches 
itself to the very grammar of the New Testament. 

I will then plead no excuse that I have made my notes so exclusively crit 
ical and grammatical. I rejoice rather that the awakening and awakened 
interest for theology in this country is likely to afford me a plea and a justifi 
cation fur confining myself to a single province of sacred literature. Al 
ready, I believe, theologians are coming to the opinion that the time for 
compiled commentaries is passing away. Our resources are now too abun 
dant for the various details of criticism, lexicography, grammar, exegesis, his 
tory, archa?ology, and doctrine, to be happily or harmoniously blended in 
one mass. One mind is scarcely suffick ntly comprehensive to grasp prop 
erly these various subjects; one judgment is scarcely sufficiently discrim 
inating to arrive at just conclusions on so many topics. The sagacious critic, 
the laborious lexicographer, the patient grammarian, the profound exegete, 
the suggestive historian, and the impartial theologian, are, in the present 
state of biblical science, never likely to be united in one person. Excel 
lence in any one department is now difficult ; in all, impossible. I trust, then, 
that the time is coming when theologians will carry out, especially in the 
New Testament, the principle of the division of labor, and selecting that 
sphere of industry for which they are more particularly qualified, will, in 
others, be content to accept the results arrived at by the labors of their 
contemporaries. 1 

1 In the present Epistle, there are distinct and instructive instances of the application of 
this principle. Hilgenfeld has published a recent edition of the Kpistle to the l.nlutians, 
in which distinct prominence is given to historical and chronological investigations. Dr. 
Brown has lately devoted some expository discourses nearly exclusively to the doctrine 
and practical teaching of the Epistle; while Mr. Veitch has supplied him with grammatical 
annotations. Both of these works have their demerits as well as their merits, but, at any 
rate, they show that their authors had the good sense to confine themselves to those depart 
ments of interpretation for which they te .t the greatest aptitude. 



The most neglected portion of the New Testament literature is its lexicog 
raphy ; and this is the more inexcusable, as the excellent concordance of 
Brtuler has been now twelve years before the world. I have here suffered 
greatly from want of sound help ; and in addition to having frequently to 
draw solely from my own scanty resources in this department, and to leave 
my own more immediate subject to discuss points which I should have gladly 
found done to my hand, I have also had the thankless task of perpetually 
putt inr my readers on their guard against the overhasty and inaccurate 
classifications of Bretschneider and others. I have generally found Bret- 
schneider s Lexicon the best ; but the pages of my commentary will abun 
dantly show how little reliance I have been able to place upon him. I 
rejoice to say that Dr. Scott, master of Baliol College, is engaged on a Lex 
icon to the N. T. ; and those who know his eminent qualifications for the 
task must feel, as T do, the most perfect confidence in the way in which it 
will be executed. I regret that it was too little advanced to be of any use 
to me in this commentary. The general lexicon (beside that of Stephens) 
which I have chiefly used, is the edition of Passow s Lexicon by Palm and 
Rosi, which I cannot help thinking is by very far the best lexicon, in a mode 
rate coinpas-:, that we at present possess. The prepositions, in particular, are 
treated remarkably well, and very comprehensively. 

Tne synonyms of the Greek Testament, a most important subject, have 
been creatly neglected. We have now a genial little volume, from one who 
always writes felicitously and attractively upon such subjects; but the agree- 
i.ble author will not, I am sure, be offended when I say that it can scarcely 
bti deemed otherwise than, as he himself modestly terms it, a slight contribu 
tion to the subject. We may fairly trust that an author who has begun so 
w<-/l will continue his labors in a more extended and comprehensive form. 
As ftlr. Trench s work came too late into my hands, I have principally used 
the i<py>erfect woi-k of Tittman ; but I perfectly agree with Mr Trench in 
his estimate of its merits. 

In the Grammar of the X. T. we are now in a fairly promising state. 
The very admirable work of Winer has completely rehabilitated the subject 
It is a volume that I have studied with the closest attention, and to which I 
am under profound obligations. Still, it would not be candid if I did not 
admit that it has its weak points. I do not consider the treatment of the 
particles (a most important subject in St. Paul s epistles) at all equal to that 
of the prepositions, or by any means commensurate with our wants on this 
portion of grammar: the cases al.-o miglit, perhaps, be more successfully 
h?ndled The great fault of the book is its superabundance of reference to 
Mic notes and commentaries on classical authors. In many cases these arc 
of high importance; but. in a vast quantity of others, as I have often found 
to my cost, but little information is to lie derived from the source to which 
the reader is referred. Mr. Green s (ir/nnni ir I consider a work of irreat 


ability, but too short and unsystematic to be of the use it might otherwise 
have been to the student. I have, therefore, been obliged to use freely other 
grammatical subsidies than those which more particularly bear upon the New 
Testament. 1 My object has been throughout to make my references more to 
grammars and professed repertories of similar information, than to notes or 
commentaries on classical authors ; for I am convinced that a good reference 
to a good grammar, though not a very showy evidence of research, is a truly 
valuable assistance ; while a discursive note in an edition of a classic, from 
its want of a context, frequently supplies little real information. I have 
allowed myself greater latitude in references to the notes of commentators 
on the N. T., for here the similarity of language, and frequently of subject, 
constitutes a closer bond of union. In particular, I have used Fritzche s 
edition of the Romans nearly as a grammar, so full is it and so elaborate in 
all details of language. As a grammarian, I entertain for him the highest 
respect ; but I confess my sympathy with him as a theologian is not great, 
nor can I do otherwise than deplore the unjust levity with which he often 
treats the Greek Fathers, and the tone of bitterness and asperity which he 
assumes towards the learned and pious Tholuck. It is a sad evidence of an 
untouched heart and unchastened spirit, when a commentator on the New 
Testament leaves the written traces of his bitterness on the margins of the 
Covenant of Love. 

The same principle that has induced me to refer to repertories and sys 
tematic treatises on grammar, has also influenced me whenever I have been 
led into dogmatical questions. I have sought, in most cases, information 
from writers who have made the whole subject their study. I have freely 
used Bishop s Bull s Harmonia Apostolica, Waterland s Wgrks, and such 
other of our great English divines as I have the good fortune to be ac 
quainted with. I have used with profit the recent and popular treatise on 
St. Paul s doctrine by Usteri, and that by Neander in his Planting of Chris 
tianity; both of which, with, perhaps, some reservations, may be recom 
mended to the student. I regret that I cannot speak with so much freedom 
of the discussions of the clever and critical Ferdinand Baur in his Apostel 
Paulus. I have referred to him in a few cases, for his unquestionable ability 
has seemed to demand it, but it has been always cautiously and warily; nor 
do I at all wish to commend him to the notice of any student except of 

1 I have especially used the admirable and (in my opinion) wholly unrivalled syntax of 
Bernhardy, the good compendious syntax of Madvig, the somewhat heavy treatise on the 
same subject by Scheuurlein, Jelf s Grammar, and the small Greek grammar by Dr. 
Donaldson, which, though unpretending in form and succinct in its nature, will never be 
consulted, even by the advanced student, without the greatest advantage. On the particles, 
I have principally used the somewhat clumsy though useful work of Uartung, and the very- 
able and voluminous notes of Klotz on Devarius. This latter work the student will rarely 
consult in vain. I have also derived some assistance from Thiersch s very good dissertation 
on the Pentateuch,. 


advanced knowledge and of fully fixed principles. The other books and 
authorities which I have cited will sufficiently speak for themselves. 

I desire briefly, in conclusion, to allude to the general principles which 
I have adopted in the construction of the text, the compilation of the notes, 
and the revision of the translation, and to record my many obligations. 

(I.) The text is substantially that of Tischendorf :* the only deviations 
from it that I have felt compelled to make form the subject of the critical 
notes which are, at intervals, appended to the text. Changes have been 
made in punctuation ; but these, generally speaking, have not been such as 
to require special notice. I have here applied the principle of division of 
labor which I venture to advocate. It has always seemed to me that it is at 
least a very hazardous, if not a presumptuous undertkaing, for any man, 
however good a scholar, to construct an original text without eminent qualifi 
cations for that task. Years of patient labor must have been devoted to 
those studies ; an unflagging industry in collecting, and a persistent sagacity 
in sifting evidence, must be united in the biblical critic, or his labors will be 
worse than useless. Those who have not these advantages will do well to 
rely upon others, reserving, however, to themselves (if they are honest men 
and independent thinkers) the task of scrutinizing, testing, and, if need be, 
of expressing dissent from the results arrived at by those whom they follow. 
I have humbly endeavored thus to act with regard to the text of the present 
epistle ; where there has seemed reason to depart from Tischendorf (and he 
is far from infallible), I have done so. and have in all cases acted on fixed 
principles which time, and, above all, failures, have taught me. For a novice 
like myself to obtrude my critical canons on the reader would be only so 
much aimless presumption. I will only say that I can by no means assent to 
a blind adherence to external evidence, especially where the preponderance 
is not marked, and the internal evidence of importance ; still, on the other 
hand, I regard with the greatest jealousy and suspicion any opposition to the 
nearly coincident testimony of the uncial MSS., unless the internal evidence 
be of a most strong and decisive character. I have always endeavored, 
first, to ascertain the exact nature of the diplomatic evidence ; secondly, that 
of what I have termed paradiplomatic arguments (I must apologize for coin 
ing the word), by which I mean the apparent probabilities of erroneous 
transcription, permutation of letters, itacism. and so forth; thirdly and lastly, 
the internal evidence, whether resting on apparent deviations from the usus 

1 It was long with me a subject of anxious thought whether I should adopt the text of 
Lachmann (for whose critical abilities I have a profound respect), or that of Tischendorf. 
The latter I consider inferior to I.achmann in talent, scholarship, and critical acumen. 
I5ut as a paleographer he stands infinitely higher, as a man of energy and industry he is 
unrivalled, mid as a critic lie has learnt from what he has suffered. Moreover, lie is with 
us. still learning. Mill pit Iming, Mill (oiling: while LnrlmiannV edition, with all its excel 
lences and all it* imperfections, must now remain as he 1ms left it to us. 


scribendi of the sacred author, or the propensio, be it critica, dogmatica, or 
epezegetica, on the part of the copyist. I have also endeavored to make the 
critical notes as perspicuous as the nature of the subject will permit, by 
grouping the separate classes of authorities, uncial manuscripts (MSS.), cur 
sive manuscripts (mss.), versions (Vv.), and Fathers (Ff.), Greek and Latin, 
and in some measure familiarizing the uneducated eye to comprehend these 
perplexing, yet deeply interesting particulars. The symbols I have used are 
either those of Tischendorf (to whose cheap and useful edition I refer the 
reader), or else self-explanatory. I cannot leave this part of the subject 
without earnestly advising the younger student to acquire, at least in outline, 
a knowledge of the history and details of sacred criticism, and I can recom 
mend him no better general instructor than Dr. Davidson, in the second vol 
ume of his excellent treatise on Biblical criticism. 

(II.) With regard to the notes, I would wish first to remark, that they 
neither are, nor pretend to be, original. I have consulted all the best 
modern, and, I believe, the best ancient authorities, wherever they seemed 
likely to avail me in the line of interpretation I had marked out to myself. 
But as I have endeavored to confine myself principally to critical and gram 
matical details, numerous authors of high position and merit in other prov 
inces of interpretation have unavoidably been, though not unconsulted, still 
not generally cited. Hence, though I entertain a deep reverence for the 
exegetical abilities of some of the Latin Fathers, I have never been able to 
place that reliance on their scholarship which I thankfully and admiringly 
recognize in the great Greek commentators. Many of our popular English 
expositors I have been obliged, from the same reasons, to pass over ; for to 
quote an author merely to find fault with him, is a process with which I have 
no sympathy. I have studied to make my citations, in malam partem, on a 
fixed principle. In the first place, I hope I have always done it with that 
quick sense of my own weakness, imperfection, and errors, that is the strong 
est incentive to charitable judgments, and with that gentleness which befits a 
commentator on one whose affections were among the warmest and deepest 
that ever dwelt in mortal breast. In the second place, I have, I trust, rarely 
done it except where the contrast seemed more distinctly to show out what I 
conceived the true interpretation ; where, in fact, the shadow was needed to 
enhance the light. Thirdly, I have sometimes felt that the allegiance I owe 
to Divine Truth, and the profound reverence I entertain for the very letter 
of Scripture, has required me to raise my voice, feeble as it is, against mis 
chievous interpretations and rash criticism. The more pleasant duty of 
quoting in bonam partem has also been regulated by a system ; first and fore 
most, of endeavoring to give every man his due ; secondly, of supporting 
myself by the judgments and wisdom of others. I have, however, in no case 
sought to construct those catenae of names, which it seems now the fashion 


of commentators 1 to link together in assent or dissent; for whenever I have 
examined one in detail, I have invariably found that the authors, thus hud 
dled together, often introduced such countervailing statements as made their 
collective opinion anything but unanimous. This easy display of erudition, 
and of error, cannot be too much reprobated. 

The portions upon which I have most dwelt are the particles, the cases, the 
prepositions, and, as far as I have been able, the compound verbs ; but on 
this latter subject I have keenly felt the want of help, and have abundantly 
rejretted that Winer never has completed the work he projected. If in the 
discussions on the particles I may have seemed wearisome or hypercritical, let 
me crave the reader s indulgence, and remind him of the excessive difficul 
ties that have ever been felt and acknowledged in the connection of thought 
in St. Paul s Epistles. I hope no one will think my pains have here been 
misplaced. That my notes have visibly overlaid my text will, I fear, be urged 
against me. This I could have avoided by a more crowded page, or by dis 
uniting the text and the notes ; but I prefer bearing the charge to perplexing 
the reader s eye with close typography, or distracting his attention by refer 
ences to an isolated text. The notes have been pared down, in some cases, 
to the very verge of obscurity ; but in so difficult an epistle, after all possible 
curtailing, they must still be in disproportion to the text. 

(III.) The last portion I have to notice is the translation. This it seemed 
desirable to append as a brief but comprehensive summary of the interpre 
tations advanced in the notes. The profound respect I entertain for our own 
noble version would have prevented me. as it did Hammond, from, attempting 
any performance of this nature, if I had not seen that a few corrections, 
made on a fixed principle, would enable the Authorized Version adequately 
to reflect the most advanced state of modern scholarship. The Authorized 
Version has this incalculable advantage, that it is a truly literal translation, 
the only form of translation that can properly and reverently be adopted 
in the case of the holy Scriptures. Of the two other forms of translation, 
the idiomatic and the paraphrastic, I fully agree with Mr. Kennedy (Preface 
to Tranal. of Devioxllt.) in the opinion that the former is most suitable for the 
general run of classical authors ; while the latter may possibly be useful in 
some philosophical or political treatises, where the matter, rather than the 
manner, is the subject of study. But in the holy Scriptures every peculiar 
expression, even at the risk of losing an idiomatic turn, itntxt be retained 
Many words, especially the prepositions, have a positive dogmatical and thecx 
logical significance, and to qualify them by a popular turn or dilute them by 
a paraphrase, is dangerous in the extreme. It, is here that the excellence of 
our Authorized Version is so notably conspicuous ; while it is studiedly close 

1 I regret to find that Professor Endie, in his learned and laborious commentary on the 
Ephesians, has adopted this method; in some catus, e. g. p. 15, his authorities occupy five 
full lilies of the commentar. 

pesans, as aope s 
full lilies of the commentary. 


and literal, it also, for the most part, preserves the idiom of our language in 
the most happy and successful way. It has many of the merits of an idio 
matic translation, and none of the demerits of what are popularly called literal 
translations, though they commonly only deserve the name of un-English 
metaphrases. A paraphrastic translation, such as that adopted by Messrs. 
Conybeare and Howson, I cannot but regard as in many ways unfitted for 
holy Scripture. I have, then, adopted the Authorized Version, and have 
only permitted myself to depart from it where it appeared to be incorrect, in 
exact, insufficient, or obscure, whether from accident or (as is alleged) from 
design. The citations I have appended from eight other versions will, per 
haps, prove interesting, and will show the general reader what a " concordia 
discors" pi-evails among all the older English Versions, 1 and how closely and 
how faithfully the contributors to the Authorized Version adhered to their in 
structions to consult certain of the older translations, and not to depart from 
the Standard Version which hid last preceded them except distinctly neces 
sitated. Thus the Authorized Version is the accumulation, as well as the last 
and most perfect form of the theological learning of fully two hundred and 
thirty years. From such a translation, he must be a bold and confident man 
who would depart far, without the greatest caution and circumspection. 

(IV.) Finally, I feel myself bound to specify a few of the commentators 
to whom I am more specially indebted. 

Of the older writers I have paid the most unremitting attention to Chrys- 
ostom and Theodoret : for the former especially, often as a scholar, always 
as an exegete, I entertain the greatest respect and admiration. Of our older 
English commentators, Hammond has been of the greatest service to me ; his 
scholarship is, generally speaking, very accurate, and his erudition profound. 
The short commentary of Bishop Fell I have never consulted without profit. 
Bengel s Gnomon has, of course, never been out of my hands. Of later 
writers I should wish to specify Dr. Peile, from whose commentary I have 
derived many valuable suggestions. I frequently differ from him in the ex 
planation of v6/j.os without the article ; but I have always found him an accu 
rate scholar, and especially useful for his well-selected citations from Calvin. 
To the late lamented Professor Scholefield s Hints for a New Translation 
I have always attended. The translation of Conybeare and Howson has 
been of some use ; but, as far as my experience goes, it appears the least 
happily executed portion of their valuable work. Dr. Brown s Expository 
Discourses on the Galatians is a book written in an excellent spirit, of great 
use and value in an exegetical point of view, but not always to be relied upon 
as a grammatical guide. I cannot pass over Dr. Blooinfield, though he has 
not been of so much use to me as I could have wished. To the recent 

1 I have also consulted Abp. Newcome s, and all the later versions of any celebrity, even 
the Unitarian, but have derived from them no assistance whatever. 


man commentators I am under the greatest obligations, botli in grammar and 
exegesis, though not in theology. Meyer more as a grammarian, De Wette 
more as an exegete, command the highest attention and respect ; to the for 
mer especially, though a little too Atticistic in his prejudices, my fullest ac- 
knowlcMlgments are due. The commentaries of Winer and Scliott are both 
excellent ; to the latter, Meyer seems to have been greatly indebted. Usteri 
has generally caught most happily the spirit of his author; his scholarship is 
not profound, but his exegesis is very good. Riickert, more voluminous and 
more laborious, has always repaid the trouble of perusal. The two works in 
the best theological spirit are those of Olshausen and Windischmann : the 
latter, though a Romanist, and by no means uninfluenced by decided preju 
dices, always writes in a reverent spirit, and is commonly remarkable for his 
good sense, and not unfrequently his candor. Baumgarten-Crusiua I have 
found of very little value. Hilgenfeld is very useful in historical questions, 
but has a bad tone in exegesis, and follows Meyer too closely to be of much 
use as an independent grammatical expositor. 

These are not more than one-third of the expositors I have consulted, but 
are those which, for my own satisfaction, and the guidance of younger stu 
dents, I should wish to specify. 

I have now only to commit this first part of my work, with all its imperfec 
tions, faults, and errors, to the charitable judgment of the reader. I have 
written it, alone and unassisted, with only a country clergyman s scanty 
supply of books, in a neighborhood remote from large libraries and literary 
institutions ; and though T have done my uttermost to overcome these great 
disadvantages, I can myself see and feel with deep regret how often I have 
failed. I commend myself, then, not only to the kind judgment, but I will 
also venture to add, the kind assistance of my readers ; for I shall receive 
and acknowledge with great thankfulness any rectifications of errors or any 
suggestions that may be addressed to me at the subjoined direction. 

I will conclude with earnest prayer to Almighty God, in the name of his 
ever-blessed Son, that He may so bless this poor and feeble effort to disclose 
the outward significance, the jots and tittles of His word, that lie may make 
it a humble instrument of awakening in the hearts of others the desire to look 
deeper into the inward meaning, to mark, to read, and to understand, and 
with a lowly and reverent spirit to ponder over the hidden mysteries, the 
deep warnings, and the exhaustless consolations of the Book of Life. 

To Him be all honor, all glory, and all praise. 




THE present edition is but little different from the first in the results 
arrived at, and in the statement of the principles on which those results 
mainly rest ; but, in the details and construction of many of the notes, it will 
be found to involve changes both of diction and arrangement. 

These changes have been found to be wholly unavoidable. The first edition 
was not only written with a scanty supply of books, and with a very limited 
knowledge of the contents of the Ancient Versions, but was constructed on 
principles which, though since found to be sound and trustworthy, do not 
appear in some cases to have been applied with sufficient ease and simplicity, 
or to have received a sufficiently extended range of application. It is use 
less to disguise the fact, that what at first professed to be only purely critical 
and purely grammatical, has by degrees become also exegetical ; and has so 
far intruded into what is dogmatical, as to give systematic references to the 
leading treatises upon the points or subjects under discussion. The ex 
tremely kind reception that the different portions of this series have met 
with, has led in two ways to these gradual alterations. On the one hand, 
the not unnatural desire to make each portion more worthy of the approval 
that had been extended towards its predecessor, has been silently carrying 
me onward into widening fields of labor ; on the other hand, the friendly 
criticisms that I have received from time to time have led me to retrench 
what has seemed unedifying, to dwell with somewhat less technicality of lan 
guage on the peculiarities of grammar and construction, and yet at the same 
time to enter more fully upon all that has seemed to bring out the connection 
of thought and sequence of argument. 

The latter portions of my work have been based on these somewhat 
remodelled principles, and if I may trust the opinions of, perhaps, too 
partial and friendly judges so far successfully, that I shall apparently be 
wise to keep them as the sort of standard to which, if God mercifully grant 
me life and strength, former portions of the series (wherever they may seem 
to need it) may be brought up, and future portions conformed. 


The present edition, then, is an effort to make my earliest and decidedly 
most incomplete -work as much as possible resemble those -which apparently 
have some greater measures of maturity and completeness. It has involved, 
and I do not seek to disguise it, very great labor labor, perhaps, not 
very much less than writing a new commentary. For though the notes 
remain substantially what they were before, and though I have found no 
reason to retract former opinions, except in about four or five debatable 
and contested passages, 1 I have still found that the interpolation of new 
matter, and the introduction of exegetical comments have obliged me, in 
many cases, to alter the arrangement of the whole note, and occasionally 
even to f;u-e the weary and irksome task of total re-writing, and reconstruc 
tion. I rejoice, however, now at length to feel that the reader of the later 
portions of this series will find no very appreciable difference when he turns 
back to this edition of the first portion, lie will now no longer be without 
those invaluable guides, the Ancient Versions; he will, I trust, find but few 
links missing in the continuous illustration of the arrangement, scarcely any 
omission of a comment on important differences of reading, and on points 
of doctrinal difficulty no serious want of references to the best treatises and 
sermons of our great English divines. At the same time he will find the 
mode of interpretation and tenor of grammatical discussions precisely the 
same. Though the details may be often differently grouped, the principles 
are left wholly unchanged ; and this, not from any undue predilection for 
former opinions, but simply from having found, by somewhat severe testing 
and trial, that they do appear to be sound and consistent. 

For a notice of details, it will be now sufficient to refer to the prefaces to 
earlier portions of this series, more especially to those prefixed to the third, 
fourth, and fifth volumes, in which the different component elements of the 
notes above alluded to will be found noticed and illustrated at some length. 
This only may be added, that particular care has been taken to adjust the 
various references, especially to such authorities of frequent occurrence as 
Winer s (inniunar of the Nor Testament, to the paijini; of the latest edition. 8 
"Where, from inability to obtain access to the last edition of works previously 

1 These changes of opinion will bo found noticed in their different places. I btliert the 
only passages an- chap. ii. 6, -Tpoffavf^ffro ; iii. 4, ticddfTf ; Hi. 1 J (in part), iv. 1", (KK\f7(ra.L ; 
vi. 17 (slightly), Pavrdfa. 

2 I have also retained the references to the translation of Meander s Planting, as published 
by Mr. llohn, und of .Mailer s Dnrtrine of Sin, as pul.lished by .Messrs. Clark, simply be 
cause the presence of these volumes in two ju-tly popular series makes it probable that 
many readers may have these works, who have not, and, perhaps, may not be in the habit 
of consulting the originals. The translation of the latter of these works lias, I believe, 
been somewhat severely critici/ed. I fear I am nimble to defend it ; but. as the allusions to 
BMlIer in my notes relate more to general principles than to individual passages, I do not 
think the general reader will Buffer much from the inaccuracies or harbhiicss of the transla 


quoted, this has not been done, the reader will commonly find some allusion 
to the continued use of the authority in its earlier form. 1 

I mar also remark that, in deference to the wishes of some of my critics, I 
have prefixed to the Epistle a few sentences of introduction, giving a sum 
mary account of the results of recent historical criticism. This portion of 
sacred literature has been so fully treated, both by Dr. Davidson and Dean 
Alford, and has farther received so much valuable illustration from the 
excellent Life of Saint Paul by Messrs. Conybeare and Howson, that I feel 
it now unnecessary to do more than to group together a few remarks for the 
benefit, not of the critical scholar, but of the general student, to whom these 
brief notices sometimes prove acceptable and suggestive. 

I must not conclude without expressing my hearty sense of the value of 
several commentaries that have appeared since the publication of my first 
edition. I desire particularly to specify those of my friends, Dean Alford, 
and Mr. Bagge, and the thoughtful commentary of my kind correspondent, 
Dr. Turner, of New York. Of the great value of the first of these it is 
unnecessary for me to speak ; my present notes will show how carefully I 
have considered the interpretations advanced in that excellent work, and 
how much I rejoice to observe that the results at which we arrive are not 
marked by many differences of opinion. The edition of Mr. Bagge will be 
found very useful in critical details, in the careful and trustworthy references 
which it supplies to the older standard works of lexicography, and in what 
may be termed phraseological annotations. The third of these works differs 
so much from the present in its plan and general construction, as to make 
the points of contact between us so much fewer than I could wish ; but I 
may venture to express the opinion, that the reader who finds himself more 
interested in general interpretation than in scholastic detail, will rarely 
consult the explanatory notes without profit and instruction. The recent 
edition of Professor Jowett has not been overlooked ; but after the careful 
and minute examination of his Commentary on the Tliessalonians, which I 
made last year, I have been reluctantly forced into the opinion that our 
systems of interpretation are so radically different, as to make a systematic 
reference to the works of this clever writer not so necessary as might have 
been the case if our views on momentous subjects had been more accordant 
and harmonious. 

Before I draw these remarks to a close, I must not fail gratefully to return 
my heartfelt thanks for the numerous kind and important suggestions 
which I have received from private friends and from public criticism. By 

1 In the note on op&OTroSovffii (chap. ii. 14), I have still been unable to verify the refer 
ences to Theodorus Studita. The best edition, I believe, is that of Sirmond, and this I have 
used, as well as one or two others, but without effect. I should be glad if some reader, 
experienced in Bibliography, could direct me to the edition probably referred to. 


this aid I have been enabled to correct whatever has seemed doubtful or 
erroneous ; and to these friendly comments the more perfect form in which 
this commentary now appears before the student is, in many respects, justly 
due. From my readers, and those who are interested in these works, I fear 
I must now claim some indulgence as to the future rate of my progress. 
While I may presume to offer to them the humble assurance that, while life 
and health are spared to me, the onward course of these volumes will not be 
suspended, I must not suppress the fact, that the duties to which it has now 
pleased God to call me are such as must necessarily cause the appearance of 
future commentaries to take place at somewhat longer intervals. Those who 
are acquainted with studies of this nature, will, I feel sure, agree with me, 
that it is impossible to hurry such works; nay, more, I am convinced that all 
sober thinkers will concur in the opinion, that there is no one thing for which 
a writer will have hereafter to answer before the dread tribunal of God with 
more terrible strictness, than for having attempted to explain the everlasting 
Words of Life with haste and precipitation. When we consider only the 
errors and failures that mark every stage in our most deliberate and most 
matured progress, even in merely secular subjects, we may well pause before 
we presume to hurry through the sanctuary of God, with the dust and tur 
moil of worldly, self-seeking, and irreverent speed. 

May the great Father of Lights look down with mercy on this effort to 
illustrate His word, and overrule it to His glory, His honor, and His praise. 



THIS animated, argumentative, and highly characteristic Epistle -would 
appear to have been written by St. Paul not very long after his journey 
through Galatia and Plirygia (Acts xviii. 23), and as the raxfws (ch. i. 6) 
seems to suggest (but comp. notes, and see contra, Conyb. and Hows. St. Paul, 
Vol. II. p. 164, ed. 2), towards the commencement of the lengthened abode 
at Ephesus (Autumn 54 or 55 to Pentecost 57 or 58 ; comp. Acts xix. 10, xx. 
31, 1 Cor. xvi. 8), forming apparently the first of that series of Epistles (Gal., 
1 Cor., 2 Cor., Rom.) which intervenes between the Epp. to the Thessalonians 
and the four Epp. of the first captivity (Col., Eph., Philem., Phil.). It was 
addressed to the churches of the province of Galatia (ch. i. 2), a province of 
which the inhabitants could not only boast a Gallic origin, but also appear to 
have retained some of the peculiai-ities of the Gallic character; see notes on 
ch. i. 6, iii. 1. The Epistle was not improbably encyclical in its character 
(see Olshaus. on ch. i. 2, and notes on ch. vi. 17), and was called forth by 
the somewhat rapid lapse of the Galatians into the errors of Judaism, which 
were now being disseminated by unprincipled and self-seeking teachers 
(comp. ch. vi. 12, 13) with a dangerous and perhaps malignant activity. 
Against these errors the Apostle had already solemnly protested (ch. i. 9), 
but, as this Epistle shows, with at present so little abiding effect, that the 
Judaizing teachers in Galatia, possibly recruited with fresh emissaries from 
Jerusalem, were now not only spreading dangerous error, but assailing the 
very apostolic authority of him who had founded these churches (comp. ch. 
iv. 13), and who loved them so well (ch. iv. 19, 20). 

In accordance with this the Epistle naturally divides itself into tico contro 
versial portions, and a concluding portion which is more directly hortatory 
and practical. T.\\efrxt portion (ch. i. ii.) the Apostle devotes to a defence 
of his office, and especially to a proof of his divine calling and of his inde 
pendence of all human authority (ch. i. 11 ii. 10), nay, his very opposi- 


tion to it in the person of St. Peter, when that Apostle had acted with incon 
sistency (eh. ii. 11 21). In the second, or what may be called (\iepolemical 
portion (eh. iii. iv.), the Apostle, both by argument (ch. iii. 1, sq.), appeal 
(ch. iv. 1220), and illustration (ch. iv. 1 7, 2130), establishes the truth 
of the fundamental positions that justification is by faith, and not by the 
deeds of the law (ch. iii. 5, 6), and that they alone who are of faith are the 
inheritors of the promise, and the true children of Abraham ; comp. notes on 
ch. iii. 29. The third portion (ch. v. vi.) is devoted to hortatory warning (ch. 
iv. 31 v. C), illustrations of what constitutes a real fulfilment of the law (ch. 
v. 13 2C), practical instructions (ch. vi. 1 10), and a vivid recapitulation 
(ch. vi. 11 1C). 

The genuineness and authenticity are supported by distinct external testi 
mony (Irenjeus, Ha<r. 111. 7. 2, Tertull. de Prtcucr. G; see Lardncr, Credi 
bility, Vol. ii. p. 103 sq., Davidson, Introduction, Vol. n. p. 318 sq.), and, as 
we might infer from the strikingly characteristic style of the Epistle, have 
never been doubted by any reputable critic ; couip. Meyer Einleit. p. 8. 

I " 

^ t 

d^t C4-^ Ct^ttcc^ 

a. *. /-X t. 



Apostolic addrc 8 nnd sal- I I AYAOZ 
utution, concluding witii a 

doxoiogy. JLJL ov8e Si 



o\Xci Sea Irjcrov 

I. air6(TTo\ o s] an Apostle, in the 
higher and more especial meaning of the 
word; and as such (particularly when en 
hanced by the succeeding clause), a forci 
ble protest against the Judaists, who prob 
ably refused to apply it in this particular 
sense to any out of the significant number 
of the Twelve; comp. llilgenf. Galater- 
brief, p. 107. It may be observed (comp. 
Maurice, Unity of N. T. p. 402 ) that the 
question involved more than mere per 
sonal slander (TT/V yfyevr]ij.evriv Sia/JoA^c, 
Thcocl.) : in asserting the preeminence 
of the Twelve over St. Paul, they were 
practically denying Christ s perpetual 
rule over His church. With regard to 
the meaning of ebnforoAos in St. Paul s 
Epp., we may remark that in a few in 
stances (e. y. 2 Cor. viii. 23, and most 
probably Phil. ii. 2o, see notes in loc.), 
it appears to be .used in its simple etymo 
logical sense. In 2 Cor. xi. 13, 1 Thess. 
ii. 6, the meaning may be thought doubt 
ful ; but in Rom. xvi. 7, o l-nves tl<nv 
Mcr-quoi tv TOIS OTTOO-, *\ois (commonly 
cited in this sense, Conyb. and Hows. St. 
Paul, Vol. I. p. 463), the correct trans 
lation appears certainly that of Fritzsche, 

1 qnippe qui in Apostolorum collegio bene 
audiant : compare Winer, R WB. s. v. 
Apostel, Vol. i. p. 69, note 2. The va 
rious applications of this word in eccles. 
writers are noticed by Suicer, Tfiesaur. 
s. v. Vol. i. p. 475 sq., Hamm. on Earn. 
xvi. 7. ov K &.TT &v & p <air (on 

o u 8 e 8 ivS-pciTrov] not from men 
nor by man] not from men as an ultimate, 
nor through man as a mediate authority, 
the prep, iirb here correctly denoting 
the causa remotior (Winer, Gr. 47. b, p./i 2 /. 
334, Bernhardy, Syntax, v. 12, p. 222), 
Sid, the causa medians ; see Winer, 50. 
6, p. 372, Green, Gr. p. 299. Airb is thus 
not for vit6 Brown in loc. (comp. Illicit., 
Olsh.), as the use of &trb for vir&, especially 
after passives, though found apparently 
in some few instances in earlier writers 
(Poppo, Thucyd. i. 17, Vol. i. p. 158), 
occasionally in later (Bernhardy, Si/nt. v. 
12, p. 224), and frequently in Byzantine 
Greek, does not appear in St. Paul s 
Epistles, nor in any decisive instance in 
the N. T. ; comp. Winer, Gr. 47. b, p. 
332, note. In all cases the distinction be 
tween the prcpp. seems sufficiently clear : 
v-rrb points to an action which results from 


G A L A T I A N S . 

CHAP. I. I . 

/ , ^ , , , 3 , 

Xpicrrov real Oeov Trarpo? TOV eyetpavros avrov K ve/cpwv, 

a more immediate and active, airb to a 
less immediate and more passive cause ; 
comp. Herm. Soph. Elect. 65, and see 
Rom. xiii. 1 (Lachm., Tisch.), where St. 
Paul s correct use of these prepp. may be 
contrasted with that of Chrysost. in loc. 
There are, indeed, few points more char 
acteristic of the Apostle s style than his 
varied but accurate use of prepp. esp. of 
two or more in the same or in imme 
diately contiguous clauses (e. g. ds . . . 
iirl, Rom. iii. 22 ; t . . . ota , . . els, 
xi. 36 ; M . . . ota . . . lv, Eph. iv. 
6; ev . . . Sia . . . els, Col. i. 16), for 
the purpose of more precise definition or 
limitation ; comp. Winer, Gr. 1. c.. p. 372. 
Si avdptaTTov] throiujh man, OVK 
avSpiairta \prjffanfvos viroupyw, Ihcod., 
not with any studied force in the singu 
lar as pointing to any particular individ 
ual (Mo>heim, Reb. ante Constant, p. 70), 
nor yet for solemnity s sake, as more ex 
clusive (Alf.), but simply as thus forming 
a more natural antithesis to the following 
a irjffou XpKTToD. K al Qeov 

irarpos] and God the Father ; in no 
ticeably close union with ITJCT. Xp., both 
being under the vinculum of the single 
preposition 8id ; comp. verse 3. We 
might here not unnaturally have expect 
ed Kal <X7ri> Qeov irarpos, as forming a 
more exact antithesis to what precedes, 
and as also obviating a ref. of 810 to the 
causa principalis (Gal. i. 15) ; comp., 
however, 1 Cor. i. 9, and see Winer, Gr. 
47. i. p 339, and the list in Fritz, on 
Rom. i. 5, Vol. i. 15, but exclude from 
it 1 Pet. ii. 13, 14. In the present case 
the use o " 5ta seems due partly to a brev 
ity of expression, which is obviously both 
natural and admissible where it is not 
necessary to draw strict lines between 
agency, origin, a:ul medium (comp. Horn. 
xi. 34, an 1 even Plato, Sijmpns. p. 186 K, 
810 rov deov Kv&tpvarat), and partly to an 
instinctive association of the two Persons 

of the blessed Trinity in his choice and 
calling as an Apostle. To urge this as 
a direct evidence for the dfioovtrta of the 
Father and the Son ( Chrys., Theod.) may 
perhaps be rightly deemed precarious ; 
yet still there is something very notice- 
able in this use of a common preposition 
with both the first and second Per- 
sons of the Trinity, by a writer so cumu- 
lative, and yet for the most part so ex- 
act, in his use of prepositions as St. Paul. 
Qeov irarp6s] God the Father; not 
in the ordinary inclusive reference to all 
men (De W., Alt .), nor with more par- 
ticular reference to Christians, scil. our 
Father (L%t. al. ), but, as the associated 
clause seems rather to suggest, with spe- 
cial and exclusive reference to the pre- 
ceding subject, our Lord Jesus Christ; 

so, perhaps too expressly, Syr. 


[patrcm cjus] ; comp. Pearson, Creed, 
Art. i. Vol. i. p. 42, (cd. Burt.). 
rov eyeipavros K . T . A.] tcho 
raised Him from the dead. } The aeldi- 
tion of this designation has been very 
differently explained. While there may 
probably be a remote reference to the fact 
that it is upon the resurrection of Jesus 
Christ that our faith rests (1 C or. xv. 17 ; 
comp. Usteri, Paul. Lehrbegr. n. i. I, p. 
97, 98), and from it all gifts of grace de 
rived (Alf.), the context seems clearly to 
suggest that the more immediate refer 
ence is to the fact that the A postlc s call i 
was received from Christ in His exalted j 
and glorified position (1 Cor. ix. 1, 1 Cor. 
xv. 8) ; verax etiam novissimus Apos- 
tolus qui per Jcsum Christum totum jam 
Deum post resurrect ion cm cjus missus 
cst," August, in loc. ; see Brown, Gala- 
tians, p. 22. The article with vtKpwv 
appears regularly omitted in this and 
similar phrases, except Eph. v. 14, and 
(with airb) Matth. xiv. 2, xxviii. 7, al. ; 
see Winer, Gr. $ 19, p. W. ^7 


(X^X^-A (MC.O*>-< a? CfcTf?^* t^ t^ CjL**-jJidfzz 

U/rv^v 4^^ Uxzrf\*^*~- \ "[ A^. 2^4 c/ cXt<i<, 

. . ^ 

V- . 

(CTj^A- l^ju^^ _ "/ * 

^ ^-^^r. KiJu^ 


\ (fl***+ (k^^Ji^^J^ify . & / k z. 7Ajt* f ./jf&t tc^ /: / 

CHAP. I. 24. 



2 KOL ol GVV 6/iol Traire? aSeX^XK, rat? etCK\r)(Tiais n}? 

8 X ( tP i ^ vp^v Kal elprjvr) UTTO Oeov Trarpo? /cat Kvpiou ri/j.wv j 

XpMrrov, * TOV SoVro? kavrov irfpl TWV afiapTiwv r)p*u>v, 07r<9 


2. ircJj/rej] Emphatic: ceteros qui to yow a??rf peace: not merely a union 

secum rant omnes commotos adversus of two ordinary forms of Jewish saluta- 

eos ostendit, Ps. Ambr. St. Paul fre- tion (Fritz. Rom. i. 7, Vol. i. p. 23), or 

quently adds to his own name that of of the Greek x^ P 61 ") anc ^ tne Hebrew 

one or more of his companions, e. g. Sos- ~V ci Vtj , but a greeting of full spiritual 

thenes, (1 Cor. >. 1), Timothy, (2 Cor. i. significance; x<fy" s > as Olsh. observes, 

1, Phil. i. 1, Col. i. 1), Silvanus and being the divine love manifesting itself to 

Timothy, (1 Thess i. 1, 2 Thess. i. 1) : man, elp-fivrt the state that results from a 

here, however, to add weight to his ad- reception of it. The Oriental and Occi- 

monitions, and to show the unanimity dental forms of salutation are thus blend- 

( Chrysost. ) that was felt on the subject ed and spiritualized in the Christian 

of the Epistle, he adopts the inclusive greeting ; see notes on Eph. i. 2, and 

term irou/Tts a5<AcW, defining it more comp. Koch on 1 Thcssal. p. 60. 

closely by of avv Ipoi (Phil. iv. 21),^ K al Kvplov K. T. \.] and (from) our 

all the brethren who are my present Lord Jesus Christ. Strictly speaking, 

companions in my travels and my preach- Christ is the mediating imparter of grace, 

ing. There is, then, no necessity for re 
stricting a.$s\ct>ol to official brethren 
(Brown, comp. Beza), nor for extending 
01 <TVI> ift.o\ to the whole Christian com 
munity of the place from which the 

God the direct giver ; but just as in verse 
1 . 5(ct was applied both to the Father and 
the Son, so here, in this customary ^alu- 
tation see on Phil. i. 4), o7rJ> is applied 
both to the Son and the Father. Ols- 

Epistle was written (Erasm., Jowett) : in hausen (on Rom. i. 7) justly remarks 

this latter case we should certainly have that nothing speaks more decisively for 

expected with whom I am, rather than the divinity of our Lord than these jux- 

who are with me ; see Usteri in Inc. tapositions with the Father, which per- 

Tats V KK\i)ffiais TTjs r a \.] to the vade the whole language of Scripture. 
churches of Galatia ; plural, and with a 4. TOV 56i>ros favr6v] who gave 

comprehensive reference, (iravraxov yap Himself, scil. to death ; more fully ex- 

el/nj/ej/ TJ v6<ros, Theod., comp. Chrys.), pressed 1 Tim. ii. 6, b Sous iavr})v a.vri\u- 

the epistle probably being an encyclical Tpov, comp. Tit. ii. 14. The participial 

letter addressed to the different churches clause serves at the very outset to specify 

(of Ancyra, Pessinus, Tavium, and other the active principle of the error of the 

places) throughout the province. The Galatians. The doctrine of the atoning 

omission of the usual titles of honor or death of Jesus Christ, and a recurrence to 

affection seems undoubtedly intentional the laws of Moses, were essentially incom- 

( Chrys.), for in the only other Epistles patible with each other. 

TT e pi 

where the simple T-fj lKKXr,cria. is used, TUV a/xapr. ii^uf] for our sins, 

(I Cor. i. 2, 2 Cor. i. 1, 1 Thess. i. 1, 2 scil. to atone for them, Rom. iii. 25, GaL 

Thess. i. 1), there is in the two former iii. 13. The reading uirep- (Rec) has but 

passages the important and qualifying little external support, and is, perhaps, 

addition TOV 0eoD, and in the two latter due to dogmatical correction, or to that 

4v Qey irarpl K. T. \. interchange of irtpl and fartp (Fritz. Rom. 

3. x p s u/j. iv ical flp-f)fn] Grace Vol. i. p. 28) of which the MSS. of the 

a f A -tli <*X*Vv*_/V^C A_i.ta* ^A A4 ~, ~ / ^, . *i i ^" V- 

-*~> f -*.C &\ i : ^" ^*~ I I) V 

6 . 


CHAP. I. 4. 

eV rov eVecrrcoTO? aiWo? Trovrjpov Kara TO 

N. T. present so many traces. Strictly 
speaking, uWp, in its ethical sense, retains 
some trace of its local meaning, bending 
over to prefect (pd.xr&ai inrtp nt>os , 
Donalds. Gr. Gr. \ 480), and thus points 
more immediately to the action, than to 
the object or circumstance from which 
the action is supposed to spring. The 
latter relation is more correctly defined 
by Trepi, e. fj. $o/3e?<rdcu Trepi TWOS , see 
AVincr, <ir. 47. e, p. 334, Scrucfer. Dc- 
mosth Vol. I p 189, 190. Tlepl will thus 
be more naturally used with the thing, 
sins, vwtp with the person, sinners; 
and this, with a few exceptions (e. g. 
1 Cor. xv. 3, Ileb. v 3), appears the 
usage of the N. T ; comp. 1 Pet. iii 18, 
where both forms occur.*" Still it must 
be admitted that both in the N. T., and 
even in classical Greek (Buttm., Ind. ad 
Mid, p. 18,3) the distinction between 
these two prepp. is often scarcely appre 
ciable ; see notes on Eph. vi. 19, and on 
Phil. i. 7. o irias i 4 \rjrtii] 

in order tlv:t he mirjht deliver *; not 
eximcret, Be/.n, but eiipcrct, Vulg., 
the verb <aif>?<r^ui (only here in St Paul s 
Epp. ) deriving irom the context the idea 
of rescuing ($vi>a/4iv trrj/j-aivfi rov 
vov, Thcod. Mops ) as from danger, etc. ; 
comp. Acts xii. 11, xxiii. 27, and appy. 
xxvi. 17, and see Eisner. Obs. Vol. 11 p. 
170. On the force of cirron in the X. T , 
and its probable distinction from iVo, sec 
notes on 2 Tlicss. i. 12. * <= ,< T o C 

tvfffrwros K . r . A . ] out of the i~r :?- 
ent evil trorld ; not exactly IK ruiv Trpd- 
ecai> rOiv ir-jj/Tjpip, Chrysost., still le^s rov 
irapwToi /3i ou, Thcod., but simply, the 
present evil state of things, sec notrs on 
Eph. i 21, where the meaning of alav is 
briefly discussed. It is doubtful whether 
6 ivfarus aluiv is (a) simply equivalent to 
6 viv aluv (2 Tim. iv. 10, Tit ii 12, see 
l;ot:-s), n:id therefore in opposition to 6 
O u)^ <5 fj.(\\-jiy (comp. C leui. C>r. n. f>, 


5f our OS o aia i Kal 6 (if\\wv Svo 
>oi), or whether (6) it denotes in a 
more restricted sense the commencing 
age, the age of faithlessness and the de 
veloping powers of Antichrist that had 
already begun ; see Meyer in loc. The 
participle tvfcrrus will appy. admit either , //gl 
meaning (comp. Horn. viii. 38, 1 Cor. iii. U el . ( 
22, with 2 Thess. ii 2, and see exx. in. 
Rost u. Palm, Lex., s. v. Vol. i p. 929, 
Sehweigh. Lex. Polyb. s. v.); the order 
of the words, however, not rov icov. 
aliavos rov fvtffr., and the general and 
undogmatical character of the passage 
seem decidedly in favor of (a) : so dis 
tinctly Syr. (Jet I -^ ^ [hoc sacculo], 

Vulg., Clarom., prcesenti saceulo, and 
sim. the best of the remaining Vv. In 
either case the influence of the article 
appears to extend only to ti/fa-r. ; alavos 
TTovripov forming an explanatory apposi 
tion, in effect equivalent to a tertiary 
predication (Donalds. Gr. 489), an 
evil age as it is, and pointing out eithe* 
(u) more generally, or (6) more specifi 
cally, the corrupting influences of the 
world and its works : see esp. Donalds. 
Journal of Sacr and Class. Pltilol. Xo. 
ii., p. 223. The reading alwvos rov 
Ivfo-r., adopted by Lachm , has but weak 
external support [AB ; 39; Orig. (3), 
Did. al.], and is internally suspicious as 
a grammatical correction. 
& t o v K al IT ar pb s ? ; inSiv ] Grid and 
our Father, Dei et patris nostri, Vulg , 
not God, even our Father (Brown), 
Kai being only the simple copula ; see 
Middleton, Greek Art. p. 2D2, 307 (cd. 
Hose), and comp. notes on 1 Thcxs. iii. 
11. The august title <5 Of us Kal irar^p 
occurs several times in the X. T , both 
alone (1 C or. xv. 21, C ol. i : i 17, James 
i. 27), and with a dependent genitive, 
viz. (n| rov Kvp iov rmcav I. X., Horn. XV. 
0, Eph. i. 3, 2 Cor. i. 3, xi. 31, Col. i. 3, 
t Sl^* 

c-^ A 

L+. *a*jfr^ **>**- j U^^^U^^a^U, LLi-^dSl 
LvrU- ,VW?<r 6 : r * > -, ^^H^ f^aK./4-W* 

AXI_ Tfl5"i/Aivv5 -~4^ w*-. C^n** f *>tyA**C<jt^*\. C5>7-ci^%x 

CHAP. I. 5,6. 



roi) Qeov real Trarpb? rj 


o 17 

et? rou9 avas 

which if an angel were to preach, let him be anathema. It is not man but God whom I strive to please. 

1 Pet. i. 3, and (6) r)fuav only, as here, 
Phil. iv. 20, 1 Thess. i. 1, iii. 11, 13, and 

2 Thess. ii. 16. Whether in these latter 
formula; the gen. depends on both, or 
only on the latter of the two nouns, 
cannot be positively decided. No gram- 
matical arguments based on the absence 
of the article are here applicable, as irar^p 
is anarthrous according to rule (Middl. 
Gr. Art. in. 4, 2, Winer, Gr. 19, 4, 
p 116) ; nor will the most careful inves- 
tigation of the separate passages afford 
any sure grounds for deciding on exeyet- 
teal principles ; contr. Fritz Rom. Vol. 
iii. p. 234. This, however, maybe said, 
that as the term irar^p conveys necessa 
rily a relative idea, which in theological 
language admits of many applications 
(see Suicer, Thesaur. s. v. Vol. n. p. 629 
sq ), while @tbs conveys only one abso- 
lute idea, it would not seem improbable 
that the connection of thought in the 
mind of the inspired writer might lead 
him in some passages to add a defining 
gen. to -rraT/ip which he did not intend 
necessarily to be referred to 0e<5s. The 
Greek commentators, whose opinion on 
such a point would be of great value, 
do not appear to be unanimous : Theod. 
Mops, in loc. and Theodorct, on Rom. 
xvi. 6, refer the gen. to the last nom. ; 
Chrys. on Eph. i. 3, leaves it doubtful; 
see notes on Eph. i. 3. 

5. ri 5Ja] the glory, scil. fr/ not 
terrai ; see on Eph. i 2. In this and 
similar forms of doxology, excepting 
that of the angels, Luke ii. 14. and of 
the multitude. Luke xix. 38, 5<5fa reg- 
ularly takes the article when used alone, 
e. y. Rom. xi. 36, xvi. 27, Eph. iii. 21, 
Phil. iv. 20, 2 Tim. iv 18, Heb. xiii. 21, 
2 Pet. iii. 18. When joined with one or 
more substantives it appears sometimes 

-with the art. (1 Pet. iv. 11, Rev. i. 6, 
vii. 12), sometimes without it (Rom. ii. 
10, 1 Tim. i. 17, Jude 25). It is thus 
difficult to determine whether we have 
here (a) the rhetorical form of the arti- 
cle (Bernhardy, Synt. vi. 22, p. 315), 
the glory whir-h especially and alone 
belongs to God (comp. Winer, Gr. 18. 
1, p. 97), or (6) whether Sofa takes the 
article as an abstract noun (Middl. Gr. 
Art. v. 1). On the whole, (a) seems the 
most natural, and best suited to the con- 
text. al vivas T>V 01 <a vtav^ 

the ayes of the ayes, saecula saeculo- 
rum> . Vulg -f lcss precisely Syr. V Vv 

x *^ n V [ fa?culjm saeculorum] ; a 
semi-Hebraistic expression for a duration 
of time superlatively (infinitely) long ; 
comp. Winer, Gr. 36. 2, p. 220. The 
same words occur, Phil. iv. 20, 1 Tim. i. 
17, 2 Tim. iv. 18, and frequently in the 
Apocalypse. Occasionally we meet with 
the singular aliav TUV aluvuv (Eph. iii. 21, 
comp. Dan. vii. 18), and the perhaps 
more distinctly Hebraistic aluiv TOV aiwvos, 
Heb. i. 8 (quotation), Psalm cxi. 10, 
but with scarcely any appreciable differ- 
ence of meaning ; see notes OH Eph. iii. 
21. Vorst. (de Hebraismis N. T.,p. 325) 
investigates both this and the similar ex- 
press-ion y fv ca.s yeveiav\ but his remarks 
must be received with caution, as on the 
subject of Hebraisms he cannot now be 
considered a safe guide. 

6. &avfj.d(w] I marvel; mani- 
festatis beneficiis, mirari se dicit quod 
ab Illo potuerint scparari, Ps Jerome. 
The idea of wondering at something 
blameworthy is frequently implied in this 
word : see Rost u. Palm. Lex. s. v., and 
compare Mark vi. 6, John vii. 21,1 John 
iii. 13. The further idea which Chrys. 

3. .2, ~J 


G A L A T I A N S . 

CHAP. I. 6. 


? TOI) Ka\ecravTo<; v/jias ev %aom Xpicnov els erepov evayye\lov, 

finds in the address, ov p.6vov tvrptirwv 

Ojj.ov St Kal SfiKvvs o tav *x 61 " Irf ^ 

avTcav vir6voiav, OTJ /j.tyd\r)v rii>a Kal eff- 
irovSafffjLfvriv, does not seem intended. 
oi/ToisTax^ws] so quickly. After 
what ? In our ignorance of the exact 
time when the Galatians were converted, 
as well as the circumstances of their de 
fection, this question cannot be satisfacto 
rily answered. Of the proposed answers, 
(a) their conversion, Mey., Alf. ; (b) 
the Apostle s last visit, I3eng., Flatt ; or 
(c) the entry of the false teachers, Chrys., 
Theoph., the first appears the least, 
and the last the most probable, as the 
following verse seems to show whom the 
Apostle had in his thoughts. At any 
rate the reference of the adverb seems 
decidedly rather to time than manner 
(2 Thess. ii. 2, 1 Tim. v. 22* compare 
Conyb. and Hows, in loc.), however that 
time be defined. Still all histoiical de 
ductions from such a passage (AViesclcr, 
Chronol. p. 285, Davids. Introduct. Vol. 
ii. p. 297) must obviously be debatable 
and precarious. Grotius appositely 

cites, in illustration of the levity of the 
Gallic character, Caesar, Bell. Gall. iv. 5, 
sunt (Galli) in consiliis capiendis mobi 
les, et novis plcrumque rebus student ; 
comp. ib. n. 1, in. 10, 19 : sec Eisner, 

Observ. Sacr. Vol. n. p. 172. 

(j.fTa riibfO &t] are going over from, 

are falling aicay from : present (OVK flirt 

the defection was still going on), and 
middle, not passive, as Theod. Mops. 
(u.tTdytffdf, us liri afyuxuiv ; comp. Ileb. 
vii 12), Vulg., Clarom., al. While in 
earlier writers jteTcmds/uai is used both 
with and without an accusative (yvwu^v}, 
in the sense of changing an opinion 
(see exx. in Host u. Palm, Lex. s. v.), it 
is as frequently used in later writers in 
the sense descisco, with prepp. t i r, irpds, 
iirl of the party, etc., to idiom c. y. 

Polyb. in. 118, 8, /jLfTaTiSf<T&ai irpbs rovs 
Kapx^Sovi ouj and IK, 0.1*6 (or a simple 
gen., Diod. Sic. xvi. 31), of the party, 
etc., from whom the defection has taken 
place; so Appian, Bell. Mithr. 41, curb 
Apxf\dov irpbs 2uAA.(W ^eTOTi^tir^oJ : 
comp. 2 Mace. vii. 24, and see further 
exx. in Kypke, Obs. Vol. ii. p. 273, and 
in "Wetst. in loc. T ov Ka\f- 

ff a v T o s ] Him who called you, sell. 
God the Father (Chrys., Theod.), to 
whom the calling of Christians appears 
regularly ascribed by St. Paul (verse 15, 
Horn. viii. 30, ix. 24, 25, 1 Cor. i. 9, vii. 
15, 17, 1 Thess. ii. 12, 2 Thess. ii. 14, 
2 Tim. i. 9), not Christ who called 
you, Syr., Jerome, al., the correct theo 
logical distinction being, rj K\~i<ris IVTI 
TOV riarpos, rijy 5e K\~f]ffecas ? ; curia, rov 
flov, Chrys. : comp. Horn. v. 15. l!ro\vn 
(p. 39), excepts Rom. i. 7, but scarcely 
with sufficient reason ; see Fritz, and De 
"VV. in loc . and comp. Reuss, Tl,el. Chret. 
iv. 15, Vol. n. p. 144, Usteri, Lehrb. n. 
2, 3, p. 2G9, 279 sq. The passages cited 
by Alford on Rom. I. c., viz. John v. 25, 
1 Tim. i. 12, do not seem fully in point. 
^ v x<*p T i ] by the grace of Christ ; 
holy instrument of the divine calling, 
the prep, tv being here used in its instru 
mental sense (Eph. ii. 13, vi. 14, al.), 
and marking not so much the element in 
which, as the principle by which (imma 
nent instrumentality, Jclf, Gr. 622. 3, 
comp. notes on Eph. ii. 13) the calling 
was vouchsafed unto mankind ; see notes 
on 1 Thess. iv. 18, and comp. Winer, Gr. 
48. a, p. 347. De Wette and Meyer 
both adduce 1 Cor. vii. 15, 4v ot flp^vri 
KfK\rjK(v TI/J.US & Qf6s, but not pertinently, 
as both there and in the two other pas 
sages in which Ka\t7i/ is joined with fy t 
viz., Eph. iv. 4, 1 Thess. iv. 7 (see notes 
in loc.\ the prep, retains its simple and 
primary force of permanence in, and 
marks, as it were, the element m which 

*. . 

I / T ^ O * 

2.. 3 Jit"- M ; a 


CHAP. L 7. 



, , , , 

7 o ou/c ea-riv aXXo, el ^-f] rives elcnv ol rapda-a-ovres vjj,a<; real 

we aie called to move. In the present 
case, however, the dogmatical considera 
tion, that the Grace of Christ, in the 
sense it here appears used by St. Paul, 
denotes an active and energizing influ 
ence rather than a passive element, seems 
distinctly to suggest the instrumental 
sense; comp. Rom. v. 15, and see Meyer 
and Ililgenf. in h. I. The usual 

explanation, according to which lv is 
used in sensu prtegnanti for eiy ( vo- 
cavit in gratiam, Vulg., Auth.), is more 
than doubtful, as KO\O> implies no idea 
of motion (comp. Winer, Gr. 50. 4. a, 
p. 367), while that of Wieseler ( Chronol. 
p. 28-5, note), according to which tv x<ip. 
= \ipiv (eh. iii. 19), is alike inconsistent 
with the usage of tv, and the regular 
meaning of xdpts Xpta-rov. 
t r e p o v ] another sort of, Fell. If we 
compare the very similar passage, 2 Cor. 
xi. 4, in which ertpos and &\\os occur in 
juxtaposition, and apparently in senses 
exactly identical with those in the present 

or i ev<xyy*\iov, quod quidem (scil. vos 
deficere a Christo) non est aliud nisi, 
Winer ; (b) the preceding tvafyf^ov, 
which Gospel is, admits of being, no 
other, De W. (compare Syr., Chrys., 
Theod.), and appy. the majority of ex 
positors ; (c) the preceding compound 
expression irtpov fva-yyehiov, Meyer, Alf. 
Of these (c) is clearly to be preferred, as 
best preserving the natural and gram 
matical sequence of the words, and the 
distinction between rrepos and &\\os. 
To prevent the words irtpov tvayytKiov 
being misconstrued into the admission 
that there could really be any other gospel 
than the one preached to them, St. Paul 
more fully explains himself, using &\\os 
rather than the ambiguous erepos, and 
throwing the emphasis on OVK : which 
(fTtpov tva.yye\iov) is not another (a 
second) GOSPEL, except (only in this 
sense, that) there are some who trouble 
you, t. e., the Judaists bring you another 
gospel, but it is really no GOSPEL at all ; 
comp. Hamm. and Meyer in loc. In a 
word, as Hilgenf. correctly observes, the 
seeming paradox lies in this fact, that 
fuayye\ioi> is understood after &\\o in its 
strictest meaning, but expressed after 
tTfpov in one more lax. tl p 4\ ] 

save that. The gloss ei n^ = o\A<i can 
be distinctly impugned in even what 
seem the strongest passages, e. g. Matth. 
xii. 4 (see Fritz, in loc.), 1 Cor. vii. 17 
(see Meyer in loc.) : consult Klotz, Devar. 
Vol. ii. p. 524, Hartung, Partik. ^, 3. 
6, Vol. ii. p. 120, compared with Dindorf 
in Steph. Thes. Vol. in. p. 190. The 
first distinct evidences of this interchange 
appear only in very late writers. 
ol T apdffff ovr t s] who are troubling 
you ; qui vos conturbant, Vulg. The 
definite article might at first sight seem 
inconsistent with the indef. nvfs : when 
thus used, however, it serves to particu 
larize, and in the present case specifies, 



CHAP. I. 8. 

rov Xpiarrov. 8 u\\a KCU 
eav 7;/i64? 7} 0776X09 e ovpavov evayye\ify)Tai vfuv Trap o eirrjyye- 


I the rifts as those whose characteristic 
was troubling the Galatians, some who 
are your troublcrs ; comp. Luke xviii. 

9, TJfOS TOUi TTfirO&OTaS, Col. ii 8, [JLI) 

T*S vptis to~Tat o o"v\a,y<ay<ji)v. "\\ iner ( Gr. 
18. 3, p. 100) adduces some exx. from 
classical Greek, and compares the com 
mon expression da\v ol At-yorres : see also 
BemharJy, Synt. \i. 2.3, p. 318. We 
cannot, therefore, with Riickert definitely 
pronounce this as an instance of Asiatic 
Hellenism. The article must, of course, 
be carried on to Sf\oi>Tfs ; see Kiihner s 
valuable note on Xen. Mem. i. 1. 20. 
rJ tvayyf\tov tov XpicrTov] It 
is doubtful whether Xpto-rov is the gen. 
tubjecti, the Gospel preached by Christ, 
or the gen. objccti, the Gospel of or con 
cerning Christ. From the fuller expres 
sion, Rom. i. 3, fi/ayysA. TOV Qtov irtpl 
rov vlov OLVTOV, we may, perhaps, here 
decide on the latter interpretation : see 
Winer, Gr. 30. 1, p. 160. According 
to Meyer (on Mark i. 1), when the gen. 
... after fvayye\. is atarripias. &acri\tia.s, KT.\. 
it is gen. objecti; when 0eoD, gen. silb- 
""jecti ; but when Xpitnov, gen. objecti or 
tubjecti, to be determined only by the 

8. Kal idv^ eventf; not, however, 
necessarily supposing a case which has 
never occurred" (Alf.), but, as usual, 
conveying the idea of condition with the 
assumption of objective possibility ; see 
Ilcrm. de Partic. &v, 2 7, p. 9.5, and esp. 
the very clear distinctions of Schmalfeld, 
Sifnt. d. Gr. Verb. $ 93, 94. It may be 
further observed that, as the order shows, 
ol belongs not to ^*?i or to the sentence, 
but to lav (etiam si), to which it gives 
force and prominence; see llerm. Viper, 
No. 307, Ilartung, Partic. Ka i, 3. 3, Vol. 
I. p. 141, and notes on Phil. ii. 17. 
tip tit] we. Though rjp.f is here seems 

^ V- 

to refer mainly to St. Paul, and is fre 
quently BO used elsewhere, yet, as ol av 
^uoi ir. a,8t\. may very reasonably be here 
included (Mey ), it docs not seem desira 
ble, with De W., Conyb., and others, to 
limit the term specially to the Apostle. 
The use of ^uTs, or of the simple plural, 
must always depend on the context ; 
comp. notes on 1 Thess. i. 2. 
irap o] contrary to that ichich. The 
meaning of the prep, has been the subject 
of considerable controversy ; the Luther 
ans having urged the meaning preeter- 
quam (Vulg., and appy. Chrys. ), the 
Romanists that of contra (Theod., al.). 
This latter meaning is perfectly correct 
(opp. to Brown, p. 4.3 ; see Donalds. Gr. 
485, and exx. in Winer, Gr. \ 49. g, 
p. 360, esp. Xcn. Mem. i. 1. 18, where 
trapa. -rovs i>6povs and KO.TO. r. v. are in 
antithesis), and is appy. required by the 
context and tenor of the argument. The 
Apostle implies throughout the Epistle 
that the Judaical gospel was in the strict 
sense of the words an /ntpov fuayy., and 
in its very essence opposed to the true 
Gospel. avaSt /ia] accursed; 

strictly considered, nothing more than 
the Hellenistic form of the Attic avadij- 
fia, Mocris (cited by Lobeck, Phryn. p. 
249), the original meaning of both forms 
being rb a.<ptfp<anti>ov &, Thecdorct on 
Horn. ix. 3. The prevailing use, how 
ever, of ai/d^ffj.a in malam partem com 
pared with the command, Lev. IMR. 29, 
seems (esp. in the LXX and the N. T. ) 
to have gradually led to a distinction in 
meaning ; o^a-^rj^ua being used in the 
sense of donarium (2 Mace. ix. 16, Luke 
xxi. 2.5), ava,^(/j.a (Rom. ix. 3, 1 Cor. xii. bJhll .l 
3, xvi. 2 J) as aliyuid divinas ires sacra- 
tttm ; Hesych. apo^tjua, 
a*oii><iiT)Tos. ai/a-^Tjua n6ff/j.r]/j.a. This 
distinction, though very generally, is still 

/ , 


CHAP. I. 9. 


31, ava&/j,a eara). * to? Trpoeiprjtcapev, teal apn 
ird\iv \eya>, ei TI<> y/ia? evayye\leTat Trap 1 b TrapeXa/Sere, dvd- 

not universally observed : see Theod. and 
esp. Chrys. on Rom. ix. 3, who, even, 
while he asserts two distinct meanings, 
seems to regard the forms as interchange 
able. In the eccles. writers (see Sui- 
cer, Thes, Vol. i. p. 268, Bingham, xvi. 
2), ava^efia, like the Hebrew cntt (see 
Winer, RIVB, Art. Bann) was applied 
to excommunication ; though even here, 
it may be observed, accompanied some 
times with distinct execration; set Lirg- 
ham, ib. 2. 17. This milder sense has 
been frequently maintained in the present 
passage (Hammond in loc., Waterland, 
Doct. Trin. ch. 4, Vol. in. p 458), but is 
distinctly opposed to the usage of the N. 
T. ; compare twiKaTaparos, ch. iii. 10,, ch. iii. 13. For further reff. see 
the good note of Fritz. Rom. ix. 3, Vol. 
II. p. 253 sq. 

9. it pot tp-fi K ofie v] we have said 
before. To what does irpj> here refer ? 
Is it (a) solely to the preceding verse, as 
Chrys., Theod., Jerome (comp. Neander, 
Planting. Vol. i. p. 214, Bohn), or (b) to 
a declaration made at the Apostle s last 
visit, as Syr. (appy.), and recently, Ust., 
De W., Mey., al. r* Grammatical consid 
erations do not contribute to a decision : 
for neither, on the one hand, can the use 
of the perfect rather than the aor. irpoei- 
vontv (ch. v. 21, 1 Thess. iv. 6) be pressed 
in favor of (a), ffpjjKa at most only 
marking the^cpntinuing_salidity of what 
was said (comp. 2 Cor. xii. 9, and Winer, 
Gr. 40. 4, p. 243), nor, on the other 
hand, can the reference to what has just 
been said be urged as inconsistent with 
the usage of trp6 (Ust.), for see 2 Mace. 
iii. 7, irpoftpri/j.ivuv xw-- r<av (where the 
subject referred to is mentioned no further 
back than the beginning of the preced 
ing verse), 3 Mace. vi. 35, and compare 
2 Cor. vii. 3 with 2 Cor. vi. 12. Con 

textual reasons, however, viz. the inser 
tion of apri as marking an antithesis to 
what was distinctly past, and the appar 
ent identity of time marked by the two 
plural verbs euayyeA.., irpotip. (Alf.), seem 
so distinctly in favor of (b), that in this 
case we do not hesitate to maintain that 
reference even in opposition to the opin 
ion of the Greek expositors ; comp. 2 Cor. 
xiii. 2. This passage has been pressed 
into the controversy relative to the state 
of the Galatian church at the Apostle s 
second visit ; see Davidson, Introd. Vol. 
n. p. 30-5. Kal&pri K.T.\.] 

so now I say ayain : undoubtedly a 
consecutive sentence. Riickert and B. 
Cms., by making it part of the antece 
dent sentence, retain the more Attic 
meaning of &prt, but suppose an intoler 
ably harsh ellipsis before el rts. v ApTi is 
not used in Attic Greek for purely present 
time, comp. Plato, Meno, 89, where iv 
T<f vvv is in opp. to tv ry iipn, but is 
not uncommonly so used in later Greek; 
see csp. Lobeck, Phryn. p. 18 sq. 
tl . . . evayyf\i(Tai] if any one 
preacheth ; simply and purely conditional 
( el cum indie, nihil significat prseter 
conditionem, Klotz, Devar. Vol. n. p. 
455), if, as a matter of fact, preaching 
is a course of action pursued by any one/ 
be such an assumption reasonable or the 
contrary ; see esp. Schmalfeld, Syntax, 
91, p. 195. This change from the 
more restricted tav with subj., verse 8, 
appears here intentional ; comp. Acts v. 
38, 39. Still such distinctions must not 
be overpressed, as there is abundant evi 
dence to show that not only in later, but 
even sometimes in earlier writers, they 
were not always carefully observed ; see 
Madvig, Gr. \ 125. 1. It is certainly 
noticeable that, in Euclid (e. g. Book i. 
Prop. 4), ia.v with subj. is nearly always 



CHAP. I. 10 


10 aprt yap dv^spunrovs Trefea) r) TOV eov ; rj 
dpecrKecv | el eri dv^spunrois rjpeaKov, Xpicrrov SoOXo? 

Q(6v (with inf.), Joseph. Antiq. rv. 6. 6, 
vi. 5. 6, vni. 10. 3. The usual comment, 
that Trei dw is here used de conatu (list., 
al.), is very questionable. Of the pas 
sages cited in support of this meaning, 
Acts xxviii. 23, certainly proves nothing, 
and yElian, Var. Hist, n G, is not to the 
point, attempt being implied not by the 
verb but its tense. The same obs. seems 
applicable to Xenoph. Hell. vi. 5, 16, 
Polyb. Hist. iv. 64. 2, cited in Steph. 
Thess. s. v. ^ ^rjToi, K. r. \.] 

or am I seekiny to please, etc ; not 
merely a different (De W.), but a more 
general and comprehensive statement of 
the preceding clause. The student 

will find a sound sermon on this verse 
by Farindon, Serm. xxi. Vol. n. p. 139 
(cd. 1849). Zrt av&p. ,p f ff. 

H.OV] were still pleasing men. * It is not 
necessary either to press the use of the 
imperf. de conatu, or to modify the mean 
ing of apfffKu, studco placere, a mean 
ing which it never bears ; see Fritz. Rom. 
xv. 2, Vol. in p. 221, note. The apos 
tle says, I am not pleasing men ; and a 
clear proof is, that I am Christ s servant, 
whose service is incompatible with that 
of man." The emphasis thus rests on 
en*^ Mey., Brown) which is not merely 
logical (De "\Vette), but temporal, with 
ref. to the preceding apn. The liec. 

inserts yap after , with D 3 EJK ; Syr., 
and other Vv. ; Chrys., Thcod., al., 
but with but little plausibility, as the 
authority for the omission is strong 
[AHDiFG ; 5 mss. ; Vulg., Clarom., 
Copt., Arm.; Cyr. (3), Dam.], and the 
probability of interpolation to assist the 
argument, by no means slight. 
4? H T; v } This form of the imperf., so com 
mon in later writers, is found, Xen. Cyr. 
vi 1. 9, Lysias, in. 17, but is unequivo 
cally condemned by the Atticists. Buttm. 

OVK av 

used in mathematical hypotheses, where 
there can be no accessory idea, but where 
experience must prove the truth or fal 
lacy of the supposition : see Winer, Gr. 
41. 2, p. 260, note. This use of tvay- 
yf\ with an accus. persona, is an 
awa \ey6/A. in St. Paul s Epp., but oc 
curs elsewhere both in the X T. (Luke 
iii. 18, Acts viii. 25, 40, xiii. 22, xiv. 15, 
21, xvi. 10, 1 Pet. i. 12), and in later 
writers: comp. "Winer, Gr. 32. 1, p. 199, 
and Lobcck, Phryn. p. 267 sq. 

10. iipTt yap] For now; not con 
trasting his present conduct and former 
Pharisaism (Ncandcr, Planting, Vol. i. p. 
222 [Bohn], "VVieselcr, Chronol. p. 178), 
but emphatically repeating the &pn of 
the preceding verse, and calling especial 
attention to his present words ; Now, 
when I am using such unhesitating 
language. The exact force of yap 

seems more open to question : it may be 
plausibly taken as in abrupt and ironical 
reference to the charges of the Judaists ; 
well ! am I now, etc. (on this idio 
matic use of ydp, see esp. Klotz, Dcvar. 
Vol. it. p. 245), but is perhaps more 
naturally regarded as argumentative, 
not, however, so much with reff. to the 
seeming harshness of his previous words 
(Mey., Alf.), as to their unquestionable 
truth, the best proof of which lay in his 
being one who was making God his 
friend, and not men ; see Olsh. and Hil- 
genf inloc. it ( [ & w ] a m I per- 

tuadiny, . m A o ^n c<j| [sum pcrsua- 

dens] Syr., suadeo, Vulg., Clarom. ; 
scil. am I making friends of; the slight 
modification of meaning, viz. persua- 
demlu mihi concilio, as suggested by the 
latter words of the clause, being easily 
supplied from the context ; see Acts xii. 
20, 2 Mace. iv. 45, and comp. irdcrtu rbv 

CHAP. I. 11, 12. 




The Gospel I preach is not 

of man; and I will confirm 

this by^tating my mode of 

, lifelbefore my conversion, k 


v r\_ 

avspwirov, dBe\<f>oi, TO va i yye\iov 


ov&e <yap ja> irapa di 


11. $(] Tisch. yip. The external authorities for S are AD 3 EJK ; many Vv. 
(JEth.-Pol. and others omit entirely) ; Chrys., Theod., al. ; Ambrst. ( Rec., Griesb., 
Scholz., Lachm., De W., Mey.). For ydp, BD FG; 17. al ---- Vulg., Cla- 

rom. ; Dam, Hier. Aug., al. (Tisch.; commended by Griesb.). The permu 

tation of 8e and yap is so common that internal considerations become here of some 
importance. The question is, does St. Paul here seem to desire to carry out further 
his previous remarks, to explain, or to prove them ? In the first case we could only 
have, as Ruck observes, $4; in the second, yap or Se (8e retaining a faint oppositive 
force, Klotz, Devar. Vol. n. p. 3 ) ; in the third, only yap. The context seems 
decisively in favor of the first hypoth., and therefore of Se. 

remarks that it is commonly found when 
in combination with oV; this, however, 
is doubtful; so Lobeck, Phryn. p. 152. 

11. yvwpl^u 5e] Note I certify, 
make known unto you; commencement 
of what may be termed the apologetic 
portion of the epistle, ch. i. 11 ch. ii. 
21. The present formula, Usteri ob 
serves, is always used by St. Paul as the 
prelude of a more deliberate and solemn 
avowal of his opinion ; comp. 1 Cor. xv. 
1, 2 Cor. viii. 1, 1 Cor. xii. 3 (5ib yv.}. 
Ae is consequently here (see crit. note) 
what is termed ntra&arix6v, Bekk. Anecd. 
p. 958 (cited by Hartung, Vol. i. p. 165), 
f. e., it indicates a transition from what 
has been already said, to the fresh aspects 
of the subject which are now introduced. 
For examples of the very intelligible at 
traction rb fvayy $TI, see Winer, 

Gr. 66. 6, p. 5*4. 7<f/- OVK^VTIV 

Kara &v^p<airov\ t is not after man, 
i. e.* is of no human strain : Kara 
complectitur vim prepositionum airb (?}, 
Sia et trapd, Bengel. This remark, if un 
derstood exegetically rather than gram 
matically, is perfectly correct. Kara 
av&p., taken per se, implies after the 
fashion, after the manner of man ("\Vincr, 
Gr. $ 49. d, p. 358), but in the present 
context amounts to the more comprehen 
sive declaration that the tvayyt\iov was 
not ai>&ptaira>oi i either in its essence or 

|L, Iviv, t-y <?-fc^L<V^A , 

vl- Urv~Xlk Us UK/U U* 

object ; oi>x fob a.v&ptairii><av vvyKftrai 
XoyicriJ.a>i>, Theod. : compare Plato, Phileb. 

12, rb 8" ((ibv Sbs OVK fffri Kara 

av&p. ; where the true qualitative nature 
of the expression is shown by the further 
explanation, a\\a irepa rou fjityia Tov <f>6- 
/8ov. The diiforent shades of meaning 
under which this formula appears in St. 
Paul s Epp. (ch. iii. 15, Rom. iii. 5, 
1 Cor. iii. 3, ix. 8, xv. 32) must be re 
ferred tor the context, not to the preposi 
tion ; see Fritz. Rom. iii. 5, Vol. i. p. 
159 sq. and comp. Suicer, Thesaur. Vol 
i. p. 35 1. 

12. ovSe yap lyia] for neither did 
I receive it, etc. ; proof of the preceding 
assertion. The true force of oi>5e has 
here been frequently misunderstood, but 
may be properly preserved, if we only 
observe ( 1 ) that in all such cases as the 
present (comp. John v. 22, viii. 42, Rom. 
viii. 7), the particle must receive its ex 
act explanation from the context ( ad- 
sumpta extrinsecus aliqua sententia," 
Klotz, Devar. Vol. n. p. 707), and (2) 
that ovSf yap, in negative sentences, 
stands in strict parallelism and bears 
corresponding meanings with KO\ yap 
in positive sentences ; see Hartung, Par- 
tik. ot>5e, 2. . 2, Vol. i. p. 211, and 
comp. Ellcndt, Lex. Soph. s. v. Vol. n. 
p. 21 sq. We may thus correctly trans 
late, either (a) nam ne ego quidem, even 


CHAP. I. 12. 

7rape\a/3ov avrb ovre 

I who so naturally might have been 
taught of men, Ililgenf., Winer in loc., 
and Gr. } 5.5. 6, p. 436; or (6) neque 
enim eyo, I as little as the other Apos 
tles (Oh.h.); or perhaps a little more 
inclusively, / (distinctly emphatic) 
as little as any others, whether XpicrroSi- 
oaKToi or av&pcairoSioaKToi. Of these 
(6). is to be preferred not only from con 
textual but even grammatical reasons ; 
for independently of seeming too con 
cessive, (a) would also have been most 
naturally expressed by ou5e lyw yap, or 
Kal yap ov5 iyu (Iliick). This last ob 
jection Meyer considers invalid on ac 
count of the normal position of yap, 
but inexactly ; for though yap generally 
occupies the 2nd place, yet when the 
1st and 2nd words are closely united 
(which would here be the case) it occu 
pies the 3rd : see Klotz, Devar. Vol. n. 
p. 251. irapa^ay^pwTTov] 

from man ; not synonymous with air6 
av&pvirov, the distinction between these 
prepositions after verbs of receiving, etc. 
(irapa more immediate, airb more remote 
source), being appy. regularly main 
tained in St. Paul s Epp. : comp. 1 Cor. 
xi. 23, irapf\a/3ot> anb -rov Kupi oi/, on 
which Winer (de Verb. Comp. Fase. n. 
p. 7) lightly observes, non irapa rov 
Kupiov, propterea quod non ipse Christus 
praescntcm docuit ; see Schulx. Abend m. 
p. 218 sq. oIjTf toi5dx.diit>] 

nor tray I tamjht it ; slightly different 
from the preceding irapi\a&oi>, the ^5i5. 
pointing more to subjective appropriation, 
while irapt\. only marks objective recep 
tion (Windischm.) : so appy. Beng., al- 
terum (iropt A.) fit sine lubore, alterum 
cum lalx>re discendi. On the sequence 
oC5 ottrt, sec Winer, Gr. ,>5. 0, p. 
430, and esp. Ilartung, Partik. ofcf, 
I. 9, Vol. i. p. 201 sq., where this un 
usual, but (in cases like the present) de 
fensible collocation is fully explained. In 

, dXXa Si 


all such passages, 8 refers to the forego 
ing words or sentences, so that ofae is 
used as if ov or OUK had preceded ; 5e, in 
negative sentences, having often much 
of the force and functions which Kal has 
in affirmative sentences ; see especially 
Wex. Antiy. Vol. n. p. 157, and comp. 
Klotz. Devar. Vol. n. p. 711. The read 
ing oiiSe ( Rec. and even Lachm.) is only 
supported by AD FG ; a few mss. ; 
Eus., Chrys , al , and, as a likely repe 
tition of the preceding oi>5, or a correc 
tion of a supposed solecism, is more than 
doubtful. I ; 0- ov XpTToDJ 

from Jesus Christ ; gen. subjccti, form 
ing an antithesis to the preceding napa 
ai>&p. ; Christ was the source and author 
of it (Fell. Hamm.) : comp. 2 Cor. xii. h . . 
1, and notes on 1 Thess. 1. 6. In ex 
pressions similar to the present (comp. 
fipr)m) &fov, fvayy. TOV Xpio~rov), it is 
only from the context that the nature 
of the gen., whether subjecti or objecti, 
can be properly determined ; see Winer, 
Gr. t) 30 1, p. 168, and comp. notes on 
vcr. 7. The peculiar revelation here al 
luded to may be, as Aquinas supposes, 
one vouchsafed to the Apostle soon after 
his conversion, by which he was fitted to 
become a preacher of the Gospel ; comp. 
Eph. iii. 3, where, however, fyvupiaSn) 
(Lach., Tisch) is less decisive than Rec, 
tyvupifft. It is a subject of contin 

ual discussion whether the teaching of 
St. Paul was the result of one single 
illumination, or of progressive develop 
ment ; comp. Heuss. T/ie ol., Chre t. iv. 
4, Vol. ii. p. 42, sq Thiersch, A post. 
A je, Vol. i. p. 110 sq. (Transl.) The 
most natural opinion would certainly 
seem to be this ; that as, on the one 
hand, we may reverently presume that 
all the fundamental truths of the Gos 
pel would be fully rtvoalcd to St. Paul 
btforc he commenced preaching*; so, on 
the other, it might have been ordained, 

CHAP. L 1214. 


. v 

Xpi(rTov. 18 r/KoiKraTe jap rrjv 

Ba icr/j,o), OTI KO&* V7rep/3o\r]v 



that (in accordance with the laws of our 
spiritual nature) its deepest mysteries 
and profoundcst harmonies should be 
seen and felt through the practical ex 
periences of his apostolical labors. The 
question is partially entertained by Au 
gustine, de (iestis Pelag. ch. xiv. (32), 
Vol. x. p. 339 sq. (ed. Mignc, Par. 1845). 
13. T)Kou<raTe ydp] For ye heard; 
historical proof, by an appeal to his 
former well known (rjKoixr. emphatic 1 ) 
zeal for Judaism, that it was no hu 
man influence or human teaching that 
could have changed such a character ; 
on ydp av, d /j.t ebs fy 6 tKKa\vwTuv, 
otirws d&poav tax " Htra$o\T\v, Chrys. 
T i] v a v aff T p o <p T) v Trort, K. r. \.] 
my conversation in time past, etc. 
Auth. Vers. These words are taken by 
most interpreters as simply equivalent 
to ri]v iron (irportpav) avaar. This is 
not critically exact. As Dr. Donald 
son suggests, the position of vort is 
due to the verb included in avaarpo- 
<fyi)v : as St. Paul would have said oi - 
(ffrpt<p6/j.T]v irore, he allows himself to 
write rrjv t^v ava(npo<j>r)v irort. Meyer 
aptly cites Plato, Leg. in. 685 D, rj TTJJ 
Tpoi ay aAaxm rb Stvrtpov. 
r<? lov$aifffj.<p] the Jeics religion, 
i. e, Judaism; see 2 Mace. ii. 21, xiv. 
38, 4 Mace. iv. 26. On the specializing 
force of the art. with abstract nouns, see 
Scheuerlein, Syntax. 26. 2. c, p. 219. 
j/^Xfi^ iir6p&ovv] was destroying it, ex- 
}.Z <3- pugnabam, Vulg., Clarom. : see Acts 
^ ix. 21, 6 vop^-fjffas Iv Ifpovaa\Ti/j. rovs 
4iriKa\oviJ.fvovs, and comp. JEsch. Sept. 

~ ljff ~ , 176. It is not necessarv either to mod- 
^ ify the meaning of irop&f iv with Syr. 

" (AjLOfll . *">: -^ crjm vastans), Copt. 

tl u J*7~0 

(desolabam), and other Vv., or to ex 
plain the imperf. as de conatu (fffitvai 

t f 

dvacrrpo(j)rjv irore ev r 

rrjv eKK\7)(7iav TOV Qeov KOI 


tirfXfipfi, Chrys.), with the Greek com 
mentators. As Meyer justly observes, 
St. Paul previous to his conversion was 
actually engaged in the work of destruc 
tion : he was not a Verwiister merely, or 
a VcrstOrer, but a Zerstorcr : comp. Acts 
xxii. 4, s 8iw|a &xpi bavdrov. The im 
perfects accurately denote the course of 
the Apostle s conduct, which commenced 
and continued during the time of his 
Judaism, but, owing to his conversion, 
teas never carried out ; contrast ^S/o>{o, 
Acts,/, c, 1 Cor. xv. 9, and see Bern- 
hardy, Synt. x. 3, p. 372 sq., where the 
three principal uses of the imperf. (sim 
ultaneity, duration, and non-completion) 
arc perspicuously stated, and comp. the 
more elaborate notice of Schmalfeld, 
Synt. 55, pp 97 111. 

14. cr wri A. IK t<aras] contempora- * 
rics. ~S.wi]\. is an aira \ty&fji in the 
N. T., and is only found occasionally in 
a few later writers, e. g. Diod. Sic. i. 53, 
Dion. Halic. x. 49 ; see Wetst. in loc. 
and the exx. collected by Dindorf and 
Hase in Steph. Thesaur. s.v. Vol. vn. p. 
1378. The compound form (compare 
(Tu.ujue Toxos, Eph. iii. 6, v. 7 ; avyKoivia- 
i>6s, 1 Cor. ix. 23) is condemned by the 
Atticists; Attic writers using only the 
simple form ; see Thomas Mag. p. 208 
(ed Bern.), Ilerodian, p. 433 (ed Koch.) 
v f p iff ff or. TJ Ao>T7;s vir d p x-] being 
from the first more exceedingly a zealot 2 6 
or contender; modal participial clause 
serving to define more particularly the 

in Judaism. The com 
parison irtpiffff. is obviously with those 
just mentioned, the iroAAol <rvvi]\. iv r< 

irapaSofftwv] for the traditions 
my fathers ; gen objecti after 



CHAP. I. 15, 16. 

Xou? a~vvr)\itCL<oTa$ ev TW <yei>et fjiov, Trepicrcrorepcas 

twv TraroiKwv LLOV Trapatiocreayv. / 

i 2 

citaiVt"ti!e n "iucM ^here*! 15 " Ore Se evSoK7)(rv6 @eo9, o a(f>opi<ra<s fj, 

aho le, and the countries in ^ KOl\la<S iiTJTOO? LLOV KOI KoXtaaS Bltt T9 
which I travelled. Ine r / r 

churches of Judea knew yaptTO? CLVTOV. 16 aTTOKaXv^ai TOV VIOV dVTOV 

of me only by report. /v r 

15. <5 debs] ADEJK; mss. ; many Vv., but Syr. (Philox.) with ast. ; Orig. (1) 
Chrys. ( 1 ), Theod. (3), al. ; Iren. ( 1 ), Aug., al. (Rec., Gnesb., but om. om , Scholz, 
[Lachm.] Met/.). Tisch. omits these words with BFG ; some mss. ; IBoern., Vulg., 
Syr.; Orig. (2), Chrys. (1), Theodoret (2), Iren. (1), Orig. (interp ), Faust, ap. 
Aug., Ambrst., Hier., al. (De If ., approved by Mill, Prolegom. p. 47). The acci 
dental omission, however, seems probable on paradiplomatic considerations (see 
Pref. p. xvi), having O immediately before, and soon after it, 

object about which the /)Aos was dis 
played ; comp. Acts xxi. 20. xxii. 3, 
1 Cor. xiv. 12, Tit ii. H. The inser 
tion of fnou qualifies the more general 
term varpiKos, making it equivalent to 
the more special irtnpoira.pa5oTos, and 
thus certainly seeming here to limit the 
TrapaSo creis to the special ancestral tradi 
tions of the sect to which the Apostle 
belonged (Meyer), i. e., to Pharisaical 
traditions ; comp. Acts xxiii. 6, Qapuralos, 
vibs 4>api<raiW, and more expressly Acts 
xxil. 3, KOTO ^}]v a.Kpt/SfrrTa.Trji cSptfflV 
TTJS rjufTfpas &priffKfia.s tfaffa. Qafiffatos. 

15. OT 5 f ii 5 OK. K. r. A.] But 
when it pleased God; notice of the time 
subsequent to his conversion, in which the 
Apostle might have been thought to have 
conferred with men, but did not. On 
the meaning of fvSoKfia, here marking 
the free, unconditioned, and gracious will 
of God, see notes on 1 Thcss. ii. 8, and 
on its four constructions in the X. T., 
notes on Col. i. 19. iKKoiXi a; 

fatjr p 6 i jtiou] from my mother s womb, 
i. e. from the moment I was born, 
not as Calv., nondum gcnitum, Jer. i. 
6 ; IK being tcuyxiral both here and 
i Matth. xix. 12, Luke i. 15, Acts iii 2, 
xiv. 8, and marking the point from 
which the temporal series is reckoned: 
see AVincr, Gr. 47. b, p. 328. 
The verb aQopicrcu, as Jowett observes, 

has two meanings, the first physical 
(JEth.-Pol. ), the second and predomi 
nant one, ethical and spiritual ( segre- 
gavit, Vulg., Clarom.) ; comp. Rom. 

i. 1. K al K a A e ff a. r K. r. \. 1 

and called me by means of His grace; 

sell, at the Apostle s conversion ( Acts ix. 
3 sq.), not with any reference to a 
calling, undefined in time, which de 
pended on the counsels of God, as Riick- 
ert in loc. : compare Rom. viii. 30, where 
the temporal connection between trpoca- 
pia-f and &co\o-F (on the force of the 
aorists see Fritz, in loc. ) is exactly simi 
lar to that between atpopiffas and KoAeVos 
in the present passage. The K\rjffis in 
both cases has a distinct origin in time ; 
avrdf [0ebc] aiprj KO! irpb alwvuiv irpof-yi/ta- 
Ktvai KCU fj.fTa Tai/ra, KfK\r)Ktvai KO& of 
K a i p b v fooxtnatrf, Thcod. ; comp. Us- 
teri, Lehrb. n. 2 2, p. 2G9. Sta 

T ?i s X a P- O.VTOV] by means of His 
grace : grace was the causa medians 
of the Apostle s call ; irai>ra.xo~> TTJS xP" 
troy fivai (pi)ai rb irav KOI rf/s <pi\a.vibpta- 
iri or O.UTOV TT}S atpdrou, C hrys. The 
moving cause of the call was the Divine 
fuSoKia, the mediating cause, the bound 
less grace of God, the instrument, the 
heaven-sent voice ; comp. Winer, Gr. 
$ 47, p. 337. 

Ifi. oTroKaAu^oi] to reveal; de 
pendent on the preceding tv56ici)fffi>, not 

* - 

)L C/fe 

HAP. I. 16. 



ev IfjLoi, iva evayy\ia)[Aai avrov eV rot? e^veo-iv, eu^-eeu? ov TTOOCT- 

on the participles (Est.), a connection 
that would involve the unexampled con 
struction (in the N. T.) evtidic. Iva 
fvayy., and would impair the force of 
iva. fvt/j.oi\ within me; not 

per me, Grot., in my case, Green, or 
1 coram me, Peile, but simply ; in me, 
Vulg., i. e. in my soul ; Xpunbi fix*" 
4v taury \a\ovvra, Chrys. It may be 
admitted, that, owing partly to linguis 
tic (see on 1 Thess. ii. 16), and partly to 
dogmatical reasons ("Winer, Gr. 47. 2. 
obs., p. 322), there is some difficulty in 
satisfactorily adjusting all St. Paul s 
varied uses of the preposition eV ; still, 
wherever the primary meaning gives a 
sense which cannot be objected to dog 
matically or exegetically, we are bound 
to abide by it. Here this meaning is 
especially pertinent. Both subjectively, 
by deep inward revelations, as well as 
objectively, by outward manifestations, 
was the great apostle prepared for the 
work of the ministry ; see Chrysost. in 
loc. On the arbitrary meanings as 

signed to lv in the N. T., see Winer, 
Gr. \ 48. a, p. 348. tvayyf\- 

i <o /j. a ] Present : the action was still 
going on. ev&tws ov IT po<r- 

a v f& 4 /j. i] v\ straightway I addressed, 
etc. ; the fv&fios standing prominently 
forward and implying that he not only 
avoided conference with men, but did 
SO from the very first; OUK e/Trep O.TT- 
\<$, oil Trpoffavf^ffj,T)v, dAA." ev&fcas, 
K. r. \. Chrys. According to the com 
mon explanation, eud* o>s is to be con 
nected in sense with airF/Adoy, though in 
immediate structure with irpocravibt^v ; 
Apostolus, qure fuit ejus alacritas, 
interponit negativam sententiam qua2 
ipse in mentem venit, Winer, comp. 
Jowett, and Alf. It seems more correct 
to say that cvdtws belongs to the whole 
sentence, from ov irpoaav. to 

which, by means of the antithesis be 
tween its component negative and af 
firmative clauses, in fact expresses one 
single thought ; immediately I avoided 
all conference and intercourse with man; 
comp. Meyer in loc. oi> TT p o a- 

o.vt^f^f\v\ I addressed no communi 
cation to; not exactly non acquievi, 
Vulg., Clarom., nor quite so much as 

A ^V j] [non revelavi] Syr., but 

more simply, O-JK a.vfKoii ua-d/j.ijf, Theod., 
I made no communication to, and held 
no counsel with, non contuli, Beza. 
The prep, irpbs docs not imply that the 
Apostle did not in addition to that con 
fer, (comp. Ust ), but, as not uncom 
monly in composition, simply indicates 
direction towards : compare 
beadai rotV yttaj/Tecrt (Diod. Sic. xvn. 
116) with irpoffavafytpeiv rots fj.di/rf<Ti 
(ib. ib.), in which latter verb the idea 
of direction is made more apparent ; see 
Fritz., Fritzsch. Opusc. p. 204. 
<rapK\ Ka\ a" part ] *jlesh and blood; 
a Hebrew circumlocution for man, 
generally with the accessory idea of 
weakness or frailty ; see Hammond and 
Lightfoot on Matt. xvi._17. The ex 
pression occurs four times in the X. T., 
apparently under the following modifi 
cations of meaning: (a) Man, in his 
mere corporeal nature, 1 Cor. xv. 50, 
Heb. ii. 14 ; (6) Man in his weak in 
tellectual nature, contrasted with God, 
Mattt. xvi. 17 (contr. Mcy.), comp 
Chrys. Vol. x. 675 E, ed. Ben. ; (c) 
Man, in his feeble human powers, con 
trasted with spiritual natures and agen 
cies, Eph. vi. 12. The present passage 
seems to belong to (b) ; the apostle took 
not weak men for his advisers or in 
structors, but communed in stillness 
with God. Chrys., in referring the 
words to the Apostles, himself seemed 


G A L A T I A N S . 

CHAP. I. 17. 

(raptd Kal attorn, ll ov&e dirrp^ov ei? 
7rpo<? TOU? irpo e /ioO ttTrocrroXoi;? aXXa aTrrp&ov ei<? Apaftt av, tea} 

to feel the application too limited, as he 
adds, i 5e /col TTfpl iravroii/ avibptinrasv 
Tovr6 (prifftf, o!>Sf r/jueTs avrtpoviitv. 

17. ovSt air rj \&ov] nor dJ 7 jro 
aicaij, scil. from Damascus, to which 
place the mention of his conversion 
naturally leads his thoughts. It docs 
not here seem necessary to press o-J5e 
in translation ( nor yet did I, etc., 
Conyb. ), as the context does not seem 
climactic ; see notes on 1 Thcss. ii. 3. 
(Transl.) In the present case it has 
appy. only that quasi -conjunctive force 
(see notes ver. 12), by which it appends 
one negation to another, non apte 
connexa, sed potius fortuito concursu 
nccedentia, Klotz, Devar. Vol. n p. 
707 ; see notes on Eph. iv. 27, Winer, 
Gr. \ .5.5. 6, p. 432, and esp. Francku, 
dc Part. Nc j n. 2, p. G. The read 

ing a.v~i\5ov [Rcc. with AJK ; mss. ; 
Copt., Syr.-Philox. ; Chrys., Thcod.] 
seems obviously a correction, and is re 
jected by all the best editors, 
a A A. a ] The particle has here its usual 
force after a negation, and implies such 
an opposition between the negative and 
affirmative clauses, that the first is, as it 
were, obliterated and absorbed by the 
second; see Klotz, Dccar. Vol. n. p. 11, 
Fritz. Mark, Exeurs. 2, p. 773. Schra- 
der is thus perhaps justified in pressing 
the opposition between ov irpoaav. and 
aAAo a7r/]A^., as an evidence that St. 
Paul went into Arabia for seclusion; 
contr. Anger, Rat. Temp. ch. iv. p. 123. 
In estimating, however, the force of d\Aa 
in negative sentences, caution must al 
ways be used, as O JK a\A& (not 5) 
is the regular sequence, like nicht 
sondcrn 1 (not aber ) in German; see 
Donnlds. Cratijl. 201. ds 

A pa/3 i of] into Arabia; possibly the 
Arabian desert in the neighliorhood of 
Damascus, Apatfi a being a term of some 

what vague and comprehensive applica 
tion ; see Conyb. and Hows. St. J aul, 
Vol. i. p. 10-), and for the various di 
visions of Arabia, Forbiger, Alt. Geoijr. 
\ 102, Vol. n. p. 728 sq, This brief, 
but circumstantial, recapitulation of St. 
Paul s early history is designed to show 
that, in the early period after his conver 
sion he was never in any place where he 
could have learned anything from the 
other apostles. A discussion of the ob- 
ject (probably religious meditation), and 
of the duration (probably a large por 
tion of three years) of this abode in 
Arabia, both, especially the latter, 
great 1} contested points, will be found 
in Schrader, Paulus, Part i. p. 54 sq., 
"Wicsclcr, Chronol. p. 141 sq., Davidson, 
Introd. Vol. 11. p. 7-5, So. A a- 

na.(TK6v] Damascus, This most an 
cient city certainly existed as early as 
the days of Abraham (Gen. xiv. 15, xv. 
2), and is supposed, even at that remote 
period, to have had an independent gov 
ernment (see L. Miiller, Oriy. Jiegni 
Damasc in Iken, Thcaaur. Vol. i. p. 721 
sq ) After being subdued by David 
(2 Sam. viii 5, G), it revolted under 
Solomon (1 Kings xi. 24), formed the 
scat of a very widely extended govern 
ment (eomp. 1 Kings xx 1), was recov 
ered by Jeroboam, the son of Joash (2 
Kings xiv. 28), united in alliance with 
the kingdom of Israel, but was after 
wards taken by Tiglath Pilcscr (2 Kings 
xvi. 9). After falling successively un 
der that of the Babylonian, Persian, and 
Sdcucid sway, it passed at last under 
that of the Romans (n. c 64 ; see Diod. 
Sic. xxxix. 30), and at the time of the 
Apostle formed a part of the dependent I 
kingdom of Aretas (2 Cor. xi. 32). { 
For further notices of the history of this 
ancient city, see "\Viner. 7?ir7?. Vol. i. 
p. 244 sq., Pauly, E^al-Enojcl Vol 11. 

:<C};ll .1 t \ It \ / 

,yt ( ,*"" U 

^r -*-. V . J 

2 : 

o .^ 

. ( ; 

CHAP. I. 18. 



irdXiv inrecrrpe^ra et? Aa/JLCKncov. 18 eVetra fiera en} rpta avrj/X.- 
^ov elf Iepocr6\v/J,a la-ropfjcraL Krj(j)av, Kal eire/Adva Trpos avrbv 

p. 847 sq., Conyb. and Howson, St. 
Paul, Vol. I. p. 105. 

18. 6T7j rpia.] three years; scil. 
afterhis conversion, that being the ob 
vious and natural terminus a quo to 
which all the dates in the narrative are 
to be referred ; see notes on ch. ii. 1 . 
How much of this time was spent in 
Damascus, and how much in Arabia is 
completely uncertain. The only note 
of time in Acts ix. 23, fiptpai iKavat, 
which appears to include this stay in 
Arabia, has by recent expositors been 
referred solely to the time of preaching 
at Damascus, though appy. with less 
probability ; see Anger, Rat. Temp. p. 
122, Wieseler, Chronol. p. 143. 
j IT TO p TJ (T a *1 * to visit, to become ac 
quainted with; scarcely so little as 
videre, Vulg., Syr., Copt., al., but 
more in the sense of coram cogno- 
scere, to visit and make a personal 
acquaintance with. As the meaning 
of this verb has been somewhat con 
tested, we may remark that it is used 
by later writers with reference to (a) 
places, things, in the sense of visit 
ing, making a journey to see; Plu 
tarch, Thcs. 30, Pomp. 40, Polyb. Hist. 
in. 48. 12 ; comp. Chrysost. dirtp ol ras 
fi.eyd.\as TT^\($ /fui XctjUirpas &d.- 
vovTfs \tyovaiv: (b) persons in the 
sense of seeing," making the acquaint 
ance of; Joseph. Antiq. vm. 2. 5, la- 
Top?,<rai EAeacropoi ; Bell. VI. 1. 8, bv 
fyw IffTopriffa. , somewhat curiously, in 
reference to the pillar of salt into which 
Lot s wife was changed, Antiq. i. 22, 
hropTjKa 8< O-JTTJI : see, also, Clem. Ham. 
vm. 24 (p. 19G, ed. Dressel), lffTop?i<rai 
rovs T~IS Stpcnrfias 7rtTiryx ol/ ^ J/Tay * D * 
9, p. 32 ; xix. 6, p. 370 ; and exx. col 
lected by Ililgenf. Gal. p 122, note. 
There is thus no lexical necessity for press 
ing the primary meaning (Hesych. ICFTO- 

pfT, tptaiS.) advocated by Bagge in loc. 
The reading nirpov (Rec.), instead of 
KriQav [A B ; a few mss. ; Syr., Copt., 
Sahid., Syr.-Phil. in marg., /Eth., al.]. 
is supported by preponderating external 
authority [D E F G J K ; mss. ; .Vulg., 
Clarom., al. ; many Ff.] , but is rightly 
rejected by most modern editors as a 
probable explanatory gloss 
firtfifiva irpbs avr6i>] I tarried 
with him; comp. chap. ii. 5, Siaae ivy 
irplis ; Matth. xxvi. 55, irpbs v/j.cis 
fVa^f^rfuTjv (Lachm.)i 1 Cor. xvi. 6, 
jrpbs v/ 5t Tvxbv irapa/j.fvca, ver. 7, 
itrintlvon irpbi u/uaj, al , usually with 
persons ; sa?pe nostri scriptores, ut ip- 
sorum Grsecorum poetse passim, trpbs 
cum accus., adjecto verbo quietis, sic 
collocant, ut non sit nisi apud, i. q., 
napa cum dativo, Fritz. Mark i. 18, p. 
202. "We may compare with this the 
legal forms, Trpbr Siairtjr^v \axf?v, De- 
mosth. p. 22. 28 ; Si way tlvai irpbs rovs 
&PXovras, ib. 43, 71, etc., where the 
original notion of going to, etc., has 
passed into that of mere direction. 
The M in eir^f <fa is not per se inten 
sive (Alf. on Col. i. 23), but appy. 
denotes rest at a place; see Host u. 
Palm, Lex. s. v. twl, C. 3, Vol. i. p. 
1045. The verb itself has two con 
structions in the N. T., with a simple 
dative (Rom vi. 1, xi. 22, 23, Col. i. 
23, 1 Tim. iv. 16), and with prepp. tirl, 
vpSs, ^ (Acts xxviii. 14, Phil. i. 24); 
see notes on Col. i. 23, and Winer, Verb. 
Comp. ii. p. 11. finepas 5K-j 

a ir iv T f 1 The reason for this shortness I 
of St. Paul s stay is mentioned, Acts 
ix 29 A The apostle specifies the exact) 
time of his stay at Jerusalem, to show 
convincingly how very slight had been 
his opportunities of receiving instruc 
tion from St. Peter or any one else 



CHAP. I. 19, 20. 

SetccnrevTe w erepov Se rwv arrocrr6\(i}v OVK et&ov el yiu; 
ov TOV a&e\<}>bv TOV Kvplov. ^ a Be ypatfxa VIMV, i$ov evoo- 


19. tl fi)) I OK tuft of] save James, 
i. e., no other a.ir6crro\ov save him. It 
may be fairly said, that every principle 
of grammatical perspicuity requires that, 
after these words, not merely tiHov, but 
elSov r~bv a.ir6trro\ov be supplied ; comp. 
1 Cor. i. 14, ovfttva, v/.itav iftdmiaa tl /J.TJ 
Kpiffwov Kal Tdi(jv. This is distinctly ad 
mitted both by Mey , Ililgenf., and the 
best recent commentators, even though 
they differ in their deductions : so very 
clearly Chrys. St. James, then, was an 
a.Tr6(TTo\os (whatever be the meaning as 
signed to the word), a fact somewhat 
confirmed by the use of airoo-rdAous, 
Acts ix. 28. The additional title, 6 
a.0f\<pbs TOV Kvpiov (TO <rt^.vo\Ayrjij.a., as 
Chrys. terms it), was probably added 
(Ust.) to distinguish this James from 
the son of Zebedee, who was then liv 
ing. Whether it follows from this pas 
sage, that Jacobus Prater and Jacobus 
Alphai are identical (by no means such 
a fiction as Meyer somewhat hastily 
terms it), and that James was thus one 
of the Twelve, is a question which falls 
without the scope of this commentary. 
This consideration only may be sug 
gested ; whether in a passage so circum 
stantial as the present, where St. Paul s 
whole object is to prove that he was no 
emissary from the Apostles (comp. ver. 
17), the use of a5e\<p6s, in its less proper 
sense (Kvpiov avftyids, Theod.), is not 
more plausible than the similar one 
of oTrJoroAor. The most weighty coun 
ter-argument is derived from John vii. 5, 
ovOf yap ol dof\<pol avrov tiriffTevov (is 
a.vr6v ; but it deserves careful consider 
ation whether iiriartvov really means 
more than a proper, intelligent, and 
rightful belief; see even De AVette on 
John I. c., and comp. John vi. 04. where 
ou tnartvtiv is predicated of some of the 
ii, and where ver. 67 implies some 

doubt even of ol Swatna. The stu 

dent who desires to examine this diffi 
cult question, may profitably consult 
Mill, on the Brethren of our Lord, 
Schneckenburger, on St. James, p. 144, 
sq., Arnaud, Recherches sur I Epilre de 
Jude, and the review of it by Deitlein 
in Renter, Report. (Aug. 1851), Ne- 
andcr, Planting, Vol. j. p. 351, note 
(Bohn); Blom s Disputation, (in Vol- 
beding, Thcsaur. Comment. Vol. i. ) ; 
Crcdner, Einleitung, Vol. I. p. 571 ; 
Wieseler, Stud. u. Krit. (Part i. 1842) ; 
and Ililgenf. Galatcrbr. p. 219. The 
most recent monographs are those by 
Schaff, Berlin, 1842; and Goy, Mont. 

20. a tie ypd<p<i> x. r. A..] but as 
to ichat I icritc unto you ; r.ot paren 
thetical, but a strong and reiterated as 
surance of the little he had received 
from the Apostles, a 5e ypdtyw v^Civ being 
an emphatic anacoluthon ; comp. Wan- 
now.-ki, Constr. Abs. p. 54 sq., where 
this and similar constructions are fully 
discussed. Sri ov (J/ u 8 o yu a ] 

1 (I declare) that I lie not ; strong con 
firmatory asseveration of the truth, 
not of ver. 12 sq. (Winer), but of ver. 
17, 18. In passages marked with this 
sort of abruptness and pathos (see Liieke 
on 1 Joh. iii. 20, p. 245, cd. 2), a verb 
consonant with the context is commonly 
supplied before OTI ; comp. Acts xiv. 22. 
Accordingly, in the present case, ypd(pca 
(Mey.), \iyia (De W.), frrl (Ruck.), 
u/j.i vfjLi (Ust.), have been proposed as 
suppletory ; the first three are, however, 
obviously too weak, the last too strong 
Ivtairiov rov &tov not being any more 
than rirr ""rtV, a formal oath (Olsh.). 
If any definite word was in the Apostle s 
thoughts, it was perhaps 
(Acts x. 42, with on) ; especially as, in 
three out of the five places in which 



CHAP. I. 2123. 



rov eov OTI ov drevBouai. 21 eVetra rp&ov et<? TO. K\i/j,aTa I 

> *3 

T7)<? Jjvplas KOI T/}? Ki/U/aa?. 22 ijfArjv Be dyvoov^evos TO> 7rpocrct)7r(f) 
T^? loySai a? rat? eV XptaTw, -" povov Be di 

ivanr. TOV Qfov occurs, this verb (though 
in slightly different senses and construc 
tions) is found joined with it ; see 2 Tim. 
\. 21, 2 Tim. ii. 14, iv. 1. On this use 
of or i in asseverations, see Fritz. Rom. 
ix. 2, Vol. ii. p. 242. 

21. TO, xAtjuara] the regions ; 
regioncs, Vulg., partes, Clarom. ; a 
word only used in the N. T. by St. 
Paul, here and Rom. xv. 23, 2 Cor. 
xi. 10. The primary meaning, as deri 
vation indicates, is inclinatio or de- 
clivitas, e. g. K\ifj.ara. opwv, Eustath. p. 
1498. 47 (comp. Polyb. Hist. vn. 6. 1), 
thence with ref. to the inclination of the 
heavens to the poles, a tract of the 
sky, K\l/j.a ovpavov, Herodian, xi. 8, 
and lastly, its most usual meaning, 
a tract of the earth, whether of greater 
(comp. Athen. xn. p. 523 E) or, as in 
the present case, of more limited ex 
tent; comp. Polyb. Hist. v. 44. 6, x, 1. 
3. On its accentuation (usually K\lfj.a, 
but more correctly KA.t,ua), see Lobcck, 
Paralip. p. 418. The journey here 

mentioned is appy. identical with that 
briefly noticed in Acts ix. 30 ; see Conyb. 
and Hows. St. Paul, Vol. i. p. 115. 
2 up IBS] Not the lower part of Syria, 
called Phcenice (Winer, Ust , al.), but 
Syria proper (^ &vu> Supi a, Strabo), as 
St. Paul s object is to show the distance 
he was from any quarter where he could 
have received instruction from the Apos 
tles ; see Meyer in loc. In Acts xxi. 3, 
2fpi o is used merely in a general way to 
denote the Roman province bearing that 
name : on its divisions, see Forbiger, 
Handb. Geogr. Vol. ii. p. 640. 
T?I s K i\iKtas] Occasionally mentioned 
in combination with 2vpia (Acts xv. 
23,41) as geographically conterminous 
(Alf.), and as serving to define what 


portion of the larger province is espe 
cially alluded to. For a general notice 
of this province, see Strabo, Gcogr. xrv. 

5, p. 668 sq., Mannert, Geogr. vi. 3, 
p. 32 sq., Forbiger, Alt. Geogr. 67, 
Vol. ii. p. 271 sq. 

22. T <p -irpoa-uir <a] in respect of 
personal appearance, sell. by face ; ov$e 
dirb fyfcos yvtapi/j.os ?iv avrois, Chrys. 
The general limiting nature of the da 
tive (Scheuerl. Synt. 20, Donalds. Gr. 
458) may here be fully recognized: 
the Apostle was not unknown to the 
Churches in every sense, but only in 
regard to his outward appearance. This 
particular dative, commonly called the 
dative of reference to. must be care 
fully distinguished both from the in 
strumental and the modal dat. ( 1 Cor. 
xi. 5), and may be best considered as a 
local dative ethically used. Htre, for 
instance, the Apostle s appearance was 
not that by which, but as it were the 
place in which, their ignorance was 
evinced ; see esp. Scheuerl. Synt. $ 22.. 
a, p. 179, and comp. Winer, Gr. 31,. 

6, p. 193, Bernhardy. Synt. in. 8, p 84. 
TTJ s louSaias] The Church of Jeru 
salem is, however, to be excepted, as 
there the Apostle was fla-iropevo/ievos KO! 
tKTropev6/j.fvos, irappri<na(6fjLei os tv T<? bv- 
JjUarj TOV Kvpiov, Acts ix. 28. 

raTy tv XpitTTy] Not merely a peri 
phrasis for the adjective the Christian 
churches, but the churches which are 
in Christ ; i. e., which are incorporated 
with Him who is the Head : comp. Eph. 
i. 22, 23. 

23. aKovovrts -fiffav] they icere 
hearing; scil. the members of these 
Churches; see Winer, Gr. 67. 1, p. 
555. This periphrasis, which probably 
owes its prevalence in the New Testa- 



CHAP. I. 23, 24. II. 1 

ycrav ori, o BLOOKCOV 17/u.a? TTOTC vvv evajy\i^erat, rrjv irtcrriv r)i 

Trore CTTOp^ef 24 teal e Sofabi> ev e /ioi rov &eov. 

m i went up to je- jj "fi^eiTa Sia SeKaTtrTcrdpwv <?TWI/ ird\a 

valem, I communicated 

my Gospel both in public and private: I resisted the fulsc brethren, and was accredited by the Apostles. 

merit to the similar formula in Aramaic 


,), serves to express 

the idea of duration more distinctly 
than the simple tense; see Winer, Gr. 
45. 5, p. H4. In the LXX it seems 
principally limited to those cases in 
which the participle is used in the 
original; see Thiersch. de Pent. in. 11, 
p. 113. Examples are found in Attic 
Greek (see Jelf, Gr. 375. 4), but com 
monly under the limitation that the 
participle expresses some property or 
quality inherent in the subject; see 
Stallbaum, Plato, Rep. vi. 402 A. 
brt 6 SIUKWV K. r. \.] our former 
persecutor; the participle being here, 
by means of the art., turned into a 
L species of subst., and losing all temporal 
force; see the cxx. collected by Winer, 
Gr. 57, p. 317, and conip. the very 
bold form, rbis eavrris ^x oirTa i Flato, 
Fhtedr. 214, n, cited by Bernhardy, 
Synt. vi 22. obs. p. 316. "On is 

here not the STI recitativum (Schott), 
a use of the particle not found in St. 
Paul s Epp., except in citations from 
the O. T. (Mey.), but preserves its 
usual relatival force, the oratio indi- 
rccta which it introduces, passing after 
wards into the oratio dirccta in the 
pronoun. This latter assumption Mey. 
deems unnecessary, as St. Paul might 
call himself, being now a Christian. 
1 our former persecutor. This, however, 
Bccms forced and artificial. T 7; </ 

irlarif] the faith, objectively repre 
sented as a rule of life (De W.) ; comp. 
ch. iii. 23, 1 Tim. i. 19, iv. 1, al. In 
the Ecclcs. writers irfoTis is frequently 
used in the more distinctly objective 
sense, Mho Christian doctrine, doc- 
trina Jidcm postulans (c. y., Ignat. 

Eph. JIG, via-riv &(ov 4v 
\ia tydflpri ; Concil. Laod. can. 46, irltr- 
nt> iKpavbtivtiv ; see Suicer, T/ies. s. v. 
iriffris, 2. a), but it seems very doubtful 
whether this sense ever occurs in the 
N. T. In Acts_vi. 7, vTraxovtiv rfj irtff-} 
ret seems certainly very similar to \nrar 
Kovew T$ fva,yyt\iep, Horn. x. 16 (see 
Fritz. Vol. i. 17), but even there the 
faith, as the inward and outward rule 
of life (see Meyer in loc.), yields a very 
satisfactory meaning. On the various 
uses of iriffris, see Usteri, Lchrb. n. 1. 
2, p. 91 sq. 

24. ^ v t fj. o 1} in me, not on account 
of me (Brown), or for what he had 
done in me (Jowett), but simply in 
me Vnlg., C larom.), ut qui in me in- 
vcnissent celebrationis matcriam, "VViner 
in loc. : comp. Exod. xiv. 4, 4v$oa(rd-fi- 
ffo/jtcu tv Qapa-a. God, as AVindisch. ob 
serves, was working in St. Paul, and so 
was praised in him. The prep., in such 
cases as the present, points to the object 
as being as it were the sphere in which 
(Eph. i. 17), or the substratum on which 
(I Cor. vii. 14, see Winer, Gr. p. 345; 
compare Andoc. de Mystcr. p. 33, ed. 
Schiller) the action takes place. The 
transition from this to the common usage 
of iv in the sense of dependence on, is 
easy and obvious; see cxx. in Host u. 
Palm, Lex. s. v. A. 2. b, Vol. I. p. 909, 
and comp. Bernhardy, Synt. v. 8. b. p. 

CIIAPTF.K II. 1. 8ii SfKa 
p 01 v 1 T <a i>] after an interval of, 
post, Vulg., Clarom., Copt., Armcn. ; 
Sfi<aTf(Tffdp<iiv Tra.fjt\d6vT(ai tTcoc, Chrys. : 
comp. Acts xxiv. 17, St truv irAfuWv. 
The meaning of the prep, has here been 
unduly pressed to suit preconceived his. 


CHAP. II. 1,2. 



ave/3rjv et<? lepocroXvpa 
Tirov 2 avejBrjv Be Kara 

torical views. Aio, in its temporal sense, 
denotes an action enduring through and 
out of a period of time ; and may thus 
be translated during, or after, according 
as the nature of the action makes the 
idea of duration through the whole of 
the period (Heb. ii. 15, Sta iravrbs rov 
i}v), or occurrence at the end of the 
period most prominent. Thus 810 iro\- 
XoC xp^" ou fff ecapaKa is correctly ex 
plained by Fritz. (Fritzsch. Opusc. p. 
163, note), longo temporis spatio de- 
curso (quo te non vidi) te vidi; comp. 
Herm. on Viy. No. 377, b. This is the 
correct use of Std. There are, however, 
a few indisputable instances of a more 
lax use of the prep, in the N. T., to de 
note an action which took place within, 
not during the whole of a period ; e. g. 
Acts v 19, oia ri t s VVKTOS f;Voie, where 
both the tense and the occurrence preclude 
the possibility of its being throughout 
the night (contr. Meyer), so also Acts 
xvi. 9 xvii. 10 is perhaps doubtful; see 
Fritz. Opusc. p. 165, Winer, Gr. 57. 
i. p. 337. Grammatical considerations, 
then, alone are not sufficient to justify 
Dr. Pcile s paraphrase, not till after ; 
but on exeyetical grounds it may be 
fairly urged that the mention of four 
teen years, thus undefined by a termi 
nus ad quern as well as a quo, would be 
singularly at variance with the circum 
stantial nature of the narrative. With 
regard to the great historical difficulties 
in which the passage is involved, it can 
here only briefly be said ; ( 1 ) The 
terminus a quo of the fourteen years, 
being purely a subjective epoch, docs 
certainly seem that time which must 
have ever been present to the Apostle s 
thoughts, the time of his conversion 
(Anger, Wieseler) ; especially as the erij 
rpia, ch. i. 18, appear so reckoned. 
(2) Exegetical as well as grammatical 



(ird\tv) considerations seem to show it 
was St. Paul s second journey ; for 
how, when misconstruction was so pos 
sible, could it be passed over ? and how 
can St. Peter s conduct be explained? 
But (3) chronolog. arguments, based on 
historical coincidences, make it impos 
sible to doubt that Irenaeus (H<er. in. 
13) and Theodoret (in loc.) are right in 
supposing this the journey mentioned 
Acts xv., and therefore, according to St. 
Luke s account, the third. In a com 
mentary of this nature it is impossible 
to allude to the various efforts (even to 
the invalidation of an unquestionable 
text) to reconcile (2) and (3) : it may 
be enough to say that both chronological 
and historical deductions seem so certain, 
that (2) must give way: see the sensi 
ble explanation and remarks of Thicrsch. 
Apost. Aye, Vol. i. p. 120 sq. (Transl.). 
A complete discussion will be found in 
the chronological works of Anger and 
Wieseler, Davidson, Introd. Vol. u. p. 
112 sq., Winer, RWD. Art. Paulus, 
Conyb. and Howson, St. Paul, ch. vii. : 
see also Meyer in loc., Alford, Vol. n. 
Prolcgom. p. 26. ffvfj.trapa\- 

a /3 <1) y Kal Tirov] having taken with 
me also Titus ; the ascensive Kal per 
haps alluding to his being uncircum- 
cised ; comp. Acts xv. 2, Tlav\ov KO\ 
Bapvdpav KU( T i if as &\\ov s t% cAriav, 
St. Paul was now the principal person 
(o-vfjurapa\a /3 d v] ; at the preceding (sec 
ond) visit Barnabas seems to have taken 
the lead ; see Meyer in loc. 

2. art Pi)? 8 ] / went up too ; tie 
having its vim exponendi" (Fritz, in 
loc.), or, as we might perhaps more ex 
actly say, its reiterative force (Klotz, 
Devar. Vol. ir. p. 361, Hartung, Par- 
tik. Sf, 2. 7, Vol. i. p. 168), and repeat 
ing, not without a slight opposition, the 
preceding avt^v. The native force of 



CIIAF. II. 2. 

TO evayye\iov b tcr)pvcrcra> ev rot? e^fveacv, /car l&iav 8e rot? 

the particle may just be traced in the 
faint contrast which the explanation and 
introduction of fresh particulars give rise 
to. Kara atr o K d\vty iv] by, 

scil. in accordance with, revelation, 

LI "; . M 

not for my own purposes ; Kara as usual 
. implying the rule, the normam agendi ; 
see Bernhardy, Synt. \. 20. b, p. 239, 
241. Hermann s translation explica- 
tionis causa must, on exegetical, and 
perhaps even on grammatical grounds 
(see Fritzsch. Opusc. p. 169), certainly 
be rejected. For ( 1 ) airoxdAu^u is never 
used in this lower sense, either by St. 
Paul or any other of the sacred writers ; 
and (2) the current of the Apostle s 
argument is totally at variance with 
such an explanation. His object is here 
to show that his visit to Jerusalem was 
not to satisfy any doubts of his own, nor 
even any suggestions of his converts, but 
in obedience to the command of God. 
The objection, that the current transla 
tion would require Kara nva a.iroii\vfyiv 
(Ilrrm.), may be neutrali/cd by the ob 
servation that Kara d/ is in effect 
used nearly adverbially ; see Ej h. iii. 3. 
d vt&tfjiri v\ I communicated ; contuli 
cum eis," Yulg., Clarom., compare Syr. 
[patcfeci] ; enarravi, Fritz. ; ipsa col- 
latio unam doctrinie speciem cxclusii 
omni varietate monstrabat, Beza. The 
meaning assigned by Green ( Gramm. 
N. T. p. 82) to leave altogether in the 
hands of, or at the pleasure of another," 
is more than doubtful ; in the only other 
place in the N. T. where the word oc 
curs, Acts xxv. 4, T$ fiaLaiXt~i avtdero ra 
Kara rbv Tlav\oi>, the meaning is clearly, 
as here, communicated : see Fritz. 
Opusc. p. 169, and the cxx. in "\Vetst. 
in loc. avTols] to them, scil. 

to the inhabitants of Ifpoa6\v[j.a (ver. 1 ), 
or rather (as the sense obviously requires 
a certain limitation), to the Christians 
residing there, Christianis grcgariis 

(Fritz.), as opp. to ro?s SOKOVO-IV, the 
Apostles; comp. Matth. xii. 15, Luke 
v. 17, and see Winer, Gr. 22. 3. 1, p. 
131, Bernhardy, Synt. vi. 11. b, p. 288. 
The reference to the Apostles collectively 
(Schott, Olsh.), or to the Elders of the 
Church, is not by any means probable. 
K a r ioiav S 4] but privately, i. e. in 
a private conference ; comp. Mark iv. 34 ; *4 .Zo i 
the Apostle communicated his tva-fyt\iov \A*i ~l "( 
to the Christians at Jerusalem openly and /C** IV 
unreservedly, but KCIT" ISlav (between me 

> , 7 r v 
and them, ooi_i*O ^1^^. Syr.) en 

tered probably more into its doctrinal 
aspects ; compare Theod. in loc. The 
meaning assigned to 5e ( I mean ) by 
Alf., who appy. denies any second and 
separate communication, seems here very 
doubtful (see ver. 4), and that to KO.T 
ioiav ( preferably, specially, ) by Olsh., 
distinctly untenable, as KOT iolav occurs 
sixteen times in the N. T , and in all 
cases is used in a directly, or (as here) 
indirectly local sense ; see Mark ix. 28, 
xiii. 3, Luke x. 23, etc., and compare 
Neand. Plant. Vol. i. p. 104. (Bohn). 
TO?J So KOV (T iv] to those who were 
high in reputation, Scholcf. Hints, p. 
88; see Eurip. Ilcc. 292 (where ol 80- 
Kovvres is opp. to ol aSo^ovvrfs), and the 
exx. collected by Kypke and Eisner, 
esp. Eur. Troad. 608, and Ilerodian, 
VI. 1, robs Soxovvras Kal r)\litl(f fft^vord.- 
rovs, in all of which ol SOK. appears 
simply equivalent to ^TTI O-TJUOI (Thcod.). 
There is not then, as Olsh. conceives, 
any shade of blame or irony (Alf.) in 
the expression, but as Chrys. correctly 
observes, TO?J OOKOVGI, tyrjffl, juero rfji 

eOUTOU Kal TTJI/ KOlVTjV OTTO^T (ill/ \ty<ill> 

. see CEcum. in loc. j. -j] 

IT 111 S f I S K f vll V T f>f XU, tliSpafiOf 

lest I mi jht be running, or have (al~ 
ready) run in vain ; i. c. lest I might 
lose my past or present labor (Hamm.), 


. >L*^ 



//; YA4 t*"**^ . v^/ ^ 
^" ^L~JL^t&***J 

^S\ft**J~(h ** **<. \^^"^^^t^ 

- A 1 ^/. j^t^^-^ / -4-iA sduM^s^ * 

VT ol^/ ^-~^A^ - 7*u/V^-* 

S^K^^j^C^^-^ v 

p*. ^-T^^T&J^ ^^ ^-^ > ^ 
/- ^wcri**^^*. 

G A L A T I A N S . 

CHAP. IL 2, 3. 

SOKOVCTIV, fir] TTW? et<> Kevov 

TYro? 6 crvv e/^oi , "E\\r]v &v, rjvayfcdcr^r] 


by leaving others to deem that it was 
fruitless and unaccredited. This passage 
presents combined grammatical and exe- 
getical difficulties, both of which must 
be briefly noticed, (a) rpex^- By 
comparing the very similar passage 1 
Thess. iii. 5, yu^irws eireipcwei . . . KO! els 
Kfvbv yfVTfjTat K. T. A., it would certainly 
seem that rptx<a is pres. subj. (see Winer, 
Gr. $ 56. 2, p. 448, where both passages 
are investigated) ; but there is a dim- 
culty both in mood and tense. The 
former may be explained away by the 
observable tendency of the New Testa- 
ment and later writers to lapse from the 
optat. into the subjunct. (Winer, 41. b. 
1, p. 258, Green, Gr. p. 72) ; the latter, 
either by considering Tpe x&> a then- 
present, opp. to tSpauov, a then-past, 
or as pointing to the continuance of the 
action. (#) p^ TTCOS then, is not num 
jfortfc* (an opinion formerly held by 
Fritzsche, and still by Green, p. 82, but 
well refuted by Dr. Peile), but ne forte, 
(y) f$pa/j.ov may be explained in two 
ways; either (with Fritz.) as an indixi,. 
after a non-realized etc. hypoth. (Herm. 
de Partic. &v, 1. 10, p. 54), a structure 
at which, strange to say, Ililgenf. seems 
to stumble, or indie, after ufaus (fear- 
ing lest), the change of mood implying 
that the event apprehended had now 
taken place ; see Winer, Gr. 56. 2, p. 
446 : compare Scheuerl. Synt. 34. a. 
p. 364, Matth. Gr. 520. 8. We 

have then two possible translations ; ( 1 ) 
Purpose ; ave^t^v . . . /u^jircos t^pafjiov, 
/ communicated . . . that I miyht tint per- 
chance have run in vain (as I should 
have done if I had not, etc. ) ( 2 ) Appre- 
hension ; avf&tnTjv . . . ((f>o$ov/j.tifos) p.^- 
n-oiy fSpafnov, I communicated . . being ap- 
prehensive lest perchance I miyht really 
lace, etc.; the verb timendi being 
idiomatically omitted ; see Gayler, de 

Part. Neg. p. 327, Schmalfeld, Synt. j 
152. Of these (2) seems most in ac- 
cordance with St. Paul s style ; see 1 
Thess. /. c-, and ch. iv. 11. To 

both translations, however, there are 
very grave objections ; to ( 1 ) on logical, 
to (2) on exegetical grounds: to (1), 
because it was not on the communica- 
tion or non-communication of his Gos- 
pel that St. Paul s running in vain 
really hinged, but on the assent or dis- 
sent of the Apostles: to (2), because it 
is incredible that he who went up /COT 
airoii\v$iv could have felt any doubt 
about his own course. To escape these 
difficulties we must adopt one of two 
explanations (neither wholly free from 
objections) ; either we must refer the 
words, objectively, to the danger St. 
Paul s converts might have run of be- 
ing rejected by the Church if he had 
not communicated; or (which is most 
probable), subjectively, with the Greek 
commentators, to the opinions of others ; 
Iva 5i5a|o> TOVS TO.VTO. viroirrfvovTas ori 
OVK fls Kfvbv rptx^i Chrys. ; see Ham- 
mond in foe. If others deemed St. 
Paul s past and present course fruit- 
less, it really must in that respect have 
amounted to a loss of past and present 

3. a\\ ovSt] But (to distinctly 
prove, a fortiori, that I had not run in 
vain) not even, etc. The emphasis rests 
on TITOS, Titus, whom the apostles 
might have required to be circumcised, 
even while in general terms they ap- 
proved of St. Paul s preaching. On 
this gradational force of dAA* ou8 ( at 
ne quidem, indicant, silentio oblit- 
terata re leviore, afferri graviorem ), see 
Fritz, in loc. (Opusc. p. 178), and comp. 
Luke xxiii. lo, Acts xix. 2. The true 
separative force of aA\o ( aliud jam 
csse quod sumus dicturi/ Klotz, Devar. 


CHAP. II. 3, 4. 

4 Bia & TOU? TrapeicraK-Tovs ^ > eiSaSeX</>oi"?, otrwe? 

rr/f eXev^eptav TJJAWV r)v e^o/iev eV XpicrTO) Irjcrov, 

Vol. n. p. 2) is here distinctly apparent. 
EA.XTJV Cv) being a Greek sciL in 
asmuch as, or though he was a Greek, 
jcai roi "EA.A.TII/ div, Theodoret ; not and 
was a Greek, Alf., the appended parti 
cipial clause not being predicative, but 
concessive, or suggestive of the reason 
why the demand was made ; compare 
Donalds. Cratyl. $ 30,5, Gr. 492 sq. 
jj/a7Ka<rdj7] * teas compelled. The 
choice of this word seems clearly to 
imply that the circumcision of Titus 
was strongly pressed on St. Paul and 
St. Barnabas; see Baur, Paulus, p. 121. 
It does not, however, by any means ap 
pear that the Apostles were party to it ; 
in fact, if we assume the identity of this 
journey with the third, the language 
of Acts xv. 5 seems distinctly to imply 
the contrary. 

4. Sta Se rovs IT ap f i OO.KT o v s 
tyt v8a$ \<povs] and (hat, or now it 
was, because of the false brethren insid 
iously brou jht in, scil. OUK T)va.yKa.aSti] 
irfpn^Strjvcu ; explanatory statement (8 
explicative; see below) why Titus was 
not compelled to be circumcised, viz., 
because the tytvlSdS^cpot were making it 
a party matter. The construction is not 
perfectly perspicuous, but it does not 
appear necessary either to regard it as 
a positive anacoluthon (Rink, Lucubr. 
Crit. p. 171, Ililgc-nf. in loc.), or an 
anacol. arising from two blended con 
structions (Winer, Gr. 63, p. 502) still 
less a connection of ver. 4 with Yer. 2 
(Bagge, al.). The difficulty, as the 
Greek expositors seem to have felt, is 
really in the St : this, however, is neither 
*fpirr6s (Theod. compare Theod. M.), 
nor equivalent to oi5t (compare Chrys., 
Theoph., CKcum.), but simply explica 
tive ( declarat et intendit, Bcng ), and 
faintly ratiocinative ; see Klotz, Dcvar. 
Vol. n. p. 362. Alford comp. 8, ver. 

2, but the uses seem clearly different ; 
there the insertion of CLVTOIS naturally 
suggests a contrast, while here the naked 
statement OVK yvayK. irtpirfji. as naturally 
prepares us for a restrictive explanation. 
irapficdicTovs] insidiously brought 
in, Scholef. This word appears to 
have two meanings, (a) advena, adven- 
titius, a\\6rpios (Hesych., Suid., Phot.); 
comp. Georg. Al. Vit. Chrys. 40 (cited 
by Hase, Steph. Thes. Vol. vin. p. 187). 
jropeiVcucTe ri)s ir6\(us IJ/JLUV , (&) irrep- 
t it ius ; compare Prol. Sirach, irp6\oyos 
vapfiffoKTos, a meaning still further 
enhanced by IT a p ( i a ^xSov ; compare 
2 Pet. ii. 1, Jude 4. The compound 
^ti5a8f \$oi designates those Tvhn did not 
acknowledge the great principle of faith 
in Christ being the only means of sal 
vation ( Xeander, Plant. Vol. 11. p. 114, 
Bohn), while their intrusive character 
is well marked by the compounds ira- 
pfta?i\&ov and irapftaaKTovs ; compare 
Polyb. Hist. i. 18, 3, iropfio-a-ytadcu ical 
TrapeiffiriirTtiv (Is ras iro\iopKOv/jiivas ir6- 
\fis. o?Tivts] men who, a 

set of men who, not simply equiva 
lent to ol (list.), but specifying the class 
to which they belonged ; see Matth. Gr. 
483, Jelf, Gr. 816, and notes on ch. 
iv. 24, where the uses of ocnts are more 
fully discussed. The translation of Fritz., 
quippe qui (comp. Ilerm. CEd. R. 688), 
is here unduly strong ; even in classical 
Greek, what is commonly termed a causal, 
may be more correctly considered an ex 
plicative sense; see Ellendt, Lex. Soph. 
s. v. 3, Vol. n. p. 383. This, too, is the 
prevailing sense in the later writers ; see 
Dindorf in Steph. Thesaur. s. v. 

> ~. 
KaraffKOirriffai] to spy " , . iA^-L^ 

[ut explorarent] Syr., explorare, Vulg. ; 
not ut dolose eripiant lihcrtatem Chris- 
tianam, (Diudorf, Steph. Thes. s. v. 

^*>~<L*~4S&l#4~> \JLfrTA/V-^L*k 

~fas74^ </\ Off< 

\. l<*+ / t*~ l^ j>^~-c*^ 

<Aiy( fa*T~~~ 


CHAP. II. 5, 6. 



iva fi^as KaTO.Bov\(t)crov(riv B oh ouSe Trpo? wpav ei^apev rfj VTTO- 
Tcuy>), Iva rj a\,ij^eia TOV evayje\iov Biapeivr) TTOO? u/ia?. 6 CLTTO 

5. ols cuSe] These words are omitted by the first hand of D (Tisch. Cod. Cla,- 
rom. p. 568) E ; Irenaeus (p. 200, ed. Bened.), and, according to Jerome, in some 
Latin manuscripts : Tertullian and Ambrose appear only to have rejected the rela 
tive ; see adv. Marc. v. 3. It is obvious that such an omission would greatly 
simplify the structure, but this very fact in a critical point of view makes it sus 
picious. When to this we add the immense preponderance of external authority, 
we can entertain but little doubt that oTs oi>5e is genuine ; see Bagge in loc., who 
has well discussed this reading. 

Vol. rv. p. 1232), Karotr/coir. being here 
used in the same (hostile) sense as /ca- 
TaffKOTTfvaai, Josh. ii. 2 ; 6pus irus KCU TTJ 
TWV KaTcuTKOTnav iTpooriyopia t SiijAuxre rbi 
ir6\fuov iKfivjiv, Chrys. ^p 

XptffTip] Not per Christum, a mean 
ing it may bear (Fritz, p. 184) but in 
the fuller and deeper sense in Christ ; 
see notes on ver. 17. "va -i/uus 

KaTaSov\tixrov(riv\ that they may 
succeed in enslaving us ; the tense point 
ing to the result, the compound to the 
completeness of the act ; comp. 2 Cor. 
xi. 20. Although this reading is con 
firmed by a decided preponderance of 
uncial authority [ABCDE], and the 
improbability of a correction very great, 
still the instances of iva. with a future 
are so very few (Gayler, Part. Neg. p. 
169), and these, too, so reducible in 
number (Klotz, Devar. Vol. II. p. 631), 
that we are not justified in saying more 
than this, that the future appears used 
to convey the idea of duration (Winer), 
or perhaps, rather, of issue, sequence 
(Schmalfeld, Synt. 142 ; comp. Alf.), 
more distinctly than the more usual 
aorist subj. Though excessively doubt 
ful in classical writers (Herm. Partic. 
6.v, n. 13, p. 134), a few instances are 
found in later authors ; see Winer, Gr. 
41, b. 1, p. 259. 

5. T-fj VITOT ayfi} by yielding them 
the subjection they claimed; dative of 
manner ; see Winer, Gr. 31. 7. p. 194, 
comp. Scheuerl. Synt. 22. 6, p. 180. 

The article is not merely the article with 
abstract nouns (Gre, Gr. p. 146), but 
is used to specify tke obedience which 
the false brethren (not the Apostles, 
Fritz. ) demanded in this particular case. 
rj a\7]&fta TOV evayyf\iov] the 
truth of the Gospel ; the true teaching 
of the Gospel, as opposed to the false 
teaching of it as propagated by Juda- 
izers, f. e. t as in verse 16, the doctrine 
of justification by faith. The distinc 
tion drawn by Winer ( Gr. 34. 3, p. 
211) between such expressions as the 
present, where the governing noun is 
a distinct element pertaining to the gov 
erned, and such as irXovrov oS7)AjTijy, 
1 Tim. vi. 17, KUIV^T^S C&>v)s, Rom. vi. 
4, where it is more a rhetorically 
expressed attribute, though denied by 
Fritz. Rom. Vol. i. p. 368, seems per 
fectly just. A doctrinal import is con 
tained in % a\-ij^fia TOV evayy., which is 
entirely lost by explaining it as merely 
Tb 0X7/1^6 s uayyt\tov. 8 i a fj. f I v 77 

irpbs v u.a s] might remain steadfast 
with you, permaneat[-eret] Vulg., 
Clarom. ; the Sta obviously being inten 
sive, as in Heb. i. 11, 2 Pet. iii. 4 ; comp. 
Chrys., iva. . . . TOVTO Sia. TUV tpyvv /3e- 
QatuHTv/ . TT pb s V fj. a s] See 

on ch. i. 18. 

TI K. T. \.] But from those who were 
high in reputation ; interrupted de 
claration of his independence of the ol 
The meaning of this verse 



CHAP. II. 6. 


e Tu>v.pKOvinwv elvai n (OTTOIOI TTOTG rjcrav ovbev ftoi $ia<f>epei 
p6aa)7roi> @eo? dv^pwTrov ov Xo/z/3ai et) e /zo* 7010 01 SoKovmes 

is perfectly clear, but the structure is 
somewhat difficult. According to the 
common explanation, airb flvai TJ is a 
sentence that would naturally have ter 
minated with oi>8e>/ tAo/Soi/ or irpao-fAo- 
/3o /xrir (not tSiSdxfrnv, Winer, $ 47. p. 
331), or more correctly still, ovSfv poi 
TrpoffavfTtfrri ; owing, however, to the 
parenthesis oiroloi Aa,u/iaj/ei, the natu 
ral structure is interrupted, and the sen 
tence, commenced passively, is concluded 
actively with 1/j.ol yap K. r. A. ; see Winer, 
Gr. 63. 1 1; p. 502. The real diffi 
culty of the sentence, however, lies in 
the following ydp. That it is (a) merely 
resumptive, Scholcf. (Units, p 74). Peile, 
ai. : is indemonstrable; as, of the pas 
sages usually cited in favor of this force, 
viz. Acts xvii. 28, 1 Cor. 5x. 10, 2 Cor. 
v. 4, Horn xv, 27, the first three are 
clearly instances of the argumentative 
force (see "Winer, Gr. 53. 10. 3, p 403, 
Meyer on Cor., while in the fourth 
the words u5oK7j<rcu/ yap are merely 
emphatically repeated. That it is (6) 
argumentative, cithor as giving a reason 
for ou8*y /J.OL Sia^f pei K T. A. (Alf.)i or 
for TTpoffianov Qtbs K. T. A. (Mev.), is 
logically and contcxtually improbable, 
as parenthetical and non-parenthetical 
parts would thus be confused and inter 
mingled. If, however, yap be regarded 
as (c) explicative, the whole seems clear 
and logical. To avoid the words SOKOVV- 
roiv flvai TI being misunderstood, and 
supposed to assign an undue preemi 
nence to these Apostles, St Paul hastily 
introduces the parenthetical comment, 
leaving the former sentence incomplete: 
then, feeling that its meaning was still 
so far from obvious as to need some jus 
tification, he reverts to it, slightly quali 
fying it by the emphatic ipoi, slightly 
justifying it by the explicative ydp, to 
mr (whatever they might have done for 


others) it is certainly a fact that, etc. 
On this explicative force of ydp, see 
Donalds. Gr, 618, Klotz. Devar. Vol. 
ii. p 233 sq., Hartung, Fartik. ydp 2, 
and comp. Liicke, John iv. 44. Of 

the other interpretations of this difficult 
passage, none appear to deserve special 
notice except that of the Greek writers 
(C hrys.. however, is silent, and Theod. 
has here a lacuna), who connect anb TWV 
SOKOVVTUV immediately with ovSfv /xoi 
fitatpfpti in the sense of ouSe/uio ^.01 <ppov- 
rli Trtpl TUJ SOK. (Thcophx), but thus 
assign an untenable meaning to airA, and 
dislocate the almost certain connection 
of biroioi TTOT j)ffav with what follows. 
Further details will be found in Meyer, 
De "\Vette, and Fritzsche ( Opusc. p. 201 
sq.). The Vv. are for the most part 

perplexingly literal (comp. Vulg.) ; the 
Syr., however, by its change of yap into 

* i seems certainly in accordance with 

the general view adopted above. 

T ia v fioKovvruv tlvai T i] who were 

dueniod to be someichty A *^ A ro^^ 

^S x ^ "* " 

[qni repntati crant] Syr., qui videban- 
tnr, Vulg ; used with reference to the 
judgment of others (contrast eh. vi. 2), 
and so, perfectly similar in meaning to 
TO?S SoKovaiv, vcr. 2 ; comp. Plato, Gorg. 
57 2 A, virb iroXAoii xal SOK. flvai TI , 
F.nthijd. 303 C, riav at^vOiv KOI SOK. ri 
flfai. dirotoi^fort] qual- 

esru mrjuc ; irort not being"*"temrjoral, 
cilim, Bcza (perhips suggested by the 
aliqunndo of Vulg.), but connected 
with ATTOWI. which it serves to render 
more general and inclusive ; compare 
Demosth Or. de Pace, iv. 15 (p. 60), 
iiroio iror iffrlv avrrj, cited by Bloomf. 
and Fritz, in. loc. -tia av may 

certainly refer to the period of the 
Apostles lives when they were uncon- 




V, ^uy ~ */fc>^ ^^ 

aJuMz^Zt^. &_\J. 

x<_X <!-*- 


77^ o<yt*7r07i 4jf^K T*j ^ 

CHAP. II. 6, 7. 



ovBev 7rpo<rave^evro, 7 d\\a rovvavriov tSovre? ore 
TO evayyeXtov TT}? aicpoftvcrTias Kcfews Hirpo^ T 

verted, or when they were in attendance 
on our Lord (a view strongly supported 
by Hilgenf.) ; it seems, however, far 
more natural to refer the tense to a past, 
relative to the time of writing the words. 
ovS 4 v not 8 1 a <f>.] it maketh no mat 
ter to me. For examples of this less 
usual, but fully defensible insertion of 
the dative, see Lobeck, Phryn. p. 384, 
and comp. Wetst. in loc. 
irp6 ffuirof QfbsK. T. A.] God ac- 
cepteth no man s person irpoacatrov put 
forward with emphasis, while &fbs and 
iu>&p. form a suggestive contrast ( Mey. ) ; 
God looketh not to the outward as 
men do, and judgeth on no partial prin 
ciples, and no more did I his servant." 
This and the equiv. expression @\firtn/ 
(Is irpofftair. av&p. are in the N. T. al 
ways used with a bad reference; see 
Matth. xxii. 16, Mark xii. 14, Luke xx. 
21. The corresponding expression in 
the O. T. : j? w 3 (translated some 
times &avndfii iffotuncov ; comp. Jude 
16) is used occasionally in a good sense; 
see Gen. xix. 21, and comp. Fritz, and 
Schott in loc. irpo<ravf&fvro] 

,,// * communicated nothing, addressed no 
communication to ; contulerunt, Vulg., 
Clarom., and more distinctly dixerunt, 
jJEth.-Pol. notum fecerunt, Arm. ; as 
in ch. i. 16. In spite of the authority 
of the Greek expositors (juc&oTfs ret 

Chrys.), and appy of Syr. 


adjecerunt), Copt, [ouonah.], Goth, ( an- 
a insokun ), al., it still seems more safe 
to retain the same meaning in both pas 
sages. There is weight in the argument 
urged in ed. 1 (see, too, Wieseler, Chro- 
nol. p. 195 note), that irpoffa.vt&. here 
may seem to specify addition, as in con 
trast with avtStf^riv ver. 2, still the ten 
dency of later Greek to compound forms 



(compare notes on ch. iii. 13), and the 
perfect parallelism of this with the sim 
ilarly negative formula in ch. i. 16, are 
tacit arguments which seem slightly 
to preponderate. In the passage 

commonly referred to (Xen. Mem. n. 
1. 8), irpoffavaStfcr^at merely implies 
etiam sibi adjungere, scil. suscipere 
(see Kiihner in loc.), and so proves 
nothing, except that Bretschn., Olsh., 
Ruck., al., must be incorrect in trans 
lating nihil mihi prtetcrea imposucrunt, 
as this expresses a directly opposite idea. 
Under any circumstances, there is noth 
ing either in this word, or in the whole 
paragraph, to substantiate the extraor 
dinary position of Baur, that the Apos 
tles only yielded to St. Paul s views 
after a long struggle. 

7. a\\a T oiivavT lov] but on the 
contrary; scil. so far from giving in 
structions to me, they practically added 
the weight of their approval : rb Ivav- 
rtov rov jUf^aff^ot rJ> tTraiv{(rat, Chrys. 
Surely this was not exactly leaving St. 
Paul to fight his own battle, Jowett, 
Alf. irfiriffrtv^ai] The prin 

cipal instances in the New Testament 
of this well-known structure will be 
found, Winer, Gr. 32. 5, p. tt. On 
the use of the perfect as indicating per 
manence, duration, concreditum mihi 
habeo, see ib. 40. 4, p. 242. Usteri 
calls attention to the accurate use of the 
perf. here, compared with the aorist i 
Rom. iii 2, firtffrfV^Tijffai> ( lovtiaioi) rit 
\6yta rov Qtov. rrj s a. K p o- 

P VO-T ias] of the uncircumcision, scil. 
ira>i/ anpofivffTcav , ov TO. KpdyfjLa.ra, \tycav 
avrd aAAa TO airb rovriav yixtipi^ofifvet 
t&vri, Chrys. ; comp. Rom. iii. 30. The 
derivation of axpo/S. (not &Kpoi>, ftvta, but 
an Alexandrian corruption of a/cpoirotr- 
i&i a) is discussed by Fritzsche, Rom. ii. 
26, Vol. I. p. 136. Kablas ni- 


/ , .,* A 

* (6 yap evepytjcra? Herput et<? a7ro<TTO\r)v TT}? 7reptTO/i?/<? evrjpyrja-ev 

Kap.o\ t<? ra e ^jn;), 9 al <yv6vT<> rnv X^P iV T *l v bcfoelcrdv /-tot, 
*Ia/ctu/3o>> /cat Kr/<pds KOI Ia)dvvr)s, ol BffKovvres XrrOXot elvcu, 8e- 

rpof K. r. \.} even as Peter was of the 
circumcision. St. Peter here appears as 
the representative of the Judenapostel 
(Meyer; eomp. Grot.), on the principle 
that a potiori fit denominatio ; for 
though originally chosen out as the first 
preacher to the Gentiles (Acts xv. 7), 
his subsequent labors appear to have 
been more among Jews ; compare 1 Pet. 
i. 1. On the use of nodus, see notes 

on ch. iii. 6, and on its most suitable 
translation, compare notes on I Thess. 
i. 5 ( Transl.). 

8. & yap Ivtpy. K. r. A.] For lie 
viho tcrouyht (effectually) for Peter, 

j^^V Syr., Petro, Vulg., Clarom. ; 

not in Petro, Grot. ; historical con 
firmation of what precedes, added paren 
thetically. There are four constructions 
of tvfpytta in St. Paul s Epp. ; (a) Ivep- 
yu TI, 1 Cor. xii.ll; (6) Ivepyw tv 
TW, Eph. ii. 2 ; (c) tvtpyfa TI tv TIVI, 
ch. iii. 5 ; (d ) ivtpyiu TLVI tts Ti, here ; 
comp. Prov. xxxi. 12. In this latter 
case the dative is not governed by ivtp- 
ytu>, as the verb is not a pure compound 
[there is no form tpytu], but is the dat. 
comniodi. O tiffpyriffas, it may be 

observed, is not Christ (Chrys., Aug.), 
but God (Jerome) ; for, in the first 
place, St. Paul always speaks of his 
Apostleship as given by God ( Rom. xv. 
15, 1 Cor. xv. 10, Eph. iii. 2) through 
Christ (llom. i. 5 ; compare ib. xv. 18, 
and ch. i. 1 ) ; and secondly, this Ivtpytlv 
is distinctly ascribed to God, 1 Cor. xii. 
6, Phil. ii. 13. tls kwotrro- 

A.Vj* ] for or towards the Aitosticship, 
i. e. for the successful performance of it 
(Ilamm.), not merely in respect of it" 
(iLey.), a meaning lexically admissi- 
Ue both in classical writers (llut>t u. 

Palm, Lex. s. v. $, v. 2, Vol. i. p. 804), 
and in the N. T. (Winer, Gr. 49. a, p. 
354) but here contextually insufficient, 
as the sense seems almost obviously to 
require the more definite notion of pur 
pose, or contemplated object ; compare 
2 Cor. ii. 12, tis rb fvayyt\ii>v (to preach 
the Gospel), Col. i. 29. The second tiy 
is joined with ra edirj by what is called 
comparatio compendiaria," Jelf, Gr. 

9. Kal yvovrts] and having be 
come aware ; continuation of the inter 
rupted narrative ; 5<Wy (Ver. 7) .... 
xol yvdvTfs. The former participle ap 
pears to refer to the mental impression 
produced, when the nature and success 
of St. Paul s preaching was brought 
before them ; the latter, to the result of 
the actual information they derived from 
him ; but see notes ch. iv. 9. 
laK<a&os} James, the Brother of 
our Lord (ch. i. 9), Bishop of Jerusalem, 
and as such placed first in order in 
the recital of acts that took place in that 
Church. Iruntcus (Haer. in. 12, ad 
fin.) in noticing this subject, uses the 
strong expression qui circa Jacobum 
Apostoli ; see Grabe in loc. The 

reading Utrp. ical lax. has but weak 
external support [DEFG ; Clarom., 
Goth., Theod. (4), Greg. Nyss., al.], 
and on internal grounds is highly sus 
picious, ol So KOVVT f s K. T. \.] 
1 who have the reputation of being, ovs 
ircurts- ira.vTa.xov irtpupfpovaiv, Chrys. ; 
5o(cf u> not being pleonastic, but retaining 
its usual and proper meaning ; see exx. 
in Winer, Gr. { 65. 7, p. 540. The 
metaphor is illustrated by Suiccr T/ics. 
s. v. 0-rCAoj, Vol. n. 1044, Wetst. in 
loc., and (from Rabbinical writers) by 
Schoettg. //or. llebr. Vol. i. p. 728, 729. 


-< - 

. / 3 

- ., 


CHAP. IL 9, 10. 


ta<? eSwicav etiol /cat BapvdSa Kowtaviw iva ^uei"? < 

\ / V- ^ 

ayrot Se et? rr/i/ 7repiTO[j,ijv 10 povov T&V TTTW^WV iva 

fj,ev, o real ecnrovoacra avro TOVTO 



The most apposite quotations are per 
haps, Clem. Rom. i. 5, ol Smaioraroi 
t, Euseb. Hist. vi. 41, crrtp/Soi /col 
(TTv\oi. S e t a $ . . . /c o j- 

y w v ( a s] rtV/A< hands of fellowship, soil, 
in the Apostolic office of teaching and 
preaching ; comp. Schulz, Abendn. p. 
190 sq. The remark of Fritzs. ( Opusc. 
p. 220, comp. Mey.), articulum ray 
Se|ias TTJJ Koivuvias non desidcrabit, qui 
8e|. /coic. dextras societies, i.e. dex- 
tras ejusmodi, quibus societas confletur 
valere reputaverit, is scarcely necessary. 
As 8e|to? in the phrase Se|ias 8i5<Wt 
(1 Mace. xi. 50, 62, xiii. 50) is usually 
anarthrous, the principle of correlation 
(Middleton, Gr. Art. in. 33) causes it 
to be omitted with Koivuvias , compare 
Winer, Gr. J 18. 2. 6, p. 142. The sep 
aration of the gen. from the suhst. on 
which it depends occurs occasionally in 
St. Paul s Epistles, and is usually due 
either to explanatory specification (Phil. 
ii. 10), correction (1 Thess. ii. 13), em 
phasis (1 Tim. iii. 6), or, as appy. here, 
merely structural reasons, the natural 
union of 5eias and eScu/cac, and of t5a>- 
Kta> and its dative ; comp. "Winer, Gr. 
30. 3. 2, p. 172. Iva rj >t. els 

ret f&ini] that we to the Gentiles, 
I not ti>a.yyt\iCt!!>nf&a. (Winer, Gr. p 518), 
las this verb is not found with fls in St. 
Paul s Epp. (Mey.), but either simply 
I iropfu^ , or perhaps better OJTOO-TO- 
\\<H yevuntba, apostolatu fungeremur, 
Beza. It is scarcely necessary to 

add that this compact was intended to be 
rather general than specific, and that the 
terms t^vrj and ?r<p<To/x>j have more of 
a geographical than a merely personal 
reference. St. Paul knew himself to be 
the Apostle of the Gentiles (comp. Rom. 
xi. 13) ; but this did not prevent him 

(KOTO rb tlti>&6s, Acts xvii. 2), while in 
Gentile lands, preaching first to the 
Jews; see Acts xvii. 10, xviii. 5, xix. 8. 
The insertion of ^tv after ri^fls [with 
ACDE ; more than thirty mss. ; Copt , 
Syr.-Philox. ; Chrys. al.]. seems certainly 
a grammatical insertion. 

10. IJLOVOV TUV TT T ta % a> v K. r. A.] 
only that we should remember the poor ; 
limiting clause dependent on 5|ias e5w- fluty ft 
KO.V and expressive of the condition at 
tached to the general compact : we 
were to go to the Gentiles, they to the 
circumcision, with this stipulation only, 
that we were not to forget the poor in 
Judaea; comp. Rom. xv. 26, 27, 1 Cor. 
xvi. 3. There is thus no ellipsis of 
oiVoCj Tes, irapaxaAovvrts, or indeed of 
any verb ; the IJLOVW carries its own ex 
planation ; impcrium ipsa voce /JLOI/OV 
adsignificatum, ut id sit quod ol irap- 
7]yy(i\af, Fritzsche, Matt A. Excurs. i. 
p. 839. 6 nal IffirovSaffa 

K. T. A.] which very thing I was also 
forward to do, literally which, namely, 
this very thing, I was also, etc. ; airrb 

TOVTO (]?i5i ^Gl Syr.) not being redun 
dantly joined with o, per Ilcbraismum 
(Ruck., B. Cms., and even Conyb.), but 
simply forming an emphatic cpexegesis 
of the preceding relative; see "\Viner, 
Gr. 22. 4, p. 134. Occasionally in 
the X. T. (Mark i. 7, vii. 25, Rev. vii. 
2 al., and (as might be conceived) not 
xincommonly in the LXX., there seem 
to be clear instances of a Hebraistic re 
dundancy of the simple auras, but appy. 
never of this stronger form at/rbs olros , 
see Winer, Gr. 1. c., and comp. Bornern. 
Schol. Luc. p. LIV. IffirovSaffa] 

1 1 teas forward I evinced a-irovS-r] ; 
with an appended Qbject-infin. ; comp. 




""Ore & 

CHAP. II. 11. 

When Peter dissembled, I 
withstood nnd relinked him, 
urging that to observe the luw us a justifying principle ii to make void the grace ot God. 

Eph. iv. 3, 1 Thess. ii. 17. The aor. is 
here correctly used, not for the perfect 
(Conyb. ), nor even for the plupcrf., nor 
yet exactly as expressing the habit (com 
pare Alf.), this usage being somewhat 
doubtful in the X. T. (see Winer, Gi: 
40. 5. 1, p. 248, and notes on Eph. i. 
3), but simply an historical fact that 
belongs to the past, without its being 
affirmed or denied that it may not con 
tinue to the present ; See Fritz, de Aor. 
Vi, p. 1", and on 1 Thess. ii. 16. 
The passages usually adduced (Rom. 
xv. 27, 1 Cor. xvi. I sq., 2 Cor. viii. 1 
sq., compare Acts xi. 17 sq, xxiv. 17) 
illustrate the practice, but not the tense, 
T- being subsequent to the probable date of 
this Epistle. All historical deductions 
from this passage, except, perhaps, that 
Barnabas had recently left St. Paul 
(hence the sing. ; see Winer, in loc.), 
seem very precarious. 

11. ore St $\&fi> Ki)<pus] But 
when Cephas came, etc. Still further 
proof of the Apostle s independence by 
an historical notice of his opposition to, 
and even reproval of St. Peter s incon 
sistent conduct at Antioch : see some 
good remarks on this subject in Thicrsch. 
History of Church, Vol. i. p. 123 sq. 
(Transl.). The reading Utrpos ( Rec. ) 
is fairly supported [DEFGJK ; Dcmid., 
Goth. ; mss. ; Chrys., al.], but still even 
in external authority inferior to Kripas, 
[Lachnt., Tisch., with ABCII ; a few 
mss. ; Syr., Copt , Sahid. ; Clem., al.], not 
to mention the high probability of Ufrpos 
having been an explanatory change. 
K 0.7 a ir(i6ff<airov} t io the face, Auth. 

in faciem, Vulg., 

in fa- 

ciem cjus] Syr., not coram omnibus, 
apcrto Marte (Elsn., Conyb., al.), this 
being specified in t^irpoff^fv iravruv, ver. 
14 : comp. Acts xxv. 16, and perhaps ib. 

iii. 1 3, Kara rpdcrcairov ILAoTou, to the face 
of Pilate. The preposition has here its 
secondary local meaning, e reyione ; 
the primary idea of horixontal direction 
(Donalds, (ir. 479) passing naturally 
into that of local opposition. This may 
be very clearly traced in the descriptions 
of the positions of troops, etc., by the 
later military writers ; e. g. Polyb. Hist. 
I. 34. 5, oj KO,TO. robs l\t(pavras rax^tv- 
res ; ib. ib. 9, ot Kara rb \ai6v , with 
irp6acairov, ib. in. 60, 6, xi. 14. 6: see 
Bernhardy, Synt. v. 20, b, p. 240, Do- 
bree, Advcrs. Vol. i. p. 114. The 

gloss Kara ax ina (in appearance, not 
in reality) adopted by Chrys., Jerome, 
and several early writers, is wholly un 
tenable, and due only to an innocent 
though mistaken effort to salve the 
authority of St. Peter, appy. first sug 
gested by Origen [S<ra. Book x.] : 
see Jerome, Epist. 86 97, esp. 90, the 
appy. unanswerable objections of Augus 
tine (Epist. 8 19), the sensible remarks 
of Bede in loc., and for much curious 
information on the whole subject, Dey- 
ling, Obs. Sacr. Vol. n. p. 520 sq. (No. 
4o). or i Karfyvcafffitvos 

$ v] because he had been condemned ; 
not reprebensibilis, Vulg., nor even 
reprehensionem incurrerat, Winer, but 
simply reprehensus erat," Clarom., Goth., 
Syr.-Phil. (Syr. paraphrases), al. 
As this clause has been much encum 
bered with glosses, it will be best to 
notice separately both the meaning of 
the verb and the force of the participle. 
(1) KaraytyvwffKdv (generally with rn>6s 
rt, more rarely, rivd rivos) has two prin 
cipal meanings ; (a) to note accurately ; 
usually in a bad sense, e. g., detect, 
Prov. xxviii. 11 ( Aquil. ^ixvidtrft) think 
ill of, Xen. Mem. i. 3, 10 : (/3) to note 
Judicially, either in the lighter sense 
of accuse (probably 1 John iii. 20 ; see 


; /*Vfc 

CHAP. II. 11, 12. 



Kara Trpocrwrrov avrw eurt&rfflV, ore Kareyvwcrpevos 7)v. 
rov <yap eX^eiv rivas cnro la/cwftov /iera TWV 
ore Be rj hStov, v7re<TTe\\ev ical a^xapi^ev eavrov, 

Liicke in Joe.), or the graver of condemn 
(the more usual meaning). (2) The 
perf. part. pass, cannot be used as a pure 
verbal adjective. The examples adduced 
by Eisner in loc. will all bear a different 
explanation; and even those in which 
the use of the participle seems to ap 
proach that of the Hebrew part. (Gesen. 
Gr. 131. 1), such as Rev. xxi. 8 (perf. 
part.), Jude 12 (aor.), or Heb xii. 18 
(pres.), can all be explained grammat 
ically ; see Winer, Gr. 45. 1, p. 307. 
The only tenable translations, then, are 
(a) he had been accused, or (6) he had 
been condemned; and of these (6) seems 
obviously most in accordance with the 
context and the nature of the case As 
St. Peter s conduct had been condemned, 
not merely by himself (Alf.), but, as 
seems more natural, generally by the 
sounder body of Christians at Antioch, 
St. Paul, as the representative of the 
anti- Judaical party, feels himself author 
ized to rebuke him, and that too (ver. 
14), publicly. 

12. Ttcar dirb "I a K ca o v may 
be connected together, and grammati 
cally translated, some of the followers 
of James; see Jelf, Gr. 620. 3, Bern- 
hardy, Synt. v. 12, p. 222. As, how 
ever, in the New Testament, this mode 
of periphrasis (ol curb K. r. A.) appears 
mainly confined to places (Mark xiii. 
22, Acts vi. 9, xxvii. 24, al.l, or abstract 
substantives (Acts xv. 5), it will seem 
most exact to connect airb lax. with 
i\S>tiv. So distinctly ^Eth.-Pol,, omit 
ting, however, the Tints : the other Vv. 
mainly preserve the order of the Greek. 
We certainly cannot deduce from this 
that they were sent by James (Theoph., 
Mey., Alf.), for though this use of airb 
does occur (comp. Matth. xxvi. 47 with 

kic * 

Mark xv. 43, and see Fritz. Matth. Vol. 
i. p. 779), yet the common meaning of 
the prep, in such constructions is local 
rather than ethical, separation rather 
than mission from : compare Knapp, 
Script. Var. Argum. p. 510. The men 
in question probably represented them 
selves as rigid followers of St. James, 
and are thus briefly noticed as having 
come dirb laicia&ov, rather than airb 
lfpoffo\v/Acaif, avvi)ff&i e i>\ was 

eating with them, i. e. again followed 
that course which in the case of Cor 
nelius similarly called forth the censure 
of ol fK irepiTOjufjs (Acts xiii. 3), but was 
then nobly vindicated. Of the two 

following verbs virior, and acpi&p. (both 
governing tavrAv), the first does not 
mark the secret, the second the open 
course (Matth.), but simply the initial 
and more completed acts, respectively ; 
the second was the result of the first, 
De Wette in loc. The reading %\- 

&ei/ (Lachm.) has insufficient external 
authority [BD^FG ; 2 mss. ; Clarom.], 
and is a not improbable confirmation to 
the sing, which follows. ^>o- 

0o v fit v o * n fearing? because he 

O V 

feared, | o <31 \^99 \-Ak> [quia 

u,(7* * 

timebat] ; causal participle explaining 
the feeling which led to the preceding 
acts; timens ne culpajjetur ab illis, 
Irenffius, Hcer. in. 12 -(a d fin.). The 
Greek commentators [there is a lacuna 
in Theod.] and others (see Poli Synops. 
in loc. ) have endeavored to modify the 
application of this word, but without 
lexical authority. As on a different oc 
casion (Matth. xiv. 30), so here again 
the apostle drew back from a course into 
which his first and best feelings had 
hastily led him. Some strongly-ex- 



CHAP. II. 13, 14 


TrepLrofJ.ij<> 1S real cr 

ware Kal Bapvdj3as crvv 

avro) KCU, ol \onrol lov&aioi, 

14. lovSaiKtas Qs] This order is maintained by ABCFG ; 37. 73. 80 ; Boern., 
Am., Demid. (three other mss.), Amit. ; Or., Phil. (Carp.); many Lat. Ft , (but 
KCU OVK lovS. omitted in Clarom., Sang., Ambrst. Sedul., Agap. ) : fio Lachm., 
Meyer. Tisch. reads &v. ^y /col OVK lovS., with DEJK ; nearly all mss. ; majority 
of Vv. ; Chrys., Theod., Dam , Theophyl., (Ecum.. (Roc., Scholz, Alf.) External 
authority thus appears decidedly in favor of the text, and is but little mollified by 
internal arguments, for a correction of the perspicuity (&v. ?/$) is quite as probable 
as the assumed one for elegance. (Alf.) vus] It is difficult to imagine 

pressed remarks on this subject will be 
found in South, Scrm. xxvni. Vol. n. 
p. 476 (TYgg). 

13. ff vvvirfKp. a v r ] joined with 
him in dissimulation; result of the bad 
example, the secession of the rest of 
the Jewish Christians at Antioch from 
social communion with the Gentile con 
verts. The meaning of avvvtrtKp. is 
softened down by Syr. (subjecerunt se 
cum illo) Clarom. ( consenscrunt cum 
illo ), al., but without reason ; these very 
Christians of Antioch were the first who 
knew and rejoiced at (Acts xv. 31) the 
practically contrary decision of the Coun 
cil. A good praclectio on this text 
will be found in Sanderson, Works, Vol. 
rv. p. 44 (ed. Jacobs). Sxn e] 

ao that, as a simple matter of fact. 
In this form of the consecutive sentence 
the distinction between Sxnt with the 
indie, and the mfin. can scarcely be 
maintained in translation. The latter 
(the objective form, as it is termed by 
Schmalfcld), is used when the result is 
a necessary and logical consequence of 
what has previously been enunciated ; 
the former, when it is stated by the 
writer (the subjective form) as a simple 
and unconditioned fact ; sbe Klntz, De- 
var. Vol. ii. p. 772, and esp. Schmal- 
feld, Synt. 15.5 sq., and Ellendt, Lex. 
Foph. s. v. Vol. ii. p. 1101 sq., where 
the uses of this particle are well dis 
cussed. Here, for example, St. Paul 

notices the lapse of Barnabas as a fact, 
without implying that it was a neces 
sary consequence of the behavior of the 
others. This distinction, however, is 
appy. not always observed in the N. T., 
nor indeed always in classical writers ; 
comp. Winer, Gr. 41. 5. 1, p. 2G9. 
a v v a. IT 4} ^ & t\ avTwv Trj viroKpl- 
tr 1 1] irrts carried away irith them by 
their dissimulation, scil. into dissimu 
lation : cum dativo pcrsonae awair6.y. 
siinul cum aliquo abduci etc., declarat; 
cum dativo rei, simul per rcm abduci, 
etc., signiurat, Fritz. Rom. xii. 16, Vol. 
in. p. 88 sq. 2w thus refers to the 
companions in the rb an-ayeo-dai ; VTTO- 
Kpitrfi to the instrument by irhich, not 
rei ad quam (Brctsch., comp. Alf.), a 
questionable construction even in poetry 
(Bcrnhardy, Synt., in. 12, p. 9o), 
and, by obvious inference, the state into 
which they were carried away; see 2 
Pet. iii. 17. Fritzsche cites Zosim. 
Hist. V. 6, Kau av-r-fj Of ri Sn-oprrj ffuvair-fi- 
yf TO TTJ KOivrj T";S E\Aa5oj a\c<Tft . r. A. : 
add Clrm. Alex. Strom, i. p. 311, rp 
7 e ;5oM7 ffvvaira ySufi os. YirSKpuris 

is well paraphrased by \Viesrler (Chro- 
nol. p. 107), as a practical denial of 
their better [spiritual] insight, and 
(we add) of their better fedings and 
knowledge ; see above, on avwirfxp. 

14 . o p & o ir o 8 o v or i v ] iralk vp- 
riyhtly ; an fijro \tyou.. in the N. T., 
and very rare elsewhere ; Dindorf and 

. L - . 7^S ^tM^t 




CHAP. II. 14. 





ore elSov OTI OVK op^OTroSoixriv Trpbs TTJV a 

TOJ Krj(j)a cftTrpocfeev TTUVTWV El crv JouSato? v7rapX.o)v e ^- 
fcal OVK Iof8ai>ttw<? 779, TTW? ra P 


why Tisch. rejected this reading, supported as it is by ABCDEFG ; mss. ; major 
ity of Vv. ; Or., Dam., and Lat. Ff. ( Griesb. Scholz, Lackm., De Wette, Meyer, 
approved by MM, Prolcgom. p. 123.) For ri, which serins very much like an 
intcrp., the authorities are JK ; great majority of mss. ; Syr.-Phil., al. ; Chrys. 
Theod., Theophyl., (Ecum. (Rec., Tisch.) 

Jacobs in Steph. Thesaur. s. v. cite a 
few instances from later writers, e. p. 
Theodor. Stud. p. 308 B, 443 D, 473 D, 
609 D, 575 E ; but I have not succeeded 
in verifying the quotations. The mean 
ing, however, is sufficiently obvious, and 
rightly expressed by the recte ambulare 
of Vulg., Syr., and the best Vv. : comp. 
op^STrovs (Soph. Andy. 972), the similar 
verb opdoTo^e?!/, 2 Tim ii. 15, and notes 
in loc- On the idiomatic use of the 

present in the narration of a past event, 
when continuance or process is im 
plied, see Winer, Gr. 40. 2. c, p. 239, 
and esp. Schmalfeld, Synt. 54. 6, p. 
96. irpbs rrjv oArj&.] ac 

cording to the truth, i. e. according to 
the rule of; the prep, here seeming to 
mark not so much the aim or direction 
(llamm., Mey., Alf. ), as the rule or 
measure of the op&oiro5f ii> , comp. 2 Cor. 
v. 10, KOfj.lar)Tai, .... irpbs & eirpa^ev, 
and see Winer, Gr. 49. h, p. 361. 
The objection of Meyer, that St. Paul 
always expresses rule, measure, etc., 
after verbs eundi by Kara, not irp6s, does 
not here fully apply ; as motion is much 
more obscurely expressed in 3p&on-o5e?j 
than jrepmoreo (St. Paul s favorite verb 
of moral motion), which appears in all 
the instances that Meyer has adduced, 
viz. Rom. viii. 4, xiv. 15 ; 1 Cor. iii. 3. 
% fiir p o ff &e v iravrcav] before all 
men ; publicum scandalum non pote- 
rat private curari, Jerome ; compare 
1 Tim. v. 20. The speech which 

follows (ver. 14 21) is appy. rightly 
regarded as the substance of what was 

said by the Apostle on this important 
occasion; see on ver. 15. t&vt- 

KUS Cj?s] l livest after a Gentile fashion 
scil. in thy general and habitual way of 
living. The tense must not be over- 
pressed. St. Peter was not at that exact 
moment living &J/JKO>S ; his former con 
duct, however (^eri riav i&vSiv <ruHj<r- 
bii-v, ver. 12), is justly assumed by St. 
Paul as his regular and proper course of 
living (comp. Neand. Planting, Vol. n. 
p 83, Bohn), and specified as such to 
give a greater force to the reproof ; see 
Usteri in loc. avay xd^ets] 

consfrainest thou ; not invitas cxem- 
plo, Grot., nor even wouldest thou con 
strain, Conyb., but simply and plainly 

cogis, Vulg., T V| Syr., with reference 

V^M> O 

to the moral influence and practical 
constraint (llamm., Fell) which the 
authority and example of an Apostle 
like St. Peter could rot fail to have 
exercised on the Christians at Antioch. 
To suppose that the Apostle joined with 
ol airb la*, in actual outward coercion 
(Wieseler, Chronol. p. 198), is neither 
required by the word (see remarks in 
Sturz, Lex. Xerioph. Vol. i. p. 186) nor 
in any way to be inferred from the con 
text. "Iou8of C*" ] * Judaize, 
Judaizare," Vulg., Clarom., iudaivis- 
kon, Goth. ; not merely synonymous 
with lovHaiKus ?> (Schott, comp. Syr.), 
but probably a little more definite and 
inclusive, and carrying with it the idea 
of a more studied imitation and obe 
dience; compare Esth. viii. 17. 


G A L A T I A X S . 

CHAP. II. 15, 16. 


16. TUTTCWS Xp(TToi)] TYseA. omits Xpiarov, with FG ; Bocrn. ; Tert. Thcod. 
(1), but here again on insufficient external authority, and not without the omis 
sion seeming to bo intentional, to avoid the thrice-repeated Xp. in one verse. In 
favor of the text are ABCDE; mss. ; Clarom., Vulg., al. ; Chrys. (2), (Rec., 
Griesb., Schok, Lachm., De W.). 

15. iin (Is K. r. \.] We, sell, you 
and I, and others like us ; Koivoiroiti rb 
\ey6fj.(voi/, Chrys. St. Paul here begins, 
as Meyer observes, with a concessive 
statement : We, I admit, have this ad 
vantage, that by birth we are Jews, not 
Gentiles, and consequently (ol consecu 
tive, comp. notes on 1 Thcss. iv., 1 and 
Klotz, Decar. Vol. i. p. 107) as such, 
sinners." In the very admission, how 
ever, there seems a gentle irony ; born 
Jews yes, and nothing more sinners 
of the Jews at best ; comp. Stier, Ephex. 
Vol. i. p. 257. "With regard to the 

construction, it seems best with Ilcrm. 
to supply ta-/j.ti> to this verse, which thus 
constitutes a concessive protasis, ver. 16 
(fiSSrts St K. T. \.) supplying the apo- 
dosis. It is now scarcely necessary to 
add, that in sentences of this nature 
there is no ellipsis of /jLtv : recte autcm 
ibi non ponitur (ntv) ubi aut mm sequi- 
tur membrum oppositum, aut scriptores 
oppositionem addere nondum constitue- 
rant, aut loquentes alterius rr^embri op 
positionem quiicunquc de causa non 
indixerunt, Fritz. Rom. x. 19, Vol. n. 
p. 423 ; compare Jelf, (fr. J 770, and 
Euttmann, Mid. (Excurs. xn.) p. 148. 
This verse and what follows have been 
deemed as addressed to the Galntians 
either directly (Calv. Grot ), or indirectly, 
in the form of meditative musings ( Jow- 
ett), but with but little plausibility. 
The speech soems clearly continued to 
the end of the chapter (Chrys., Theod., 
Jiroine), and to be the substance of what 
was said : it is not, however, unnatural 
also to supjxisc that it may here be ex 
pressed in a slightly altered form, and 

in a shape calculated to be more intel 
ligible, and more immediately applicable 
to the Apostle s present readers. For a 
paraphrase, see notes to Tratisl., and 
also Usteri, Lehrb n. 1. 2, p. 161. 
tpvfftt] by nature; not merely by 
habit and custom as the proselytes ; ix 
ytvovs Kal ov irpoffT)\vroi, Theod. Mops. 
This passage is important as serving to 
fix the meaning of <pvffts in loci day mat- 
id, such as Eph. ii. 3 : see esp. Stier, 
Ephes. Vol. I. p. 257. a/j.apr<e- 

A o i] The point of view from which a 
Jew must naturally consider them (Eph. 
ii. 12) ; perhaps with slight irony (Stier, 
lied. Jcs. Vol. vi. p. 307). That they 
were so regarded needs no other proof 
than such expressions as Tt\wvat Kal 
a.jj.aprta\oi ; comp. Tobit xiii. 6. 

16. fi56rfs 5 ] but as ice know, 
^ > 

,9 ^\, _ASf [quia novimus] 

Syr. ; causal participle ( Jclf, Gr. 607, 
Fchmalfcld, Synt. 207) attached to 
^ , and introducing the apo- 
dosis to the concessive sentence. Recon- , 
sul erat ion seems still to show that of< 
the many explanations of this difficult 
passage, this is appy. the simplest. Ac 
cording to the common interpret., tiS. 5f 
.... Xpiffrov forms an interposed sen 
tence between ver. 15 and the latter part 
of ver. 16; but here 5e is a serious ob 
stacle, as its proper force can only be 
brought out by supplying although (De 
AV.) to ver. 15, unless, indeed, with Alf. 
we venture on the somewhat doubtful 
translation nevertheless, or fall back 
[with AIVK; some Vv. ; Greek Ff. 
(Rec. )] on the still more doubtful omis- 

/-^ ^sM^r.^L*^**"**^ 
**6 , 577//, ***. 

I J A ^- 3 - 


CHAP. II. 16. 

or i ov iKaiovrai 


e&ywv vouov eav arj 

- .-: 



Old TTiCr- 

l^ts, <J.<^7 

sion. S t K a t o D r a i] is justified, 

Deo probatus rcdditur ; T& SiKcuoCo-daj 
being in antithesis to T& fvpiffKto-dat,prw\6i>, ver. 17; see Schott in foe., 
where the different meanings of StKaiovcr- 
&at are explained with great perspicuity. 
The broad distinction to be observed is 
between (a) the absolute use of the verb, 
whether with regard to God (Luke vii. 
29), Christ (1 Tim. iii. 16), or men 
(Rom. iv. 2, James ii. 21) ; and (6) the 
relative use ( ratione habita vel contro 
versial, cui obnoxius fuerit, vel peccato- 
rum, qua? vere commiserit ). In this 
latter division we must again distinguish 
between the purely judicial meaning 
(Matth. xii. 37) and the far wider doy- 
maticul meaning, which involves the 
idea not only of forgiveness of past sins 
(Rom. vi. 7), but also of a spiritual 
change of heart through the in-working 
power of faith. See more in Schott in 
loc., and in Bull, Harm. Apost. Ch. I. 
2 (with Grabe s notes), and on the 
whole subject consult Homily on Salo. 
in. 1, Jackson, Creed, Book iv. 6, 7, 
Waterland on Jitstif. Vol. vi. p. 1 sq. 
and esp. the admirable explanations and 
distinctions of Hooker, Serm. n. Vol. 
m. p. 609 sq. (ed. Keble). i- 

epyuv v6nov\ by the works of the 
laic ; as the cause of the SixawvcrSai ; 
comp. Bull, Harm. Apost. Ch. i. 8, 
with the notes of Grabe, p. 16 (ed. 
Burt.). With regard to the exact force 
of IK, it may be observed that in its 
primary ethical sense it denotes (a) ori 
gin (more immediate, airb more remote) ; 
from which it passes through the inter 
mediate ideas of () result from, and 
(y) consequence of, to that of (S) nearly 
direct causality (Rost u. Palm, Lex. /c, 
rv. 1), thus closely approximating to 
wrb with a gen. (a common use in 


Herod.) and 810 with a gen. (Fritz. 
Rom. v. 16, Vol. r. p. 332). In rmmy 
cases it is hard to decide between these 
different shades of meaning, especially 
in a writer so varied in his use of prepp. 
as St. Paul : here, however, we are guided 
both by the context and by the analogy 
of Scripture. From both it seems clear 
that K is here in its simple causal sense ; 
the whole object of the speech being to 
show that the works of the law have no 
causalis fvfpyaa in man s justification. 
On the contrary, in the antithetical pas 
sage in St. James (ch. ii 24) just as 
SiKaioiJcr&ai has a slightly different (more 
inclusive) meaning (see Hooker, Serm. 
ii. 20), so also has the prep., which 
proportionately recedes from ideas of 
more direct, to those of more remote 
causality (causa sine quft non) ; comp. 
Hamm., Pract. Culech. p. 78 (A. C. L.). 
i/6/j.ov] Gen. object i : deeds by which 
the requisitions of the law are fulfilled," 
corum pr?estationem qua3 lex pnccipit 
(Beza), the C iinn fx-J TS of the 
Rabbinical writers, and the directly 
antithetical expression to au.aprrifj.aT a 
VQ/J.OV, Wisdom ii. 12 (Mey. ) ; see exx. 
in Winer, Gr. $ 30. 1, p. 167. The 
v6fj.os here, it need scarcely be said, is- 
rot merely the ceremonial (Theod., al. )> 
but the whole law, the Mosaic law in 
its widest significance ; see Fritz. Rom. 
in. 20, Vol. i. p 179. s ar /LiV?] 

Two constructions here seem to be 
blended, ov SIK. &v&p. t tpytav VO/J.QV, and 
oi SIK. &v&f}. fay /J.TJ 5ict iricrrftas I. X. 
The two particles, though apparently 
equivalent in meaning to dAAa, never 
lose their proper exceptive force : see 
Fritz. Rom. xiv. 14, Vol. in. p. 195, 
and notes on ch. i. 7. Sta itia- 

r fia s 1 77 ff ov Xpiffrov] by faith in 
or on Jesus Christ ; per fidem in Jesu 



CHAP. II. 16 

cra/j,ev, va 
vop,ov, SioVt 

e/c Tr/crrefw? XpMrrov ical OUK e epywv 


Christo collocatam, Rom. iii. 22. Stier 
(Ephes. Vol. i. p. 447) explains ir/or. 
ITJCT. Xp. both here and (esp. ) ch. iii. 22, 
in a deeper sense, faith which belongs 
to, has its foundation in Christ" (comp. 
Mark xi. 22, Ephes. iii. 12), the gen. 
ITJO-. Xp. being the gen. subjecti. This 
view may deserve consideration in other 
places, but here certainly the context 
and preceding antithesis stem decidedly 
in favor of the more simple gen. objccti. 
It may be observed that 8ii here closely 
approximates in meaning to t* below, 
the same idea of causality being (as 
Meyer suggests) expressed under two 
general forms, origin and means. AVe 
must be careful, then, not to press un 
duly the distinction between the prepp. : 
the antithesis is here not so much be 
tween the modes of operation, as between 
the very nature and essence of the prin 
ciples themselves. As to the doctrinal 
import of 5ia Trio-recus, AVaterland (on 
Jitstif. p. 22) well remarks, that faith 
is not the mean by which grace is 
wrought or conferred, but the mean 
whereby it is accepted or received ; it is 
1 the only hand, as Hooker appropriately 
says, which putteth on Christ to justifi 
cation. Sfrm. it. 31 : consult also Forbes, 
Cons id. Mod. l!ook i. 3. 1013. 
The order Xpurrov Irjo-oD is adopted by 
Lachm., but on external authority [ AB ; 
Aug.] that cannot be deemed sufficient, 
/col tj/t.f is] ire also ; nos efiam 
quanquam natalibus Judaci, legi Mosis 
obnoxii, Schott. tiriffTfvo-a- 

fj. e v fls Xp. 1 77 T.] put our faith in 
Jtsus Christ ; not have become be 
lievers, Peile, but simply aoristie, the 
tense pointing to the particular time 
when this act of faith was first man 
ifested : see AVindischm. in loc. In 
the formula iriffrevtiv iV with ace., 

less usual in St. Paul s Epp. (Rom. 
x. 14, i. 29), but very common in St. 
John, the preposition retains its proper 
force, and marks not the mere direc 
tion of the belief (or object toward which), 
but the more strictly theological ideas of 
union and incorporation with ; compare 
notes on ch. iii. 27, Winer, Gr. 31. 
5, p. 191, and for the various construc 
tions of Tritrret/w in the New Testament, 
notes on 1 Tim. i. 17, and Reuss, Thtol. 
Chrit. iv. 14, Vol. n. p 129. The dis 
tinction drawn by Alf. between Xp. 1770-. 
in this clause and ITJO-. Xp. above seems 
very precarious, esp. in a passage where 
there is so much diff. of reading. 
Si6ri] because that, propter quod, 

Vulg., ? \_A-Sr Sy r - ; scarcely for (it 

^^< w 

is an axiom that), Alf, for though 
Si6n [properly quam ob rem, and then 
quanta m] is often used by later writers 
in a sense little, if at all, differing from 
OTI (see Fritz. Rnm. i. 19, Vol. I. ;~>7), it 
does not also appear to be interchangeable 
with ydp, but always to retain some trace 
of its proper causal force ; comp. notes 
on 1 T/icss. ii. 8. The reading is 

doubtful. The text is supported by 
CD^EJK ; very many mss., Vv., and 
Ff, and is perhaps to be preferred, as 
Sri [Lacfim. with ABD FG ; 5 mss.] 
seems more probably a correction of the 
longer St6n, than the reverse. 
ov 5 IK ai<a&-h<r t T ai K. T. A. shall 
NOT bo justified, non justificabitur om- 
nis caro, Vulg. ; Rom. iii. 20, c:>mp. 
Psalm cxliii. 2, ov Stxaicii^rfaerai tvuirtuv 
ffov Tras (wv : a somewhat expressive He 
braism (sec Ewald, Gr. p. 6o7), accord- \M 
ing to which ov is to be closely associated 
with the verb, and the predication re 
garded as comprehensively and em 
phatically negative ; non-justification is 

CHAP. II. 17. 



17 ei Be fyrovvres &iKaiafef)vcu ev Xpicrry vper)[j,v Kal avrol 

predicated of all flesh ; see "\Vincr, Gr. 
26. 1. p. 155, Vorst, de Hebraisnds, p. 
519, Fritz. Rom. iii. 20, Vol. i. p. 179, 
and comp. Thol. Beitrdge, No. 15, p. 
79. The future is here ethical, i. e. it 
indicates not so much mere futurity as 
moral possibility, and with ov, some 
thing that neither can nor will ever 
happen : see esp. Thiersch, de Pent. in. 
11, p. 148 sq., where this and similar 
uses of the future are well illustrated ; 
comp. Bernhardy, Synt. x. 5, p. 377, 
Winer, Gr. $ 40. 6, p. 251. On 

the doctrinal distinctions in St. Paul s 
Epp. between the pres., perf., and fut. 
of SiKcuoiiffScu with TT UTTIS, see Usteri, 
Lehrb. n. 1. 1, p. 90 ; compare Pcile, 
Append. Vol. n. note D. The order ov 
Si/c. e| epytav VOIM. (Rec.) is only found 
inJK; mss. ; Goth., a!.; Theod. (1), 
al., and is rejected by all recent critics. 

17. 8] But if, in accordance 
with these premises of thine, assuming 
the truth of these thy retrogressive 
principles ; ffv\\oy teTui ra elpijueva, 
Theod. rirovi>Tfs] quaren- 

tcs inventi sumus ; nervosum antithe- 
ton, Beng. 4v X p i ff r to] in 

Christ i not through Christ, (Peile), 
but in Christ, in mystical union 
with him ; see Winer, Gr. 48. a, p. 
346, note. It is right to notice that this 
distinction between tv nvt and 5ia nvos 
is strongly opposed by Fritz. ( Opusc. p. 
184, note), and considered merely gram 
matically, his objections deserve consid 
eration ; but here, as only too often 
(comp. Rom. Vol. n. p. 82 sq.), he puts 
out of sight the theological meaning 
which appears regularly attached to tv 
XpHTTca. In the present passage the 
meaning is practically the same, which 
ever translation be adopted ; but in the 
one the deep significance of the formula 
(union, fellowship, with Christ) is kept 
in view, in the other it is obscured and 

lost sight of; comp. notes on Eph. i. 3, 
ii. 6. ( vp t & 17 n ( f] were found, 

to be, after all our seeking ; not either 
a Hebraism, or a periphrasis of the verb 
substantive (Kypke, Obs. Vol. i. p. 2). 
The verb fupuric. has always in the N. T. 
its proper force, and indicates not merely 
the existence of a thing, but the man 
ifestation or acknowledgment of that 
existence ; if we are found (deprehendi- 
rnur), in the eyes of God and men, to be 
sinners ; comp. Matth. i. 18, Luke xvii. 
18, Acts viii. 40, Rom. vii. 10, al., and 
see esp. Winer, in loc., and dr. $ 65. 8, 
p. 542. icai aii rot] ourselcea 

also, as much as those whom we proudly 
regard only as Gentiles and sinners, 
a pa] ergone f are we to say, as we 
must on such premises ? ironical and 
interrogative: not &pa (Chrys., list, 
al.) ; for though in two out of the three 
passages in which apa occurs (Luke xviii. 
8, Acts viii. 38) it anticipates a negative, 
and not as here, an affirmative answer, it 
must still be retained in the present case, 
as fj.i] ytvoiro in St. Paul s Epp. is never 
found except after a question. The par 
ticle has here probably an ironical force, 
are we to say pray," i. e. in effect, we 
are to say, I suppose, see Jelf, Gr. 873. 
2. It is thus not for &p" ov at all times 
a very questionable position, as in most 
if not all of such cases, it will be found 
that there is a faint irony or politely as 
sumed hesitation, which seems to have 
suggested the use of the dubitative apa, 
even though it is obvious that an affirm 
ative answer is fully expected. The same 
may be said of ne* for nonne : see rsp. 
Kiihner, Xen. Mem. n. 6, and ib. Tuscul. 
Disput. ii. 11, 26 ; compare Stallb. Plato, 
Rep. vin. 566 A. The original identity of 
apa and apa ( Klotz, Devar. Vol. n. p. 180) 
is impugned (appy.with doubtful success) 
by Dunbar, Class. Museum, Vol. v. p. 102 
sq., see Shepherd, ib. Vol. v. p. 470 sq. 



CHAP. II. 17, 18. 

a^iaprwkoi, apa Xpio-ros 
a rcareXvcra ravra 

&IO.KOVOS ; /i?) yevoiro. 18 et 
, 7rapa/3u.TT]v l/j,avrbv 

a/iapT/as SiaKovosl rt minister of 
sin ; sell., in effect, a promoter, a fur- 
therer of it (comp. 2 Cor. xi. 15), one 
engaged in its service ; a/Mtpria being al 
most personified, and, as its position sug 
gests, emphatically echoing the preceding 
0/xapraiA.o. , of sin (not of righteous 
ness), of a dispensation which not only 
leaves us where we were before, but causes 
us, when we exclusively follow it, to be 
for this very reason accounted sinners ? 
E( 5 tin rbv vouov Ka.Ta\nr6isrts Ty 
XptvTia iT(>oa-f\ri\v&aiJifv .... irapd/3affis 
[or rather, a/j.apr!a\ TOVTO vfv6fj.iffTa.i, tls 
avrbv 77 atria x.tap-(](rfi rbv 8ea"jr6Tr]i> Xpicr- 
T(ic, Theod. ; comp. Chry. in loc. The 
argument is in fact a rerliictio ad absur- 
dum : if seeking for justification in Christ 
is only to lead us to be accounted sinners, 
not merely as being without law and 
in the light of Gentiles (Mey.), but as 
having wilfully neglected an appointed 
means of salvation, then Christ, who 
was the cause of our neglecting it, must 
needs be, not only negatively but posi 
tively, a minister of sin ; see De "\Vctte 
in loc. jt 77 y v o i r o] be it not 

so far be it, absit," Vulg., . m A 


fpropitius fuit ; compare Matth. xvi. 22] 
Syr., . e. in effect (esp. in a context like 
the present), God forbid Auth. This 
expressive formula, though not uncom 
mon in later writers (see exx. in Ilaphcl, 
Annnt. Vol. 11. p. 249, compare Sturz. 
Dial. Maccd. p. 204), only occurs in the 
N. T. in St. Paul s Epp. ; viz. Rom. iii. 
4, 6, 31, vi. 2, 15, vii. 7, 13, ix. 14, xi. 
1, 11, I Cor. vi. 15, Gal. iii. 21. In all 
these cases it is intcrjcctional, and in all, 
except the last, rebuts (as Conyb. has 
remarked) an inference drawn from St. 
Paul s doctrine by an adversary. The 
nature of the inference makes the revul 

sion of thought (TOX^S iiroirrjSa, Dam.) 
either more or less apparent, and will 
usually suggest the best mode of trans 

hS. ti yap] For if; direct con 
firmation of the immediately preceding 
fj.^ ytvoiro (Usteri, Lehrb. n. 1. 2, p. 
162, note), and indirect and allusive ex 
pansion of the a/ji.apToo\oi : 1 
say HTJ yfifotro in ref. to Christ, for it is 
not in seeking to be justified in Him, but 
in seeking to, rebuild the same structure 
that I have destroyed (though nobler 
materials now lie around) that my sin, 
my transgression of the law s own prin 
ciples really lies. In the change to the 
first person sing, there may be a delicate 
application to St. Peter personally, which 
dementia; causa is expressed in this 
rather than in the second person (Alf., 
Mey. ) ; it must not be forg5tten, how 
ever, that the fervor as well as the intro 
spective character of St. Paul s writings 
leads him frequently to adopt this ^er- 
oo-xTjjuarto-jubs fls iavr6v, see esp. Rom. 
vii. 7 sq. ; so also 1 Cor. iii. 5 sq. iv. 3 
sq. vi. 12, x. 20, 30. xiii. 11, 12, etc.: 
comp. Knapp, Kcripta Var. Argnm. No. 
12, p. 431, 437. T av_-r_a] these . 

and nothing better in their place," f^( *- 
Meyer. The emphasis rests on ravra, 
not on f^ainAv (Olsh.), the position of 
which \Trapaf3. ^aur6f. not ejuaur. Trapa/3.] 
shows it clearly to be unemphatic. 
v apaftdrriv} transgressor, scil. -rov 


: ^S>, [tr 

gressor mandati] Syr. But in what 
particular manner: Surely not, in 
having formerly neglected what I now 
reassert" (Dc W., Alf.), a somewhat 
weak and anticlimactic reference to 
tvpt$r)uev o/uapT o> A. o i , but, as the 
following ydp, and the unfolding argu- 

fr. , &**-*. t^wCt^w 

t-vv/Wzi^e* <^CC^~^^&z J f^^^ tf ^f^ r . - 

c^c^iZx , ^^-^v^e-H^y <^- i^^^-t^b^^ t-t/^fcz^ Cj- 
-^v *- T^-4fo*~4zZ*4 &~*^^^*~*^. Cr> &>fyjei^4-&? . cf /*-* 
Acf~fi . ^^ . d2^> -=5. -^vq^vO- / cA.^^fti^^z^-^cx^ 
+^i&SSl~*^j^O^*+*~^~JU^ Jtj^^ ^CU^&^f^***.*^ 

kUtfa, MJ-afztfc:* Avcv^^fe^v 

f iAs<+Jtr. ^/^ 

6: ^t o ,^) 4 ,/^:. ^az; 

^^ . eY U^^"\ Co ^ 

4KW ^^^mxA-C. *<^(. /- 


70 UT Ttrrf TC Zfy ov* {C*VT t>*i^ J*ct y 

N > < - // * ^ - . . fc 

iM/wj rcc*>.ur -P 

CHAP. II. 18, 19. 



70) yap 

ment seem clearly to require, in recon 
structing -what I ought to perceive is 
only temporary and preparative. Re 
construction of the same materials is, 
in respect of the law, not only a tacit 
avowal of an afjupria (fuptb. a/j.apr.) in 
having pulled it down, but is a real 
and definite napdBao-is of all its deeper 
principles. So, very distinctly, Chrys., 
Ixtivoi 8?|o< f/3ov\oi>TO, on b fj.r) rrjptav 
TOV v6fj.ov OVTOS fls rovvavriov 
irfpifTpefye rbv \6yov, SftKvvs on o TqpOav 

a\\a Kol avrov TOV v6t*.ov. The 

counter-argument that the /of ver. 18 
has given up faith in Christ, and so 
could never consider the law as prepara 
tive (Alf.), is of no real force; for in 
the first place the tyk had not given it 
up, but had only added to it, and in 
the next place, even had he done so, 
he might equally show himself a real 
though unconscious irapa$dTijv. 
4 fjLa.vr bv ffwiardvu] set myself 
forward, demonstrate myself to be: 
Hesych. <rvviffrdvtiv tiraivf iv, <p a v e- 
p o v v, fitfiaiovv, irapar&fvai. This mean 
ing, sinceris Atticis ignotum, Fritz, 
Rom. iii. 5, Vol. i. p. 159, deduces 
from the primary notion componendi ; 
ut esset ffuviffrrifj.1 rt, compositis collec- 
tisque quae rem contineant argumentis 
aliquid doceo : see exx. in Wetst. Rom. 
iii. 5, Schweigh. Lex. Polyb. s. v. The 
form avviaTi}fj.i (Rec.), only found in 

mss. and Ff., seems a mere 
grammatical gloss. 

19. e* y i) yap] For I truly : ep- 
planatory confirmation of the preceding 
assertion ; the explicative yap showing 
how this rehabilitation of the law actually 
amounts to a transgression of its true 
principles, while the emphatic tyb adds 
the force and vitality of personal experi 
ence. In the retrospective reference of 
adopted by De "W. and Alf. 


(see above), the 70? loses all its force; it 
must either be referred, most awkwardly, 
to pri ytvono (D. W. ), or, still worse, be 
regarded as merely transitional. 
8(0 v6pov v6fj.(a airfbav ov] through 
the laic died to the laic. Of the many 
explanations of these obscure words the 
following ( derived mainly from Chrys. ) 
appears by far the most tenable and 
satisfactory. The result may be summed 
up in the following positions : ( 1 ) N<{- 
lios in each case has the same meaning. 
(2) That meaning, as the context re 
quires, must be the Mosaic law (ver. 
16), no grammatical arguments founded 
on the absence of the article (Middleton 
in loc ) having any real validity ; comp. 
exx. in Winer, Gr. 19, p.-m: (3) 
The law is regarded under the same 
aspect as in Rom vii. 6 13, a passage in 
strictest analogy with the present. (4) 
Aia v6fi o v must not be confounded with 
5ia von ov or Kara v6p.ov , it was through 
the instrumentality of the law (5ia r. 
tvro\r)s, Rom. vii. 8) that the sinful 
principle worked within and brought 
death upon all. (5) Airt&avov is not 
merely legi valedixi (comp. Karrjpy^- 
frrjv airb rov yA/j.ov), but expresses gener 
ally what is afterwards more specifically 
expressed in ver. 20 by awttnavpta^cu. 
(6) NoVy is not merely the dative of 
reference to, but a species of dative 
commodi ; the expressions ^f\v rivt and 
airo&av. nvt having a wifie application ; 
see Fritz. Rom. xiv. 7, Vol. in. p. 176 ; 
I died not only as concerns the law, 
but asthg law required. The 

whole clause then may thus be para 
phrased : /, through the law, owing to 
sin, was brought under its curse ; but 
having undergone this, with, and in the 
person of Christ (ch. iii. 13, compare 2 
Cor. v. 14), I died to the law in the full 
est and deepest sense, being both free 
from its claims, and having satisfied its 





CHAP. II. 19, 20. 


<TVvea"ravpft)p,ai cu Se ov/cen eya), "/} Be ev e /iot Xpi<r- 
8e vvv w ev vapid, ev Trio-ret <w 7/7 rov vlov rov 

curse. The difference between this and 
the common interpretations lies princi 
pally in the fuller meaning assigned to 
iirtdavov, and its reference to owtor. 
A careful investigation will be found in 
TJsteri, Lehrb. a. 1. 2, p. 164 sq. 
77 a (a | may live; not a future (Alf. ), 
an anomalous usage (see notes on ver. 
4) that it is surely unnecessary to ob 
trude on the present passage but the 
regular nor. subj. (1 Thess. v. 10), the 
tense of the dependent clause being in 
idiomatic accordance with that of the 
leading member; compare Schmalfeld, 
Synt. 141. 1, p. 296. 

20. X p tff T < ffvvfffT. I have been 
and am crucified with Christ ; more 
exact specification of the preceding ant- 
Sbavov. This a-vvtffTavp. it need searcely 
be said, did not consist merely in the 
crucifixion of the lusts (ch. v. 24, Grot.), 
but in that union with Christ according 
to which the believer shares the death 
of his crucified Lord ; firdS-rj tv rtf jSair- 
TiVjuarj rou Te Savarou Kai Trjj eu/aer- 
TotTfuis TVTTOV ^it\ripouv, <rvffTa.vpova&ai 
i\fyovro r<f Xpurr a, Tlieod. Mops, in 
loc. a> St ovKtTi 4 y a>] I 

live however no lonr/er tnysvlf, i. e. my 
old self; see Rom. vi. 6, and compare 
Neand. Plant., Vol. i. p. 422 (Bohn). 
The familiar but erroneous punctuation 
of this clause (o> Se, OUKITI iyai, rj 8e 
K. T. \.) has been rightly rejected by all 
recent editors exeept Scholz. The only 
passing difficulty is in the use of 5 : it 
docs not simply continue (Iliiek., Peile), 
or expand (Ust.) the meaning of Xp. 
ffvvtffr. but reverts with its proper ad 
versative force to Lva. QftZ ^TJITCO, ffvufffr., 
being not so much a link in the chain 
of thought, as a rapid and almost paren 
thetical epexegesis of a*(S>avoi . 
{rj 8i] The it does not introduce any 

opposition to the preceding negative 
clause (it would then be oAAa), but 
simply marks the emphatic repetition 
of the same verb (Hartung, 1 urtik. S, 
2. 17, Vol. i. p. 168), just, retaining, 
however, that sub-adversative force 
which is so common when a clause is 
added, expressing a new, though not 
a dissimilar thought ; see Klotz, Devar. 
Vol. ii. p. 361. On the doctrinal 

import of ?? iv ^uoi Xp. ( Christ and 
His Spirit dwelling in them, and as the 
soul of their souls moving them unto 
such both inward and outward actions, 
as in the sight of God are acceptable ), 
see Hooker, Scrm. in. 1, Vol. m. p. 764 
sq. (ed. Keble.) & 5 vvv u] 

yes, the life which now I live ; explan 
atory and partially concessive clause, 
obviating the possible objection arising 
from the seeming incompatibility of the 
assertion ; tv /j.ol Xp. with the fact 
of the actual ^r tv cTapxi : it is true, 
says the Apostle, I do yet live in the 
flesh, an earthly atmosphere is still 
around me, but even thus I live and 
breathe in the pure element of faith, 
faith in him who loved me, yea and 
(xal) gave such proofs of his love. 
"SVith regard to the construction it is 
only necessary to observe that & is not 
quod attinet ad id quod (Winer), but 
simply the accus. nbjecti after ii, scil. 
T-TIV 8 fariv V vvv fa : comp. Kom. vi. 
10, & yap arrfdavf, and see Fritz, in loc., 
Vol. i. p. 893. 5f is thus not 

merely continuative (De"\V.), but serves 
both to limit and explain the preceding 
words (comp. I Cor. i. 16, and "Winer, 
Gr. I) -53. 7. b, p. 393), its true opposi- 
tive force being sufficiently clear when 
the suppressed thought (see below) is 
properly supplied ; see Klot/, Devar. 
Vol. ii. p. 366. vvv] The refer- 

= (i) 

CHAP. IL 20, 21. 


S. /V 

f v 

rov dyaTrria-avros u.e KOI irapaoovrof eavrov imep eiiov. 21 OVK 


rrjv yapix rov Seoir el yap Bid vopov oi/caiocrvvri, dpa 
oa>pedv dire^savev. 

illustratively subjoining the practical 
proof; see Fritz. Rom. ix. 23, Vol. n. 
p. 339, and on this and other uses of 
KOI , notes on Phil. iv. 12. vtrtp 

4/Liov] for me, pro me, Vulg.; to 
atone for me and to save me. On the 
dogmatical meaning of this prep., see 
notes on ch. iii. 13. 

21. ov K d & e T w] I do not make 
void, nullify ; not abjicio, Vulg., still 
less oTtjuo^w, Theod., but non irritam 
facio, scil. ut dicam per legem esse 
justitiam, Aug. : compare 1 Cor. i. 19, 
rr;i> ffvvfffiv rtav ffviffrtaf a&tTr)ffiv ; ch. 
iii. 15, ddfTei (ota&-()K7]i>) ; so 1 Mace. 
XV. 27, Ti$fTt](Tf irdvTa. off a ffvvt&fro aintf ; 
and frequently in 1 olyb., see Schweigh. 
Lex. s. v. The verb is sometimes found 
in the milder sense of despising, re 
jecting, etc. with persons (Luke x. 
16, John xii. 48, I Thess. iv. 8); but 
this obviously falls short of the meaning 
in the present context. T^V 

X&piv rov o v] the grace of God, 
as shown in the death of Christ, and 
our justification by faith in Him ; not 
the Gospel, as Hamm. on Heb. xiii. 9. 
In our justification, as it is well said 
in the Homilies, there are three things 
which go together, on God s part His 
grace and mercy ; upon Christ s part 
the satisfaction of God s justice; and 
upon our part true and lively faith in 
the merits of Jesus Christ, on Salvat. 
Part i. 7 o p explains and jus 

tifies the preceding declaration ; I say 
OVK abfru, for it is an immediate in 
ference that if the law could have been 
the medium of SIKOKMT., Christ s death 
would have been purposeless. 
8 jo vofiov] by means of the law, as 
a medium of Swaioavn] : emphatic, as 
the position shows, and antithetical to 

ence of this particle is doubtful. It may 
specify the period since the Apostle s 
conversion, but is much more plausibly 
referred by Chrys., Theod., al. to the 
present life in the flesh, haec vita mea 
terrestris ; see Phil. i. 22. In the 
former case the qualitative and tacitly 
contrasting iv (rapid ( earthly existence, 
life in the phenomenal world, alff^rjr^ 
fay, Chrys. ; comp. Miiller, on Sin, Vol. 
i. p. 4-53, Clark) would seem wholly 
superfluous. iv iritrr e i] in 

faith. The instrumental sense, by 
faith, adopted by Theodoret, and seve 
ral ancient as well as modern expositors, 
is, though inexact, not grammatically 
untenable. The deeper meaning of the 
words is, however, thus completely lost. 
On this Itfe in faith see the middle 
and latter portion of a profound paper, 
Bemerk. zum Begrijfe der Religion, 
by Lechler, Stud. u. Kritik. for 1851, 
Part iv. rfjrovvLOvrou 

t o v] namely that of the Son of God; 
distinctive, and with solemn emphasis, 
the insertion of the article serving 
both to specify and enhance, in fide, 
eaque Filii dei (see notes on 1 Tim. i. 
13, and on 2 Tim. i. 13), while the 
august title, by intimating the true 
fountain of life (John v. 26) tends to 
add confirmation and assurance ; orav 
irtpl rov Tiov votlv t &e Aijf, fj.a$iav riva 
4o~rl TO tf Ttf Harpi, ravra al V rtf Yi-u 
flvai irio-Tfve, Athan. on Matth. xi. 27, 
Vol. i. p. 153, (ed. Bened.). The 

reading of Lachm. rrj rov beov Ka\ 
Xpicnov, rov ay. is supported by HD FG ; 
Clarom., but has every appearance of 
heing a gloss; see Meyer (critical notes), 
p. 29. Kal it apa&6vr os K.r.\.] 

and (as a proof of his love) gave Him 
self, etc. ; the ical being ^Tryiyrj/ccfj , and 


CHAP. II. 21 III. 1. 

III. */2 dvoTjrot FaXdrat, T/<? v 

O foolish Galatians, i not 
the Si>irit which ye have 
received un evidence thut justification is by faith, and nut by the works ol the law? 

Xpcrrbj in the succeeding clause. In the 
present verse it is in effect asserted that 
the v6pos is not a medium of SiKaiovvvr) 
(fis Kryaiv 5tKaio<Tvi>r)s apxti, Theod.) ; 
in ch. iii. 11, it is asserted not to be the 
sphere of it, and in ch. iii. 21, not the 

origin. oiKaioffvvi\\ right- 

eousness, j^ax^?! Syr., justitia, 


Vulg. ; not equivalent to 5(*aiWjj 
("Whately, Dangers, etc., 4) nor yet, 
strictly considered, the result of it, but 
appy. in the most inclusive meaning of 
the term righteousness, whether im 
puted, by which we are accounted 8/- 
Kaiot, or infused and inherent, by which 
we could be found so ; see Hooker, Se.rm. 
ii. 3, 21, where the distinction between 
justifying and sanctifying righteousness 
is drawn out with admirable perspicuity. 
On the meaning of the word, sec An- 
drewes, Serm. v. Vol. v. p 114 (A. C. L.) f 
"\Vaterland, Justif. Vol. vi. p. 4, and for 
Fome acute remarks on its lexical as 
pects, Knox, Remains, Vol. n. p. 276. 
& p a] then, i. e. the obvious inference 
is. On the meaning of opo, see notes, 
ch. v. 1 1 . 5 to p t d v] for nought, 

without cause ; not here frustni (Grot. ), 
sine effectu, but sine jiistd causa, 
Tittm. Synon. i. p. 161 ; trepirrbs 6 TOV 
\pta-Tov daVaTor, Chrys., superfine mor- 
tuus cst Chr., Jerome : comp. John xv. 
25, ln iffyadv M Swptdv ; Psalm xxxiv. 
(xxxv.) 7, owpfdv (Kpv\j/dv fjiot 5ia~p&opdv 
(Symm. avair tut) . So CS~, which the 
LXX frequently translate by Swpfdv, has 
the meaning in nullum bonum finom, 
as well as gratis and frustra : eomp. 
Gescn. Lex. s. v., Vorst, de Hebraism. 
vn. 6, p. 228, 229. 

CHAPTER III. 1. a^T/roi PaA.] 
foolish Gnlatinns ; fervid and indig 
nant application of the results of the 

preceding demonstration to the case of 
his readers. The epithet avdnTos is used 
in three other passages by St. Paul, 
Rom. i. 14, opp. to ffocp6s; 1 Tim. vi. 
9, joined with f)\af3tpos ; Tit. iii. 3, with 
diret&7)j and ir\auwfj.(vos, and in all 
seems to mark not so much a dulness in 
( insensati, Vulg.), as a deficiency in, 
or rather an insufficient application of, 

. 7 . 

the vovs ; comp. Syr. j \ ^Vi * * rr> ^ 

00* ~ ~ 

[destituti mente], and Luke xxiv. 15, 
where while po5i/s frj xapSia denotes 
the defect in heart, avuvros seems to 
mark the defect in head; comp. Tittm. 
Si/non. I p. 144, where this word is de 
fined somewhat artificially, but rightly 
distinguished from &q>p<i>v and otrtWroj 
which seem to point respectively rather 
to senselessness and slowness of under 
standing. It cannot then be as 
serted (Brown) that the Galatians were 
proverbially stupid ; compare Callim. H. 
Del. 184, &cppovt <pi i\ca. Themistius, 
who himself spent some time in the 
(then extended Forbig. (ieogr. Vol. 11. 
p. 364) province, gives a very different 
character : ol Of fivSpes "ia-rt on oe?s Kal 

v<av Kal Tptfiwviov irapatyavivros e 
IJM.VTI fu&vs, SiffTTtp TTJS \idov TO (nSypia, 
Ortit. 23, ad fin. p. 299 (ed. Ilardnin). 
Versatility and inconstancy, as the Epis 
tle shows (comp. notes on ch. i. 6), were 
the true characteristic s of the Galatian. 
Foolishness must have been often, as in 
the present case, not an unnatural con 
comitant, u/ua? ift<!iffKa.vtv\ 
did bewitch you, fascinavit vos, Vulg , 
Clarom. The verb @a(TKaivca is derived 
from jSofo), &d<TKia (Pott. Etym. Forsch. 
Vol. i. p. 271), and perhaps signified 
originally mala lingua nocere ; comp. 
Benfcy, Wurzellex. Vol. n. p. 104. Here, 
however, the reference appears rather to 




CHAP. III. 1, 2. 





rovro fiovov 

the bewitching influence of the evil eye 
(compare Ecclus. xiv. 8, jScuncaipwi o<p- 
&aAyu<, and see Eisner, in loc., Winer, 
RWE. Art. Zauberei ) though not 
necessarily the evil eye of envy ( Chrys. ; 

comp. Syr. 

as in this latter sense 

/3a<r/c. is commonly with a dot. (but in 
Ecclus. xiv. 6, Ignat. Rom. 3, with 
accus.) ; see Lobeck, Phryn. p. 462, 
Pierson, Herodian, p. 470. The 

addition, rfj aA.7j&eia ^ irfibfff&cu [Rec. 
with CD3E 2 JK; mss. ; Vulg. (but not 
all mss.), JEth.-Pol., al. ; Ath ., Theod.], 
is rightly rejected by most modern edi 
tors, both as deficient in external author 
ity [omitted in ABD^FG ; 2 mss. ; 
Syr., and nearly all Vv.] f and as an 
apparent gloss from ch. v. 7. 
vpoeypdpri] was openly set forth, 
proscriptus est, Vulg., Clarom. The 
meaning of this word has been much 
discussed. The ancient (comp. Syr.) 
and popular gloss is ttaypa<t>ri$j] (The- 
oph., CEcum., and appy. Chrys., Theod.), 
but without any lexical authority: for 
common as is the use of ypd<f>w in a pic 
torial sense, there appears no certain in 
stance of tr p o ypd<pn> being ever so used ; 
see Rettig, Stud. u. Krit. 1830, p. 96 sq. 
We can then only safely translate -irpot- 
ypdipi) either (o) antea scriptus est, or 
(/8) palam scriptus est. Between these 
it is difficult to decide. Considered lex 
ically (a) seems the most probable ; for 
though (8) is appy. the more common 
meaning in Hellenic writers (Plutarch, 
Camitt. 11, comp. Polyb. Hist. xxxy. 
21. 12, al.), yet in the three other pas 
sages in the N. T. in which trpoypd<t>a> 
occurs, viz., Rom. xv. 4, Eph. iii. 3, 
Jude 4, it is used in the former sense. 
Both meanings occur in the LXX : (a) 
in 1 Esdr. vi. 32 (Aid. (0) in 1 Mace. 

x. 36. Contextual considerations seem, 
however, in favor of (8) ; as not only 
does this meaning harmonize best with 
the prominent and purely local KOT 
o$&a\/jiovs (compare /car o/xjuara, Soph. 
Ant iff. 756), but also best illustrate the 
peculiar and suggestive l&dffKavfv, 
which thus gains great force and point ; 
who could have bewitched you by his 
gaze, when you had only to fix your 
eyes on Christ to escape the fascination ; 
comp. Numb. xxi. 9. lv v/itp] 

among you ; not a Hebraistic pleonasm 
(<construi debet 4v ols v/juif, Grot.), but 
a regular local predicate appended to irpot- 
ypdtfnj, and appy. intended to enhance 
the preceding ols KO.T o<&. by a still 
more studied specification of place : not 
only had the truth been presented to 
them, but preached among them, with 
every circumstance of individual and 
local exhibition. According to the usual 
connection iv fyuj/ is joined with (trravp. 
(comp. Chrys.), but in that case both 
perspicuity and emphasis would have 
required the order taravp. tv vfuv, while 
in the present the isolation of (ff-ravp. is 
in accordance with the natural order, 
and adds greatly to the pathos and em 
phasis; see 1 Cor. i. 23, and compare 1 
Cor. ii. 2. On the force of the perf. 
part, as implying the permanent charac 
ter of the action, see Winer, Gr. 45. 
1, p. 305, Green, Gr. p. 308. It 

may be observed that Lachm. (Griesb. 
om. om.) omits tv with ABC; 10 
mss. ; Amit., Tol., Syr., al., but with 
but little probability, as the omission of 
such a seemingly superfluous clause can 
easily be accounted for, but not the 

2. T OVT o n6vov\ this only, not 
to mention other arguments which might 
be derived from your own admissions; 



CHAP. III. 2, 3. 

epycav vopov rb lived/Mi e\d/3ere r) e a/co?}? 7rtcrTe<u<? ; 3 OUTGO? dvorjToi 

1 de co quod promptum est sciscitor, 
Jerome. fj.a& f?v a $> v n<ei>} 

to learn of you, Auth. Ver. ; not for 
irapa fytajc (Ruck.) which would imply 
a more immediate and direct communi 
cation, but with the proper force of airo, 
which, us a general rule (Col. i. 7, seems 
an exception), indicates a source less ac 
tive and more remote ; contrast 2 Tim. 
iii. 14, and see Winer, Gr. $ 47, air6, p. 
331 note; comp. notes also on ch. i. 12. 
For exx. of this use of fiadt iv, not to 
learn as a disciple,* with an ironical 
reference (Luth., Beng. ), but simply to 
arrive at a knowledge, see exx. in Rost 
u. Palm, Lex. s. v., and compare Acts 
xxiii. 27. rb Ilvtvua] the 

Spirit, -rty rocravrriv iaxv", Chrys. ; de 
Spiritu miraculorum loqui hie apostolum 
patet, Bull, Harm. Ap. Part n. 11. 8. 
Is it not, however, necessary to under 
stand this as the exclusive meaning, 
much less to explain it, with Baur, 
Apost. Paulus, p. 515, as das Christ- 
liche Bewusstseyn : see next verse. 
aicori s TriffTfus may be translated, 
either (a) the hearing of faith, i. e. the 
reception of the Gospel (Brown), or () 
the report or message of faith, i. e. the 
preaching which related to, had as its 
subject iriffTis (gen. objecti), according 
as O.KO}) is taken in an active or passive 
sense. The former might seem to pre 
serve a better antithesis to tp-y<ai>, 
hearing the doctrine of faith, opp. 
to doing the works of the law (Schott, 
Peile; comp. JEth.), but is open to the 
decided lexical objection that CLKO)] ap 
pears always used in the N. T. in a pas 
sive sense (so both in Horn. x. 17 [see 
Fritz ], and in 1 Thess. ii. 13, where see 
notes), and to the contextual objection 
that the real opposition is not between 
the doing and the hearing, but between 
the two principles, faith and the law, 
the question in effect being, & v6iu>* v/> 

fv rov Seiou Hvtv/j-aros tvfpyeiav, *; 
T] tirl rbv Kvpiov incr-ru, Thcod. We 
may, then, with some confidence, adopt 
(/8) ; so Goth, ( gahauseins ), Arm., and 
recently De Wette, Meyer, and the best 
modern commentators. 

3. ovras a.v6t\Toi\ to so high a 
degree, so very foolish , with reference 
to what follows: quum OVTUS cum ad- 
jectivo nomine aut adverbio copulatur, 
reddes non solum ita, adco, verum 
etiam usque adco, Steph. Thesaur. 
s. v.Yol. v. p. 2433, where several exx. 
are cited ; e, g. Isoc. Paneg. 43 D, OVTU 
fnfyd.\a.s, Xen. Cijr. II. 216, O JTU iro\e- 
fuov. 4va.pdfj.ei oi\ after 

having begun ; temporal participle re 
ferring to the previous fact of their first 
entrance into Christian life. On the 
temporal force cf the participle, see notes 
on Eph. iv. 8, but reverse the accident 
ally transposed subsequent to and 
preceding ; and on the force of the 
compound (more directly concentrated- 
action), see notes on Phil. i. 6. e^ ^. V 
Tlvtv juar j] with the Spirit; dat. of 
the manner (modal dat.) in which the 
action took place ; see Winer, Gr. 31. 
6, p. 193, Bernhardy, Synt. in. 14, p 
100, Jelf, Gr. fi03. The meaning of 
TTffCjuct and ffa.f) in this verse has been 
the subject of considerable discussion. 
Of the earlier expositors, Theodoret par 
aphrases irv. by 7*7 x<^P y <T ff nv *7 xarit 
v6fj.ov TToAiTfi a (so Waterl. Distinct, of 
Sarr. n. 10, Vol. v. p. 2f32), while 
Chrys. finds in <rop| a definite allusion 
to the circumcision ; comp. Eph. ii. 11. 
Alii alia. The most satisfactory view 
is that taken by Miillcr, Dort. of Sin, 
ch. 2, Vol. i. 35.5 sq. (Clark), viz., 
that when irvfvua is thus in ethical con 
trast with trdp^, it is to be understood of 
the Holy Spirit, regarded as the govern 
ing and directing principle in man, <rcpf, 
on the contrary, as the worldly tendency 

<^ /u^U 

CHAP. III. 3, 4. 




eVre; evap^dpevot, Hvevpcnt, vvv vapid eVtreXetcr^e; 4 rotravra 

of human life, the life and movement 
of man in things of the phenomenal 
world. If this be correct w. and <rap| 
are here used, not to denote Christianity 
and Judaism per se, but as it were the 
essence and active principle of each. 
iir tr t\f?ffb f] are ye brought to com 
pletion ? Not middle, as often in Hel 
lenic Greek (see Schweigh. Lex. Polyb. 
s. v.), but pass. ( Vulg., Clarom., Chrys ), 
as in 1 Pet. v. 9, comp. Phil. i. 6. The 
meaning of the compound must not be 
neglected ; it does not merely imply 
finishing (Ust., Peile), as opposed to 
beginning, but appears always to in 
volve the idea of bringing to a complete 
and perfect end; comp. 1 Sam. iii. 12, 
&poncu Kul eiriTf \4ffu ; see further exx. 
in Bretsch. Lex. s. v., and the good col 
lection in Host u. Palm. Lex. s. v. Vol. 
i. p. 1123, the most definite of which 
seems, Herod, ix. 64, ^ SI KTJ rov <j>6vou IK 

4. tird&f-rf] Did ye suffer? passi 

>- r 

estis, Vulg., Clarom., o ,-*; <n ^tr> [sus- 

\ A 

tinuistis] Syr., JEth. (both). The mean 
ing of this word has been much discussed. 
The apparent tenor of the argument, as 
alluding rather to benefits than to suf 
ferings, has led Kypke ( Obs. Vol. n. p. 
277, compare Schoettg. Ilor. Vol. i. p. 
731) and others to endeavor to substan 
tiate by exx. that ira<rx flv not on ty a 
word of neutral moaning, but, even 
actually signifies 

usage, however, of 

hich Steph. ( Thes. s. v.) rightly says 
exemplum desidero." For the neutral 
meaning ( experienced, ed. 1), as in 
cluding a reference to all the spiritual 
dispensations, whether sufferings or 
blessings, which had happened to 
(Arm.), or had been vouchsafed to the 
Galatians, much may be said, both 
lexically and contextually, still, on 

I without (5 or ayc&6v, 
I beneficiis rtffici, a u 
Thes s 

the one hand, the absence of any direct 
instance in the N. T. [even in Mark v. 
26, there is an idea of suffering in the 
background], and, on the other, the 
authority of the ancient Vv. and Greek 
expositors lead us now to revert to the 
regular meaning, suffered, and to refer 
it to the labors (Copt.), and persecutions 
which, in one form or other, must have 
certainly tried the early converts of Ga- 
latia ; see Chrys., Jerome, and the good 
note of Alford in loc. All these suffer 
ings were a genuine evidence of the eVop|- 
dfjievoi Tlt>fi>/j.aTt, and would be regarded 
and alluded to by the Apostle as blessed 
tokens of the Spirit s influence ; comp. 
1 Thess. ii. 13 sq., and the remarks of 
August, in h. I. ftyf K a\ (iKy] 

if indeed, or, if at least, it really be in 
vain. The sense of this clause has been 
obscured by not attending to the true 
force of (tyt and xai. efyt 

must not be confounded with ftirtp 
(Tholuck, Bcitrdije, p. 146) : the latter, 
in accordance with the extensive, or 
perhaps rather intensive force of irtp 
(Donalds. Crat. 178, compare Klotz. 
Devur. Vol. n. p. 723), implies si om- 
nino ; the former (fy), in accordance 
with the restrictive yt, is si quidem, 
and if resolved, turn cerfe, si ; ( ye ita 
tantummodo ad tollendam conditionem 
facit, quia turn certe, si quid flat, alitid 
esse significat, non nt ipsam conditionem 
confirmet, Klotz, Devar. Vol. n. p. 308), 
comp. p. 528. No inference, however, 
of the Apostle s real opinion can be 
drawn merely from the ye (fly* usur- 
patur de re qua3 jure sumpta, Herm. 
Viy. No. 310), as it is the sentence and 
not the particle which determines the 
rectitude of the assumption. 
Kal must closely be joined with iVf), 
and either (a), with its usual asrensive 
force ( quai asccnsionem ad earn rem 
quo pertineat particula ; Klotz, Devar. 

V VfMV TO HvVfJM / ; / C 


/ . * , ,5 

ro^ere ei/a/; et 76 /cat ei/o?. o ow 7rt^. r ., ,... _ r ... , .... 

u evepywv owd/jLi<; ev vp2v, e epywv vo^ov ?} e dKoijs 7ri<Trea)<i ; 

itutil children be justiHed, and share his blessing. 

Vol ii. p. 638), gives to the clause the 
meaning, if at least it amount to, t. e. 
be really in vain, or (b), with what may 
be termed its descensive force ( Odijss. i. 
68, see Ilartung, Partik. Kal, 2. 8, 
Vol. i. p. 136), serves to imply, if at 
least it be only in vain, i. e. has not 
proceeded to a more dangerous length, 
videndum ne ad perniciem valeat, 
August., Cocceius. Of these (6) is the 
most emphatic and pungent (so Mey. ; 
De W.), but (a) most characteristic of 
the large heart of the Apostle, and of 
the spirit of love and tenderness to his 
converts (ch. iv. 10), which is blended 
even with the rebukes of this Epistle ; 
so Chrys., and the Greek expositors ; 
comp. Brown, p. 112. 

5. o ovv Ivixoptiyc 1 ] H e then 
who is bestowing, etc. : resumption by 
means of the reflexive ovv (see below, 
and notes on Phil. ii. 1 ) of the subject 
of ver. 2 ; ver. 3 and 4 being in effect 
parenthetical The subject of this verse 
is not St. Paul (Lomb. Erasm.. al ), but, 
as the context, the meaning of, 
the nature of the action specified (^ir- 
Xopijy<av), and the permanence of the 
action implied by the tense pres. tVixo- 
pyyiav (comp. Winer, Gr. $ 45. 1, p. 301, 
Schmalfeld, Synt. 202, p. 40.5), all 
obviously suggest, God : & 0t<4$, (prjffiv, 

The force of 1*1 in lirixop. does not ap 
pear additive, but directive (see Host u. 
Palm, Lex. s. v., and ib. s. v. lirl, C. 3. 
cc), any idea of the freedom or ample 
nature of the gift (Winer, Peile), being 
due solely to the primary meaning of 
the simple verb ; see notes on Col. ii. 1 9, 
and compare 2 Cor. ix. 10, where both 
Xffriyt<t and lirixopriyrta occur in the 
same verse, and appy. in the same sense 

quantitatively considered. For exx. of 
the use of lirixop. in later writers see 
the collection of Hase, in Steph. Thes. 
s. v. Vol. in. p. 1902. On the 

present resumptive use of ovv after a 
(logical) parenthesis, which has been 
incorrectly pronounced rare in Attic 
writers, see Klotz, Devar. Vol. ii. p. 
718, Hartung, Partik. ovv, 3. 5, Vol. 
ii. p. 22. It may be remarked that, as 
a general rule, olv is continuative and 
retrospective rather than illative, and is 
in this respect to be distinguished from 
&pa (Donalds. Gr. 601), but it must 
not also be forgotten that as in the New 
Testament the use of ovv is to that of 
&pa nearly as 11 to 1 , the force of the 
former particle must not be unduly re 
stricted. In St. Paul s Epp. where the 
proportion is not quite 4 to 1 , the true 
distinction betweqn tv - e two particles 
may be more safely maintained ; see, 
however, notes on 1 Tim. ii. 1 ( Transl. ) 

8 v i/ a ft e t s] miraculous powers, |] *.**. 

[virtutes] Syr., virtutes, Vulg., Cla- 
rom. This more restricted meaning, 
which may be supported by 1 Cor. xii. 
28, and probably Matth xiv. 2, seems 
best to accord with the context. Koi is 
then IfoyriTtKov, and Iv vfjiiv retains its . . 
natural meaning with Ivfpyfta, in you, trt Ul 
within you ; comp. Matth. I. c. al Suvd- 
fttts fvfpyovfftv Iv avrtf. 1 ; ( p- 

yuv v6fiov] from the works of the 
law ; not exactly as following upon, 
Alf. 2, but, in more strict accordance 
with the primary force of the prep, 
from, out of ( ex, Vulg.), as the 
ori<jinatintf or moving cause of the 
lirtxop-fiyritns , compare notes on Gal. fc 
ii. 16. 

6. K a A w y] Even as. The answer 

tf^Tu, ^( f )C$fa ffaUcJ^* 1 L* *^~K/wA , 
v( /k:\\ tf^-^ -.1- , c^vxA tv\tA^A Q^r\v<\.) 

* _ db A k ^.^^._ ^ .^r * ^ j 

^^^ . j ^ v "7^ 

tJL .t ,/* 

fc/l-x // 

J 6 

f A - f (^ * 

cY f^l^t^j^ K*~^t+> i *~; y. 

* V** 1 *^ ^ *^ ^^"^ r* 
^(jl^u^^J^^^ \ 

i v 


nj aura> ei? Sircaio(TVvr]v. T 

is so obvious, that St. Paul proceeds as 
if it had been expressed. The com 
pound particle KO.$WS is not found in the 
purer Attic writers, though sufficiently 
common in later writers; see exx. col 
lected by Lobeek, Phnjn. p. 426. Em. 
Moschop., the Byzantine Grammarian, 
cited by Fabricius, Bibl. Grceca, Vol. 
VI. p. 191 (ed. Harles), remarks that 
this is an Alexandrian usage ; rb K a & ci 
ol ArriKol %piavra.i, rb oe xa&tas ouSt- 
irore, aAA r] rial A.\eavope<ai> 5ia\e/fTos 
KO& TIV fj &i a ypafp^i yeypairrcu . see esp. 
Sturz de Dialecto Maced. $ 9, s. v. (Steph. 
Thes. ed. Valpy, p. clxx.) On the most 
suitable translation, compare notes on 
1 Thess. i. 5 (Transl.). f \o- 

yiff&rj aura} els SiKaio<Tvt>r)v] 
1 it was accounted for to him, or was 
reckoned to him, as righteousness, scil. 
rb iri<TTfv<rai ; see Winer, Gr. 49. 2, 
p. 427 (ed 5). The phrase Ao-yi^Tai T 
els rt, Acts xix. 27, Rom. ii. 26, iv. 3, 
ix. 8, is explained by Fritzsche (Horn. 
Vol. i. p. 137), as equivalent to \oyierai 
n els rb elval n, ita res sestimatur ut 
res sit, h. e. ut pro re valeat ; hence 
tribuitur alicui rei vis ac pondus rei. 
In such cases, the more exact idea con 
veyed by els, of destination for any 
object or thing (Host u. Palm, Lex. s. 
v. tis, v. 1), is blended with that of sim 
ple predication of it. In later writers 
this extended so far that els is often 
used as a mere index of the accus., hav 
ing lost all its prepositional force ; e. g. 
&yetv els yvvcuKa : see Bcrnh. Synt. v. 
11. b, 2, p. 219. With the present 
semi- Hebraistic use of \oyi. eh, it is 
instructive to contrast Xen. Ci/r. in. 1. 
33, xfi fifj.a.Ta. tis apyvpwv Xoyiffdevra, 
where els has its primary ethical mean 
ing of measure, accordance to. 
On the doctrinal meaning of e\oy i.T$ri 
tc. T. A., see Bull, Harm. Apost. n. 12. 22, 


pa on o etc 

and for an able comparison of the faith 
of Abraham with that of Christians, 
Hammond, Pract. Catech. Book i. 8. 
7. yiixixrtctrt &P*] -Know ye 

therefore, 0^9 [cognoscite] Syr., Vulg., 

Clarom., Armen., not indicative, as 
Jerome, Ps. Ambr., al., and most re- 
cently AliL: the imper. is not only more 
animated, out more logically correct, 
for the declaration in the verse is really 
one of the points which the Apostle is 
laboring to prove ; ev Kf(pa\a.iy SiSdfficei 
rbv eic iriffreuis StKaisa,^fvra, /col 
rovs Tpo<pi/wvs Trjs iriffreus viovs rov 
Afipaaf*. xP 7 7M aT C o /Tas > ^ heod. ; see 
O sh. in loc. The objections of Ruck., 
and even of Alf. to the use of &pa with 
the imper. are distinctly invalid ; not 
only is the union of the imperative with 
&pa logically admissible, and borne out 
by usage (comp. Horn. //. x. 249), but 
further, in perfect harmony with the 
true lexical force of the particle : rebus 
ita comparatis (Abraham s faith being 
reckoned to him as righteousness) coj- 
noscite, etc. ; see Klotz. Devar. Vol n. 
p 167. ol e" K IT iff re (as] 

they trho are of faith, not they who 
rest on faith (Green, Gr. p. 288), but, 
in accordance with the primary mean 
ing of origin, they who are spiritually 
descended from, whose source of spir 
itual life is TriffTis comp. Rom. ii. 8, * 
ol <?| tptbelas, qui a malarum fraudum 
machinatione originem ducunt, qui 
malitiam tanquam parentem habent, 
Fritz, in loc, Vol. i. p. \Q~}. 
oSrot] these (and none other than 
these), exclusis cetcris Abrahamo na- 
tis, Beng. ; see James i. 2o. This retro 
spective and emphatic use of the pro 
noun is illustrated by Winer, Gr. 23. 
4, p. 144; see also Bernhardy, Synt. VL 
8. d, p. 283, Jelf, Gr. 608. 



CHAP. TIT. 8, 9. 

Tew?, ovroi elcriv viol Aftpadfj,. 8 7rpo iSov<ra Se rj ypcuprj- on etc 
Tricrreo)^ bt.Kaioi ra e^vi) 6 0eo<?, TrpoevrjyyeXicraTO T&; Aftpaa/j, 
ore i>ev\oyif$y]crovTai eV crol Trdvra ra e^vrj. 9 cocrre oi ev 
, evXoyovvrai avv ra> TTicrrw 

8. trpo ioovffa, of TJ y p atpy] More 
over the Scripture foreseeing : further 
r^l*_*JL (.t-fj( statement that the faithful, who have 
* . _j -, already been shown to be the true chil- 
* / ****"* dren of Abraham, are also the only and 

proper participators in his blessing. This 
sort of .personification,, is noticed by 
Schoettg. (//or. Hebr. Vol. i. p. 732) as 
1^,1/L fv* a formula Jud jeis admodum solemnis, 
r . , /j e. y., iiirrn rrsn ~iz Quid vidit scrip- 
<*^ * tura: t5:r rsn r:: Quid vidit ille, 

h. e. qnidnam ipsi in mentem venit ? 
see also Surenhus. B//3A. KaraAA. p. 6, 
sq. In such cases rt ypcuprj stands obvi- 
s ^ oi;sly for the Author of the Scriptures 

God, by whose inspiration they were 

written; compare Syr., where JTI^J 

[Aloha] is actually adopted in the trans 
lation. Sf appears to be here 
yueTa/3aTi/coV , i. c. indicative of transition 
(Tlartung, Partik. 5f, 2. 3, Vol. i. p. 
165, Winer, Gr. 53. 7. b, p. 393) ; it 
does not merely connect this verse with 
the preceding (Auth. Ver., Peile, Co- 
nyb., al.), but implies a further consid 
eration of the subject under another 
aspect ; 5 cam ipsam vim habet ut 
abducat nos ab CH re quap proposita cst, 
transfcratque ad id, quod, missa ill i 
priore re, jam pro vero poncndum esse 
videatur, Klotx, Dccar. Vol. 11. p. 353. 
The exact force of 8, which is never 
simply connective (Hartung, Partik. 
Vol. i. p. 163) and never loses all 
shades of its true oppositive character, 
deserves almost more attentive consider 
ation in these Fpp. than any other par 
ticle, and will often be found to supply 
the only true clue to the sequence and 
evolution of the argument. 

justificth ; not would jus 

tify, Auth. ( proosens pro future, 
Grot.), nor present with ref. to what is 
now taking place (De W.), but what 
is termed the ethical present, with sig 
nificant reference to the eternal 
immutable counsels of God ; favtabtt 
Tavra. Kal Sipurt Kai irpo-ny^pfvfffv 6 tqs, 
Theod. ; coinp. Matth. xxvi. 2, irapaot- 
$3ra.r, see Winer, Gr. 40. 2, p. 237, 
and for the rationale of this usage, 
Schmalfeld, Synt. 51. 2, p. 91. 
irpofVTr)yyt\lffaro~\ made known the 
glad tidin js beforehand ; compare Gen. 
xii. 3, xviii. 18, xxii. 18. The com 
pound irpofvayy. is somewhat rare ; it 
occurs in Schol. Soph. Trach. _3j35j. 
I hilo, de Opif. $ 9. Vol. i. p 7, de Mitt. 
\om. 29. Vol. i. p. 602 (ed. Mang.) 
and the cedes, writers. on 

e re v A o y.] shall be blessed in; quo 
tation, by means of the usual on reci- 
tatirum, from Gen. xii. 3 (compare ch. 
xviii. 18, xxii. 18), though not in the 
exact words ; the here more apposite 
but practically synonymous iravra ra, 
t^v-rj being used (perhaps from ch. xviii. 
18) instead of the iracrai al <pv\ai rf/s yrj s 
of the LXX : compare Surenhus. Bi/8A. 
KaroAA. p. 567. The simple form 

tv\oyri5. is adopted by El:, (not Sfeph.), 
but only with FG and cursive mss. 
t v <roi] in thee, as the spiritual 
father of all the faithful ; not per te, 
Schott, but simply and plainly in te, 
Vulg., Clarom., the prep, with its 
usual force specifying Abraham as the 
substratum, foundation, on which, and 
in which, the blessing rests ; compare 
1 Cor. vii. 14, and Winer, Gr. 48. a, 
p. 34-V 

9. uxrrt] So then, Consequently? 
see notes on ch. ii. 13. "Ho-re states the 

<^{v<r^frt*^1^kj^ "/^2vxv 

^/-/t a^ (r>* *icu<rr ^ ^^^~^TJ^^ 

U^ C^Lw- c^k ^ ^^i i : <^^ (jtL+J( ^^^^tj^ 

faC^ ^~-e^&(*-^ 


<?, WfVv/ 

M^CvXttauy,*--^ fy\*^~^ ^ f 



CHAP. III. 0, 10. 



im- en- Karapav eicriv yeypaTrrat, yap on 

They who nrc of I 
of the I,- lie 
curse, from whic 
lias freed us; Im 
lured to all in Hit 
bleesiugof Abrahi 

result from the emphatic fi>ev\oy. (crv\- 
\oyi6/*fvos firr]ya.ytv, Chrys.) : it is 
from the fact of the blessing having 
been promised to Abraham and his chil 
dren, that ol IK iricrrecas share it, inas 
much as they are true children ( ver. 7 ) 
of Abraham ; euAo-yrjueVot tla\v ol . . . 
Trj iriffrei irpoo~i6vrts, taffirfp Kal 6 marks 
*A/3p. r)vx6yr}ro, Theoph. <rvv\ 

together with ; not similiter, Grot., 
but, in accordance with the regular 
meaning of the prep., with, in asso 
ciation with (Winer, Gi: 48. b, p. 
349), the Trump serving to hint (Mey., 
Alt .) at that to which this association is 
truly to be referred ; tf rts roivvv rr/s 
iiteivov (rvyytvdas &{iw&rj>>ai iroSe t, rV 
tittivov tr i ff T i v r)\ovTia, Theod. The 
change of prep, introduces a correspond 
ing change in the aspect in which Abra 
ham is regarded : under 4v he is regarded 
as the Patriarch, the spiritual ancestor 
in whom, under a\>v he is regarded as 
the illustriously faithful individual with 
whom, .all ol fK iriffT. share the blessing ; 
see Windischm. in loc. Schott cites a 
similar use of juerc{ (with Gen.) Psalm 
cv. 6, ^dprofjitv /.ifra riav vartptav , 
Eccles. ii. 16, airo&avetTai 6 o~otpbs /uera 
TOV &<ppovos ; but in both cases a simi 
larity of lot rather than a strict commu 
nity and fellowship in it, seems implied ; 
as a general rule, fierd nvos implies 
rather coexistence, <rvv nvi, coherence ; 
see Kriiger, Sprachl. 68. 13. 1, and 
comp. notes on Eph. vi. 23. 

10. oo-oi yap K. T. \.] Proof of 
the justice of the conclusion in ver. 9 
with regard to ol IK -rrlcrreus ; yhp intro 
ducing e conlrario a confirmatory no 
tice of the acknowledged state of the 
other class, of ^| tpyuv v6/j.ov : not only 
are they not blessed with Abraham, but 

in ft s\ v * " > / r \ 

Ucroc <yap eg epywv vofiov eicrtv, VTTQ 

ev Tract tv rot? 

they are actually under a curse. St. 
Paul s love of proving all his assertions 
has been often noticed ; comp. David 
son, Introd. Vol. n. p. 145. o f 
^ e py u v v o fa o u] they who are of, 
i. e. appertain to, rest upon, the works 
of the law, qui in lege justitiam quse- 
runt, Bull, Harm. Ap. ii. 7. 12; the 
primary force of /c, owing to the nature 
of the expression, being here slightly 
less obvious than in ver. 8, and suggest 
ing more the secondary and derivative 
idea of dependence on than of direct 
origination from ; see Winer in loc., and 
comp. 1 Cor. xii. 16, O ; JK dpi K rov 
ffwij.aTos. virb tear dpai>] un 
der a curse ; not under the curse, but 
almost simply and generally, under 
curse = iTriKardparos , cornp v(p* apap- 
rlav, Rom. iii. 9 : the proof drawn from 
the O. T. becomes thus more cogent. 
YTTO, it may be remarked, has appy. 
here no quasi -physical sense (Kardpa. 
being viewed in the light of a burden, 
Pvikk., Windschm.), but its common 
ethical sense of subjection to; see 
Winer, Gr. 49. k, p. 362. With 
regard to the argument, it is only neces 
sary to observe that the whole obviously 
rests on the admission, which it was im 
possible not to make, that no one of of 
^| tpywv v6p.ov can fulfil all the requisi 
tions of the law ; see esp. Bull, Harm. 
Apost. ii. 7. 11, and comp. with it Us- 
teri, Lehrb. I. 4. n, p. 60. y e- 
y pairr at y dp] Confirmation from 
Scripture of the preceding words. The 
quotation is from Deut. xxvii. 26, 
though not in the exact words either 
of the Heb. or LXX ; comp. Surenhus. 
BJ #A.O? Kara\\., p. 569, and Bagge in 
loc. The following on is omitted by 
Rec., but only with JK ; mss.. and some 



CHAP. III. 10, 11 

ev TOO Bi/3\ift) TOV vdfjiov, TOV TTOtijcrai avrd. u on Bk ev 
StKaiovrai Trapa rut Qeu> SijXov, on 6 OLKCUOS eic 

Ff. TOV iroirjffat avrd] to 

do them, ut faciat ea, Vulg., Clarom. ; 
purpose contemplated and involved in 
the ^ujueVti. This use of the infin. to 
denote design, intention, is (with the 
exception of a few instances from the 
other writers in the N. T., Mark iv. .3 
[7?ec.j, James v. 17) confined to St. 
Paul and St. Luke; see Fritz. Matth. 
Excurs. ii. p. 48o, Winer, Gr. 4.5. 4. 
b, p 3-7 i i ic cons truction is not, 
properly considered, Hebraistic, but be- 
longs to later Greek, and may be cor- 
rectly explained as an amplification of 
the use of the gen., which serves first to 
mark the result or product (e. g. II. 0. 
397, KVJJ.O.TO. iravroiuiv avt^tav, Scheuerl. 
Synt. ii. 1, p. 79), then further, the 
purpose of the working object, and lastly 
(c. g. in LXX, where the Hebr. idiom 
would naturally cause this development) 
becomes little more than explanatory and 
definitive ; comp. Gen. iii. 6, wpouov tcrri 
TOV Karavo?i<Tcu, Exod. ii. 18, fTa.xvva.T 
TOV Trapayfvtvdai. In this latter case 
the first verb commonly marks a more 
general action, the second, one more 
limiting and special; comp. Gon. xxxiv. 
17, flffaxovfiv TIII.SIV TovTTfpiTf/^ai, and 
see esp. Thiersch, de Pent. in. 12, p. 
173 sq., where this usage is well invcs- 
tigated. The progress of this structure 
in classical Greek is briefly noticed by 
Bernhardy, Sijnt. ix. 2, p. 3o7. 

11. or i 5 K. r. \.] But (further) 
that in the lair, etc.: continuation of 
the reasoning ; 5e sut joining to the ar- 
gumentum e contrario, that those of 
the law are under the curse (ver. 10), 
the supplementary argument derived 
from Scripture that no one under any 
circumstances is justified by the law. 
The oppositive force of 8e may thus be 
felt in the incidental reply which the 

verse affords to a deduction that might 
have been obviously made from ver. 10 ; 
but lest any one should imagine that 
if a man did so f^^vfiv K. T. \. he 
would be blessed let me add, etc.; 
compare De \Vette in Inc. 4 v 

v6^(a] under the law; i. e. in the 
sphere and domain of the law; Acts 
xiii. 39, Rom. ii. 12, iii. 19. The in- 
strumental meaning is grammatically 
tenable (object existing in the means, 
Jclf, Gr. 622. 3, see notes on 1 Thcss. 
iv. 18), and even contextually plausible, 
owing to the prominence of V j^/uoi and 
its 1 apparent opposition to Xpio-r6s, ver. 
13 (see Meyer) : as, however, owing to 
the inversion of the syllogistn, the op- 
position between the clauses is much 
obscured, the simpler and more usual 
meaning is here to be preferred : comp. 
notes on 1 Thcss. ii 3. The more in- 
elusive Iv is thus perhaps chosen design- 
edly, as the Apostle s object is appy. to 
show that the idea of justification falls 
wholly out of the domain of the law, 
and is incompatible with its very nature 
and character. irapaTbjQp\ 

in the sight of; i. e. in the judgment 
of God (Rom. ii. 13, xii. 16, 1 Pet. ii.^ 
20), the idea of locality suggoted, by 
the prep, being still retained in that of 
judgment at a tribunal ; see notes on 
2 Thess. i. 6. This usage is sufficiently 
common in classical writers; see Born- 
hardy, Si/nt. v. 17. b, p. 2.;7, and cxx. 
in Palm u. Rost, Lex. s. v. irapd, n. 2, 
Vol. n. p. 667. ort 6 5 1*0.10 i 

K. r. A.] because, The just shall lice by 
faith, Habak. ii. 4, again cited in Rom. 
i. 17, lleb. x. 38, this second on be- 
ing causal, the fiist simply declarative. 
It is extremely difficult to decide whether 
tV vicrr. is to be joined with o 8i. ( the 
ju^t by faith ), or with the verb. The 

x-v7- ^<^cJL* <Nfe; <r^ x /*C%a^ 

J^^^^JL^J^^ ~}* 

A~u^ ts^ / tfc^X~c*L&^bi-- *&& r 

\v~LjU t>tz t~uA> usn-A. n^^i^xr 

, r*+ v^ta? 
oy^ C^^MH^A; /^cu, 


J . ^l J^ 

! : * 

CHAP. III. 12, 13. 


12 o Be w/iO9 OVK ecmv etc Tr/crrefo?, aXX, o 7roir;cra? 
aura ^ycrerat ei/ awrot?. 13 Xpicrro^ 77/z.a? e^Tjyopacrev etc TT;? 

former is perfectly correct in point of 
grammar, though doubted by Bp. Middl. 
(see Winer, Gr. $ 20. 2, p. 123), and is 
adopted by Hammond, Meyer, and other 
careful expositors. As, however, it 
seems certain (opp. to Baumg.-Crus.) 
that the original Hebrew (see Hitzig in 
loc., Kl. Prophet, p. 263, 264) does not 
bear this meaning, as St. Paul is 
quoting the words in the order in which 
they stand in the LXX, not in that (6 
IK TnVr. 8i/c.) most favorable to such a 
transl., as the argument seems best 
sustained by the other construction (see 
Middl. in loc., and comp. Bull, Exam. 
Cens. Animadv. in. 5), and lastly, as 
^fferai IK ir iar. thus stands in more ex 
act opposition to Vj<r. ev avro7s, it seems 
best with Copt., Arm. (appy.), Chrys. 
(appy.), and the bulk of the older ex 
positors, to connect ^/c irurreces with 

12. 6 5f vopos K. r. \.) lut the 
law is not of faith, scil. does not spring 
from it, has no connection with it in 
point of principle or origin ; propositio 
minor of the syllogism, & SIK. e /c IT KTT. 
^(T. being the prop, major, tv i/6/j.. ovS. 
$IK. the conclusion. The Auth. Vers. 
by translating 8e and obscures the 
argumentation. 6 ir o i i j a a s 

auT({] he icho hath done them, scil. TO. 
K po crrdy pen a and ra Kpi/j-ara, mentioned 
in the former part of the verse here re- 
ferred>to, Lev, xviii. 5. Romeros is 
emphatic ( praecepta legis non sunt de 
credendis, sed de faciendis, Aquin.), 
and is prefaced by the adversative a\\ 
as expressing a sentiment directly oppo 
site to what has preceded. There is 
thus no ellipse of yeypxK-ra.1 ( Schott ) or 
\tyft (Bagge) ; comp. Fritz. Rom. Vol. 
n. p. 284. The insertion of &i>Spca- 

TOS after aura (Rec.) has only the author- 


ity of D 3 EJK and mss., and is rightly 
rejected by most modern editors. 
Iv avrols] * in them i. e., as Winer 
paraphrases, ut in his legibus, vita? fons 
quasi insit. 

13. Xpitrrbs TI/J.O.S K.T.K,} Christ 
ransomed us, etc. ; vivid and studiedly 
abrupt contrast to the declaration in 
volved in the two preceding verses ; the 
law condemned us, Christ ransomed us ; 
non dissimile asyndeton, Col. iii. 4, 
ubi item de Christo, Beng. 
f) /j. a s] Jews ; not Jews and heathens ; 
Judffios prrecipue pressit maledictio, 
Beng., compare Chrys. For ( 1 ) the 
whole context implies that the law is 
the Mosaic law : see Usteri in loc. ( 2 ) 
This law had, strictly speaking, no force 
over the Gentiles, but was, in fact, the 
v.fcr6Toixos between the Jews and Gon- 
tiles : Eph. ii. 14, 15. For a further 
discussion of this, consult Meyer and 
Usteri in loc., and Brown Galat. p. 129 
sq. The doctrinal deductions made 
from this and similar passages, though 
perfectly just and true (comp. Neand. 
Plant. Vol. i. p. 438, Bohn), cannot be 
urged against the more limited meaning 
which the context seems obviously to 
require. Iiiy6p a<r ev] ran 

somed, redeemed Christ ransomed 
the Jews from the curse of the law, by 
having taken it upon Himself for their 
sakes and in their stead. An accurate 
explanation of this, and the cognate 
idea a.Tro\vTp6iffis, will be found in list. 
Lehrb. n. 1. 1, p. 107, and n. 1. 3, p. 
202. The force of the preposition (tn) 
need not be very strongly pressed, e. g. 
cmtione nos inde eruit, Beng. : see 
Polyb. Ilist. in. 42. 2, (^ trap 
alnljiv TO. re /u<Wfi/A.a ir\o?a K. T. A., 
where the prep, has no marked mean 
ing. This tendency to use verbs com- 





CHAP. III. 13, 14. 

vTrep rj/Mwv tcarapa, OTI yeyparrrai 
Vi %v\ov, u i va ei<? TO, e$vr) 77 

pounded with prcpp. without any obvious 
increase of meaning, is one of the char 
acteristics of later Greek ; Thiersch, de 
Pentat. Vers. Alex. n. 1, p. 83. 
ytvAptvos inrfp ri fj.wv (car.] by 
having become a curse for us ; dependent 
participle expressing the manner of the 
action, which again is more distinctly 
elucidated in the quotation ; \tyti S 
HOI rbi> rp6TTov, Theod. The abstract (not, an accursed thing, Peile, 
which dilutes the antithesis) is proba 
bly chosen, as Meyer suggests, instead of 
the concrete, to express with more force 
the completeness of the satisfaction which 
Christ made to the law. On the doc 

trinal import of the expression (Kardpa 
riKOVfff Si eV 6 i <5 T ^" 3.u.i]v \v(jiv Kardpav, 
Greg. Xaz.) see the quotations in Suicer, 
Thcs. s. v. Kardpa, Vol. n. p. 57 sq., and 
for a few words of great force and elo 
quence on the maledictum crucis, An- 
drewes, Serm. in. Vol. n. p. 174 (A. C. 
Libr. ). viTfp ri /j. to v} for us, salu- 
tis nostrac reparandse causa, Schott. In 
tins and similar passages the exact mean 
ing of the prep, has been much contested. 
Is it (a) in commodum (alicujnsj, or 
(/3) in loco (aliciijiis ) ? The following 
seems the most simple answer. Tirep, 
in its ethical sense, has principally and 
primarily (see note, ch. i. 4) the first 
meaning, especially in doctrinal passages, 
where the atoning death of Christ is al 
luded to, c. y. 2 Cor. v. 21, T&I/ /u?j yv6vra. inrtp riniav tiroirifffv afjuipriav 
But as there are general passages in the 
N. T. where vvep has eminently the sec 
ond meaning, c. g. Phil em. 13, iVo inrlp 
<TOV not. Ziaovrj (comp. Plato, Gory. 515 
C, lyia inrfp ffov aTroKpivoiipai), so are 
there doctrinal passages (as here) where 
inrtp may admit the second meaning 
united with the first, when the context 

(e. g. in 1 Cor. xv. 3 it would be inad 
missible), and nature of the argument 
seem to require it, though probably never 
(Winer Gr. 48. 1, p. 342) the second 
exclusively : see Magee, Atonement, No, 
30, Vol. i. p. 245 sq., and Usteri, Lchrb, 
in. 1, p. 115 sq., where the meaning of 
the prep, is briefly discussed 
on yfypatrrai] forasmuch as it is 
written ; parenthetical confirmation of 
the assertion involved in the preceding 
participial clause, yt v6p. K. T. \. The 
passage in Deut. (ch. xxi. 23) here ad- C/ $^, 

duced does not allude to crucifying, but 

^/ i f ^ 
to exposure after death on stakes or / * 

crosses (Josh. x. 26), but is fully per 
tinent as specifying the ignominious 
particularity to which the legal curse 
belonged, and which our Redeemer 
by hanging dead on the cross formally 
fulfilled ; see esp. Pearson, Creed, Art. 
iv. Vol. i p. 248 sq. (Burt.). It is in 
teresting to notice that the dead body 
was not hanged by the neck, but by the 
hands, and not on a tree, but on a piece 
of wood ( lion ex arbore sed ligno, 
Dassov.) ; see the treatise of Dassovius 
in Thcsanr. Tkeolog.-Philol. Vol. n. p. 
614, Jahn, Arch(eol. 258, and Uiihr, 
Stud. u. Krit. for 1849, p. 9J4 sq. 
The reading of Rec., ytypairrat yap, has 
only the support of D ! EJK; mss. ; 
Syr. (both) Copt., al., and bears every 
appearance of a conformation to the 
more usual mode of citation, ver. 10. 

14 /i/a (Is r a tdvr)] in order 
that unto the Gentiles : divim purpose 
involved in the ^7iy6pa<Tfi> IK tr,, narapas 
K. r. \. The first purj)ose was the ran 
som of the Jews from the curse ; the 
second, which was involved in the first 
(OTI 77 aoirripia IK riav louSaiW iffri, 
John iv. 22), was the extension of Abra 
ham s blessing to the Gentiles, but that, 


Cnxr ITT. 14, 15. 



ev\oyla TOV J A/3paa/j, yevrjTai, eV Xptara> Ir/crov, iva rrjv eVayye- 
\lav TOV TIvevfiaTos \a/3a)pv oia rr}? Trtcrrew^. 

15 Aoe\(f)oi, Kara av^pwrrov \e<yo> 

Even tne customs of men 
must show thnt the prom 
ise of God to Abraham cannot be annulled by the law which was so long afterwards. 

not through the law but in Jesus Christ. 
Eis with accus. is here neither simply 
identical with dat. (comp. Winer, Gr. 
31. 5, p. 191), nor in its more lax 
sense of in reference to (Piele ; comp. 
Bern. Synt. \. 11, p. 219), but retains 
its proper local meaning, with refer 
ence to the metaphorical arrival of the 
ev\oyia ; see Winer, Gr. 49. a, p. 353. 
77 t v \oy la rov A $ p.] the blessing 
of Abraham, scil. the blessing announced 
to and vouchsafed to Abraham (ver. 8), 
77 euAo-yi a fi tK iri oTftoi, Thcoph. ; the 
gen. being the gen, object i ; comp. Rom. 
XV. 8, ras fjrayyeAi as rtav irareptav, and 
see Winer, Gr. $ 30. 1. p. 167 sq., 
Kriigcr, Sprac/tl. f 47. 7, 1 sq. 
iv Xpiffry ITJO-.] in Christ Jesus, 
1 in Christo Jesu, Vulg., Clarom., Copt., 
Arm. ; not propter, JEth., or for Sid, 
Grot. (comp. Chrys. ), as this instru 
mental use of tv with persons, though 
found in a few passages (comp. Matth. 
ix. 34, iv rra apxovri, he was the 
causa efficicns], is here certainly not 
necessary. It was in Christ, in the 
knowledge of Him and in His death, 
that the Gentiles received the blessing. 
iva r^v K. r. A.] in order (hat we 
mi /ht receive ; second statement of 
purpose, not subordinated to, but co 
ordinate with the preceding one. Meyer 
cites as instances of a similar parallel 
ism of tva, Rom. vii. 13, 2 Cor. ix. 3, 
Eph. vi. 19. The Apostle advances 
with his subject, till at last under Ao/3ou- 
pev he includes all ; nos, omnium gen 
tium homines, sive Judaei, sive Barbari. 
r $)v 2irayyf\lav> rov niffvparos] 
the promise of the Spirit ; not merely 
rb (irayyf\&tv Tlvtv/aia (Fritz. Rom. vi. 
4, Vol. i. p. 368), but the realization 

of the promise of the Spirit, iirayy. 
being taken in a partially concrete sense ; 
comp. Luke xxiv. 49, Heb. x. 36, and 
see Winer, Gr. 34. 3, p. 211. Gram 
matically considered, rov tlvfufi.. may 
be a gen. subjecti, sc. promissionem a 
Spiritu profectam, or a gen. objecti, as 
above. Doctrinally considered, how 
ever, the latter is distinctly to be pre 
ferred ; the Spirit being usually repre 
sented by the Apostle as not so much 
the source, as the pledge of the fulfil 
ment of the promise ; see Usteri, Lehrb. 
n. 1. 2, p. 174 note. After a won 

drous chain of arguments, expressed 
with equal force, brevity, and profund 
ity, the Apostle comes back to the sub 
ject of ver. 2 ; the gift of the Holy 
Ghost came through faith in Jesus 

15. a5e\<o! K. r. A.] Proof that the 
promise was not abrogated by the law : 
OUTCO 5ei as rrjv irianv irpfff&vttpav rov 
vSuov, SiSdo Kfi ira.\iv Sis 6 vof^os fftTotitav 
ov Svvarai yfveo~&ai rats Qeov 4trayyt\i- 
ai j, Theod. Kara avbptaieov] Cjf /W~. 3 / 

after the manner of men ; t avbpwtri- / . t(i ; / @r\ f 
v<av irapaSfiyndriav, Chrys., avdpuirtvois m /.* / 
npaynaffi Kt xpW") Theod. ; see notes, /_ 
ch. i. 11. With this expression the 
Apostle here introduces an argument 
which rests on mere human analogies, 
and which he uses as men might ( tan- 
quam inter homines, Syr.), one to 
another : affero exemplum ex hominum 
vita depromptum, Fritz. Rom. iii. 5, 
Vol. i. 160, where the various mean 
ings of this formula will be found briefly 
noticed. o/ueos avS> ponr ov 

K. r. A.] though it be but a man s cove- 
nant, yet when confirmed? etc. : logically 
inexact, but not idiomatically uncommon 




CHAP. III. 15, 16. 

dv^parrrov tceKvp(i)[ievi)v Sicferftcr/v ouSet? a^eret rj 7ri8iOT<rcreTat. 
16 rcS 8t Afipaap, epp&rjcrav at eirayyeXicu, KOI ro3 <77rtpp,aTi 

transposition of ofjuas, which, as the sense 
shows, really belongs to ouStis. Both 
8/ and other adverbs (c. g. ad, iroAAa- 
KIS, tn), are occasionally thus, as it 
were, attracted out of their logical or 
der, when the meaning is otherwise 
distinct; see "NViner, Gr. 61. 4, p 488, 
and Ellendt, Lex. Soph. s. v. opus, who 
observes that this transposition is most 
frequently found with participles ; o^cos 
cum participio ita componitur, ut inclu- 
Bum protasi tamcn ad apodosin pcrtineat," 
Vol. n. p. 318 : compare Plato, P/xcdo, 

9 1 C. (po&tlTat LL7) T\ ^^X ? OU.US KCU &lOTf- 

pov Kal KuAAiov of TOV ffw/uLaTOS irpoairo\- 
AiVroi, and see Stallbaum, in loc. 
8 iad-h KTJV] a covenant. It may be 
true, doctrinally considered, that it is 
not of much moment whether 8ia$. be 
interpreted contractum an testamentum 
(Calv.) ; considered however exegeti- 
cally, it is obvious that (a) the order of 
the words, and (b) the comparison be 
tween the oiadrfK-rj of man and the 5ia- 
&IKT) of God (ver. 17), tacitly instituted 
by the emphatic position of avdpuirou 
(sing, to make the antithesis more ap 
parent), both require exclusively the 
former meaning ; so JEth. (kidan), and 
appy. Theoph. Sm^/crji/ Kal avu.q><av(av : 
the other Vv. either adopt SJO^TJKTJ (-Syr., 
Copt.), or are ambiguous. A paper on 
the uses of this word in the N. T. will 
be found in the Classical Museum, Vol. 
vn. p. 290 ; see also Bagge in loc. 
^TriSiarafffffTai] adds new condi 
tions, superordinat, Vulg., Clarom., 
4 novas addit constitutiones, Bretsch. 
Lex. s. v., or, in effect, as it is neatly 
paraphrased by Ilerm., additamcntis 
vitiat ; comp. Joseph. Antiq. xvn. 9, 4, 
and esp. Bell. Jud. n. 2. 3, a^iiav TTJS 
^TriSio^TJKTjs TT;V oiadyKrjf tlvai KVplWTt- 
PW- / u 

10. T ta 5t "A/Jpaa/u] Now to Abra 
ham; parenthetical argument designed 
to make the application of this particu 
lar example to the general case perfectly 
distinct, and to obviate every misappre 
hension. The Apostle seems to say ; 
1 this, however, is not a case merely of a 
5(0^/0), but of an ^Tra-yyeAta, yea, of 
tVa-yyeAi a i , nor was it made merely to 
a man Abraham (afd-. 8ia. ), but to 
Christ. According to the usual inter 
pretation, St introduces the prop, minor 
of a syllogism, which is interrupted by 
the parenthetical comment ou A.ry . . . 
XptffT6s, but resumed in ver. 17, atqui 
Abraamo et semini, etc., Ilcrm. To 
this, however, the objection of Meyer 
seems very just, that in that case St. 
Paul would have undoubtedly given a 
greater logical prominence to the divine 
nature of the promises to Abraham by 
some such term as 0ebs 8t T$ A/3/>. 
K. T. A. ; see also Alf. in loc. a I 

tirayyf\i.a.t] (he promises; plural, 
as being several times repeated (Est.), 
and couched in different forms of ex 
pression ; comp. Gen. xiii. 1.5, xv. 18, 
xvii. 8, xxvi. 4, xxviii. 14. They in 
volved, as Bengel well observes, not only 
earthly but heavenly blessings, terra 
Canaan ct mundi, ct divinorum bonorum 
omnium. The latter were more dis 
tinctly future, the former paulo-post- 
future. On the exact spiritual nature 
of these promises, sec Hengstenberg, 
Christol. Vol. i. p. 38 (Clark). 
The so-called Ionic form Ippefrtiffuv has 
the support of the best uncial MSS., 
and is adopted by most of the recent 
editors ; see Lobeck, Phryn. p. 447. 
Kal r <f <rir p(UaTi aurof ] and to 
his seed ; emphatic, as pointing to 
Christ, and forming as it were the ful 
crum of the argument which follows. 

O) ( ^v 

~ /l/^w* x.*y. u, 


= 77 ^ 

(f j ^^JUL v^(^^-^~ lo c*jLu*4^-> c-^ 
M^/Xf^/y.^ U^J^O^^^JL^A- 

*L**UJjL UjU*K. 



x to u^ , 

-Tl/^^^JL* , 

* f^t^tjis? e.r 

CHAP. III. 16. 



avrov. ov Xeyet Kal TOI? cnreppacriv, &>? CTTI 
a>9 e< eve? Kat rcS a-Trep/MiTi trov, 05 <TTIV 

The passages of Scripture referred to are 
here appy. Gen. xiii. 15, and xvii. 8, 
but not Gen. xxii. 18 ; so Iren. \. 32, 
Origen on Rom. iv. Vol. v. p. 276 (ed. 
Lomm.). We may here pause to 

make a brief remark on the great free 
dom with which so many commentators 
have allowed themselves to characterize 
St. Paul s argument as either artificial 
( Schulkunst, Ewald) or Rabbinical 
(Mey. ; comp. Surenhus. Bij3\. KaroAA. 
p. 84), or, as Baur, Apost. Paul. p. 665, 
has even ventured to assert, plainly 
arbitrary and incorrect. It may be true 
that similar arguments occur in Rab 
binical writers (Schoettg. Hor. Vol. i. 
p. 736) ; it may be true that crirfp/j.a 
(like y-i7) is a collective noun, and that 
when the plural is used, as in Dan. i. 
1 2, grains of seed are implied. All 
this may be so, nevertheless, we have 
here an interpretation which the Apos 
tle, writing under the illumination of 
the Holy Ghost has deliberately pro 
pounded, and which, therefore (whatever 
difficulties may at first appear in it), is 
profoundly and indisputably true. We 
hold, therefore, that there is as certainly 
a mystical meaning in the use of y-iT in 
Gen. xiii. 15, xvii. 8, as there is an ar 
gument for the resurrection in Exod. 
iii. 6, though in neither case was the 
writer necessarily aware of it. As yn.T 
in its simple meaning generally (except 
Gen. iv. 25, 1 Sam. i. 11) denotes not 
the mere progeny of a man, but his 
posterity viewed as one organically-con 
nected whole ; so here in its mystical 
meaning it denotes not merely the spir 
itual posterity of Abraham, but Him in 
whom that posterity is all organically 
united, the ir\-fipwfia, the Kt(pa\-fi> even 
Christ. This St. Paul endeavors faintly 

to convey to his Greek readers by the 
use of 0-irfpfj.a and oWpjuoTa : see Olsh. 
and Windischm. in loc. t both of whom 
may be consulted with profit. 
ov \fytt] He saith not; not rj ypapJi 
(Bos, Ellips. p. 54), as in Rom. xv. 10, 
where this subst. is supplied from 
ytypairrai, ver. 9, or rb irvevna. (Ruck., 
Winer, Gr. 39. 1), which appears ar 
bitrary, but the natural subject 6 &e6s, 
as in Eph. iv. 8, v. 14, and (^rjcrl) 1 Cor. 
vi. 16, Heb. viii. 5. So appy. Syr., 

which here inserts j]_^ [illi] after \tyfi. 

o> s f icl ir o A A o> v] as (speaking) of 
many. Apparently a solitary instance 
in the N. T. of this meaning of eirl with 
gen. after verbs dicendi, etc. ( 2 Cor, 
vii. 14 [Riick.], is not in point, as eirl 
T/TOU is there coram Tito ), though not 
uncommon in classical Greek ; compare 
Plato, Charm. 155 D, eVl rov KoAoG Ae- 
yuv ircu?>6s, and ib. Gorg. 453 E, iraAix 
8 i tirl TUV av-rvv rf)(vii>v \fyofj.v. In 
this use of eVi, a trace of the local mean 
ing (superposition, Donalds. Gr. $ 483) 
may be distinctly perceived, the gen. 
representing as it were the substratum 
on which the action rests ; comp. John 
vi. 2 ; and see Bernhardy, Synt. v. 23, 
p. 248, Winer, Gr. 47. g, p. 335, and 9 
for a comprehensive notice of this prep., / 
Wittmann, de Naturd etc. Vt (Schweinf. r r 
1846). oj effriv Xpivrts] Q ( 

Christ (Jesus), not Christ and his 
Church, as Hammond in loc. : this ap 
pears evident from the emphasis which 
St. Paul lays on the use of the singu 
lar ; fftrfp/jM 5e O.UTOV Kara ffdpxa i<n\v 6 
Xpiffr6s, Chrys. Some useful remarks 
on this passage will be found in the 
Theol. Critic, No. rv. p. 494 sq. 



CHAP. III. 17. 

17 TOVTO Se Xe7&> Bicfer)/crjv irpoKeKvpw^evr^v VTTO rov &eov [ei? 
o fiera TfrpaKocrta icai rpiaKovra CTT; <yeyov(a<; vo/xo? OVK 

17. (Is Xpiffr6v] for Christ, . e., to be fulfilled in Christ : not usque ad tem- 
pora Christi, or in reference to Christ (Peile), but as in ver. 24. These words 
are omitted by ABC; 17. 23*. 67**. 80; Vulg., Copt., yEth. (both); Cyr. (2), 
Dam.; Jerome, Aug. (often), Pel., Bed. (Lachm., Tisch., Met/.), and it must 
be fairly owned have some appearance of being a gloss, still the authority for the 
insertion, viz., DEFGJK ; most mss. ; Syr. (both), Clarom., Arm. [correct 
Griesb.} ; Chrys., Theod., Theoph., (Ecum. (Rec. t Schols), is so strong that we 
seem justified in an insertion in brackets. See Bagge in loc. (p. 95), who has 
argued with ability in favor of the Received Text. 

17. rov -ro $( \tyw] This, hoio- 
ever, I say, hoc autem dico, Vulg., 
Clarom. Instead of using the collective 
ovv, which might obscure the exact posi 
tion which ver. 16 holds in the argument, 
St. Paul uses the explanatory formula 
tovro Sf \tyu>. The 5s thus serves to re 
sume the argument (aa.cpr]i>tia.s \a.piv 
\an$dvti rbv \6yov, (Ecum.) ai ter the 
short digression, KOT avi$p. \ty<a TOVTO 
8e \fyu, and also to mark the application 
of the particular case to the general prin 
ciple. 6 fJitT O T fT p CLK 6 <T 10. 

K. T. A..] which came (so long a time as) 
four hundred and thirty years after 
wards ; /xfTo irAtTo TOj xp^ vov > Theod. 
The chronological difficulty involved in 
this passage, when compared with Gen. 
xv. 1 3, Exod. xii. 40, and Acts vii. 6, can 
only be briefly noticed. Here the period 
from the promise to the exodus is stated 
to be 430 years ; but in Exod. I. c, the 
same period, and in Gen. and Acts I. c. 
the round number 400 is assigned to the 
sojourn in Egypt alone. The ancient 
mode of explanation seems perfectly sat 
isfactory, viz., that the 430 years in 
clude the sojourn in Canaan (about 215 
years) as well as that in Egypt ; the whole 
period of abode (v yfi OVK i 5/o (Gen. xv. 
13) ; comp. August. Qiitrst. in Heptat. n. 
47 (Vol. in. p. 61 1, Migne), Usher, Chro- 
nol. Sacr. ch. 8. This is confirmed by the 
addition of the words KO! iv yfj Xavadv 

(Exod. I. c.) in the LXX, and Sarnar. 
Pent. : see Petav. Hat. Temp. n. Book 
2, 4, Vol. n. p. 71, Hales, Chron. Vol. 
n. p. 153 (ed. 1811). It may be ob 
served that the records of the family 
of Levi appear to render so long a so 
journ in Egypt as 430 years impossible. 
Aniram, grandson of Levi, marries his 
father s sister Jochcbed (Exod. vi. 20 ; 
comp. Exod. ii. 1, Numb. xxvi. 59). 
Now, as it appears probable by a com 
parison of dates that Levi was born 
when Jacob was about 87, Levi would 
have been 43 when he came into Egypt ; 
there he lives 94 years (Exod. vi. 16). 
Assuming, then, even that Jochebed was 
born in the last year of Levi s life, she 
must at least have been 2(56 years old 
when Moses was born, if the sojourn in 
Egypt be 430 years : see "Windisehm. in 
loc. The transposition TT rtrpajt. 

K. T. \. (Rec.) has against it the author 
ity of all the uncial MSS. except J K, 
and is certainly to be rejected. 
tls T b K ar a py fj a a t K. T. X.] that 
it should render the promise of none 
effect, ad cvacuandam promissionem, 
Vulg., Clarom. (compare, Syr.- 
Philox) ; tit rb with the infinitive 
here retaining its usual primary force 
of object or intention : rb Karapy. WHS 
the object aimed at by the invalida 
tion. It may be remarked that as the 
prep, alone may point to consequence as 

^i It. * 


/** >e^^. 

>< L-/r7; /lwV.V, itfi f- U 1 ; * 4 ; ^^ ./&v./v>. , 

2> (T t*4~^ C<-*~-* , ^ ^^^, ( * J *~*~*,<Antk>\+, (>*( i\,ii n ;&K 
i-. ii; t-.U; ^^- i" : ^/^ *^-A 0-cv?O<~^ W<.. 

I/*A ( r *V^f i ) <M*A |>-u ^. JL~ 1^ R*^AA U**A- CfiU *- j^vt-^- x f^^^r^ f 

^.K 1. (o trfx^^,^^ 

v,/ y-; il .iv-; :r: " 

W T{*\jfw^ ^-. ^T.. ( i^v.y^^pLv.^^; M^ ./3;i:\ 

^^. ^ -^l^.it a^ \^J~~, _-^ rl r^*;^ t^l ~ UJ- U^f^ U^^ 

CHAP. III. 18, 19. 

G A L A T I A N S . 


* >\ \1 -* f IS * V > f 

aicvpoi, et<? TO Karapyrjorai rrjv Trayye\iav. ei yap e vopov rj 
K\r}povofjLia, ovfcen eg 7rayye\iar rat Se Aftpaajj, Si 7rayye\ia<j 

19 T > 

Jot^onT^Stlve 6 " " ifc O "/"*?; *> 

answer) : and was not against the promises of God (negative answer), to which it was a preparative institu 

well as intention (see exx. in Host. u. 
Palm, Lex. s. v. tirl v. 1), we must not 
abruptly deny what is termed the *ec- 
batic force of ei s r6 : still usage seems 
to show that in St. Paul s Epp. ihejinal 
(is rb so much predominates (opp. to 
Jelf, Gr. 625. 3. a), that even in pas 
sages like 2 Cor. viii. 6, we must not 
conceive all idea of purpose wholly ob 
literated ; compare Winer, Gr. 44. 6, 
p. 29 1 sq., and see notes on 1 Tkess. ii. 

18. el yap IK v6/j.ov] Confirm- 
atory expansion of the preceding words ; 
I say advisedly, els TO Karapy. K. r. \. ; 
for if the inheritance be of the law, the 
promise must plainly be reduced to in- 
operativeness and invalidity; seeTheoph. 
in loc. The prep. $K here preserves its 
primary meaning of origin under the 
slight modification of result or conse 
quence ; see notes on ch. ii. 1 6. 
% K\T] po vo fula] the inheritance ; 
here used by the Apostle in its higher 
meaning to denote that inheritance of 
the blessings of the Messiah s kingdom, 
the inheritance of the heavenly Ca 
naan, which was typified by the lower 
and primary meaning, the inheritance 
of the earthly Canaan ; comp. Acts vii. 
6, Heb. xi. 4, and see Brown p. 147. 
ovKtri 4 tirayyt\tas] it is no 
more of promise ; the latter supposition 
is excluded by the former ; comp. Rom. 
vii. 20, xi. 6, and see Winer, Gr. 66. 
10, p. 545. OuKfTi is thus used in its 
simple logical sense without any tempo 
ral reference. 8 ^077 e- 
A/oy] by means of promise ; not in 
the form of a promise (Pcile, Iliick.), 

nor as uniting with Kfx&p- as a mere 
equivalent to tv-riyy fi\aro (^Eth., both), 
but simply and plainly per promis- 
sionem, Beza, by virtue and by means 
of promise. The enjoyment of the in 
heritance depended on no conditions, 
came through no other medium, save 
that of promise. K x * P ^ T a ] 

4 hath freely given it, gratis dedit, f *f . . 

Copt ; notanda est emphasis in voce <iy . * " * 
Ktx- quse a x^P iS deducitur, adeoque a /u " "* / 
Bez4 (?) recte vertitur yratificatus est, / 

confer Rom. iv. 13, 14, 15, Bull, Harm. 
Ap. ii. 5. 5. Kex^P- ma y be translated 
intransitively, Abrahamo grata fecit 
Deus (Schott, Olsh., Bretsch.) ; but as 
the verb is nearly always used transi 
tively in the N. T., and as logical per 
spicuity requires that the subject of the 
first member of the conditional syllo 
gism (Beng. ) should be supplied in the 
second, it appears most natural to tacitly 
supply K\-npoi>oniai> as the obvious object- 
accusative. With the present use of the 
perf., implying the duration of the x/s 
contrast Phil. ii. 9, ^x a p lffaro avry uvofna, 
where the action is represented as a 
simple historical fact. 

19. r( olv b t>6nos] What then 
is the laid, i. e. what is the meaning, 
the object of the law ? Answer to the 
not unnatural objection, that the Law 
must according to the Apostle s reason 
ing, be deemed a useless institution 
(irtpirruis frtfri), Theod.), by a state 
ment of its real use, office, characteris 
tics, and relation to the covenant of 
grace : ft/a /t<j rts vo^avi irtpiTi bv r^tn 
i/djuop, Kal roCro 8<op&oOra< TO fifpos, SeiK- 
vvs on OUK fiitri, aAAa TTO.VV 

/ * /f 



CHAP. III. 19. 

%(ipiv Trpocrere^tr), 

r), Chrys. Ti is not for Sta ri 
(Schott, Brown), but is the idiomatic 
neuter expressive of the abstract nature, 
etc., of the subject ; see Bernhardy, 
Synt. vn. 4, p. 336, and comp. Madvig, 
Kynt. 97, note. Meyer cites 1 Cor. 
iii. 5, TI olv tffriv Airo\\u>s, but the 
MSS. evidence [CDEFGJ opp. to AB] 
seems there fairly in favor of iis. 
r wv tr ap a&dff t <a v xdptv] on ac 
count of, because of, the transgres 
sions, propter transgressiones, Vulg., 

] S~, \ j. Vjp Urt ^ .A Va [propter trans- 

v *> * " * * 

gressionem] Syr., Copt, (ethbe), and 
nppy. Arm. (vasn), scil. to manifest, 
awaken a conviction of, and give as it 
wore a distinctive existence to the trans 
gressions of it (which existed but were 
not properly recognized as such), whether 
previous or subsequent to its introduc 
tion ; comp. liom. v. 13, &XP 1 7"P vopov 
o/xaprio ^v tv K6ff/j.y, the more generic 
a^opri a being there used, as sin is not 
contemplated (as here) specially in the 
light of a transgression of a fixed or 
dinance. Owing to the various shades 
of meaning that have been assigned to 
xa-pif, the exact significance of these 
words is somewhat debatable. Of the 
many interpretations that have been 
proposed, three deserve consideration, 
(o) ad coercendax transgressiones ; as 
Chrys. (cu/rl x a ^<- l v & J cfyio?), Theoph. 
(Ecum., Jerome, and most of the older 
expositors : (Q) transyressinnum gratia, 
scil. to call them forth, to multiply them, 
and, as it were, bring them to a head, 
Kom. v. 20, vii. 7 ; so appy. Clarom , 
factorum (?) gratia," very distinctly 
yEth. (tx)th), ut multiplicarcnt pec- 
cata," and some modern expositors, 
Meyer, Alf., al. : (y) transgrcssionum 
causa, i. e. ut transgressiones palam 
faccret, eoque modo homines cogeret ad 
agnitionem sui reatus, Calv. ; Rom. iii. 

TO (nreppa a> 

20 ; so appy. Vulg , Syr., Copt., Arm., 
Aug., Beza, Winer (appy.), and also in 
part Hofmann (Schriftb. Vol. n. 2, p. 
48) who objects both to (o) and the ex 
treme view of (J3). Of these in 
terpretations we must, in spite of the 
authority of the Greek commentators, 
plainly reject (o) on lexical grounds, as 
no satisfactory exx. (Soph. (Ed. Col. 
443 [see Herm.] is not to the point, nor 
1 John iii. 12, nor even Clem. Horn, xi 
16, -riav TrapaTTTco/uoTcof X&P 11 *1 rifj.iapia 
firtrat) have as yet been adduced of 
such a practically reversed meaning of 
Xapiv. The second (3) is more plausi 
ble, but still open to the grave objection, 
that in a comparatively undogmatical 
passage it ascribes a purpose directly to 
God (contrast Horn. v. 20, v6/j.os irapeitr- 
7JA.dej> iva. K. T. A.), which would have 
certainly needed a fuller explanation. 
We may retain, therefore, with some 
confidence (y), which is both lexically 
defensible (see below), and yields a good^ 
and pertinent sense. The office of the 
law was to make transgressions palpable, 
to awaken a conviction of sin in the 
heart (TO 7re?<rcu tlSevat ra oife7a a.u.a.pri}- 
/j.ara, Chrys.), and make man feel his 
need of a Saviour. It was thus also 
necessarily temporary (&XP IS " K - r - ^-)> 
for when the Seed did come, higher 
influences began to work within. 
It only remains briefly to answer the 
lexical objection of Meyer, by stating 
that x^P lv (esp- i n later writers) does 
not always mean in gratiam," but in 
cludes all shades of meaning, from in 
gratiam to causa and propter, just as^ 
those of fi fKo. range from cnusa to quod 
attinet ad; see Bernh. Synt. v. 16, p. 
233, Ellcndt, Lf.x. Soph. s.v. x^P ". and 
comp. exx. in Ast, Lex. Plat and Host, 
u. Palm, Lex. s. v. A discussion 
of this passage and the general scope of 
the law will be found in Petav. de 

V. I 

c 0V , 

% " rtAJUjtA 


4 s~ 

CHAP. IIL 19. 


Biarar/els Bi dyyeXcov, ev 

Pradest. x. 25. 1, Vol. i. p. 461 ; com 
pare also Bull, Exam. Cens. xix. 6, and 
more recently Baur, Apost. Paul. in. 5, 
p. 581 sq., but observe that all these 
writers adopt the negative meaning of 
X-P tv - irpofffTf&Tj] teas su- 

peradded, sw/jer-addita est, Herm. ; 
it was, however, as Meyer observes, no 
^jnSio&ij/oj, but a totally fresh institu 
tion. The reason is given by (Ecum., 
"va deify rbv v6p.ov /XT; uina. irpttrrfainrov 
laffnep oi e7rcryyeA.ia tlffiv. The 

present reading is supported by ABCDs 
EJK; most mss. ; Theod. (2), Dam., 
Theoph., (Ecum., and is distinctly to be 
preferred to IrtdT) (Rec.j, which has 
both less external authority [D^G ; 
5 mss. (Vulg., Clarom., appy., but in 
such cases Vv. can hardly be cited) 
Clem., Orig., Euseb.], and also seems to 
have been a very natural substitution for 
a more difficult word. & x p s 

ov e\bri] until the seed shall have 
come ; terminus ad quern of the 
duration of the newly introduced in 
stitution (Mey.), involving the obvious 
query, ri irfpcurtpca Kal Trapa Kaipbv avrby 
t\Kfis, Chrys. This use of the sub- 
junct. after an aor. in temporal sen 
tences, can be fully defended on the 
recognized principle, that the past is 
contemplated by the writer as a present, 
from which, as it were, he is taking his 
survey of what would be then future, 
though now past ; see exx. in Winer, 
Gr. 41. 1, p. 257 sq., comp. Schmalf, 
Synt. 128. 2, Klotz. Devar. Vol. n. 
p. 618. It must, however, be applied 
with caution both in the N. T. and in 
later Greek, owing to the gradual dis 
use of the opt. and the tendency of the 
suhj. to take its place. Meyer calls at 
tention to the omission of &v as evincing 
the idea in St. Paul s mind of all 
absence of obstacles; see Herm. de 
Partic. &v, H. 9, p. 110, Klotz, Dsnar. 


Vol. n. p. 568, Schmalf. Synt. 121. 
!f iw^yyt\Tn] f to whom the prom 
ise has been made; irtpl Xpicrrou \eyuv t 
Chrys.; comp. ver. 16, fppf^rtffav vf 
ffTttpfjiari. It does not seem desirable 
to destroy the parallelism of these two 
clauses by translating fir-fry., sc. & eo s, 
actively. S tarayt i i\ ordained ; 

not promulgated, Ust., Winer, but 
simply ordinata, Vulg., Copt., dis- 
posita, Clarom. ; see Philo, Op. Mund. 
I. 1, StaTfTuy/ tai virb tlav vofj.oi$eT(av t 
and comp. Hesiod, Op. 274, vo^ov Se- 
To|e Kpovltav, where one Scholiast (Pro- 
clus) paraphrases it by the simple verb. 
The participial clause serves to add 
accessory details and distinctions to 
irpoirtT., and is not prior to, but con 
temporaneous with the action described 
by the finite verb ; comp. Col. ii. 15, 
and see notes in loc. On the union of 
the part, with the finite verb, see the 
brief but pertinent remarks of Bern- 
hardy, Synt. x. 9, p. 383, and the more 
elaborate notice of Schmalfeld, Synt. 
205 sq. It would certainly seem that, 
esp. in later Greek writers, the part, is 
often associated with the finite verb, 
where two verbs united with a copula 
would have seemed more natural and 
even more intelligible ; see the exx. in 
Herm. Viger, No. 224. On the best 
mode of translating this sort of partici 
ples, see notes on Phil. ii. 30 (Transl.) 
Si &.yy(\ut>] throwjh anyels, per 

angelos, Vulg., Clarom., ]o|l^ +*-> 

* A A 

[in manu angelorum] Syr., sell a.-fyt\tav 
inrovpyovvTwv, Theod. : third character 
istic of the law (see next note) serving 
to show the distinction, in point of man 
ner and circumstance, between its en 
actment and the giving of the Promise : 
per angelos, in manu mediatoris, du- 
plicitcr mediate, Beng. ; comp. Baur, 
Paulus, p. 582. There is thus no reason 



CHAP. III. 19, 20. 


evos ovtc 

whatever for modifying this meaning 
of Sia ; it points simply and plainly to 
the media and intervenient actors, by 
whose ministry the law was enacted ; 
see Joseph. Antiq. xv. 5, 3, ? ;^o>i/ ret KO.\- 
\LffTa rial Soypdrtav KCU TO. dcnurara. ruv 
Iv rots v6p.ois Si a.yyi\uv irapa rov 
&rov nad6i>ria>>, Deut. xxxiii. 2 (LXX), 
and see Winer, Gr. 47. 1, p. 339, note. 
t v x ( P I fj-t ff irov] in the hand 
of a mediator, in manu mediatoris, 
Syr., Vulg., Clarom., Copt., Arm. : 
fourth and most important distinction 
(see below) between the law and the 
Promise, and to which the argument of 
ver. 20 specially refers. The lv is not 
instrumental by the hand, Mey. (on 
the ground that Moses received the law 
from God, and gave it to the people ; 
comp. Baur, Apost. Paul. p. 583), but, 
as the use of the singular, and the Ara 
maic idiom both suggest, combines with 
Xapl os = t a, scil. ministerio (media 
toris) ; TTJ rovrou de crei Muufftvs SIUKO- 
vovvros, Theodoret ; see 2 Chron. xxxiii. 
8, Josh. xiv. 2, Wisdom xi. 1. 
That Moses is the mediator here referred 
to (Deut. v. 5), seems now so generally 
admitted, that we may reasonably won 
der how the early expositors (Basil and 
Theodoret are exceptions) could have so 
generally coincided in the perplexing 
view of Origen (Vol. v. p. 273, ed. 
Lomm.), that the fitcrirrts here men 
tioned was Christ. Great difference of 
opinion, however, exists as to St. Paul s 
object in recounting these details. If 
it was to prove the lowliness of the law, 
such a recital would in several parts 
rather seem to convey the contrary. If 
it was to show the glorious nature 
(Mey.), such an object would apjwar 
seriously at variance with the context. 
The more natural view is. that it was 
to mark the fundamental differences be 
tween the law and the Gospel, and 

thence, as a natural result of the contrast, 
the transitory and provisional nature of 
the former. The law was an institution 
(1), ruv irapa@dfftii>t> x^l> lv t restricted 
and conditioned; (2), \, t$ ol K. r. \., 
temporary and provisional ; (3), Siaraytis 
Si ayytKuv mediately (not immediately) 
given by God; (4) eV x fl F* M* ff -> medi 
ately (but not immediately) received 
from God : see Olsh. and Windischrn. in 

20. 6 St /uecri rTjs] Now every 
mediator, or, according to our English 
idiom, a mediator ; the 5e being transi 
tional (/j.fTa./3ariK6i , see notes on ch. iii. 
8), and the article referring, not to the 
mediator previously mentioned, this 
mediator (Brown), but to the generic 
idea of a mediator ; articulus definit 
indefinita, idquc duobus modis, aut de- 
signando ccrto de multis, aut quae multa 
sunt, cunctis in unum colliyendis, Ilerm. 
Iph. Aul. p. xv. (Pref.) ; see Winer, Gr, 
18. 1, p. 97. tvbs OVK eff- 

r t v] appertains not unto one, docs 
not belong to any single one, any one 
who stands isolated and by himself, but 
implies two parties ; so Copt, and Arm., 
both of which throw that slight em 
phasis on the iVoy, which the Greek 
seems both to require and suggest ; con 
trast Ilofmann, Schriftb. Vol. n. 2, p. 
48, who. appy. without any just ground, 
asserts the contrary. This idea of sin 
gleness and isolation is really our only 
clew. With regard to this and the 

remaining words it is necessary to pre 
mise that all idea of the verse being a 
gloss (Michaelis, Liicke, Stud. u. Krit. 
for 1828, p. 83 sq.) must be summarily 
dismissed, as there is no variation found 
in the MSS. or mss., either in the words 
or their order. 6 S( Oebj fj 

tffriv] but GOD is one; GOD (not 
without slight emphasis, comp. ver. 21), 
the direct and personal giver of tha 




CHAP. III. 20. 



Promise, does stand single and isolated, 
dealt singly with Abraham (r<j3 8 
Aj3p. 5 irayy\ tas /cexapifToi 6 0o j, 
ver. 18), and, by consequence, is (in 
the promise) mediatorless ; prop, minor 
of a syllogism, of which the conclusion, 
being obvious, is omitted ; see below. 
Out of the mass of interpretations of 
this terse sentence (said positively to 
exceed 400), Schleiermacher, Winer, 
and Meyer best deserve attention. A 
brief notice of these will serve to illus 
trate the precise nature of the difficul 
ties. In the first part of the verse all 
are agreed ; now every mediator in 
volves the idea of more than one : in 
the concluding clause they thus differ. 
(1) Schleiermacher, adopted by Usteri, 
Lehrb. 11. 1. 2, p. 179; but God is 
one in reference to His promises, free, 
unfettered by conditions. ( 2 ) Winer ; 
but God is one one part only (com 
pare JEth.-Pol., unus est duorum ); 
4 the people of Israel must be the other 
part : hence they are bound to the law. 
(3) Meyer; but God (on the contrary) 
is one and one only (ein Einziger) ; 
there is then a fundamental difference 
in the number of parties concerned in 
the law and the promise. Schl. and 
Win. thus connect ver. 20 with ver. 19 
as an epexegesis ; Mey. joins it with ver. 
21, making it St. Paul s own statement 
of a difficulty that might arise in a read 
er s mind. Meyer s interpretation has 
this advantage over Schleiermachcr s, 
that it preserves the numerical idea 
which plainly belongs to efs ; and this 
over Winer s, that 6 erfs, which is 
clearly the subject, is not practically 
turned into the predicate. In the under 
stress, however, which it places on the 
idea of unity as opposed to that of plu 
rality, and more esp. in the assumption 
that 6 5( tby K. r. \. is in fact a mono 
theistic locus communis (comp. Jow- 
ett), it cannot be pronounced wholly 
satisfactory. Perhaps the following 

simple explanation is less open to objec 
tions. The context states briefly the 
four distinctive features of the law (see 
above) with tacit reference to the tiray- 
yt\(a. Three of these are passed over ; 
the last as the most important, is no 
ticed ; the law was with, the promise 
was without a mediator. Ver. 20 thus 
appears a syllogism of which the con 
clusion is omitted : Noio a mediator 
does not appertain to one (standing or 
acting alone) ; but (in the promise) God 
is one (does stand and act alone) : 
THEREFORE (in the promise) A MEDIATOR 


the law (a dispensation which, besides 
other distinctions, involved a mediator) 
opposed to the promises which rested ON 
GOD (and involved no mediator) ? God 
forbid According to this view the 
only real difficulty is narrowed to the 
propositio minor. How was . God one ? 
And the answer seems, not because 
He is essentially unity (comp. De W.), 
nor because he is one by Himself, and 
Abraham is one by himself (Baur. Paul. 
p. 583), nor yet because he is both the 
giver, the Father, and the receiver, the 
Son, united (ed 1, Windischm. ; an 
interpr. too devoid of simplicity and too 
expressly theological), but, with the as 
pect that the last clause of ver. 18 puts 
on the whole reasoning, because He 
dealt with Abraham singly and directly, 
stood alone, and used no mediator. 
The almost obvious objection to this ex 
planation is, that it implies and involves 
a limitation ( in the promise ) in a 
clause which seems a mere locus com 
munis : but the answer does not seem 
unreasonable, that even assuming that 
the minor was really suggested to the 
Apostle, as being a general axiomatic 
statement, his previous declaration of 
God s having dealt with Abraham with 
no other medium than his own gracious 
promise (81 tirayyf A. us ) showed what 
he really regarded as the present veriS- 



CHAP. III. 21. 

6 ovv VOJJLOS Kara TWV eTrayyeXi&v TOV Oeov ; firj yevoiro. 
>yap eBo^tj 1/6/009 6 Swdftevo? faoTroirja-ai, 6Vro)9 e/c VO/JLOV av TJV 

cation of it. The reader who de 

sires to examine some of the other inter 
pretations may consult, for the earlier, 
Bonitz, Plur. de Gal. iii. 20 Sentent. 
Examinutfc, Lips. 1800 ; for the later, 
Winer s Excursus, and Meyer in loc. 

21. 6 otov v&ij.os K. T. \.] Is the 
law then against the promises of God ; 
the dlv with its full collective force 
(Klotz, Davar. Vol. n. p. 717), gather 
ing up the previous reasoning and im 
mediately applying its obvious though 
omitted result ; 4 does then a confessedly 
distinctive, ceremonial, and tnediatoi ial 
system stand in opposition with the 
promises which God gave to Abraham 
without a mediator and without any 
distinctive ceremonies ? -r o u 

&tov is not without emphasis : the 
promises which rest immediately on 
God, and were attested by no mediator. 
The plural ai 4ira,yyf\. is used, as in 
ver. 16, in ref. to different repetitions of 
the promise, and to .hint at the various 
ways of fulfilment which it contem 
plated. Lachm. places rov Qtov in 
brackets, in consequence of its omission 
in B, Clarom. Sangerm., but on au 
thority almost obviously insufficient. 
ft yap ^ 5 d d TJ] For if there had been 
given ; proof of the justice of the fore 
going declaration ^ ytvoiro ; irpurov 
litv airayoptvei tin-wit, ft)j ytvoiro- HirfiTa 
Kal KaraffKtvd^ft, Chrys. On the use of 
^r; ytvotro see notes on ch. ii. 17. 
po/uos 6 SvvdfHvos] a law (as the 
principle) which could have, etc. This 
is one out of many instances, both in 
the N. T. and elsewhere, in which, to 
give prominence to the denning clause, 
the anarthrous noun is followed and 
defined by the article attached to a par 
ticiple, e . g. Rom. ii. 14, S^CTJ TO ^ 
v6fi.uv tx otrTa - see further exx. in Winer, 

Gr. 20, 4, p. 12G, Ellendt, Lex. Soph. 
s. v. 6, Vol. n. p. 241. Co- 

iroiTJffat] to yioe life (and blessed 
ness) ; vivificare, sive vitam dare, idem 
est quod dare K^povofi.ia.i , ruereditatem 
vitae caulestis atque seternue, Bull, Exam. 
Cens. xix. 6 ; see 2 Cor. iii. 6, and 
comp. Ust. Lchrb. i. 4. n, p. 61. So 
also in ver. 12, ^fftrai (= a>V altaviov 
{e/, Olsh. on Rom. i. 17) similarly in 
volves the ideas of life and blessedness. 
OVTUS K. T. A..] verily, etc.; ap- 
prime notanda est emphasis egregia in 
adverbio tWois, vcre, Bull, Exam. Cens. 
xix. 6. It has been asked whether St. 
Paul is here reasoning (a) from the 
effect (faoir.) to the cause (5i/caiocr. ) ; 
or, conversely (6), from the cause (faoir., 
assumed to mean a new moral life) to 
the effect (SiKaiocr.) , compare Neander, 
Plant. Vol. i. p. 418 (Bohn). Cer 
tainly the former; SIKOUO<T. is really, as 
Ust. properly observes, the middle mem 
ber of between v6^os and ^CDTJ, without 
which the law could not have given 
life. St. Paul, however, thus states his 
argument : lex vitam dare non potest, 
proinde neque veram justificationem, 
Bull, Ex. Cens. 1. c. The order 

adopted in lice, forus &/ (V vApov $v, 
has only the support of D ;! EJK ; mss. ; 
Chrys., Theod., al., and is rejected by 
most critical editors. f K i/6fj.ov] 

would have reunited from the laic, 
would have come from the law as its 
origin, not would have been suspended 
on law (Puile), a moaning which 
usually arises from the associated verb, 
Sfjc, apTuffdcu, etc., and dots not appear 
to be very common out of Ilerodot. ; 
comp. Bernhardy, Synt. v. 13, p. 227. 
The order in Rec., &> t/c j/^uov fy, with 
D^EJK; mss.; Chrys., Theod., al.], 
has not sufficient authority, though, 

U o\JV. & 



I L\U*A\fA. 

XV. XX; /<r:2 <+,l/\ /X^:< 

// 3 ^ . 


V^^<i^-^JjtCA^^X^ U^Jl ^ 

(^ Lc^H^M<^(^ t^ U^L^ Usy^J^*? v 

CHAP. III. 22. 



rav va 

K d\\a crvveicXeicrev 17 >ypa(prj TO, Trdvra VTTO dfj,ap- 
eTrayyeXia IK Trurrea)? Irjcrov Xpicrrov Bcfefj roZ? 

it must be admitted that, owing to the 
variations in theTeading MSS. (B lv 
VO/J.M, D om. Hi/, FG oin. &v -t\v}, the 
text is not wholly free from suspicion. 

22. d A. A <] But on thv contrary ; not 
8, as there is a marked adversative re 
lation between the clauses, and as a 
statement in ref. to the law is about to 
be made exactly contrary to the result 
of the foregoing assumption ; see Klotz, 
Devar, Vol. n. p. 2, 3. In Latin, this 
distinction can usually be maintained 
by the more distinctly adversative sed 
(Vulg., Clarom.), not the more simply 
oppositive autem, in which the latter 
particle, discrimen proprie indicator, 
non diversitas, Hand, Tursell. Vol. i. 
p. 555, comp. Klotz, Vol. i. p. 361. 
ffv v K \fior fv i] y p aty-fi] the Scrip 
ture shut up ; not equivalent to 6 v6/.ws 
(Jowett, al.J, but with a kind of .per 
sonification, ^ dfi o ypa<p-fi (Thcod.), the 
Scripture of the Old Test, as the repre 
sentative of Him by whom it was in 
spired ; comp. ver. 8. With regard to 
the meaning of <TvyK\fieiv ( concludi 
sub peccato is dicitur, qui peccati reatu 
adhuc obstrictus tenetur, Bull, Ex. Cens. 
xix. 6), it may be observed ( 1 ) that the 
declaratory sense ( conclusos dcclaravit, 
Bull, comp. Baur, Paulus, p. 581), does 
not lie in the verb (see Rom. xi. 32, 
where the act is ascribed to God), but 
in the context ; and (2) that the prep. 
avv docs not imply the similarity of 
situation of all (Beng.), but simply the 
idea of contraction (Mey.), ab omni 
parte clausit, Schott 2 ; comp. <rvnvie- 
(it>, ffv^irviytiv see Fritz, Rom. xi. 32, 
Vol. ii. p. 545, and exx. in Rost u. 
Palm, Lex. s. v. Vol. n. p. 1305, where 
instances are cited of (rvyx\. being usod 
in reference to a single person. On 

this text and on the general relation of 

the law to sin, see the weighty sermon 
of Usher, Serm. v. Vol. xin. p. 60 sq. 
(ed. Elringt.). r a itavra} 

all. The neuter cannot safely .be 
pressed (non modo omnes sed omnta 
Beng.), as if it were specially chosen 
to include not only men, but all their 


. ^ 
/ J >^^ 

2 t > 

O \ /L 


actions, etc , humana omnia, Jowett \AJt\ I 1 
(comp. Alf, Windisc.); this being neither jj / , ov 
required by the context (comp. ver. 23), . ^ ^1 // 
nor justified by St. Paul s usus loquendi : 
see Rom. xi. 32, where, in a passage 
exactly similar, the masc. is used, and O 
comp. Thcodoret in loo., who divides the 
ra irdvTa, into TOVS irpb vAfj.ov, and TOI;I 
tv v6^f. The exact difference between 
TOUJ TTtJi/ros and ri irdi/Ta. is, perhajis, 
.here no greater than between < all men 
and all mankind (see Ut-t. ) : the neu 
ter is idiomatically and instinctively 
chosen, as best suiting the generality of 
the declaration ; compare Winer, Gr. X. / 
27. 5, p. 160, Scidler on Eur. Troad. 
426. Iva. i) lirayy.] in order 

that the promise ; object and intent, 
not the mere recognized consequence 
(quo appareat dari, Winer) of the 
avyK\fi<Tis, on the part of j) ypa^ij and 
God its author. The abstract firayyf\ia 
is here, as the context suggests, practi 
cally equivalent to the concrete res 
promissa (Schott), scil. KKfipovofn-ia. , see 
ver. 18, Hcb. x. 36, xi. 39, and comp. 
Test. xii. Pair. p. 725, 6 02>y tVa|ei 
V/JLO.S fls T V eirayyf A/ac ( cited by Bretsch. 
Lex. s. v.), where this concrete notion 
is taken in its widest extent as = 7) 717 
TT)S ^TrcTy-yeA/as ; so KA^pow/ut o, 2 Mace. 
ii. 4. in wlffrtttt l.X.] by 

fai h in Jesus Christ, rrsnlting from 
faith as its source and origin (notes, ch. 
ii. 16) ; < irlffT. being in close union, 
not with 80,^17 (Riiek., Conyb.), but with 
^a (compare Winer, Gr. 20. 2, 



CHAP. III. 23, 

Tricrrevovo iv. * Trpo TOV Be e\^ielv rrjv TTLCTTIV, VTTO vopov <f>pov- 
sa a-vjKK\eia-fj,evoi et? TTJV [leXXovcrav TTicrriv a7rorca\v(f&r]- 

p. 123, notes on Eph. i. 15), and forming 
a retrospective antithesis to IK v6pov, ver. 
21. Tho genitive ITJCT. Xp. is perhaps 
here to be taken in its most comprehen 
sive sense ; not only faith on Christ 
(gen. objecti), but faith as given by 
Him (gen. sitbjecti); comp. notes on 
ch. ii 16. In the N. T. especially, the 
connection of the nom. and gen. must 
often be explained solely from excgetical 
considerations; see Winer, Gr. 30, 1, 
p. 168 TolsiriffTfvovffif] 

to them that believe ; not qui erant 
credituri (Grot. Peile), but eis qui 
crcdunt, C larom , al., crcdentibus, 
Vulg., the apparent tautology not being 
intended merely as emphatic (Winer), 
but as suitably echoing the IK iriffretas 
above. The Galatians were ready to 
admit that those who believed would 
be saved, but they doubted whether 
faith alone was sufficient ; hence the 
apostle interposes the limitation in ref. 
to the thing promised (T) lirayy. IK 
ir iffr.}, and virtually repeats it in rcf. 
to the recipients. The promise was of 
faith not of the law ; the receivers were 
not doers of the law, but believers ; 
comp. Meyer in Inc. 

23. Trpb TOV Sf K. r. X.] But be 
fore Faith ( above mentioned) came ; 
further account of the relation in which 
the law stood to faith, 8e not being here 
distinctly oppositive, but with some 
tinge of its primary enumerative force 
(see Donalds. Crat. 155), adding a 
further explanation, though in that ex 
planation serving to introduce a con 
trast ; see Klotz, Devar. Vol. n. p. 362. 
With regard to the position of the par 
ticle, it may be remarked that there is 
nothing unusual (opp. to Ruck.), in 8e 
thus occupying the third place after a 
prep, and its case ; see exx. in Hartung, 

Partik. Sf, 1. 6, Vol. i. p. 190. The 
common-sense principle is, that 5 does 
not necessarily occupy the second place, 
but the first possible place which the 
internal connection of the sentence will 
admit of; see Klotz, Devar. Vol. H. p. 
378. virb v6)J.ov 4<(>povpov~ 

/j.t & a K. r. A..] we were kept ~m~ward 
shut up under fhe law ; ffvjKfK\. being 
joined, not with tts iriVrii/ (see follow 
ing note), but, in a construction similar 
to that of the preceding verse, with fab 
v6/j.oir (Arm., al.); the law, in fact, is 
here (as auapria in ver. 22) represented 
as a kind of gaoler into whose custody 
we were delivered ; see Kiister, Stud. u. 
Krit. 1854, p. 316. The meaning of 
<ppovpt7(T&ai is thus not merely asser- 
vari (Winer, Schott), much loss ob- 
stringi ad obedicntiam (Bretsch.), but, 
as the definite expression ffvyfK\. dis 
tinctly requires, custodiri, Vulg., Cla- 
rom., Copt., JEth.), Sxrirep fv rttx V r uA 
KaTe xff Chii, Chrys ; compare Wisdom 
xvii. 15, typovpelTo els rrjv &.rriSripoi> 
ttpxTriv Kara.K\eia&tis. The perf. part., 
it may be observed, correctly expresses 
the permanent, completed state of the 
captivity, and is thus not only on criti 
cal but exegetical grounds to be pre 
ferred to the pres. ffvyK\ft6fjievot [Lachm. 
with B(Mai)DiFG; 2 mss. ; Clem (1), 
Cyr. (3), Dam.], which was not im 
probably a conformation to the imperf. 
t<f>povp. : so rightly De W., Mey., and 
the majority of recent critics. 
els r))i> (i4\\ovffa.v K. r. \.\ for 
the faith about to be revealed; object 
contemplated in the action of <ppovprjffts, 
eir not being temporal, usque ad 
(Riiok., list., comp. Copt., JElh ), a 
meaning comparatively rare in the New 
Test, (compare John xiii. 1), and here 
certainly superfluous after the predica- 

(/. *.T/V. 



~A^ 4^- . / 3 

fc^L^r^* *// , /^f ^H 6(l"s>~ 

^f^Tl fy ,2^ 4 : /i *; 
bcj^ .^^^6^J, ^x/ ^ / 

K A^-XA 1 Af t<Ax, t^, ^ 7v^-t^\ ^t-i 

CHAP. TIT. 24, 25. G A I, A T I A N S . 87 

vai. 24 wcrre o ro/io? 7raiBaya)ybs ?;/z&ii/ yeyovev et? XpicndV) "va 

By faith in Christ we 25 ITS C\_ p.\^ r >/ r\ 

luivc become freed from Hj/^OVO ^ 06 T^9 77 i<7Te&>< OVKeTl V7TQ 

the pcdugogy of the law, and ore thus all children of God, Abraham s seed, nnd heirs of the promise. 

tion of time in irpb TOV e X&fij , but in 
its usual ethical meaning of destination 
for ( in fidem, Vulg., Clarom.) ; com 
pare Winer, Gr. 49. a, p. 353. The 
clause is thus naturally connected with 
the finite verb, not with <rvyK\. ( con- 
clusi, adeoque adacti ad, Beng.), a 
construction certainly admissible (see 
exx. in Schweigh. Lex. Polyb. s. v. 
ffvyn\., or Ilaphel, Annot. Vol. n. p. 
440 sq.), but open to this serious exe- 
getical objection, that faith is not yet 
represented as existing; see Meyer in 
loc. f/Lt \\ovff av IT iff T. 

a. IT OK.] The unusual order seems in 
tended to give prominence to pt \\ova av, 
and to present more forcibly the contrast 
between former captivity and subsequent 
freedom; comp. Rom. viii. 18, irpbs r^i/ 
He\\ouirai> S6av aTroKoAtKp&Jji ai, where 
the future glories are set in strong con 
trast to present calamities ; see Fritz, in 
loc., Vol. n. p. 148. 

24. S> ff re] So then, itaque, Vulg., 
Clarom. ; consequence from the preceding 
statement; see notes, ch. ii. 13. 
7rai5o7Q)7({s] pedagogue ; pacclago- 
gus proprie notat eum qui puerum manu 
prehensum ad magistrum ducit, Schoett. 
(Hor. Vol. i. p. 741 ), who remarks, how 
ever, that thu word was adopted by Rab 
binical writers, but with some additional 
notions of care and guardianship : even 
among the Greek and Latin writers the 
idea of guardianship and also of strict 
ness and severity is distinctly prominent ; 
see esp. the exx. in Eisner, Obs. Vol. n. 
p. 186. The mere idea of leading to 
Christ ( vise dux [skau-mdit], Copt., 
ductor," JEth.) must not, then, be re 
tained to the exclusion of those of actual 
teaching (Arm., Auth.), tutelage, and 

disciplinary restraint. This pedagogic 
function of the law was displayed posi 
tively, in warnings and threatenings ; 
negatively (the prevailing idea in this 
place), in awakening the conscience, and 
bringing a conviction of sin ; compare 
Usteri, Lehrb. i. 5, p. 66. The patristic 
comments will be found in Suicer, The- 
saur. s. v. v6fj.os, Vol. n. p. 921 ; see 
also Petav. de Prcsdest. x. 26. 1 sq. Vol. 
i. p. 464. fls Xpio-T 6i>] for 

Christ ; not temporal (&xpu ou e\&r; Xp. 
see ver. 23), still less local, to Christ 
as a 5t8d<TKa\os (irpbs rbv Xp. airriyt, 
Theoph , comp. Chrys.), as Christ would 
thus be represented under two offices, 
Teacher and (tva, IK mar. SIK.) Atoner, 
in the same verse. If any trace of a 
local meaning be retained in translation, 
e. y. unto, Auth. Ver., it must be un 
derstood of an ethical arrival (compare 
2 Cor. x. 14), as ds with persons is not 
simply equivalent to irpds, but involves 
the idea of mingling with and associa 
tion ; comp. Rom. v. 12, and see Winer, 
Gr. 49. a, p. 353. "va etc 

irlffT. St/caio)^.] to the intent that 
we might be justified by faith ; more 
distinct and specific explanation of the 
preceding els XprroV, the emphatic tit 
iriffTttas serving to suggest and enhance 
the contrast with the non-justifying and 
merely pedagogic v6fi.os. On the proper 
force of the SIKCUOVV IK, see notes on ch. 
ii. 16. 

25. 4 \doAvns 8t] but now that 
(this) faith is come : contrast between 
the present freedom and the past ped 
agogy ; ^A.&ot;0Tjr, <f>Tjo-t, rfjs iriVrews, TTJS 
TS Aetop a.fSpa TroiouerTjs, OVK &v en efyjuev 
yirb ircuSaywyov, Theoph. The connec 
tion is so close throughout this lattet 



CHAP. III. 2f>, 27 


ov fcrfjiev. M Trainee yap viol 6eov ecrre Sta rij? TTICT- 
ev Xpi<TTa> IT/CTOI) oaoi yap e/? Xpiofbv e/S 

portion of the chapter, that it is difficult 
to subdivide it into paragraphs. Meyer, 
Conyb., al. place a paragraph after ver. 
22 : it seems, however, more natural 
here, as vcr. 23, 24, carry out the idea 
expressed in ffw(K\tifffv, ver. 22. 
VT& icaioaya>y6v] under a peda 
gogue. The article is not here latent 
after the prep. (comp. Winer, Gr. $ 19. 
2 b, p. 114), but appears studiously 
omitted (so rightly Copt.), the words 
being in fact equivalent to under tute 
lage, unter ratlagogengewalt, Meyer. 
26. irdvTfs yap] For ye all, con 
firmation, e contrario, of the truth of 
the foregoing words ; they were now 
not irdiSfs, but viol ( filii emancipate, 
remoto custode, Beng.), and that too 
not sons of Abraham merely (comp. ver. 
7), but sons of God; Trp6rtpoi> ttifi^tv 

OTl VWVS tiroici [?; TTl lTTtS ToO] A/3p. . . . 

vvv 0( a7ro(f>aiVei on KCU roC 0eoD, Chrys. 
The viol 0eoi), as Theocl. Mops, well 
observes, includes the idea of Tf\twrris, 
which the preceding metaphor might 
serve to suggest. The reading 

avai Tts adopted by Lachm. is not im 
probable, but not supported by AB. 
TT)S IT i ITT. Iv Xp. I TJCT.] through 
the faith in Jesus Christ ; so rightly 
Syr., Arm. (ed. Zohr.), Syr.-Philox., 
and Chrys. (cd. Field). Several com- 
mcntators*, al. : see Hofm. Schnftb. 
Vol. II. 2, p. 152) join iv Xp. lri<r. with 
viol 0. io~T(, on the ground that the 
words would be a superfluous addition 
to iritTTis, and that vcr. 27 contains the 
amplification of the expression. But, 
independently of the awkwardness of 
adding a second modal clause to viol 
larf, the recurrence of the formula 
iriff-Tts tv Xp. ITJCT. (Eph. i. I. 1 ), Col. i. 4) 
its grammatical accuracy (Winer, Gr. 
} 20. 2, p. 123, notes on Eph. i. 15), 

and the natural coherence of the words, 
all seem distinctly to suggest the simpler 
and less dUlocuted construction If the 
article had been inserted, we should then 
have two ideas conveyed, the latter of 
which would be explanatory of the 
former ; per fid em, eamque in Chr, 
Jes. colloeatam, see Fritz. Rom. iii. 25, 
Vol. i. p. l J5. 

27. offoi yap] for as many as- 1 
proof and confirmatory explanation of 
the preceding assertion. The force of 
the particle is best explained by the 
Greek commentators, who refer it to vloi 
0oC, and base the argument on the fact 
that Christ was the Son of God : &/5u- 
ffarrdf rbis Xp. rbv dATjdtos vibv rov Qtov, 
ZKI^VOV Of fvfito v/jitvoi j($Ta. s viol &eov 
XpwaTi^eTe, Theodoret ; see a^o Chrys. 
in loc. (is X p tr T 6 v} into 

Christ; not in Christo," Vulg., Cla- 
rom., but in Christum, l?cza (compare 
Copt, pichr] ; scil. ut Christo addicti 
cssetis, Schott, or more strictly, into 
communion with Him, and incorpora 
tion in His mystical body. The mean 
ing of fls with Panrifa appears twofold ; 
(a) unto, object, purpose: Matth. iii. 
11, Acts ii. 38, see Winer, Gr. 49. a, 
p. 354, Bernhardy, Synt. v. 11. b. 3, p. 
220; (/3) into, union and communion 
with : the context always showing 
whether it be of the most complete 
and most mystical nature, as here and 
Rom vi. 3 (comp. 1 Cor. xii. 13), or, as 
in 1 Cor. x. 2, necessarily less compre 
hensive and significant. We may, in 
conclusion, observe that the expression 
/Scurr. (Is rb o^o/io (Matth. xxviii. 19, 
Acts viii. 16, xix. 5, a4. ) is not identi 
cal in meaning with Pawr. tv TW <W/u. 
(Tholuck, Btiitr djc. No. 8, p. 49 sq.), 
but ever implies a spiritual and mystical 
union with Him in whose name the 

ir XV; U^ u^X <x& (~u~ ^ . ~7/^ ^ ^ ^\ 

^PY V. ^^ ^^4 A^^ , /^ A-^^^J^^ re^W^* ^ 
9^1^ ^l+^tyV^ t^fi~J. U^-^ft-J^ 

CHAP. III. 27, 28. 



XpHrrbv evebvcraafee. 2S OVK evt, louSato? ou$e "EXX7;i>, OVK evi 
oDXo<> ovBe e Xei?^epo9, OVK evt dpcreu teal ^ffj\v Trdvre^ yap 

sacrament was administered ; see esp. 
Stier, Reden Jesu, Vol. vi. p. 899. 
The meaning of ftmrri^fiv nva. sfr nva. 
(ets TI) and Pairr. eis rJ> ufo/uct TII/OS is 
discussed at length by Frit?.. (Rom. vi. 
3, Vol. i p. 3,59 sq.), in opp. to Bindseil, 
Stud, u Krit. 1832, p. 410 sq., but by 
no means satisfactorily, as he regards j 
as only implying ethical direction ( ali- 
quem aquic ita immergcre ut ejus cogi- 
tationes in aliquem dirigas ), instead of 
that mystical incorporation which the 
passage seems certainly to convey. The 
patristic comments on this expression 
will be found in Suicer, Thes. Vol. i. 
p. 624 sq., but are not sufficiently ex 
act. Xpivrbv eVeSutrcKT&e] 
ye put on Christ, soil, at your baptism ; 
ocroi yap (Is Xpurrbv e/3a7rn<rd7)Te <=K rov 
tov tyevvrtfrriTf, Chrys. There appears 
here no allusion to Heathen (toga virilis), 
Jewish (whether at the High Priest s 
inauguration, Deyling, Obs., Vol. in. 
p. 406 sq., No. 42, or in a cabalistic 
sense, comp. Schoettg. on Rom. xiii. 14, 
Vol. i. p. 571), or, even, though very 
plausible, Christian customs (at baptism, 
Bingham, Antiq. Book xn. 4. I sq.). 
From the instances Wetst. has collected 
on Rom. xiii. 14, it would appear that 
tvtivfo &a.i TITO is a strong expression, 
denoting the complete assumption of 
the nature, etc., of another ; e. g. Dion. 
Halicar. A. R. xi. 15. 5 (r~bv Tapxvviov 
ttcflvov fv8vo/j..), Tac. Ann. xvi. 28. Thus 
toS, Xpiffrof implies a union with Christ 
of so true and so complete a nature, 
that we are brought tls p.tav ffvyytvtiav 
Ka.1 jui o!/ ISfav (Chrys.) with Him, and, 
as it is beautifully paraphrased by Calv., 
1 coram Deo nomen ac personam Christi 
geramus, atque in Ipso magis qnam nobis- 
met ipsis censeamnr: comp. Bp. Barlow, 
cited by Waterl. Works, Vol. iv. p. 604, 


and see Suicer, Thesaur. s. v. iv$., Vol. 
i. p. 1112. For a good sermon on this 
text, see Donne, Serm. LXXXVII. Vol. iv. 
p. 102 (ed. Alt .), and for a notice of the 
perversion of this text by heretics, Forbes, 
Instruct, x. 111. 32 sq., p. 448. 

28. OVK $vi K. T. A] There is among 
(such) neither Jew nor Greek; digres 
sive statement of the practical result 
of the Xp. ^i/eS. : the new and holy 
habitus causes all other distinctions, 
whether of nation (compare Rom. x. 
12), condition, or even sex, to be wholly 
lost sight of and forgotten. The form 
itvi is not for Ij/eo-rt, but according to 
Buttm. (see Winer, Gr. 14. 2, p. 74), 
is the lengthened form of the adverbi- 
alized prep., to which the requisite 
person of the auxiliary verb must be 
supplied. This explanation has in its 
favor the similar use of irdpa, which can 
scarcely be called, a contraction for trdp- 
(ffri , but against it those exx. where 
iv and fvi are used in the same sentence, 
e. y. Plat rhtpd. 77 E, ICTUS tvi KO! to Thecet. 186 D, and, according to 
best reading, 1 Cor. vi. 5. In such 

cases, however, lv\. would seem to mean 
little more than la-r i (ew eVnV, virapxti, 
Zonar. Lex. Vol. i. p. 748), the prepo 
sitional force being wholly lost ; comp. 
Col. iii. 11. In either case the explana 
tion of the present passage remains the 
same ; eVi tr\f7oi> Snj-yeirat T^V a-ya^oTTjra 
roD Qfov oirov yf iracri TT\V tariv 8e5a>;fe 
owpfdv, Damasc. Deyling illustrates this 
by reference to the various personal, etc , 
distinctions among the Jews ; Obs. Sacr. 
Vol. i p. 312 sq., No. 64; Eisner (in 
loc.) notices also the customary exclu 
sion of slaves from certain Heathen rites 
and temples, Obs. Vol. n. p. 187. 
& p ff f v KO.\ & T) X v] male and female ; 
masculus et femina, Clarom., but not 



CHAP. III. 29. IV. 1. 

els ecrre ev Xpicna) I^crou. el Be v/j,eis Xpiarov, apa rov 
A(3paa/j, (nrepfAa e crre, /car eirayyekiav K.\r)pov6[j,oi. 

IV. Aeyw Se, e<j> ocrov ^povov o K\rjpovo- 

Ai every heir is under 
tutelage, o before Christ 
came we all were under bondage, but now have become free on and inheritoi 

Vulg., Goth., Copt., al., which do not 
preserve the slight change of particle. 
While the alterable political and sociable 
distinctions are contrasted by ovtie, the 
unalterable human one of sex is ex 
pressed by Hal ; Mark x. 6, a-rrb Sf apxys 
KriiTfias lipaev Kal &r)Ao ttroirifffv avrovs, 
compare 1 Tim. ii. 13. This latter dis 
tinction is of course noticed not in its 
mere physical, but its ethical aspect, 
the subordination of the wife to the 
husband (Olsh.). This, though an un 
changeable law of our species when 
considered Kara ffdpita, Eph. v. 22, al., 
is lost sight of in this tyyvrtpa irpbs r bv 
Xpiffrbf fvcams, Chrys. ir d v r ( s 

yap] for ye all; proof of the preceding 
statement ; rip tva. rvirov HO.} piav /j.op<p^if 
tt>5eSvo-&ai, r^v rov Xp., CEcum. The 
reading a.Travr. (Lachm.) seems an early 
gloss. e fs] one, i, c. one per 

son ; r"o (Is avrl rov ei> <roi/xa, 1 heodorct : 
compare Lucian, Toxar. 46 (cited by 
Wetst.), fj av&ptairos uvTfS ovrw $iovfj.fv. 
The concluding words tv Xpiary \T)<TOV 
obviate all mistakes by defining in whom, 
and in whom alone, this union was fully 

29. e I Se u/j.f is} But if ye ? re 
sumption of the argument after the 
short digression of ver. 28, the empha 
sis resting slightly on UjueTs : as ye, to 
whom I am speaking, and who have 
felt such doubts on the subject, have 
put on Christ, ye must be what lie is 
(ver. If)), the seed of Abraham. 
The reading efs tcrrt tv X. Irjir. instead 
of Xpio-rou, though found in D EFG ; 

Clarom Ambrst. is clearly an ex- 

egetical gloss. rov A/3paa/i 

ffirtpua] Abraham s seed; rov Aj8p. 
being put forward with a slight i mpha- 

sis, and standing in correlation to X/JKT- 
rov to give force and perspicuity to the 
conclusion ; et 5e fyitTy ttrrt Xpto~rov 
HOp<pT) (col troika, flKorws rov Aj8p. tart 
ffirtpua, (Ecum. ; comp. Thcod. in loc., 
and esp. Thcod. Mops. (p. 126, ed. 
Fritz ) who has well elucidated the ar 
gument. K a. r 4 IT ay y. K \ 77- 
pov6jj.oi\ heirs according to, or by 
way of promise ; not by any legal ob 
servances. The K\npovo/j.ia is now stated 
absolutely ; they were /cXrypoi/ojuoi, not 
merely of Abraham, nor even rvjy firay- 
yf\ias (Thcod. Mops.), but simply of 
all that which was involved in it, salva 
tion and the kingdom of Christ ; comp. 
Meyer in loc. The declaration of ver. 
7 is now at length substantiated and 
expanded by 22 verses of the drcpest, 
most varied, and most comprehensive 
reasoning that exists in the whole com 
pass of the great Apostle s writings. 
The /col before tear, tirayy., adopted by 
lice, with FGJK ; mss. ; Syr. (both), 
Goth , ^-Eth. ; Chrys., Theod., is now 
rightly omitted by most critical editors. 

CHAPTER IV. 1. \tyu 5e] Now I 
say ; further and more explanatory 
proof of the assertion that we are heirs, 
suggested by the term K\ripov6/j.ot (ch. 
iii.29), and the comparisons it involves ; 
comp. ch. v. 16, Horn. xv. 8, where the 
use of \(y<a Sf in introducing a con 
tinued explanatory argument rather than 
merely elucidating a statement or ex 
pression that had preceded (comp. ch. iii. 
17, rovro 8e \fyo>, 1 Cor. i. 12, \fyw 5 
rovro, 1 Cor. vii. 29, rovro 5 <J>7jjui), 
seems analogous to the present. 
6 K \rjpov 6 fj.os] the heir, i. e. every 
heir; compare 6 uto-irris, ch. iii. 20, 

CHAP. IV. 1, 2. 



/to? vrfTTio^ ecrTiv, ovSev Siafiepei SouXou, Kvpios TTCLVTWV 
2 dXXa VTTO eTriTpoTTOvs early Kal oltcovofjiovf a^pi TT}? 

The very apposite quotation from Din 
Chrys., xv. p. 240, adduced by Wetst. 
in loc., is too long for citation, but is 

"\Viner, Gr. 18. 1, p. 97. There are 
some excgetical difficulties in this and 
the following verse, arising from the 
fact, that, while the nature of ihe com 
parison (see Brown), as well as the 
words &xpt TTJJ irpo^fff/jLias rov Tarpoy, 
would seem to imply that the father 
was alive, the expression Kvpws ira.vr<ai> 
&v, and the term tiriTpoirovs (but see be 
low) might be thought to imply that he 
was dead. The latter view is taken by 
Theodoret and the majority of ancient 
(silet Chrys.), with several modern com 
mentators ; the former is ably advocated 
by Neubour, Bibl. Brem. Class. Vol. v. 
p. 40 (cited by Wolf), and also many 
recent expositors. Grotius endeavors to 
escape the difficulty by representing the 
father absent on travel ; comp. ./Elian, 
far. Hist. in. 26, cited below in note 
ver. 2. The question, however, is really 
of little moment : St. Paul is engaged 
so entirely in the simple comparison of 
the circumstances of the nonage of the 
earthly K\t)pov6/ji.os, with those of the 
nonage of believers who lived under the 
law (ver. 3), that the subordinate ques 
tion of the life, death, or absence of the 
father of the K\T]pof6fj.os passes wholly 
out of sii;ht ; comp. Alf. in loc. 
v -ft IT t o s] on in font, a minor ; &VTJ&OS, 
as opposed to f <pt]/3os, the technical term 
for one who had attained his majority ; 
see Smith, Diet. Antiq. s. v. <f>7j/3., and 
Reff. in Piost. u. Palm, Lex. Vol. i. p. 
1282. There docs not seem any suf 
ficient reason for departing from this 
usual view of v^irios (opp. to Bagge in 
loc.), or with Chrys., al , for introducing 
any reference to the ethical meaning of 
weakness of understanding. 
o v5 \v 5 t a<p e p * t 8 o v \ o v] differs 
in nothing from a bond- servant ; imo 
servo [Trai5aytay<f] subjectus est, Erasm. 

worth referring to. 

K V p lot 

K avr <av &v\ though he be lord of all ; 
concessive use of the participle ; comp. 
Donalds. Gr 621, Kriiger, Sprachl. 
56. 13. 1 sq. It does not seem neces 
sary for the sake of preserving the image 
of a liviny father to understand these 
words as prospective ; the heir was the 
Kvpios ( Grot, compares the use of hems 
minor in Lat. comedy), in right of 
birth and condition. 

2. Iirirp6irovs) overlookers, guar 
dians. The latter is the usual meaning 
of the word in relation to children 
(comp. Isanus, Hcer. Cleonym. 10, p. 
4 (ed. Schom. ), tbv ex& l<rTO " T W J oiKtiuv 
firir porrov Ko.Ta.Knr (.Iv , ib. liter. Dica;. ^ 
10 ; Pint. Lycurg, 3, rovs rSiv 6p<f>aviav 
ftaari\(<av firirp6wovs), and that in which 
it appears to have been adopted by He 
brew writers ; compare Schoettg. Hor. 
Hebr. in loc., Sclclen, dc Success, ch. 9, 
Vol. ii. p. 25. It seems here, however, 
better to adopt the more general mean 
ing overlooker, one entrusted icith the 
charge of anything (comp. Aristoph. 
Eccl. 212, tiriTpdirois Kal Ta/j.iai<ri, Xen. 
CEcon. xn. 2, 6 Iv ro?s a-ypois fitirpoiros), 
and not to embarrass the passage with 
terms which might bring in irrelevant 
considerations (the father s being alive 
or dead ) into the present simple com 
parison. We may, however, not un 
suitably comp. ./Elian, For. Hist. in. 1 6, 
fTTi rp. Kal rov iroiS^s, ical tiav XPW* TC "" 
where the context distinctly shows that 
the father was alive, though absent. 

otKov6/j.ovs] stewards, . ^^ 5 

... o 

] A *-^ [dominos domusl Syr., acto- 


G A L A T I A X $ . 

CIIAP. IV. 2, 3. 

rov Trarpos. OVTWS 

res, Vulg., Clarom. [compare Plin. Ep. 
in. 19], less accurately, Goth, fauragag- 
gam [ Vorstcher] ; managers of the prop 
erty of the K\T>ipoi>6ftos, and standing in 
the same relation to his estate as the liri- 
Tfioirot did to his education and general 
bringing up ; comp. Plutarch, Educ. $ 7, 
bov\tav . . . TOVS 8* oiKcW/uous, rovs Sf 80- 
vfiffrds. Most commentators not inaptly 
cite the case of Eliezcr, Gen. xv. 2, comp. 
xxiv. 2 ; illustrations from Roman law 
(Bagge, al.) do not seem here in point, 
as the comparison is simple and general. 
r ri s irpo&fff/jitas] the time appointed 
(beforehand) prsefinitum tcmpus, 
Vulg. The term irpo$fff/j.ta., scil. Sipa. or 
flU^pa (for the distinction between these, 
see Bagge in loc.), is properly the term 
limited for bringing actions or prosecu 
tions, the time fixed by the statute of 
limitations, Tag der Vcrjahrung : sec 
Smith, Diet, of Antiq. s. v., and exx. 
in Host. u. Palm, Lex. s. v. ; thence, 
any pro-appointed time or day ; see the 
numerous exx. in "NVetst. in loc., Kypke, 
Obs. Vol. n. p. 279, Krebs. Obs. p. 322. 
In cedes, writers, Trpo&ffTfj.. is sometimes 
used for the time assigned for repentance 
before excommunication ; see Bingham, 
Antiq. xvi. 2. 7. It may be ob 

served that as the termination of nonage 
wasjixed in Hebrew (13 years and a day 
for males; 12 years and a day for fe 
males, Selden, de Success, ch. 9, Vol. 
it. p. 25), as well as Greek and Roman 
law, the dependence of the ^ irpo^ecr/j.ia 
on the father, must be explained, 
either (a) by the very reasonable as 
sumption that St. Paul is here speaking 
theologically rather than juridically, 
or (6) less probably, by the supposition 
that he was heic referring, with techni 
cal exactness, to an extended parental 
authority which the Galatians appear 
to have possessed ; see Gb ttl. Gesch. d. 

vrjTTioi, VTTO ra 

Rom. Staatsverf. p. 109, 517 (cited by 
B. Cms.), and comp. Cuesar, Dell. Gall. 
vi. 19. 

3. OUTWS K al ri /J.t ? s] So we also ; 
application of the preceding statements ; 
KOI, as usual in comparative sentences, 
bringing into prominence and throwing 
a slight emphasis on the contrasted 
member of the comparison ; see notes 
on Eph. v. 23. It has been doubted 
whether the r//ue7r are Jews (Chrys., 
Theod.), Gentiles (Aug.), or both 
equally ("Win., Mey.). The most nat 
ural reference seems to be (a) to Jews, 
primarily and principally, as the nature 
of the preceding argument seems dis 
tinctly to require ; but also (b) seconda 
rily, Gentiles, in accordance with the 
nature of the succeeding argument. 
TO. ff T o i^e?a TOV K6ff/Mov] the 
rudiments of the world. It is very 
difficult to decide on the exact mean 
ing of these words. Taken separately, 
<TToi\tiav is used in the N. T., both in 
a physical (2 Pet. iii. 10, 12) and an 
ethical sense (Ileb. v. 12). KoV^oy, 
again, has, practically at least, three 
meanings; phi/sical (Matth. xxv. 34), 
collective (mankind, Joh. iii. 16), and 
ethical (1 Cor. ii. 12). From the com 
bination of both words, a great variety 
of interpretations have arisen, all, how 
ever, separable into two general classes, 
(1) Physical; elementa mtindi, either, 
(a) festivals of Judaism, Chrysost. ; , &) 
Zabianism, August. ; or (c) abstractedly, 
religion in sensible forms, Ncand. Plant 
ing, Vol. i. p. 4G5, Bonn. (2) Ethical ; 
ructimenta mnndi, first, but not neces 
sarily erroneous (comp. JEth.), princi 
ples of religious knowledge among men, 
whether (a) Jews (DeW.) ; or (b) Jews 
and heathens (Meyer). Grammatical 
considerations seem in favor of ( 1 ) ; for 
fl-Tcxx*"*, i 1 a sense rudimenta, would 

/ (l 1 

VT p 

wk\ ("* 


CHAP. IV. 3, 4. 




Se f 

TOV %povov, 

appear to require, as in Ileb. v. 12, a 
gen. objecti, and not as here a yen. sub- 
jecti (see Neancler 1. c.) ; still ic6cr/j.ov 
need not be considered a pure yen. subj., 
the connection between the nom. and 
gen. being often somewhat lax ; see 
Winer, Gr. 30. 2, p. 2^4 sq. Exe- 
getical considerations must be also ex 
tended to vcr. 9, and to Col. ii. 8, 20, 
where the same words occur. These we 
can only briefly notice. In Col. ii. 8, the 
parallelism with ira.fid.5o<ris riav a.v&p<aK<av, 
seems so distinct, and so palpably in fa 
vor of (2), as to outweigh the argument 
drawn by Schneckenb. from the sup 
posed physical use of Koffpos in ver. 20. 
The use of the term <pi\oaofy(a. seems 
also there to point slightly more to 
heathen rudiments (see notes in loo.), 
while on the contrary in Col. ii. 20, and 
below, ver. 9, the reference seems mainly 
to Jewish rudiments. All these 

conflicting views being considered, we 
seem here justified in deciding in favor 
of (2) generally ; assigning, however, to 
the words (as both fj/j.f is and the nature 
of the argument require) a primary, 
but by no means exclusive reference to 
the Jews. For further notices of this 
doubtful expression, see Baur, Paulus, 
p. 594 sq., and for a defence of the 
physical meaning, Schneckenburg. in 
Theol. Jahrb. 1848, p. 444 sq., and 
Hilgenf. Galat. p. 68 sq. The applica 
tion to the ceremonial law will be found, 
Petav. de Prcedest. x. 23. 12, Vol. i. p. 
456. SeSov\uft.(i oi\ in a 

state of slavery ; the perf. pass. part, 
marking the permanent nature and con 
tinuance of the 5ou\fia ; comp. Winer, 
Gr. 45. 1, p. 305. The verb ^ue> may 
be regarded either as in union with 
SfSouA. and as forming a compound 
tense, or as in more immediate con 


> TOV viov ai>Tov, ^ev6fjt,vou 

nection with vrrb ri <rr. : the latter is 
most probable, as forming the best par 
allel to virb firirp6irovs t<niv , so dis 
tinctly Copt., and perhaps Vulg., 
Clarom, sub elementa eramus servi- 
entes ; see Meyer in lac. 

4. rb IT A t l p w /u a rov XP^ VOV ] 
the fulness of the time, i. e. the mo 
ment which makes the time complete, 
answering to the &XP 1 T 5 S fpo&nrfiha 
rov Trarpos, ver. 2 ; see Stier, Ephes. Vol. 
i. p. 203, and compare Usteri, Lehrb. 
ii. 1, p. 83. These words have been 
the subject of considerable discussion. 
Taken in its most general view TrATjpeo/ua 
has two meanings ; ( 1 ) Active ; rb TrArifnj 
iroif?v, implendi actio, not id quod implet, 
as Fritz, (on Rom. xi. 12) has satisfacto 
rily proved against Storr, Opusc. i. p. 
144. (2) Passive; either in the less 
usual sense (a) id quod impletum est, or 
the more common and regular sense (/8), 
id quo res impletur ; compare 1 Cor. x. 
26, Mark viii. 20. Hence rb v\r,- 

pwpa rov XP- W *H seem to be id quo 
tcmporis spatium impletur, sc. expletiir ; 
the idea being rather that of a temporal 
space (so to speak) filled up, as it were, 
by the flowing in of time ; see Olsh. in 
loc., and comp. Herod, in. 22, oyStiiKovra 
5 (Tea 6rj$ Tr\-f]p<i>/j.a avSpl fnaKporarov. 
Fritz., on the contrary, but with less 
probability, regards irA7jpa>/na as the ab 
stract notion of the concrete idea JTA^- 
/wjy, temporis plenitas, i. q. plenum 
tempus ; see, however, his very valua 
ble note, Rom. 1. c. Vol. n. p. 469 sq. 
The doctrinal meaning of this term is 
investigated at length in Hall, Bampt. 
Lect. for 1797, esp. Serm. vm. p. 211 
sq. ; see also the good sermons on this 
text by Andrewes, Serm. vi. Vol. i. p. 
49, and Donne, Serm. in. Vol. i. p. 39 
(ed. Alf.). ^{aire <TTAi J 



CHAP. IV. 4, 5. 


yevofiievov nro vopov, iva TOU<> VTTO vop,ov 

sent forth, emisit, ex coolo a sese, 
Beng. ; comp. Acts vii. 12, xi. 22, xvii. 
14. On the doctrinal questions con 
nected with this word, see Petav. Trin. 
Till. 1. 10. yfv6p. IK yv- 

v a i K 6 $] born of a woman ; defining 
participial clause added to attest the 
pure manhood of Christ, and to obviate 
any misconception of the meaning of 
the clause that follows ; comp. Usteri, 
Lchrb. ii. 2. 4, p. 311 sq. No doctrinal 
stress is thus to be laid either on ywaiK^s 
( absquc virili semine, Est.), or on the 
prep. (rJ> Sf IK t/ufAAe . . . 
rr)v xoivwviav TTJS <p\i<Ti<iis rov TiKTo/ieVou 
irpbs rty ytvvr l <Ta.(ra.Vi Basil, de Sp. Sanct. 
v. 12; compare Theophyl. CEcum ) ; 
yvvaiKts being only used to mark our 
Lord s true humanity, and IK having 
only its usual and natural ref. to the 
circumstances of birth ; compare Matth. 
i. 16, John iii. 6, and see Host. u. Palm. 
Lex. s. v. in. 2, Vol. i, p. 818, Winer, 
Gr. 47. b, p. 327, 328. For a sound 
and striking sermon on this verse, and 
on the general relation of woman to 
man, see Jackson, Creed, Vol. vi. p. 226 
(Oxf. 1844). The reading ytvv<I>- 

fifvov, (found in some cursive mss., 
Ath., Theod., al.), has every appearance 
of being an explanatory gloss. 
yfv6fi.fvov v irb v 6 fj. o v\ born un 
der the law, natum inter Judax>s legi 
Mos. obnoxios, Schott ; second defining 
clause added to show that not only was 
Christ truly man (yfv. t/c yvv. ), but also 
a true member of the Jewish nation 
(ytv. fab v6/jL.), and standing in the 
same religious relations as all other 
Israelites ; see Olshaus. and Turner in 
loc., and comp. Andrewes, Serm. i. Vol. 
I. p. 13 (A.C L.). On the most suita 
ble rendering of ytvontvov, see notes to 

6. \VOL TOVI virb v<jfj.ov 

in order that lie might ransom those 
under the law ; first gracious purpose of 
God s having sent forth his Son thus 
ytvAjji. IK yvvanK. and thus ytvd/j.. vwb 
v6fj.oy, the ransom of those who were 
under the same religious obligations as 
those under which our Lord vouchsafed 
to be born. The redemption was, as 
De W. (after Beng.) rightly maintains, 
not merely from the curse, but from the 
bondage of the law ; comp. ver. 3. On 
the meaning of Qayop. see notes on ch. 
iii. 13. iva T rj v vi o& e ff. 

a ir o A..] in order that ive might receive 
the adoption of sons ; second gracious 
purpose of God, resulting from the first, 
the adoption of sons not only of Jews, 
but of all men (T)/X?S), of all those whose 
nature our Lord vouchsafed to assume. 
The first Iva thus, by a kind of xio>iJ>j 
(Jelf, Gr. 904. 3) found occasionally 
elsewhere in the Apostle s writings 
(comp. Philem. 6), refers to the second 
participial member ytt>6n. ujrb v6p.ov, 
while the second "va. refers to the first 
and less circumscribed ya/6/j.. /c yvvai- 
KOS. For examples of a double iva thus 
appended to a single finite verb, comp. 
ch. iii. 14, Eph. v. 25. T^V 

v I o & f <r I a v] the adoption of sons ; 
comp. Horn. viii. 15, 23, ix. 4, Eph. i. 5. 
The interpretation, conditio filiorum, 
sonship, adopted by several commenta 
tors (see Ust. in loc. and Lehrb. n. 1. 2, 
p. 186, note), both here and Rom viii. 
15, has been convincingly refuted by 
Fritz. Rom. I. c., Vol. n. p. 137 sq. 
We were formerly in the liijht of ser 
vants, but now have been addpted and 
are free sons. Neander traces a three 
fold gradation in this adoption ; (a) as 
existing but not appropriated; (b) as 
appropriated through faith in Christ ; 
(c) as perfected by a full communion in 
his blessedness and glory ; Planting, 



pd<rr), iva rrjv vio^secriav arco\dj3u>p,ev. 6 on, Be core v tot, 
Tre(rret\.ev 6 @eo? TO TLvev^a rov vlov avrov e/9 Ta? K.a { 


Vol. i. p. 477 (Bohn). ia-oAt*- 

/3/ie* ] might receive. The special 
force of the prep, has been somewhat 
differently explained. Of the two more 
ancient interpretations (a), that of Chrys., 
Ka\us ffafi> OTroA. SeiKvvs o^etAo/.teViji , 
though lexically admissible (see Win., 
de Verb. Comp. Fasc. iv. p. 13), does 
not harmonize with the context, as the 
vta&ceia is not here alluded to as the sub 
ject of promise; again (6), that of Aug., 
4 non dixit accipianms sed recipiamus, 
though equally admissible on lexical 
grounds (opp. to Meyer; comp. Herod. 
I. 61. and see Host u. Palm, Lex. s. v. 
air A, E, and ib. s. v. airoAo^. 2. a.) is 
more than doubtful in point of doctrine, 
as the correct dogmatical statement, ut 
quod perdideramus in Adam . . . hoc in 
Christo reciperemus (Iren. ; see Bull, 
State of Man, p. 492, Oxf. 1844) can 
only be applied to what Adam had 
before his fall, and not to a gracious 
gift which was not bestowed on him. 
It seems best then to fall back on the 
general local meaning of airo, and to 
regard the verb as hinting at receiving 
from an imaginary place where the 
things given might be conceived as 
having been laid up in store ; airo\a/ 
dicuntur imprimis illi, qui, quae ipsis 
destinata et quasi reposita sunt, accipi- 
unt, Col. iii. 24, 2 Joh. 8, Winer, I. c. ; 
add Luke xvi. 25, airt\a&ts ra ayaba 
a-ov, which the context shows could 
scarcely receive any other interpretation. 
6. 5 T t 5 e K. r. A.] and as a proof 
that ye are sons, quemadmodum au- 
tem [kamasa], JEth., the 5e introducing 
with a faintly oppositive force the dem 
onstration of the assertion. It is dif 
ficult to decide whether Sri is here 
causal ( quoniam, Vulg.. Clarom., Syr.- 
Philox.) or, more probably, demonstra 

tive (ird&fv S/jAoj/ Sri, Chrys., Theoph., 
CEcum., and by obvious inference Theod. 
and Theod. Mops.). Independently of. 
the authority of the Greek commentatorsJ 
which in such cases is very great, we seem 
justified by the context in adopting the 
latter view, as, on the one hand, the causal 
interpretation seems to interfere with the 
easy transition from the declaration of 
ver. 4, 5, to the consequence in ver. 7 ; 
and, on the other hand, the demonstra 
tive on seems to accord better with the 
emphatic position and the tense of fore. 
The sentence is thus what is called 
brachylogical, and as a proof that ye 
really are sons, a construction to which 
De W. and Alf. object, but which still 
seems perfectly correct and admissible ; 
see Winer, Gr. 66. 1, p. 546, Fritz. 
Rom. ii. 14, Vol. i. p. 117, Liicke on 
1 John v. 9. The insertion of TOW 

0oC after vloi, in DEFG ; Clarom., 
Demid., Tol., Goth., and Lat. Ff., seems 
an obvious explanatory addition. 
T b FI c c G /X a rov vlov a i> T o C] the 
Spirit of His Son, scil. the Holy Spirit 
( Spiritus Christi quia per Christum 
obtinetur, Joh. xiv. 16, Grot.), here 
suitably thus designated in harmony 
with the preceding mention of our re 
lation to God as sons (list.); compare 
Rom. viii. 9, where Hi>. Qeov and Uv. 
XpicrroD appear interchangeable. On 
the doctrinal significance of this passage 
that it is the substantia and per 
sona of the Spirit which dwells in the 
hearts of believers (1 Cor. vi. 19), comp. 
Petav. Trhi. vm. 4. 6, Vol. n. p. 459, 
and on the heart as the seat of the in- 
working power of God, Beck, Seelenl. 
27, p. 107. In the following 

words Ree. reads vfiS>v with BD 3 EJK ; 
mss. ; several Vv. and Ff., but with 
slightly less probability than ^tcw, which 



CHAP. IV. 6, 7. 

j]fj.(ii)V, Kpa^ov .<4/:?/3a 6 Trarrfp. r ware oincen et SoCXo? a\Xa 
el Be u/6?, teal fcXrjpovofios Sea Qeov. 

7. Stit @tov] This reading, which Tisch. has adopted with ABC (FG Sia &(6v) ; 
17; Boern., Vulg., Copt.; Clem., Has., Cyr., Did.; Ambr., Aug. Pel., Bed., 
Ambrst. (Lachm., Mey.j, appears, on the whole, the most satisfactory. Fritz. 
(Opnsc. p. 148) supports the Ilec. on paradiplomatie considerations (Xp. and &e. 
being confused with one another, hence omission of Sia Xpicrrov ; then 8ia 0e. by 
omission of Xp. ), which seem somewhat precarious. In answer to the internal ob 
jection of Usteri that the inheritance is never represented by St. Paul as coming 
5ia &tou (compare, however, vcr. 5), it may be remarked, that 0eoC may fairly be 
taken in its widest sense, as including the three Persons of the blessed Trinity, just 
separately mentioned ; see Windischm. in loc. 

is found in ACD*EG ; many mss ; 
Amit. (Flor. ), Clarom., Ath. (2), and 
many Ff. and is adopted by the best 
recent editors. A /3 5 6 irar^p] 

Abba Fatlitr ; Mark xiv. 36, Rom. viii. 
io. In this solemn expression 6 irarrjp 
(nom. for vocat , Winer, Gr. $ 29. 2, p. 
KM) docs not seem appended to the 
Aramaic A/3a as a mere explanation 
of it, Abba, id est, Pater (Hiv.a). nor 
yet united with it to indicate the union 
of Jews and Gc-ntiles (IIilir;!".m ver- 
bum ad Judacos, Giaccum a-1 Geutis . . . 
pertinet, Aug. ; comp. Andrewes, Scrm. 
iv. Vol. I. p. 60), but is appy. I lcn<ied 
with it as making up the solcmnis 1 or- 
nuila" of the early Christian prayers. 
The Aramaic title under which our 
Lord addressed his Heavenly Father 
was, probably, at a very early pe 
riod (hence Mark I. c.) united to the 
Greek synonym in reverent and att cc- . 
tionate remembrance of Him who had 
taught and enabled us truly to call God 
Our Father, and thence used as a single 
form in all more fervent addresses to 
God ; compare Schoettg. IJor. Vol. i. 
p. 252, where instances are given of 
addresses to God in which Hebrew 
and Greek words are somewhat simi 
larly united. Whether there is any 
allusion to the fact that, among the 
Jews, a freedman mi^ht, by addressing 
any one with the title Abba, prepare 

the way for adoption by him ( Selden, 
de Success, ch. 4. Vol. II. p. 15), seems 
very doubtful. 

7. % <r 7 f K. r. A..] So then, Conse 
quently ; conclusion from the statements 
in the two preceding verses, Siurt with 
its usual and proper force denoting the 
consecutioncm alicujus rei ex antece- 
dcntibus," Klotz, Devar. Vol. II. p. 771. 
On the force of this particle with the 
indie and infin., see notes on ch. ii. 13, 
and lor its use with the imperative, notes 
on Phil. ii. 12. ovKtri e ?] 

tkou art no more, as thou wert when 
in bondage under rudiments of the 
world. Meyer finds a climax of per 
son in o7roA.a/3&>/uei/, ver. 6, eVre, ver. 6, 
tJ, ver. 7, the mode of address becoming 
more and more personal and individual 
izing ; ibr further exx. of this use the 
second person in more cogent addresses, 
see Rom. xi. 17, xii. 20, xiii. 4, xiv. 4, 
1 Cor. iv. 7, al , and comp. notes, ch. ii. 
18 ti $1 vids, ital K\i{- 

pov6u.oi\ but if a son (not a slave) 
then also an heir ; comp. Rom. viii. 1 7, 
t( 8e rtKva, Kal K\r]pov6f*oi. Both these 
passages must appy. be explained on the 
principles of the Roman, and not of the 
Hebrew law. According to the latter, 
only sons (legitimate, ex concubinis, 
or ex incestu, but not ex ancillis et 
Gcntilibus. Seld. de Sure. ch. 3 ) suc 
ceeded to the inheritance ; the first-born 

?v ~ * ^ * *~:As^-/t> : / ^f- *j&\j;^ 

CHAP. IV. 8. 


How then can ye now turn ( 

buck nguin to the bondage 

of rudiments as, alas! ye are doing? 

TOTS pev OVK etSore? Qeov 

having double ; according to the former 
all children, male or female ; nee inter 
est utrum naturales sint an adoptivi, 
Gajus, Com. Inst. in. 2 (cited by 
Fritz.). It is scarcely necessary to ob 
serve that vlbs is not to be pressed, being 
simply, as Fritz, observes, in antithesis 
to Sov\os : women are distinctly in 
cluded in ch. iii. 28. The whole sub 
ject is ably investigated by Fritzsche, 
Fritzsch. Opusc. p. 143 149. 

8. dAAa] Howbeit ; appeal based on 
the preceding statements, and involving 
a strong contrast between their past and 
present states. The adversative aAAa 
has thus here no species of affirmative 
force (Ust. ), a meaning which, how 
ever, may be justified, see Klotz, Devar. 
Vol. n. p. 14, but introduces an ex 
planation of the worJs ovKtri el K. T. A., 
by the very contrast which it states ; 
now ye are free children of God, 
then (before the time of ynur vio&fffia) 
ye knew Him not, and were the bond 
servants of demons. It need scarcely 
be added that -r&rf does not refer to ver. 
3 (Winer, Schott.), still less is to be re 
garded equivalent to iraAcw (Koppe), but 
merely marks the period when they 
were not, as they now are, sons ; quasi 
digito intento designat omne tempus 
quod ante vocationem Galatarum exie- 
rat, Grot. OVK t 1 5 6 -r e s] 

ignorantes, an historic fact ; con 
trast 1 Thess. iv. 5, TO /*)> dSAra rbi> 
&tbv, where they are only so character 
ized by the writer, and see Winer, Gr. 
55. 5, p. 428 sq. It may be observed 
that with certain participles ol> regularly 
and formally coalesces, so as to express 
one single idea ; see Gayler, Part. Neg. 
p. 287. tSov\(i>(raTf] were 

slaves ; emphatic, and, as in ver. 9, in 
a bad sense. The proper force of the 


aorist, as marking an action that took 
place in and belongs wholly to the past, 
is here distinctly apparent; comp. the 
exx. in Kriiger, Spiachl. 53. 5. 1, 
Scheuerl. Synt. 32. 2, p. 33 1 sq., and 
for some excellent remarks on the use 
of the tense, Schmalf. Synt. d. Gr. Verb. 
60 sq., and esp. Fritz, de Aor. Vi, 
Frankf. 1837. This passage has 

been pressed into the controversy re 
specting 5ov\fla and AaTptfa, and is 
noticed in Forbes, Instruct, vn. 1, p. 
331sq. r ots 4>v<r f i /*.)) 

Iff iv &f<Ms] which by nature are 
not gods ; tyvaei being emphatic, and 
serving to convey an unconditioned de 
nial of their being gods at all ; comp. 

1 Cor. x. 20. The order in Rec. To7$ ^ 
(pixrei olffi &eo?s [D 3 FGJK ; mss. ; Syr.- 
Phil. ; Chrys., Theod., al.] is much less 
expressive, as implying that the false 
gods were thought to be true gods, 
though not naturally so, and is decidedly 
inferior in external authority to that 
adopted in the text, which has the sup 
port of ABCDiE; 6 mss. ; Syr. (plural), 
Vulg., Goth., Copt.; Athan. (4), Nyss. 
(4), al., and is adopted by the best recent 
editors. On the moaning of <pvffei 
substantially, essentially, and the 
connection of the verse with the argu 
ment for the divinity of Christ, see 
Waterl. Second Def Qu. 24, Vol. n. p. 
722. (j.^ olffi is a subjective 
negation, and states the view in which 
they were regarded by the writer ; see 
above, and comp. the numerous exx. 
cited by Winer, Gr. 55. 5, p. 428. 
The student must be reminded that /ur; 
with participles is the prevailing usage 
in the N. T., so that while ov with par 
ticiples may be pressed, it is well to be 
cautious with regard to ^uirj ; see notes 
on 1 Thess. ii. 15. 



CHAP. IV. 9, 10. 


crare rolf <J>v<j-ei //.r) ovcnv ^6019* 9 vvv Be <yvovre<; Qeov, 
Be yvaxT^emes irrro 6eov, TTCO? 7ricrTpe<f>T ird\tv eVi ra 
, oZ<? ird\iv avafeev BovXeveiv ^e Xere ; 10 

/. c. (on which see Beng. ) ; comp. Neand. 
Plant. Vol. i p. 157, note (Bohn.). 
via y] qui fit ut, how cometh it that ; 
see ch.ii.14. sir I<TT p t <p < T e 

IT d A i v} turn back again ; converti- 


mini iterum Vulg., Clarom., 

9. yi>6vTfs & f 6 v] after having 
known God; temporal participle here 
expressing an action preceding that 
specified by the finite verb ; see Winer, 
Or. $45. 1, p. 306, and notes on Eph. 
ii. 8, but transpose the accidentally in 
terchanged words subsequent to and 
preceding. Olsh. finds a climax 

in fiS6res, yv&vrts, and yvwa&fvrts ; the 
first, merely outward knowledge that 
God is ; the second, the inner essential 
knowledge in activity ; the third, the 
passive knowledge of God in love. The 
distinction between the two latter (see 
below) seems correct, but that between 
8. and yv. very doubtful, especially 
after the instances cited by Meyer, viz. 
John vii. 27, viii. 55, 2 Cor. v. 16. 
p. u. \ A o v $ f] imo vero, vel potius, 
Rom. viii. 34 ; corrigentis est ut saepis- 
sime, Stallb. Tlat. Symp. 173 E: see 
exx. collected by Raphel, in loc. 
yvtaff&fvrfs] being known; cog- 
niti, Vulg., Clarom. [cognoti] ; not 
approbati (Grot.), nor even acknowl 
edged as His own (list., compare 
Ewald), still less scire facti (Beza), 
but simply, in the usual and regular 
meaning of the word in the N. T., 
4 known, recognized ; see 1 Cor. viii. 
3, xiii. 12, and comp. Winer, Gr. 39. 
3, p. 235. Before the time of their 
conversion, the Galatians were not 
known by God, had not become the 
objects of His divine knowledge ; now 
they were known by Him and endowed 
with spiritual gifts ; curbs i^uas tirtaira.- 
ffaro, Chrys. The distinction drawn by 
Olsh. (aliove) between yvAvrts, cognitio 
activa, knowledge, which must be, if 
genuine, preceded by yvuffb., cognitio 
passira, love, hence the corrective 
8, seems borne out by 1 Cor. 

[itcrumconversiestis] Syr.; 

ird\iv not being the Homeric and Hesi- 
odic retro (an idea involved in eiri- 
ffrpf(f)fTt, Matth. xii. 44, 2 Pet. ii. 22), 
but denuo, iterum, the more common 
meaning in the N. T. ; see exx. in 
Bretsch. Lex. s. v. The lapse of the 
Galatians into Judaism is thus repre 
sented as a relapse into those crroix^a 
among which Judaism was included : 
4 Trd\iv non rem eandem rcspicit sed 
similem, Glass, ap. Pol. Syn. in loc. 
ra a. <r& t vr> K. r. A.] the weak and 
beggarly elements ; aff&tvri as having no 
power to justify or promote salvation, 
irrwxa as having no rich dowry of spir 
itual gii ts and blessings ; compare Heb. 
vii. 18, and see Grot, in loc. 
ird\it> frvtabev] again anew, aftra \ 
iupana, Goth. ; not pleonastic like 
TraAiv IK Seurtpou (Matth. xxvi. 42), 
1 7T ira a rovro (John xi. 7), but ex 
pressive of two distinct ideas, relapse to 
bondage and recommencement of its prin 
ciples. The Galatians had been slaves 
to the ffrotxfia in the form of heathen 
ism ; now they were desiring to enslave 
themselves again to the o-rojxf"*, and to 
commence them ancio in the form of 
Judaism ; comp. rursum denuo, Plaut. 
Can. Prol. 33 (Wetst.), and see Hand. 
Tursell. Vol. n. p. 279. 

10. i) ^.e pas] days, scil. Jewish Sab 
baths, fasts, etc. (compare Rom. xiv. 5, 
6, Col. ii. 16) ; appy. emphatic, and not 



/J, f/ 

CHAP. IV. 10, 11. 


/cal privets KOI Kaipous Kal eviavrovs. u <f>o(3ovfj,at 

vp,a<i, yu,j?7ra><> 


improbably placed forward as marking 
what they observed with most scrupu 
losity ; see Alf. in loc. It, however, 
can scarcely be considered exegetically 
exact to urge this verse against any 
theory of a Christian Sabbath 1 (Alf.), 
when the Apostle is only speaking of 
legal and Judaizing observances ; see 
on Col. ii. 16. jraparripf tffdf] 

Ye are studiously observing compare 
^Eth. tetaqabu [where the Conjug. (HI. 
1, Dillm. ) does not seem without its 
force] ; the force of the compound be 
ing appy. sedulo (Meyer), not sitper- 
stitiose observatis (Bretsch.) a mean 
ing which the passages adduced, e. g. 
Joseph. Ant. HI. 5. 5, iraparriptii/ TOJ 
l/35o;ua5as, Cod. A. Relat. Tilat. (Thilo, 
Cod. Ap. p. 800), rb o-dQfiaTOV Trapar-rj- 
pt?ffbai, do not substantiate. It may 
be observed that the primary use of 
Tropa in this verb is appy. local, and by 
implication intensive, scil. standing 
close beside for the purpose of more 
effectually observing* (compare Acts ix. 
24, and see Host u. Palm, Lex. s. v. 
Vol. u. p. 720) : the secondary force is 
more distinctly ethical, but appy. re 
stricted to the idea of hostile observation 
(Mark iii. 2, Luke vi. 7, xiv. 1) ; com 
pare Polyb. Ilist. XVH. 3. 2, tvfSpeveiv 
Kal iraparrtpe iv, and see exx. in Schweigh. 
Lex. Polyb. s. v., and in Steph. Thes s. v. 
Vol. vi. p. 410. The punctuation 

of this verse is doubtful. Tisch. Mcy., 
Alf., al., place a mark of interrogation 
after tviavrovs, but appy. with some 
what less contextual probability than 
the simple period (Lachm.) ; as in this 
latter case the verse supplies a natural 
verification of the statement implied in 
the preceding question, explaining TI S 
TT)J SoiAetas rpoiros (Theod. ), and lonn- 
ing a natural transition to the sadder 

tone of ver. 11. To derive a hint merely 
from the use of the pres. tense that the 
Galatians were then celebrating a Sab 
batical year (Wieseler, Chron. Apost. 
p. 286, note) seems very precarious. 
K a L p o v s] seasons, i. e. of the festi 
vals; comp. Chron. viii. 13, rov 
ptiv Kara, ras tt>To\as MCOUCTTJ Iv rots 
ffa@/3aTois, Kal eV rois ftf]<ji, Kal tv rats 
foprais, Tptls Kaipovs rov tviavrov, and 
Lev. xxiii. 4. tvtavrovs] 

years, the sabbatical years, and (ac 
cording to the usual explanation) the 
years of Jubilee. These latter, Meyer 
asserts on the authority of Kranold (de 
Anno Jubil. p. 79), were never really 
celebrated ; contrast, however, the direct 
command in Lev. xxv. 5, and compare 
the distinct allusions to it in other places 
(e. g. Isaiah, Ixi. 1, 2). Whether the 
year of Jubilee is here alluded to may 
be a matter of opinion ; but that both 
before (opp. to Winer, RWB., Art. 
Jubeljahr, Vol. i. p. 626) and after 
the captivity it was fully observed, there 
seems no sufficient reason to doubt ; see 
Kitto, Bibl. Cijclop. Art. Jubilee, Vol. 
n. p. 162. 

11. 9 o /3 o i" /.i a i v\ I am appre 
hensive of you, res vestrafi mihi timo- 
rem incutiunt, Grot. ; definite and 
independent statement receiving its fur 
ther explanation from what follows; 
comp. Col. iv. 17, A.eVe r^)v Siaxoviav 
.... "va. auTiji/ v\t]po7s, and see notes 
in loc. To regard this verse as an ex 
ample of that kind of attraction, where 
a word, really belonging to the subordi 
nate clause, is made the object of, and 
assimilated by the principal clause (Ust., 
Winer, Gr. 66. 5, p. 5o2), does not 
seem grammatically exact, as in such 
cases the object of the former clause is 
nearly always the subject of the latter 



CHAP. IV. 11, 12. 

Treat me now with reci 

12 Tivca^e &>? 670), on Kayo) to<? u/xet?, 

me not even in my infirmity, but evinced toward! me the deepest reverence and warmest love. 

(Scheucrl. Synt. $ 49. 2, p. 507) e. g. 
Acts xv. 3(5, liri(TKtil/<4i l u.fda. rovs a$t\(f>ovs 
.... fus tx ov<Tl soe exx - ul Winer, 
J. c. and Kypke, Obs. Vol. i. p. 375. It 
will be best then, with Lachm., Buttm., 
al. to place a comma after, and to 
regard ^TJTTOJS K. T. \. as a separate, ex 
planatory clause. fj. 17 ir u s 
KfKoir iaKd] lest haply I have (actu 
ally) labored in vain : /j.^ ctiam indica- 
tivum adjunctum habet, ubi rem a nobis 
pro vcru habcri indicate volumus," Ilerm. 
Viycr, No. 270 ; see also Winer, Gr. $ 
56. 2, p. 44G, Klotz, Dew. Vol. i. p. 
129, and notes on eh. ii. 2. Chrysost., 
not having appy. observed this idiom, 
has unduly pressed (po/Soii/nat and /U^TTOJS, 
and implied nearly a contrary sense ; 
ouSfirw, <fn)<rlv, i^f0n r b vavaytois, a\\ 
tTJ rbv x i/uaifa TUVTO wSivofra fi\tir<a ; 
contrast Thtod., jue/xfTj.ueVos /j.ft> rcav -no- 
v<av, rbv Sf Kapirbv oi>x fip^if. e I s 
v fj. a s] upon you ; not in vobis, Vulg., 
Clarom., Arm., but propter vos, ^Eth., 
or more exactly, in vos, emphatica lo- 
cutio, Beng. ; compare Rom. xvi. 6, 
fKOTriaffff ds ri/^as. The meaning of tls 
( looking towards, Donalds. Crat. 
170) is thus not so much simply ethical, 
in reference to, and hence for you 
(De W.), this being more naturally 
expressed by a dat. commodi (Ecclus. 
xxiv. 34), as ethically-/oert, upon 
you, Auth. ; comp. Bernhurdy, Syi>t. 
v. 10, p. 217: the Apostle s labor was 
directed to the Galatians, actually 
reached them, and so had passed on to 

12. yli/fff& e u> j tyu] Become as 
I am ; affectionate appeal calling on 
them to treat their Apostle with reci 
procity (sec Mow), and reminding them 
of their former love and reverence for 
him. or i K&yw us vfifls] 

since I have become as ye are ; dis 

suasive from Judaism urged on the 
ground of his own dereliction of it ; 
comp. 1 Cor. ix. 20, 21. The exact 
sentiment conveyed by these words has 
received several different explanations. 
Of these (a) that of the Greek expos 
itors I was once a zealot for Judaism, 
as ye now are (javra. irpbs TOVS t lov- 
SoiW, Chrys.) is open to the objection 
that ijfiriv ( fui, nee amplius sum ) 
would have thus seemed almost a neces 
sary insertion (Mcy.) ; comp. Just, ad 
Grac. 5 (Wetst. ), yivaT&f ws tyta, STI 
Ku-yu> V\^t]v ws v/j.f7s. Again (b) that of 
Bengel, Fell, al., that it is only a scrip 
tural mode of expressing warm affection 
(1 Kings xxii. 4), i e. love me as I 
love you, is certainly not in harmony 
with the use of yivtadt, and still less 
with the context, where appichcnsion 
($ofiov/ v/ rather than looe is what 
is at present uppermost in the Apostle s 
thoughts. It seems best then, (c) with 
Frit/., De W., and most modern expos 
itors, to regard the clause as urging a 
course of reciprocity on the part of the 
Galatians corresponding to {hat which 
had been pursued by the Apostle ; be 
come free from Judaism like me, for I, 
though a native Jew, have become (and 
am) a Gentile like you, I am TO?S av6- 
fj.ots us &vo/j.oi ( 1 Cor. ix. 2 1 ) now, though 
TTfptvfTOTfpcjjs (/rjAojT rjr K. T. \. (ch. i. 14) 
then ; see Neand. Planting, Vol. i. p. 
223 (Bonn), and Fntzsch. Ojmsc. p. 
232 sq., where the passage is fully dis 
cussed. a8(\<poi, Sc n/uai 
v /j. <a v] brethren, I beseech you ; earnesc 
entreaty ( verba irepnra&ri, Grot.) be 
longing not to what follows, though 
?o taken by Chrys., al., and all the an 
cient Vv., but with what precedes, as 
the 8Vny is in the first and not in the 
last portion. This passage is curious as 
one in which the best ancient, and the 

CHAP. IV. 12, 13. 

ovbe v 
Bt acfeeveiav r?}9 <rapt>9 

best modern interpreters, are, as happens 
but very rarely, in direct opposition to 
each other. ovSev /* ijtiiid)- 

<raT(] ye injured me in nothing ; al 
lusion to their past behavior as a reason 
and motive why they should now accede 
to tho entreaty just urged ; ye did not 
injure me formerly, do not injure me now 
by refusing to act as I beseech you to act. 
The connection is thus, as the parallel 
aorists ^8w/j<raTe, e^ov^fi ^aaTe, e^eiTTv- 
ffare, seem distinctly to suggest, very 
close with what follows, ver. 13 and 14 
(which really make up a single period) 
forming a sort of antithetical member 
(see below) to the present clause, and 
the aor. referring to the Apostle s first 
visit. The usual interpretation 

there is nothing personal between us 
(STjAou/ on oi> /j.iffovs ovSf tx^P as ^" r & 
tiprtntva, Chrys.) is both excgetically 
untenable (there was no tx&pa in what 
he had said but the reverse), and gram 
matically precarious as implying in 
T)8i/cT7<raTe either the force of a present 
or perfect. The interpr. reproduced by 
Rettig, Stud. u. Krit. 1830, p. 109, ye 
have not injured me, but Christ ( nihil 
me privatim lacsistis, Grot.), implies an 
emphasis on /j.e which docs not seem to 
exist (oiiSev is surely the emphatic word), 
and equally tends to infringe on the force 
of the aorist. 

13. olSaTf St] but ye knoto, 
1 scitis potius ; opposition, not so much 
of clauses (this would be oO/c aAAa, 
compare Chrys,), as of the sentiments 
conveyed in the preceding clause and 
in the two verses which here follow : 
when I first came among you, and that 
under trying circumstances to you, far 
from wronging me, ye received me as 
an angel of God. Si ao-fre- 

v f lav TTJS a up ic6 s] on account of 



13 oUBare Be on 
VJMV TO Trporepov, 

weakness of the flesh ; i. e. on account 
of some sickness or bodily weakness, 
which caused the Apostle to stay longer 
with the Galatians than he had origi 
nally intended, and of which we know 
nothing beyond the present allusion : 
see, as to lexical usage, Winer, Gr. 
49. c, p. 356, Fritz. Rom. iii. 25, Vol. 
i. p. 197, and, as to the historical proba 
bility, Wieseler, Chron. Apost. p. 30, 
and Conyb. and Hows. St. Paul, Vol. I. 
p. 294 (ed. 1). Though, on the 

one hand, it may admitted, that the 
line of demarcation between Sia with 
the gen. and with the accus. is occasion 
ally so faint that, in some few passages 
(esp. with persons), an interchange 
seems really to have taken place (see 
exx. in Steph. Thcs. s. v., collected by 
Dindorf, and in Bretsch. Lex. s. v., 
but except Ileb. v. 13, Rev. iv. 11, and 
appy. Rev. xii. 11), still in the present 
case there seems nothing so irreconcila 
ble with the context (Peile, Baggc), or 
so improbable in itself as to lead us to 
adopt either of the two only possible 
(?) alternatives, (a) an enallage of case 
(Ust., al.), or (b) a temporal use of Sid, 
scil. during a period of sickness. To 
the first of these there is the great ob 
jection that no certain instance has yet 
been adduced from the N. T., neither 
John vi. 57 (see Liicke in loc.) nor 
Phil. i. 15 (see notes in loc.) being exx. 
in point ; and to (b) the equally valid 
objection that this species of temporal, 
or, more correctly speaking, local mean 
ing, e. y. Sia VVKTO., comp. Sia irovrov, 5i& 
O-TO^XO, etc., is only found in poetry, and 
that rarely Attic ; compare Bernhardy, 
Synt. v. 18, p. 236, Madvig, Gr. 69. 
We seem bound then to maintain the 
simple meaning of the words, and to 
refer to our ignorance of the circum- 



CHAP. IV. 14. 

Ka rov TTipacrfj,ov V/JLMV ev T crapici JJLOV OVK e 
ovSe e^eTrrvcrare, aXXa to? ayyekov Seov eBe^aa^re /^e, to? Xpia- 

14. fy,i/] So Lachm. and 7Y*cA. (cd. 2) with AB(C2 adds r^)DiFG ; 17. 89. 
67** .... Vulg., C larom., Copt. ; Cyr., Ilieron., Aug., Ambrst., Sedul. (Meyer, 
Bagge). Tischendorf (ed. 2) reads juou rbv with D TEJK ; appy. great majority of 
mss. ; Syr.-Phil (appy. Syr., Goth.), Arm.; Chrys., Thdrt., Dam., CEeum. (Rec., 
Scholz, Fritz, om. /ton, Alf.). Independently of the preponderance of external 
authority, the change from the easier to tlie more difficult reading seems so very 
probable, that, in spite of the internal objections of Fritz. (Opusc. p. 245 sq. ), we 
can here scarcely hesitate to adopt the reading, though not the punctuation (see 
note), of Lachmann. Mill (Append, p. 51) retracts his former opinion, and dis 
tinctly advocates \>p.u>v. 

stances (Green, Gr. p. 300) any diffi 
culties the expression may appear to 
involve. T b irpcfrepoc may 

be translated either * formerly ( Deut. 
ii. 12, Josh. xi. 10, Joh. vi. 61, ix. 8), 
or the first time (irp6Ttpov, Ileb. iv. 6, 
vii. 27). The latter is preferable ; for, 
as Meyer observes, the words would be 
surperfluous if St. Paul had been only 
once. Still no historical conclusions can 
safely be drawn from this expression 
alone ; see AVieselcr, Chron. Apost. p. 
30, 277. 

14. rbv IT e i p a ff /* b V v^Siv\ your 
temptation, soil. your trial, which 
arose, or might reasonably have arisen, 
from the bodily infirmity on account of 
which I ministered among you ; Iv rrj 
(Toput /uou coalescing with, and forming 
an explanatory addition to the otherwise 
seemingly ambiguous T)>V ireipaap. i>/j.wv , 
comp. 2 Cor. x. 10, 77 tie irapovcria TOV 
(TU/J.O.TOS, affdevris, Kal & \6yos ll-ovfrfvi)- 
p.fvos, and see Mill (Append, to X. T.j, 
p. 51. The objection to this interpreta 
tion, founded on the absence of the art. 
before tv -rfj aapx i pov (Riick.), is here 
not valid, as vfipd^ftv Iv TIVI (compare 
Ecclus. xxvii. 5) is appy. an admissible 
construction ; see Winer, Gr. 20. 2, p. 
123, and notes on Eph, i. 15. Lachmann 
places a period after ^uoD, and connects 
rbv TTfipair/j.. fyt. with ver. 13; but this 
does very little to remove the difficulty 

in the former part of this verse, and 
makes the latter part intolerably harsh 
and abrupt. tfirTv<ru.Tf] 

loathed, rcspuistis, Vulg., Clarom., 

[abominati estis] Syr. : plus est 

tKir-riifiv quam e^ou^evtlv, hoc enim con- 
temptum, illud et alx>minationem sig- 
nificat, Grot. ; see Kypke. Observ. Vol. 
II. p. 280. Of the compounds of invca, 
those with tv and ^K are only used in the 
natural, and not, as Karairr., Siairr., 
awoTTT., in the metaphorical sense ; see 
Lobeck, Phryn. p. lo sq. Probably, as 
Fritz, suggests, <FKTTT. was here used 
rather than the more common awoin. by 
a kind of alliteration after e | ou$fi r)(Ta.Te, 
1 non reprobastis aut respuistis, more esp. 
as a repetition of the same prep, in com 
position appears to be an occasional 
characteristic of the Apostle s style ; 
compare Rom. ii. 17, xi. 7. De AYctte 
feels a difficulty in QovSr. and Qtirr. be 
ing applied to Treipacr^bs on the part of 
the Galatians. Yet surely, whether 
referred to St. Paul or to the Galat., 
the expression is equally elliptical, and 
must in either case imply despising that 
which formed or suggested the irtipaff^s. 
is X p i <r T b v ly cr o v v] (yea) as 
Christ Jesus; climactic, denoting the 
deep affection and veneration with 
which he was received ; comp. 2 Cor. 
v. 20 ; the Galatians received the Apos- 

CHAP. IV. 15. 



rov Irjcrovv. 


tie not only as an angel, but as One 
higher and more glorious (Heb. i. 4), 
even as Him who was the Lord of 

15. ris ol>v\ Of what kind then, 
scil. ty [inserted in DEK(7/FG) : mss. ; 
Chrys.] ; qualis (not quanta), h. e. 
quam levis, quam inconstans, igitur 
erat, Frit/. ; sorrowful enquiry, expres 
sive of the Apostle s real estimate of the 
nature of their /j.aKctpi(r/j.6i ; oixereu, airia- 
Aero 1 fcaAojy OVK OTro^ijca/uecoj, oAAa Si 
^paiTTJrrewj fv5etd/jifvos, Theod. Mops. 
If Troy be adopted, for which there is 
greater external authority [ABCFG ; 
6 mss. ; Boern., Syr. Vulg , Copt., Arm. 
al. ; Dam., Hier. al.], but which seems 
to bear every appearance of having been 
a correction (rb ris di/rl TOV irov Tf&eiKev, 
Theod.), then ta-rlv must be supplied, 
and olv taken in its vis collectiva 
whereas in the present case, what has 
been called the vis reflexiva ( takes up 
what has been said and continues it, 
Donalds. Crat. 192) is more apparent; 
see Klotz, Devar. Vol. n. p. 719, and 
notes on Phil. ii. 1. ft. a K a, p i ff- 

fj.o s v /a u v] the boasting of your 
blessedness, beatitatis vcstrse prsedica- 
tio, Beza ; the Galatians themselves 
l.eing obviously both the naKapifrvTes 
(not St. Paul and others, CEcum., comp. 
Tbeoph.) and the [ujt,Ka.pi6(j.tvoi : see 
Horn. iv. 6 (where Ae yei rbv fj.aKapifffj.6v 
= jUOKopi ^ei), and compare Fritz, in loc. 
The word is occasionally found in ear 
lier writers (e. g. Plato, Pep. ix. 59 D, 
Aristot. Rhet. i. 9. 4) and is of common 
occurrence in the Greek liturgies ; see 
Suicer, Thcsaur. s. v. Vol. n. p. 290 sq. 
rows b<p&a.\fiovs v pay) your 
eyes, oculos vestros, Vulg., Clarom. ; 
not your own eyes, Auth. (rovs ioiovs 
cxp&a\fj.ovs), as the article and pronoun 
are found in the N. T. constantly iisso- 
ciated with o(j>&., where no emphasis is 


intended ; compare Joh. iv. 35, and see 
the numerous exx. in Bruder, Concord. 
s. v. p. 667. All inferences then from 
this passage that the aer&tWta of the 
Apostle was a disease of the eyes, are 
in the highest degree precarious ; see 
Alf. in loc. 4opvt;a.vTfs] 

having plucked out, eruissetis et de- 
dissetis, Vulg., Clarom. ; participle ex 
pressive of an act immediately prior to, 
and all but synchronous with that of 
the finite verb ; comp. Hermann, Viger, 
No. 224. That the verb f^opvrrnf 
( usgraban, 1 Goth.) is a vetbum so- 
lemne" (Mey.) for the extirpation of 
the eye (I Sam. xi. 2, Herod, vni. 116, 
etc.) may perhaps be doubted, as IKKOTT- 
rtiv 6(pba\/ is used in cases apparently 
similar (Judges xvi. 21, comp. Lucian, 
Toxaris, 40), though more generally 
applicable to the simple destruction of 
the organ; see Demosth. 247. 11, Aris- 
toph.2Vtt&. 24 (A.I &&>), Plutarch, Lymrg. 
11 (fiatcT-ripia.). The Greek vocabulary 
on this subject is very varied ; see the 
numerous synonymes in Steph. Thes. 
s. v. o$&a.\[ji.6s. 4 S d> K a T e] ye 

woitld have yiven; the &/ [Rec. with 
D 3 EJK ; mss.] being rightly omitted 
with great preponderating evidence [AB 
CD ] FG ; 2 mss.] ; comp. John xv. 22, 
xix. 11. This omission of the particle 
has a rhetorical force (Herm)., and 
differs from the past tense with Uv, as 
marking more definitely the certainty 
that the event mentioned in the apodo- 
sis would have taken place, if the re 
striction expressed or implied in the 
protasis had not existed ; see Herm. de 
Partic. &i>, p. 58 sq., Schmalfeld, Synt. 
79, p. 185. Whether this distinction 
can always be maintained in the N. T. 
is perhaps doubtful, as the tendency to 
omit &/ in the apodosis (especially with 
the imperf. ) is certainly a distinct fea 
ture of later Greek ; see Winer, Gr. 



CHAP. IV. 16, 17. 

on, el Svvarbv TOU? ot^aA/zoi ? vfifov lopvavrS av eSaWare 
coo-re ejfopbs v/j.wi> yeyova uXrf&evwv v 


Your fiilx 

court you for crllish 

and ye are fickle. Would that I were with you, and could alter my tone. 

42. 2, p. 273, and comp. Ellendt, Lex. 
Soph. s. v. x. 1, Vol. i. p. 125. 

16. wo- re] So then? Eryof 
Vulg., Clarom., consequence (expressed 
interrogatively) from the present state 
of things as contrasted with the past, 
so then, as things now stand, am I 
become your enemy ? ovx v/J.f ts tare 
ol irepifVoj Tfs Ka.1 &epairfi>oi TfS, Kal T<av 
3<p&oAjua>c TLfju&Ttpov byovrfs , Ti ^ o i- 
vvv yfyovf ; irudei> 7; Z^pa, Chrys. 
The consecutive force of wcrrt is more 
strongly pressed by Meyer, who accord 
ingly connects the particle with the 
interrogation -m ovv /xa/rap., of which 
it is to be conceived as expressing the 
special consequence, is it in consequence 
of the unstable nature of your /ita/cap., 
that, etc., but this seems to involve 
the necessity of regarding ^.aprvpia yap 
K. r. \. as parenthetical, and seems less 
in accordance with the context than the 
general and more abrupt reference to 
present circumstances ; see I)e "\Vette 
Vn loc. The use of ficn-e with in- 

terrog. sentences is briefly noticed by 
Klotz, Dcvar. Vol. n. p. 776. 
^X&P" 5 vp-tov ytyova] am I be 
come ynitr enemy, i. e. hostile to you, 

| > <i 

ominus inimicitiic] Syr. 

(both), inimicus vobis, Vulg , Clarom., 
fijands [Feind], Goth., Copt., JEth., 
Arm., nearly all regarding t x^poy as 
used substantively, and appij. actively, as 
in most of the languages above cited there 
are forms which would have distinctly 
conveyed the passive meaning. This 
latter meaning is adopted by Mcy., Alf., 
al., and is not only grammatically ad 
missible (tx^pos, as the gen. shows, act 
ing here as a substantive), but even 

contextually plausible, as the opposition 
between the former love of the Galatians 
and their present aversion would thus 
seem more fully displayed. Still as the 
active meaning yields a good sense, and 
is adopted by most of the ancient Vv., 
and as there is also some ground for 
believing that 6 x^p?>s &v$tpwiros ( Clem. 
Recogn. i. 70, 71, ille inimicus homo ) 
was actually a name by which the Ju- 
daists designated the Apostle, the active 
meaning is to be preferred ; see Hilgcnf. 
Clem. Recogn., p. 78, note, Wieseler, 
Chronol. p. 277. d A. 77 & e v to v\ 

by speaking the truth, scil. because I 
speak the truth ; OVK olSa <iiAAr;j/ curlav, 
Chrys. To what period does the par 
ticiple refer? Certainly not (a) to the 
present Epistle, as the Apostle could 
not now know what the effect would 
be (Schott); nor (b) to the Jirst visit, 
when the state of feeling (vcr. 15) was 
so very different, but (c) to the second 
(Acts xviii. 23), when Judaism had 
probably made rapid advances ; see 
Wieseler, Chronol. p. 277. Xo objec 
tion can be urged against this from the 
use of the present (impcrf. ) participle, 
as the action was still lasting ; see 
Winer, Gr. $ 4-5. 1, p. 30-1, Schmulield, 
Synt. 202, p. 40G. 

17. i)\oiiffiv & p.] they are pay 
ing you court, scil. they are showing 
an anxious zeal in winning you over 
to their own party and opinions ; con 
trast between the honest truthfulness of 
the Apostle towards his converts, and 
the interested and self seeking court 
paid to them by the Judui/ing teachers. 
For an example of a similar use of 
fr\ovv ( sich eit rig um Jem. kiimmern, 
Host. u. Palm, Lex. s. v.), here 



( /^ 

CHAP. IV. 18. 



neither exclusively in its better sense 
(2 Cor. xi. 2) nor yet in its worse 
(Acts vii. 9; compare Chrys.), but 
in the neutral meaning of paying 
court to ( studiose ambire," Fritz.), 
see Plut. vii. 762 (cited by Fritz.), 
inrb XP as T ^ Ton-ac eirovrai /col rj\ou- 
aiv, va-rfpov 8e KOU. <pi\ov<nv. 
aAAa e K K \ ft a- at K. r. A.] nay, 
t/tcy desire to exclude you ; they not 
merely follow the positive and less dis 
honorable course of including you 
among themselves [Syr. reads tyK\., 
but appy. only from mistake] but the 
baser and more negative one of exclud 
ing you from others to make you thus 
court them. The omission of a gen. 
after <?/c/cA. (see Kypke, Obs. u. 181) 
makes it difficult to determine the ob 
jects from which the false teachers 
sought to exclude those whom they 
affected, and has caused the ellipsis to 
be supplied in various ways ; e. g. TTJS 
re\eias yvuifffois (Chrys.), a Christo et 
fiducw ejus (Luthcrj, ab aliis omni 
bus (Schott), e circulis suis, i. e. by 
affecting exc-lusiveness to make you 
court them (Koppe, comp. Brown), 
the last ingenious, but all more or less 
arbitrary. The only clue afforded by 
the context is the position of avrous, 
which suggests a marked personal an 
tithesis, and the use of fHK\f?crai, which 
seems more naturally to refer to num 
bers or a community (Mey.) than to 
anything abstract or individual. 
Combining these two observations, we 
may perhaps with probability extend 
the reference from St. Paul (ed. 1, 
Fritz.) to that of the sounder portion of 
the Church with which he in thought 
associates himself, and from which he 
reverts back again to himself in ver. 18. 
The moment of thought, however, rests 
really on the verb, not on the objects to 


I lva 

which it may be thought to refer. The 
Galatians were courted, and that ov 
Ka\<as, in every way ; direct proselytiz 
ing on the part of these teachers (if 
they had been sincere in their convic 
tions) might have worn a semblance of 
being Ka.\6i> ; their course, however, was 
rather (oAAefc) indirect, it was to isolate 
their victims, that in their isolation they 
might be forced to affect those who thus 
dishonestly affected them. AAAa thus 
preserves its proper force, and becomes 
practically corrective ; see Klotz, Devar. 
Vol. ii. p. 2, 3, Hartung, Partik. Vol. 
n. p. 35. The reading fipas which 

has still some few defenders (Scholef. 
Hints, p. 96, comp. De"SV.) appears to 
have been a conjecture of Beza. Though 
said to have been since found in a few 
mss., the assertion of Scholz, ypas e 
cocld. recent, fere omnibus is a com 
plete mis- statement. ?j A o v T ] 
in order that ye may zealously ajfect 
them ; purpose of the ^TjAoDmi/ ov Ka\cas, 
lva not being adverbial ( ubi, quo in 
statu, Fritz., Mey.), but the simple 
conjunction, here as also in 1 Cor, iv. 6, 
associated with the indie., per soloccis-) 
mum; see Winer, Gr. 41. 5. p. 259,, 
and Green, Gr. p. 73, who calls atten 
tion to the fact that both soloccisms apr- 
pear in a contracted verb, where they 
might certainly have more easily oc 
curred. Hilgenfeld cites as a parallel 
Clem. Horn. xi. 16 (read 6), iva inr^px^y, 
but the preceding clause, ei Sre\ere a\>Tl>v 
TTotrjrrat, seems, structurally considered, 
in effect equivalent to tl ^rronjirei/, and 
virTlpXty only the imperf. in re irrita 
vel infecta, a usage appy. not fa 
miliar to this expositor (seep. 131, and 
comp. notes on ch. ii. 2), but perfectly 
regular and idiomatic ; see Madvig, 
Synt. 131, Schmalfeld, Synt. 143, p. 
294. It may be remarked that the 


", \ i~ 



CHAP. IV. 18, 19. 

18 Kd\OV $6 TO 

irapelvai //.e 


ty-ici?. 1J re/cWa JJ.GV 01)9 7raX.iv 

MSS. and inss. (219** [^Aire], only ex- 
cepted) are unanimous in the indie., and 
that all the ancient Vv. appear to have 
regarded iVo as a conjunction. 

18. K a A. b v 8e rb r) \o v ff bat 
K. T. A.] But it is ijood to be courted in 
a ffood way at all times ; contrasted 
statement of what it is to be courted in 
a good and lusting manner. There is 
some little obscurity in this verse owing 
to the studied and characteristic irapoyo- 
naffia (compare Winer, Gr. { 68. 1, p. 
560) which marks the terms in which 
it is expressed. As the explanations of 
the verse are somewhat varied, we may 
perhaps advantageously premise the fol 
lowing limitations: (1) All interpre 
tations which do not preserve one uni 
form meaning of n\6u in both verses 
(e. g. Ilikk., ;uid even Ue W. and Friu.) 
may be rejected : from which it would 
seem to follow that v K a A < does not 
point to the sphere of the ijAoC<rda, in 
the sense of t*-ie virtues which called 
out the feeling- (M rfj r f \ft6rrjTi, The- 
oph., compare De "W.j, as this would 
practically cause fo\ow to pass from its 
neutral meaning ambire, to the more 
restricted admirari, but is to be 
regarded as simply adverbial (compare 
Bernhardy, St/nt. v. 8. b, p. 211), and 
perhaps as varied only from the preced 
ing KccAoij to harmonize structurally 
with the following eV -rip irapCtvai. (2) 
; A o P a 3- a t must be regarded as pass, 
(comp. Syr.), not as a middle, equiv. in 
sense to active (Vulg., Clarom., Goth.), 
as no evidence of such a use of (^Aof <rdcu 
has yet been found. (3) The object of 
^7jAoC<r^ai must be the Galatians, as in 
ver. 17, and not (Ust.) fit. Paul. (4) 
t v T w irape tvai is not to be trans 
lated prospectively (Peile), but must 
mean simply when I am with you. 

Thus narrowed, then, the meaning 
would seem to be, But it is a good 
thing to be courted, to be the object 
of C?;Aos, in an honest way (as you are 
by me, though not by them) at all times, 
and not merely just when I happen to 
be with you. Thus (VjAoDo-dai *>> <**<? 
forms, as it were, a compound idea = 
V;AoOo-dai KaAis (Pcile), and is in strict 
antithesis to the act. ?A. ou KoAcij in 
the preceding verse ; see Wieseler, 
Chron. Apost. p. 278. ir pb s 

v /j. a. j] with you ; the primary idea 
of direction is frequently lost sight of, 
especially with persons ; ompare John 
i. 1, 1 Thess. iii. 4, 2 Thess. ii. 5, and 
see notes on ch. i. 18. 

19. rtKvlanov] my little chil 
dren : appropriate introduction to the 
tender and affectionate address which 
follows. Usteii, Scholz, Lachmann, and 
other expositors and editors connect 
these two words with ver. 18, putting 
a comma only after fyms. By such a 
punctuation (suggested probably by a 
difficulty felt in the idiomatic 6V, ver. 
20) the whole effect of the present ad 
dress is lost, and the calm and semi- 
proverbial comment of ver. 18, to which 
it now forms such a sudden and tender 
contrast, weakened by the addition of 
an incongruous appeal. The appro 

priate and affectionate TfKvia (only here 
in St. Paul, but often in St. John) is 
changed by Lachm. into Tficva [only 
with BFG], but rightly retained by the 
majority of recent editors, 
a) 5 i v ca] I am in travail ; not in 
utcro gesto (Heinsius, Excrc. p. 424, 
compare Alf.), a meaning for which 
there is no satisfactory authority in the 
N. T. or the LXX, but simply partu- 

rio, Vulg. Clarom., ^ <->^.Vo [sum 

A \ 



CHAP. IV. 20. 



XpifTTOs ev v/juv, " rfte\ov Se Trapetvai, Trpo? 
teal aXXti^at rrfv fywvrjv fiov, on aTropov/Mii ev 

parturicns] Syr., with the idea, not so 
much of the pain, as of the lone and 
continuous effort of travail ; see exx. 
in Loesncr, Obs. p. 333, and observe the 
tender touch in the 7roAc, scil. Sxrre -rSiv 
ira.\aitav wbivtav ayayflv (h []^i)v. The 
use of wSii/ca in eccl. writers is illustrated 
by Suicer, Thes. n. p. 1505. 
& X P s " n o p <}> & & p] un ^il Christ 
be formed, until the new man, Christ 
in us (ch. ii. 20, compare Eph. iii. 17) 
receive, as I doubt not he will (&p per 
haps designedly omitted; see iii. 19, 
and Ilerm. do Partic. &v, p. 40), his 
completed and proper form ; the obvious 
meaning of this word (i$nttwttv&mit 
elSoTroifTffScu, see Ileinsius, Exerc. p. 
424) seeming to show that the metaphor 
is continued, though in a changed ap 
plication. The doctrinal meaning of 
(topcp. is alluded to by list. Lehrb. n. 1. 
3, p. 225 sq., but see esp. Waterland, 
on Ee jcn. Vol. iv. 445, who satisfac 
torily shows that this passage cannot be 
urged in i avor of a second regeneration. 
On the meaning of &XP I ar) d its distinc 
tion from /uxf" see notes on 2 Tim. ii. 9. 
20. Hbf\oi> S(] / could indeed 
icish ; itnperf. without &v \ comp. Horn, 
ix. 3, Acts xxv. 22. In all such cases 
the simple imperf, which here appears 
in the true distinctive character of the 
tense (Ik-rnh. Synt. x. 3, 373), must 
be referred to a suppressed conditional 
clause, vellem sc. si possem, si liceret 
(Fritz. Rom. ix. 3, Vol. n. p. 245), but 
must be distinguished from the imperf. 
with &v, which involves a thought ( but 
I will not ) which is here not intended; 
see Ilerm. de Partic. #/, p. 56, Winer, 
Gr. J 41. 2, p. 253. The distinction 
drawn by Schumann (Iscens x. 1, p. 
435, cited by Win ) between tf&e\ot> or 
lf}ov\6/j.r)v with &y ( significat volunta- 

tem a conditione suspensam sc. vellem, 
si liceret ) and without &v ( vere nos 
illud voluisse, etiam si ormttenda fueret 
voluntas, scilicet, quod frustra nos velle 
cognovimus, in such cases often with 
a preparatory /U6f) is subtle, but appy. 
of limited application, even in earlier 
Greek; in later Greek it is still more 
precarious ; see notes on ver. 15. The 
omission of &/ in cases of objective 
necessity is well treated by Stallbaum 
on Plato, St/mpos. 190 c, p. 130. 
$ e has caused some difficulty to be felt 
in this connection. Scholef. (Hints, -p. 
77) proposes to regard 8e as redundant; 
Hilgenfeld commences with tfbe\ov Sf a 
new clause, leaving ver. 20 an unfin 
ished address. This is not necessary ; 
the present use of 5 is analogous to 
its use with personal pronouns after 
vocatives or in answers (Bernhnrdy, 
Synt. m. 5, p. 73, Pors. Orest. 614), the 
principle of explanation being the same, 
adseveratio non sine oppositione ; see 
Klot/., Deoar. Vol. u. p. 365 sq. This 
opposition Meyer traces in the tacit 
contrast between the subject of his wish, 
to be present with them, and his actual 
absence and separation. 6.pri\ 

now ; see notes on ch. i. 9. 
aA\o|o T^V <f>wi>riv /tow] to 
cfianye my voice, scil. to a milder, 
not necessarily to a more mournful 
(Chrys.), still less to a more severe tone 
(Michael.), which would be wholly at 
variance with the preceding affectionate 
address. There does not, however, ap 
pear any historical allusion to the tone 
which the Apostle used at his last 
visit (Wieseler, Chron. Apost. p. 280, 
note), but only to the severity of tone 
adopted gonerally in this epistle. The 
peculiar meanings of oAAcat adopted 
by Theodoret (TU>// /*/ i 



CHAP. IV. 21, 22. 

Ye iin<UTtami not the 

Abraham s two tmn, the 
one typicaUf the earthly. 
the other of the heavenly Jerusalem, will fully prove. 

&priv?]<rat rut/ tie ri> fitfiaunv Sctt/jucurai ; 
comp. also Thcod. Mops.), Greg. Nyss. 
(fj.(\\iav /j.fTa.T&tvai T}\V iffropiav ej rpo- 
KiKi]v Seupiav), Grotius ( modo asporius 
modo lenius loqui ), Whitby ( temper 
my voice ), al., seem all artificial, and 
are certainly not confirmed by the two 
exx. cited by Wetst., viz. Artemidor. n. 
20, Dio Chrys. 59, p. 575, in both of 
which there are qualifications, which 
render the meaning more apparent. 
The change of tense trapeivai, oAAaai, 
must not be overprcsscd (Peile), such a 
change being only due to the essential 
difference of meaning between the two 
verbs, and even in the case of other 
verbs being far from common ; see Jelf, 
Gr. 401. 5, Winer, Gr. 40. 2, p. 238. 
a.tropov/] I am perplexed, Arm., 

fj! 3V4.Lo^ [obstupesco] Syr., a-n-op. 


being a pass, in a deponent sense ; com 
pare John xiii. 22, Acts xxv. 20, 2 Cor. 
iv. 8. Fritz. (Opusc. p. 257) still adopts 
the pure pass, sense, nam in vcstro 
coctu de me trepidatur, i. c, sum vobis 
suspectus (comp. Vulg., C larom., con- 
fundor ), but this is at variance with 
the regular use of the verb in the N. T., 
and ill harmonizes with the wish which 
the Apostle has just expressed. lie i ecls 
perplexed as to how he shall bring back 
the Galatians to the true faith ; by dAr;- 
bevwv he had called out their aversion, 
perhaps a change of tone might work 
some good. 4v v^7v] in you, 

scil. about you ; <?j/, as usual, marking 
as it were the sphere in which, or 
substratum on which the action takes 
place ; see Winer, Gr. $ 48. a, p. 345, 
and comp. 2 Cor. vii. 1 0, Smppw tv VIMV. 
Other constructions of 3nrop. are found 

2t AeysTC fioi, oi vTTo vofiov ^eXoiTe? elvai, 

V o/J.OV OVK UKOVeT ] ^ yejpaTTTai, <yap OTl 

C 1 t \ *r f i 

, 6l>O UiOU? f^X^ Va K T7 /? 

in the N. T., e. y. with irtpt, John xiii. 
22, and with s, Acts xxv. 20. 

21. \tytrf fjLOi K. r. A.] Illustra 
tion of the real difference between the 
law and the promise as typified in the 
history of the two sons of Abraham ; 
see notes on ver. 24. & * A o v T e s] 
are icilling, desirous ; not without 
emphasis and significance ; ou -yap Trjs 
riav Trpay/J.d.Tcai a.KO\ou&ias, aAAci TTJS 
(Kfivdiv ^Ka ipov (f>i\ovftKias -rb irpciyij.a ?iv. 
T b v v 6 /x o v OVK ax.} do ye not 
hear the law ; do ye not give ear to 
what it really says. Various shades of 
meaning have been given to this verb. 
Usteri and Meyer the simplest 
meaning with ref. to the custom of 
reading in the synagogues (Luke iv. 
10), an intcrp. to a certain degree 
countenanced by the ancient gloss ava- 
yivwcrKeTe [DEFG ; 3 mss. ; Vulg., 
Clarom., al.]. As however (1) it is 
fairly probable that the law was not as 
commonly read in Christian communi 
ties as in the Jewish [Justin Mart. 
Apol. i. p. 83, only mentions TO O.TTOIJ.VI}- 
/j.ovfv/j.aTa rwv avocn A\<JOV , v) TO crvyypiijj.- 
/uara roav irpotpfiTtai ; but this must not 
be pressed, as the earliest congregations, 
probably to some extent, adopted the 
practice of the synagogue ; sec Bing- 
ham, Atiq. xm. 4], and (2) as oi &- 
\ovres refers rather to persons Judaically 
inclined than to confirmed Judaists, the 
meaning give car to (scarcely so much 
as attento animo pcrcipere, Schott), 
seems most suitable in the present case ; 
comp. Matth. x. 14, Luke xvi. 29, 31. 

22. ytypairrat yd p] For it is 
written; explanatory proof from the 
law of the justice of the negation in 
volved in the ibregoing question. The 


-1.) - 

CHAP. IV. 23, 24. 



Kal eva etc TT}<? eXev^sepas. K d\\a 6 p,ev etc Trj 
Kara crdpica yeyevvrjTai, 6 Be etc T% e Xet/^epa?, 8ta TT}? eTrayye- 
** anvd eanv uX^yopov^eva- avrat yap elcnv >vo 

particle yap has here the mixed argu 
mentative and explicative force in which 
it is so often found in these Epp., and 
approaches somewhat in meaning to the 
more definite profecto ; see llartung, 
Partik. ydp, 2. 2, Vol. i. p. 464 sq., 
Klotz, D^var. Vol. n. p. 234 sq., and 
comp. Hand, Tursell. Vol. n. p. 376. 
The Apostle explains by the citation the 
meaning of his question, while at the 
same time he slightly proves the justice 
of putting it ; see notes on 1 Tliess. 
ii. 1. TTyjirotSicrKTys] the 

bond-maid ; the well known one, Ha- 
gar. The word, though here, is not 
always so restricted ; see Lobeck, Phryn. 
p. 239. 

23. a A A. a] IToiobeit. The full force 
of this particle may be felt in the state 
ment of the complete opposition of 
character and nature between the two 
sons, which it introduces ; Abraham 
had two sons ; though sprung from a 
common father, they were notwithstand 
ing of essentially different characters. 
On the force of this particle, see the 
good article by Klotz, Deoar. Vol. n. 
p. 1 sq. K a T a a a. p K a] ac 

cording to the flesh, scil. 4 after the reg 
ular course of nature, Bloomf. Kara. 
Qvfffws a.Ko\ovdiav, Chrys. ; not per 
haps without some idea of imperfection, 
weakness, etc., and, as the next clause 
seems to hint, some degree of latent op 
position to irvtvfjM ; see Miiller, Doctr. 
of Sin, Vol. i. p. 355 (Clark), Tholuck, 
Stud. u. Krit. for 1855, p. 487, and 
comp. notes on ch. iii. 3. 8 et 

T TJ y i * a 7 y \ i a j] by means of, by 
virtue of (Hamm.) the promise, not 
1 under the promise (Pcile) ; the prep, 
here marking not merely the condition, 
4 circumstances (5 inrofnov^, Rom. viii. 

25), but, as Ilstcri justly remarks, de 
noting the causa medians of the birth 
of Isaac. Through the might and by 
virtue of the promise (see Gen. xviii. 
10), Sarah conceived Isaac, even as the 
virgin conceived our Lord through the 
divine influence imparted at the Annun 
ciation ; see Chrys. in foe., who, how 
ever, reads /car eVayyeXicw. 

24. art if a] All which things viewed 
in their most general light; (Col. ii. 
23, artva tffn \6yov t\ovra. It is 
very doubtful whether Usteri is correct 
in maintaining that arivd. is here simply 
equivalent to a. The difference between 
&y and fans may not be always very 
distinctly marked in the N. T., but 
there are certainly grounds for asserting 
that in very many of the cases where 
o<TTis appears used for &y it will be found 
to be used either, ( 1 ) Indefinitely ; 
i. e. where the antecedent is more or less 
indefinite, either (a) in its own nature, 
from involving some general notion 
(Pape, Lex. s. v. O <TTIS, 2), or (b) from 
the way the subject is presented to the 
reader; e. g. Phil. i. 28 (where the subj. 
is really a portion of a sentence) Col. 
ii. 23, al. ; in such cases the relative 
frequently agrees with the consequent, 
see exx. in Winer, Gr. $ 24. 3, p. 150. 
The present passage appears to fall un 
der this head, as the subject is not 
merely the facts of the birth of the two 
sons, but all the circumstances viewed 
generally : (2) Classifically, i. e. where 
the subject is represented as one of a 
class or category ; e. a. ch. ii. 4, 1 Cor. 
iii. 17 (see Mey. in foe.) ; comp. Matth. 
Gr. 483, Jelf, Gr. 816. 4: (3) 
Explicatively , e. g. Eph. i. 23 (see Har- 
less in foe.) ; not merely in a causal 
sense, as is commonly asserted ; see 



CHAP. IV. 24. 

fita fj^ev UTTO opovs 2,iva, ei? oov\eiav 

?;ri? etrriv 

Ellcndt, Lex. Soph. s. v. 3, Vol. II. p. 
385, comp. Herm. (Ed. Rex. 688 : or 
lastly (4) Differentially, i. e. where it 
denotes an attribute which essentially 
belongs to the nature of the antecedent ; 
see Jelf, Gr. $ 816. 5, Kriiger, Sprachl. 
j 51. 8. 1 sq. Great difference of 

opinion, however, still exists among 
scholars upon this subject. After the 
instances cited by Struvu (who has said 
all that can be said in favor of an occa 
sional equivalence), Qufest. Herod, i. p. 
2 sq., it seems best to adopt the opinion 
of Ellendt, /. c., that though the equiv 
alence of 8<TTjs and fa has been far too 
generally applied, there are still a few 
instances even in classical Greek. In 
later Greek this permutation took place 
more often, see Host. u. Palm, Lex. s. v. 
ii. Bb. 2, Vol. u. p. 547 ; still it must 
never be admitted unless none of the 
above distinctions can fairly be applied. 
iffr iv dAATj-yopou/itra] are atte- 
fforized, are allegorical, by the which 
things another is meant, Genev. Transl., 
irtptas> \ey6/J.fva, trtpias Sf voovufva, 
Schol. ap. Matth. ; oAATryopi ai ^KoAeo-e 
rr)t> fK irapadfO ffas tav ^jSrj ytyov6rcav 
irpbs TO irapovra avyKpicrtv, Theod. Mops. 
As the simple meaning of the word in 
this passage has been somewhat obscured 
by exejjetical glosses, it may be observed 
the a\\rjyopf ti> properly means to ex 
press or explain one thinij under the 
image of another (comp. Plutarch, de 
Isid. et Osir. 32, p. 363. "EAATJVM 
Kpovov a\\rjyopoijffi rbi> \p6vov), and 
hence in the pass., to be so expressed or 
explained , comp. Clem. Alex. Strom. 
v. 11, p. 687, a\\iryopf i<T&ai nva tx TUV 
OVO/J.O.TUV 6ffi(arfpof, ib. Protrept. 11, p. 
86, otyis aAATj-yopfTrai TjSop^j tirl yaffrtpa 
ipirouffa; Porphyr. Vit. Pythay. p. 185 
(Cantabr. 1055), where a\\riyopt iffba.t 
is in antithesis to Koivo\oyflcr^cu , see 
exx. Wetet in foe., and in Kypke, Obi. 

Vol. n. p. 282. The explanation of 
Chrys. is thus perfectly clear and satis 
factory; OU TOUTO Sf fiUVOV (ij IffTOplO.) 
irpoSrt\ot oiffp (paivtrcu, iA\o /cai &\\a 
nva avayoptiifi. The remarks made 
above, ch. iii. 16, apply here with equal 
force to the late attempts of several 
modern expositors (e. g. Meyer, De 
Wette, Jowett) to represent this as a 
subjective, i. e. to speak plainly, an 
erroneous interpretation of St. Paul 
arising from his Rabbinical education. 
It would be well for such writers to re 
member that St. Paul is here declaring, 
under the influence of the Holy Spirit, 
that the passage he has cited has a sec 
ond and a deeper meaning than it ap 
pears to have : that it has that meaning, 
then, is a positive, objective, and indis 
putable truth ; see Olshausen s note in 
loc., Hofmann, Schriftk. Vol. n. 2, p. 
59, and the sound remarks of Waterland 
(Pref. to Script. Vol. iv. p. 159) on the 
general nature of an allegory. 
avrat] these women; tiav iraitiitav 
iKfiv<av ai ^rtpfs f] "Zappa KCU >; "A.yap, 
Chrys. The insertion of the art. before 
Svo (Rec.) is opposed to the authority of 
all the uncial MSS , and is rejected by 
nearly all modern editors. /u / a 

ptv K. T. A.] one indeed from Mount 
Sinai. scil. originating from, taking its 
rise from, air6, with its usual force, 
marking the place or centre (Alt.) . 
whence the Sta&riicr) emanated ; compare 
Kriiger, Sprachl. 68. 16. 5. The 
has here no strictly correlative St, as 
that in ver. 26 refers to ry vvv Itpotw. 
in the verse immediately preceding; 
comp. Winer, Gr. (J3. 2. e, p. 507. 
I s $ov\tiav y v v > ff a] bearing f^ 
children unto bondaye, i. e. to pass un 
der and to inherit the lot of bondage ; 
8oi ;A7j %v [ Ayap] /col cis SouAfiou/ tyivva, 
Theoph. T}TII fcnlr Ayap] 

and this is Ilayar. The use of oans 


CHAP. IV. 25. 



"Ayap. ** TO yap "Ayap Siva opo<? eVriv eV TJ} Apafiia- 

25. rb yap"Ayap Ziva Spot] The reading adopted by Lachm. viz. rb yap ~2,u>a with 
CFG; 17; Bocrn., Vulg., ^Eth., Arm.; Cyr., Epiph., Dam.; Orig. (interpr.) 
Hieron., al. (Ust., De W., Griesb. ibrsitan; see Hotm. Schriftb. Vol. n. 2. p. 62) 
is plausible and gives a very satisfactory sense. Still Tisch. ed. 2 (see Mill, Mey., 
Schok,) appears to have rightly returned to the Text. Rec., as the juxtaposition of 
yap and*A7<ip would render (on paradiplomatic considerations, Pref. p. xvi.) the 
omission of the latter word very probable. The conversion of the former into 8e 
[Tisch. ed. 1 with ADE ; 37. 73. 80, Copt. (Wilk., not Bott.), Cyr. 1.] was per 
haps suggested by the ^tv in ver. 24. 

here seems to fall under (4): it is this 
covenant peculiarly, this one of which 
the differentia is, that it originates from 
Sinai, which is allegorically identical 
with Hagar; see above, and esp. Jelf, 
Gr. 816. 4. 

25. rb yap J Ayap K. r. A..] For 
the word Hagar is Mount Sinai in Ara 
bia, i. e. among- the Arabians ; rb Se 
~S,iva upos OUTW ^sdfp/UTjveueTtu rfj tiri- 
)ftapiw avriav y\carTT), C hrys. : etymolog 
ical reason, added almost parenthetically, 
for the foregoing statement of the alle 
gorical identity of Mount Sinai and 
Hagar, rb not agreeing with *Ayap but 
referring to it in its abstract form (Jelf, 
Gr. 457. 1), and tv rfj Apo/Si ij not 
supplying a mere topographical state 
ment (cotnp. Syr., Copt.), but serving 
to define the people by whom Sinai was 
so called ; roiito rfj nav ApajSon y\ci>era"r) 
*Ayap KoAfiTou, Schol. ap. Matth. 
It is thus obvious that this interpreta 
tion presupposes that *Ayap was a pro 
vincial name of the mountain. Nor 
does this seem at all improbable, though 
we are bound to say that the corrobora 
tive evidence from the modern appella 
tions of the mountain, is less strong 
than the appeals to it (Bloomf. Forster, 
Geogr. of Arabia, Vol. i. p. 182) would 
seem to imply. The best authority for 
the assertion seems to be the careful and 
diligent Biisching (Erdbeschr. Vol. v. p. 
535), who adduces the statement of 
Iluiant, that Sinai was still called 

Hadschar in his time ( Iladsch heisst . 
bekanntlich auch Fels, Ritter, Erd- 
kunde, Vol. xvi. Fart. i. j). 1086), 
though now it is commonly called either 
Dschebel Musa (in a more limited 
reference), or Dschebel et Tiir ; see 
Hitter, Erdk. Vol. xrv. Part i. p. 535, 
Martiniere, Diet. Geogr. et Crit. s. v. 
Sinai. It must also be said that the 
evidence from etymology is also not very 
strong, as the Arabian word Hadjar 
(comp. Chald. -;o Gpn. xxxi. 47), ap 
pears certainly only to mean a stone 
(see Freytag, Lex. Arab. s. v. Vol. i. p. 
346 ) 4 still, even if we leave unnoticed 
the fact of there having been a town 
called "Ayap in the vicinity (Ewaid; 
compare Assemann, Bibl. Orient. Vol. 
in. 2, p. 753), there are so many analo 
gous instances of mountains bearing 
names in which the word stone is 
incorporated (e. g. Weissestein al.), 
that there seems nothing unnatural in 
supposing that "Ayap actually was, and 
possibly may be now, the strictly pro 
vincial name of the portion of the 
mountain now commonly called Dsche 
bel Musa. This St. Paul might have 
learnt during his stay in that country. 
It must be admitted that we escape all 
this if we adopt the reading of Lach- 
mann : rb yap 2tva . . . ApaQitf will then 
form a parenthesis, and the emphasis 
will rest on lv rfj Apa&ia ; For Mount 
Sinai is in Arabia, Arabia, the home 
of the bond- maid s children, the vial 



. IV. 25, 26. 

crvcrToi%ei Be TIJ vvv Iepovcra\t i^L, &ov\evei yap p,era TWV TGKVWV 
M r; 8 

"Ayap, Baruch iii. 23 ; comp. Hofmann, 
Schiiftb. Vol. ii. 2. p. 62. In this case 
also SiafrhxT] is the subject of ffuarotx.f i 
(opp. to Hofm.), without the grammati 
cal distortion in making Ilagar the sub 
ject. Still there is a difficulty in the 
covenant being said (rwrToix* " ; as Sou- 
\tla (Sov\fi xi ydp) is plainly the tcrtium 
comparationis between Ilagar and Jeru 
salem, and the assertion VITIS tarty* Ayap 
is really not so much supported by the 
sentence which follows, as by the em 
phasis which is assumed to rest on ev rrj 
Apaj3., the last words of it. We have, 
therefore, nothing better to offer than the 
former interpretation. cr v a T o i- 

X f <" 8 e] she stands too in the same file 
or rank with, is conformable with, 
Arm., the nominative obviously being 
Ayap ( qnce consonat, Clarom.) not 
2ifa upos (Vulg. ), nor even u.ia 5io- 
&7)7j (De W.), as there would thus be 
no point of comparison (5ouA.ei a) be 
tween the subject of aua-roixfi and 7; 
vvv lepovff. (Mey.); see above. The 5e 
( und zwar, Ililgenf.) appears to add a 
fresh explanatory characteristic, and re 
tains its proper force in the latent contrast 
that the addition of a new fact brings 
with it ; see Klotz, Devar. Vol. n. p. 
362. ~2,v(TToixt~iv is best illustrated by 
Polyb. Hist. x. 21 (cited by Wetst.), 
av^vyovvTas KCU ffiKnoixovvras Sta/j.(Vfiv . 
where <ruuy. evidently refers to soldiers 
in the same rank, crva-Toix- to soldiers 
in the same file : see Fell in loc. t where 
the two lists are drawn out ; each name 
in which ffvaroixti with those in the 
same list, but avTurroixf? with those in 
the opposite list. The geographical 

gloss of Chrys. yfiri iaifci, airrfrat ( qui 
conjunctus est, Vulg., gamarko [comp. 
marge ] Goth.), due probably to the 
assumption that ~2.iva. 6pos is the nom. to 

, is not exegetically tenable, 
and has been rejected by nearly all 
modern expositors. rfj vvv lep.] 

the present Jerusalem, scil. TTJ tvTav&a, 
T]7 eVJ yr;j, Schol. ap. Mutth. : antithe- 
ton supcrnee ; mine temporis est, supra 
loci, Bengel. 5ov\fvtt ydp] 

for she is in bondage, scil. rals VO/JLIKOIS<rt<nv, Schol. ap. Matth., comp. 
Hofmann, Schriftb. Vol. it. 2, p. 61 ; 
the nom. being rj vvv lep., and the yap 
serving to coniirm the justice of the as 
sertion of ffvffToixia- 1 he reading 
5 [Rcc. with I) 3 KJK; al ; Syr.-Phil. 
(marg. ), al. ; Ff.] is rightly rejected by 
most recent editors with prej)onderant 
external evidence, viz. ABCD FG ; many 
mss. and Vv. 

26. 7; Se &v<a Ifpov<ra\-fiiJ.] But 
the Jerusalem above; contrast to the 77 
vvv lep. of the preceding verse : the cor 
respondence of Sarah, i. e. the other 
covenant, with the heavenly Jerusalem 
is assumed as sufficiently obvious from 
the context. The meaning of awo can 
scarcely be considered doubtful. It can 
not be local (Mount Sion, 7 ; avta TTOA.IS, 
Eisner, al.) as this is inconsistent with 
the foregoing vvv, nor yet temporal ( the 
ancient Jcrus., the Salem of Melchize- 
dek, Michael, al.), as such a rcf. is in 
consistent with a context which only 
points to later periods, but has sim 
ply its usual ethical reference, above, 
heavenly, quic sursum est, Vulg., 

Clarom., \^^s Syr.-Thil. ; compare 

Iepou(raA.7)/x tirovpdvios, lleb. xii. 22, 
Itpouff. Katv-fi, Kev. iii. 12, xxi. 2; see 
the rabbinical quotations in Wi-tst., and 
comp. Ust. Lehrb, n. 1. 2, p. 182. As 
Jerusalem TJ vvv was the centre of Ju. 
daism and the ancient theocratic king 
dom, so Jerusalem TJ &vu> is the typical 


"h y 

f ~7 

. *, 
/ r 

^ (WX<v\ A ATX ^ ^zo. T^ . /. 

JU i * : /* ;^/.- i f-4.. r, 6- : ^ ^6 V 

CHAP. IV. 27, 28. 



/J>iJTijp rjfjbotv a yeypaTTTai 7/o, Eixppuv^Tjrt (rrelpa 77 ou TI/C- 
rovcra, pfj^ov KOI ftorjtrov r) ou/c atSivovcra, ore Tro\\a TO, reKva TT}? 

>/ ** -V -v ^c* 5 f \ yf r\ *)Wf ^C^ *r^-v/ 

epi)/jiov yuaAAoj/ f) TT;? e%ov<rr)s rov avbpa. y/Aet? 6e, abe\<poi, 

representation of Christianity, and the 
Messianic kingdom. On the three 

fold meaning of Ifpow. in the N. T. 
(scil. the heavenly community of the 
righteous, the Church on earth, the new 
Jcrus. on the glorified earth), and the 
distinction observed by St. John between 
lepouo-oAV (the sacred name) and lepo- 
ff6\u/j.a, see Hengstenbg. on Apocal. Vol. 
ii. p. 319 (Clark) ; and on the general 
use and meaning of the expression, the 
learned treatise of Schoettgen, Horce 
Ilebr. Vol. i. p. 12051248. 
IITLS K.T. A.] and this one (this &vu 
lepovtr.) is our mother ; ty-ris being used 
appy., as in ver. 25, in its differential 
sense (see notes on ver. 24) and retain 
ing the emphasis, which, as the order 
of the words seems to imply, does not 
rest on i)p.u>v (Winer). The ad 

dition of Trairruv before fi/j.iav (Rec. 
[Lachm.], with AJK ; mss. ; Arab.- 
Pol., al.) is rightly rejected by Tisch. 
al., with BCDEFG ; 5. 6, and majority 
of Vv. and Ff. 

27. yf-ypairrat y d p] for it is 
written , proof of the clause immedi 
ately preceding, tyris K. T. A., from the 
prophetic consolation of Isaiah (ch. liv. 
1), which though esp. addressed pri 
marily to Israel and Jerusalem (Knobel, 
Jes. p. 380), was directed with a further 
and fuller reference to the Church of 
which they were the types. 
P / o v] break forth (into a cry). 
The ellipsis is usually supplied by <pwffjf ; 
see Host u. Palm, s. v. pfiyv., and the 
numerous examples of prjot> <f>cavrji/ cited 
by Wetst. in loc. The critical accuracy 
of Schott leads him to supply eiHppovv- 
vi\v (Isaiah xlix. 13, lii. 9), reverting to 
fv<f>pdv&r)Ti, on the principle that the 
ellipsis is always to be supplied from the 

context ; compare erumpere gaudium, 
Terent. Eun, in. 5. 2. It is perhaps 
more simple to supply otjc, derived from 
$6r}<rov with which p?]^ov is so closely 
joined, or still more probably, to regard 
prj^ov as understood from long usage to 
be simply equivalent to Kpdov ; prj^aro 
Kpa^drta, Hesych. u r i TT o A A i 

fj.a\\oy K. r. A.] for many are the 
ch ildrcn of the desolate more than of her 
that hath the husband, multi filii de- 
serta? magis quam, etc. Vulg., Clarom., 
Goih. ; iroAAo /j.a\\ov being not simply 
equivalent to irAeiWa f\, but implying 
that both should have many, but the 
desolate one more than the other ( Mey. ). 
The compound expression TTJS fxovffrjs 
rbv avSpa answers to the simpler n V- ya 

Syr.; sim. yHth., Arm.) 

in the original, and is thus little more 
than the married one, the force of the 
art. (rbv &v$pa) being perhaps, as Alf. 
observes, too delicate to be expressed in 
English. This prophecy is some 

what differently applied by Clem, ad 
Cor. n. 2, and Orig. in Horn. vi. Vol. n. 
p. 33 (ed. Lomm.), 77 artipa. being re 
ferred more peculiarly to the Gentile 
church as opposed to the Jewish church 
(riav SaKovvTwv fX ft " f ov) whereas 
St. Paul understands under the image 
of Sarah (/iTJrrjp i)fj.iav) the church, as 
composed both of Jews and Gentiles, 
and thus as in contradistinction to the 
children of the law, the bond- children 
of the ancient theocracy. 

28. ujueTs 8] But ye; application 
of the foregoing allegory to the case of 
those whom the Apostle is now address 
ing, the Si being here fi.tra^artK^i (Har- 
tung, Partik. St, 2. 3. Vol. i. p. 165, see 
notes on ch. i. 11, and marking a tran- 




CHAP. IV. 28, 29. 

Kara Icraa/c eVa^eX/a? rtKva ecrre. w dXX aio-Trep Tore 6 Kara 
ls e&iCi)Ki> rov Kara JZWiyza, otmo>> /col vvv. 

sition to the readers while also hinting 
at their contrast to the children of rrjs 
Ixovffw -rb^ uvSpa. If the reading 

of liec. tj/jL.-tff/j.fv be adopted, which, 
however, though well supported [AC 
DSEfrjJK; mss. ; Syr., Vulg., Copt., 
Goth., JEth.-Platt, Arm. ; Chrys., 
Theod., Theodrt., al.], is opposed to 
good external evidence [BL^EfrjFG; 
Clarom., Sah., mss. ; yEth--Pol. ; Orig., 
Iren. ; Ambr., Ambrst., al.], and is sus 
picious as appy. being a conformation 
to ver. 31, then Se must be considered 
as indicating a resumption of ver. 
26, after the parenthetical quotation 
in ver. 27 ; see Klotz, Dcvnr. Vol. II. 
p. 377, Ilartung, Partik. St, 3. 1, Vol. 
I. p. 173. KOTO I (TOOK] af 

ter the example of Isaac ; Kara pointing 
to the norma or example which was 
furnished by Isaac ; so 1 Pet. i. 15, 
KOTO rbi> Ka\t(Tavra, Eph. iv. 24, Col. 
iii. 10 : see Winer, Gr. $ 49. d, p. 358. 
Several exx. of this usage are cited by 
Kypke, Obs. Vol. n. 284, and Wetst. 
t n loc. 4Trayye\ias r K va] 

* children of promise. These words 
admit of three interpretations; (a) 
( children who have God s promise ; or 
(b) children promised by God, i. e. the 
seed promised by God to Abraham ; or 
(e) children of, i. e, by virtue of, 
promise. lioth the emphasis, which 
appears from the order to rest on firayy., 
and the words Sia TT}S tirayy., ver. 23, 
seem decisively in favor of the last in 
terpretation ; compare Horn. ix. 8, and 
see Frit/, in loc. 

29. a A. A. &<r ir t p] Hoicbeit as ; 
special notice of an instructive and 
suggestive comparison between the cir 
cumstances of the types and of the an 
titypes, oAAa with its usual adversative 
force directing the reader s attention to 

a fresh statement, which involves a spe 
cies of contrast to the former ; ye are 
children of promise it is true, howbeit 
ye must expect persecution ; see esp. 
Chrys. in loc., and comp. Klot/.. Devar. 
Vol. ii. p. 29. 4 $ i 01 K t v] per 

secuted, persequcbatur, Vulg , Cla 
rom., al. ; imperf., as designating an 
action which still spiritually continues ; 
see Winer, Gr. 40. 3, p. 240. Whether 
the reference is to be regarded as (a) 
exclusively to Genesis xxi. 9, ri t? s*-fli 
pnsK on- jri-rs (Alf., Ewuld, 
al.), or (b) to an ancient, and therefore, 
as cited by St. Paul, true tradition of 
the Jewish Church (see below) will 
somewhat depend on the meaning as 
signed to pna in Gen. 1. c. That it 
may mean mocked (opp. to Knobcl 
in loc.) seems certain from Gen. xxxix. 
14, 17, and indeed from the command 
in Gen. xxi. 10. As however it docs 
appear to mean no more than playing 
like a child, irai^ova, LXX., luden- 
tem, Vulg. (see Tisch. in loc., and 
Gesen. Lex. s. v.), and as Joseph. (An- 
tiq. i. 12, 3), says only Kaxovp-yfiv avrbv 
SufdfjifviDf, it seems on the whole best to 
adopt (6) ; see Beresch. LIII. 15 (Wetst.), 
Ismael tulit arcum et sagittas ct jacu- 
latus est Isaaeum, ct prae se tulit ac si 
luderet, and Studcr (in list.), who al 
ludes to a similar rabbinical interpreta 
tion founded on the cabalistic equiva 
lence in numbers of the letters in pna: 
and the explicit -;n ; comp. Ilackspan, 
Notes on Script. Vol. i. 220. 
rbv Kara n^fC/ua] him that was 
according to the Spirit, scil. ytvvTj&tvTa, 
supplied from the preceding clause. The 
prep, it need scarcely be said does not 
here point to the cause or medium, 
Dei opera" (Vatabl. ), but simply ac 
cording to, i. e. in accordance with the 

f*^ ?/:?, ^-> 

A * * 


VI 01 

CHAP. IV. 30, 31. 



80 a\\a rl \eyet ?} ypa(fj ; "/cy3aXe TTJV Trai&icrKriv Kal rov viov 
? ou yap fjirj K\rjpoi>o/jLi](Tr) 6 vios rrj<f TratStcr/c?;? /j,era rov 

cites the instance of Jephthah, who was 
thrust out by his brethren, under the 
second condition of the law, as the son 
of a strange woman ; Judges xi. 2. 
With regard to the use of ou n^j with 
the subj. [K\-npovofj.rifffi BDE ; mss. ; 
Theoph.], it may be observed that the 
distinction drawn by Hermann (CEd. 
Col. 853) between ou /u?j with future 
indie, (duration or futurity) and with 
aor. subj. (speedy occurrence) is not ap 
plicable to the N. T., on accouut of ( 1 ) 
the varyings (as here; (2) the decided 
violations of the rule where the MSS. 
are unanimous, e. g. 1 Thess. iv. 15 : 
and (3) the obvious prevalence of the 
subjunctive over the future, both in the 
N. T. and fatiscens Gneeitas ; see Lo- 
beck, Phnjn. p. 722, Thiersch, Pentat. 
ii. 15, p. 190, and exx. in Gayler, p. 
433. On the general use of the united 
particles see Winer, Gr. 56. 3, p. 450, 
and esp. Donalds. Crat. 394, Gayler, 
Partic. NCIJ. p. 405, exx. p. 430, and 
on the best mode of translation, notes 
on 1 Thess. iv. 15 (Transl.) 

31. 5 to] Wherefore; commencement 
of a short semi-paragraph stating the 
consolatory application of what has pre 
ceded ( quamobrem ; aptius duas res 
conjungit, Klot/. Devar Vol. ii. p. 173), 
and passing into an exhortation in the 
following verse. It is very difficult to 
decide on the exact connection, as St. 
Paul s use of St6 does not appear to 
have been very fixed. Sometimes, as 
Horn. ii. 1, Eph. ii. 11, iii. 13, iv. 25, 
it begins a paragraph ; sometimes ( es 
pecially with Kal) it closely connects 
clauses, as Rom. i. 24, iv. 22, 2 Cor. iv. 
13, v. 9, Phil. ii. 9 ; while in 2 Cor. xii. 
10, I Thess. v. 11 (imperat), it closes 
a paragraph, though not in a way 

working by promise of the Holy Spirit ; 
compare Rom. iv. 19, 20. Kara ffj-pxa 
refers to the natural laws according to 
which Ishmacl was born ; KOTO nv(v/j.a, 
the supernatural laws according to which 
Isaac was conceived and born. 
o vT <> s Kal vvv\ so also is it now ; 
sell, those descended from Abraham 
Kara trdpita (the Jews) still persecute the 
free children of promise (the Christians). 
The sentiment is expressed in general 
terms, but perhaps may here be con 
ceived as pointed at the pernicious ef 
forts of the Judaizers, which probably 
involved persecution both spiritual and 
material ; comp. Meyer in loc. A 

good sermon on this text, though with 
a somewhat special application, will be 
found in Farindon, term, xi. Vol. i. p. 
287 sq. (ed. 1849.) 

30. d A A a] Nevertheless ; strongly 
consolatory declaration (irapa/jivSia JKCWTJ, 
Chrys.) introducing a distinct contrast 
with the preceding declaration of the 
persecution, and calling away the 
thought of the reader to a totally fresh 
aspect ; avocat mentem ab illis tristi- 
bus ad ilium rem, quam jam opponit, 
Klotz, Deear. Vol. n. p. 6. 
ri 7pa<|>T}] the Scripture. The fol 
lowing words are really the words of 
Sarah to Abraham, but confirmed, ver. 
12, by God Himself; ejecta est Agar 
Sara postulante et Deo annuente," Est. 
The interrogative form which introduces 
the citation gives it force and vigor ; 
comp. Horn. iv. 3, x. 8, xi. 4. 
ov nb K\i\povofj. f)<Tri] shall in no wise 
be heir; emphatic: liberi autem ex 
concubina conditionis servilis aut extra- 
nea scu gentili asuccessione plane upud 
Ebrteos excludcbantur," Seldcn, de Suc 
cess, cap. 3, Vol. ii. p. 11. Hammond 



CHAP. IV. 30 V. 1. 

TratStW?;? retcva d\\a 77)9 eXei&ejpas. V. 

1. rp {\tu&fpiq K. r. \.] The difficulty of deciding on the true reading of this 
passage, owing to the great variation of MSS., is very great. The reading of 
Lachm., rfj \tuSfpia TJ/UUS Xpunbs i)\fvdiptacrfv ffr-fixtrt oi>v, is plausible, and well 
supported, as ?j is omitted by ABCD 1 ; mss. ; Copt., Damasc., al. ; still the doubt 
ful meaning of the dat. (\tvbfp. (not the article, at which It tick, stumbles), and 
the abrupc character of the whole, make it, on internal grounds, very difficult to 
admit. TiscJt. (so Matth., Scholz, Rinck, Ruck., Olsk., al., though differing in. 
other points) seems rightly to have retained fj with D"EJK (FG ^ f\eu&. ^u. ; com 
pare Vulg., Clarom.) ; mss. Syr.; Chrys., Thcod. (2), al., as the H is less likely 
to have arisen from a repetition of the first letter of HMA2 (Mcy.J, than to have 

strictly similar to the present. On the 
whole, it seems most probable that St. 
Paul was about to pass on to an appli 
cation of, not a deduction from, the 
previous remarks and citation. lie 
commences with Si6, but the word 
t \evdc pas suggesting a digression (sec 
Davidson, Introd. Vol. n. p. 148), he 
turns the application by means of rfj 
t\(v$fpiq, into an inferential exhortation 
(.Eth. erroneously makes the lirst clause 
a reason quia Christus ), ver. 1, and 
recommences a new parallel train of 
thought with fte tyu. We thus put a 
slight pause after iv. 30, and a fuller one 
after v. 1. If rj/j.e is Se be adopted 

[AC; mss.; Copt.; Cyr. (1), Damasc., 
al.] the connection will be more easy. 
Ver. 30 describes the fate of the bond- 
children ; ver. 3 1 will then form a sort 
of consolatory conclusion, deriving some 
force from the emphatic KKypov. ; but 
tee shall have a different fate ; we shall 
be inheritors, for we are children, not 
of a bond-maid, but of a free-woman. 
This reading is, however, more than 
doubtful, as appearing to be only a 
repetition from ver. 28. For &pa(Rcc.), 
which would perhaps imply a little more 
decidedly than Sib a continuance of what 
was said (Donalds. Crut. 192), the 
external evidence [JK (apa ovv FG, 
Thcodrt.] is very weak, and the proba 
bility of correction not inconsiderable. 
tratSiffKris] of a bond-maid, scil. 

* of any bond-maid. The omission of 
the article may ba accounted for, not 
by the negative form of the proposition 
(Middleton in loc.), but by the princi 
ple of correlation, whereby when the 
governing article is anarthrous (here pos- 
sMy so alter the predicative ^oyxeV, 
Middl. p. 43) the governed becomes 
anarthrous also ; see Middl. Gr. Art. 
in. 3. 7, p. 50 (ed. Hose), comp. Winer, 
Gr. 19. 2. b, p. 113 sq. As, however, 
iroiSiff/nj appears in every other place 
with the art. (even after the prep, in 
ver. 23), the present omission is perhaps 
more probably regarded as intentional, 
and as designed to give a general char 
acter to the Apostle s conclusion ; see 
Peile in loc. Tqs 4\fv&tpas cannot, 
however, be translated of a free woman. 

Cn.vrxr.n V. 1. rrj t\v&fpi<p 
K. T. A.] Stand Jinn, then, in the free 
dom for which, etc. ; inferential exhor 
tation from the declaration immediately 
preceding. Of the many explanations 
which the expression rfj t\evdtpiq ory* 
Kftv has received, the two following 
appear to be the most probable ; (a) 
libcrtati stare, quam dcserere est nefas, 
Fritz. Rom. xii. 12, Vol. HI. p. 80, 
Winer, Gr. 31. 3. obs. p. 244 (cd. 5 ; 
less distinctly p. 188, ed. 6) ; () quod 
attinct ad libertatem, state, Bretschn., 
Meyer on 2 Cor. i. 24. The objection 
to (a) is, that such expressions as ry 

ruA-cu (Tl^"->^.(rt~~^ i y~ 
* * r/>A^~-^^//L t ~^" 

r*~ 4/7. i^/c/^u*A/ 3^*<ff ^- 

I^Lf.l;^ *-Z*i*uZlti^i : ,,<)T,r .. C 

Co Vm" C<x x " /^X./^^HV~^ 

A /^ P>-sf~ l v *"* i) 

^V^* *~M^*\ W^Cf* / 
(f^^ ( <*) ,*~ 


2. f 
>ia TI 97/za? XpitTTos rj\ev$epa)crev cmj/cere ovv, Kal JJLI) 

been omitted from having been accidentally merged in it. His omission of oSv, 
however, with DE ; Vulg., Clarom., Syr. (Philox.) ; Theodrt. (2) against ABC 1 
FG; 10. 17. 31. 37, al. ; Boern., Augiens., Goth., Copt., al. ; Cyr., Aug., al. 
does not seem tenable. The order Xpurrbs rmas ( Jlec.} has but weak external 

support [CJK ; mss. ; appy. some Vv. ; Chrys., Theod.], and is reversed by most 
recent editors. 

traction; see notes in loc.), it seems 
safer to adhere to the former explana 
tion; see Meyer in loc. (obs. ) For 

a good sermon on the notion of Chris 
tian liberty, see Bp. Hall, Serm. xxvi. 
Vol. v. p. 339 sq. (Talboys). 
TT o A. t v refers to the previous subser 
vience of the Galatians to heathenism; 
see notes on ch. iv. 9. vy if 

Hov \etas] the yoke of bondage, not 
yoke, etc., Copt., Ewalcl, al. ; the 
anarthrous 5ov\(ia (comp. Winer, Gr. 
19. 1, p. 109) being appy. used some 
what indefinitely to mark the general 
character of the firyoV, and by the 
principle of correlation causing the gov 
erning noun to lose its article ; see Mid- 
dlcton, Gr. Art. in. 3. 6, and compare 
notes on ch. v. 31. It will be observed 
that iraKiv is more easily explained on 
the hypothesis of uy<p being taken in 
definitely ; the present view, however, 
seems most in accordance with the defi 
nite statement in ver. 2 ; uybv Se Sov- 
Aei os TIII/ Kara v6fj.ov ^ia^v, Theocl. On 
the use of the gen. as denoting the pre 
dominant nature or quality inherent in 
the governing noun, see Scheuerl. Synt. 
1C. 3, p. 115, and compare Soph. Aj. 
944, oia 5ov\fias C U 7"> -^Esch. Ayam. 
365, 5ov\fias yd Yya/j.oi . vt- 

Xeo ^e] be held fast ; not exactly 

[mancipcmini, subjiciatis 

virofjLfvfiv are not strictly similar, 
as the idea of a hostile attitude (dat. 
incommodi) is involved in the dative, 
calamitatem non subterfugientes, etc., 
so inroffTijvai nvi,>tiv Tin (Bernh. 
Synt. in. 13. b, p. 98), and Horn. II. 
xxi. 600, arrival rivt. The latter inter 
pretation seems thus the most correct ; 
the dative, however, must not be trans 
lated too laxly ( as regards the free 
dom ), as it serves to call attention to 
the exact sphere in which , and to which, 
the action is limited, e. g. ttrrrj -rfj Siaroia, 
Polyb. xxi. 9. 8 ; see Scheuerl. Synt, 
22. 2, p. 179, and notes on ch. i. 22. 
It may be remarked that we sometimes 
find an inserted lv (\ Cor. xvi. 13, 
compare Riick.) without much apparent 
difference of meaning, still it does not 
seem hypercritical to say that in this 
latter case the idea of the sphere or 
element in which was designed by the 
writer to come more distinctly into 
view; compare Winer, Gr. 31. 8, p. 
194. On the meaning of <rr^ci/, which 
per se is only stare (Vulg., Clarom.), 
but which derives its fuller meaning 
from the context ; cornp. Chrys., erTTJ/fere 
flircav, rbv ffd\ov t5ei|e, and see notes on 
Phil. i. 27. ??] for which; dat. 

commorli. The usual ablatival explana 
tion qua nos libcravit (Vulg.), scil. 
fy Ji^Tiv tSioxfv (so expressly Conyb. ), 
may perhaps be justified by the common 

constructions x p e " X a P? etc - DUt as 
it is very doubtful whether this con 
struct, occurs in St. Paul s Epp. ( 1 
Thess. iii. 9 seems an instance of at 

\ ? 

vos], but simply implicamini, Beza, 
with ref. perhaps to the tenacity of the 
hold, and the difficulty to shake it off; 
comp. Beng. For exx. of the use of 



CHAP. V. 2, 3 

If ye mihmit to clrpum- 
clfion.ycarc boutul In Hie 

2 "J8e lyai JTrtOXo? Xe yw vfui> on eav ire- 
Xpicrro-; tyza? OuSev 

Se 7rd\iv iravrl aifoptonrtp TrtptTe/iiz o/u.eW on o 

the verb both in a physical (Herod, n. 
121, ii txo/.i-ai rrj irayrj), and in an ethi 
cal sense (Plutarch Si/mp. 11. qu. 3. 1, 
fvfXfffdai Soy/Liaffiv ni/doyopt/co??), see 
Kypkc, Obs. Vol. u. p. 285, and Wetst. 
in I if. 

2. 15 1 tyla riaCXos] Behold I 
Paul; emphatic and warning declara 
tion (TO O-T) airfi\ri, Chrys.) of the dan 
gerous consequences, and worse than 
uselessness of undergoing circumcision. 
The Apostle s introduction of his own 
name (compare 2 Cor. x. 1, Eph. iii. 1), 
prefaced by the arresting J"5e ( attcn- 
tionem excitantis est, Grot.), has been 
differently explained. The most natu 
ral view seems to be that it was to in 
crease conviction (dapjovi/ros fii/ ols Ae- 
yti, Chrys., comp, Theod.) and to add 
to the assertion the weight of his Apos 
tolic dignity ; T?)S rov npoffiairov o|<o- 
irifTTias ap/coi <T7js O.VT\ irdarjs a7ro3ei |fa>s, 
Chrys. On the accentuation of !"5, 

which, according to the grammarians, 
is oxytoue in Attic and paroxytone in 
non- Attic Greek, see Winer, Gr. G. 1, 
p. 47. t a v irfpiTffj.v.\ if 

ye be circumcised; i. e. if you continue 
to follow that rite, the present marking 
the action as one still going on. On 
the use of tav with pres. subj., compare 
notes on ch. i. 8, 9. ouStv 

a>(/>\7J<rei] sJtall profit you nothing ; 
the fut., having no ref. whatever to the 
nearness of the Lord s irapovffta (Mey.), 
but simply marking the certain result of 
such a course of practice ; Christ ( as 
you will find) will never protit you any 
thing ; see Winer, Gr. 40. 6, p. 250, 
and compare Schmalf. St/nt. 57, p. 
11G sq. 

3. tie] j/cn I bear 
witness, testilicur uutum, Vulg., Cla- 

rom., not enim, Be/a ; further and 
slightly contrasted statement ; the 5i 
not being merely connective, but as 
usual implying a certain degree of op 
position between the clause it introduces 
and the preceding declaration ; not 
only will Christ prove no benefit to you, 
but you will in addition become debtors 
to the law ; see Klotz, Durar. Vol. n 
p. 332, Hermann, Viger, No. 343. b, 
and for a notice of the similar use of 
autem, Hand. Tursell. Vol. i. p. 562. 
The verb ftapTvpo/jiai, a 8h \cyoij.., in St. ( 
Paul s Epp. (Eph. iv. 17 ( compare Acts / 
xx. 2G>, is here used in the sense of 
ij.aprvpovu.a.1, appy. involving the idea 
of a H)ienm declaration, as if before 
witnesses; comp. notes on Enh. iv. 17, 
That there is no ellipsis of Qt bv (Hil- 
genf, Brctschn.) appears plainly from 
Eph /. c., and from the similar usage of 
the word in classical Greek, e. g. Plata 
Pllileb. 4" n, ravra 5e i6rt fitv ou*. 
f/LLapTvpdfj.f!$a, vvv Se \ Dindurf 
in Steph. Thess. s. v. cites Eustath. II. 
p. 1221. 33, &r at iffropiat fj.apTvpo>rrai. 
iraKm may refer to the preceding verse, 
or to a previous declaration of the same 
kind made by word of mouth. The 
former is more probable, as iravrl o.v- 
Spuirui appears a more expanded applica- 
cation of ufuv, ver. 2 ; oi>x v^.lv Ae -ya> 
p/ivov, tpTrjffiv, a\\a xal iravrl av^puirta 
jrepiTt/xc., Chrys. ; see Ncandcr, Plant 
ing, Vol. i. p. 214 note (Bohn). 
irtptTf/jLvoiJ.tvtfi] submitting to be 
circumcised, undergoing circumcision, 
circumcidente se, Vulg., Clarom., or, 
more idiomatically gui curat se cir- 
cumcidi, Beza, but less accurately, 
as the participle is anarthrous, and what 
is called a tertiary predicate; see Don 
alds. Crat. J 30G, ib. Gr. { 495. 

Tt/*<V*< "* I Ou ^ 

felz o/A^"- K Z23 ^^ tCiM^* 

V 7-7^: -2 ^ . 

C,JL^-U. tJ- <~ ^- (~***~ ^ 

Bf^WW>W^ <r^- A ^-^. 

CHAP. V. 4, 5. 



ecrrlv o\ov rov vo^ov Trow/cm. 4 Karifjp yrf^rjre OTTO rov 
Xpiarov arrives ev v6fi(p Bircaiovcr Se, rf)<; ^aptro? 
5 77/iet? jap IIvevfAari etc TTicrrea)? eA-Tn Sa Buuuoovinfi aTre 

The tense Trepire/uj/., not irtpirnySivTi or 
irepireT/j.-qu.ti ca, must not be overlooked : 
it was not the circumcised, as such, that 
had become in this strict sense o<peiA.eTai 
o\ov r ov VQJJ.OV iroirjffcu, but he who was 
designedly undergoing the rite. "OA.o/, 
as its position shows, is emphatic ; o\t\v 
t<pti\Kv<T(a r^v SfffiroTfiav, Chrys. 

4. K or fipy "fl &?! f f iirb rov Xp.] 
Ye were done away from Christ, Your 
union with Christ became void, scil. 
when you entered upon the course 
which now ye are pursuing ; further 
and forcible explanation of Xptorbs 
ovofi/ w(pt \-fjffet (ver. 2), the absence of 
all connecting particles serving to give 
the statement both vigor and emphasis. 
The construction is what is called prscg- 
nans ( Rom. vii. 2, 6, see Winer, Gr. 
66. 2, p. 547) ; air6, strictly considered, 
not belonging to Karrjpyfi^rjTe in the 
sense of TjAeudepoidTjTe airo, but to some 
word svhich can easily be supplied, e. g. 
KOT77pyi95i}Te KCU {j(t^O&1fTt OTTO Xp., 
nulli cstis redditi et a Christo avulsi ; 
comp. 2 Cor. xi. 3, (pdetpe<r&ai a.ir6, and 
Fritz. Rom. 1. c. Vol. n. p. 8, 9. 
The verb Karapytu is a favorite word 
with St. Paul, being used in his Epp. 
(the Ep. to the Hebrews not being in 
cluded) twenty-five times. In the rest 
of the N. T. it is used only twice, Luke 
xiii. 7, Heb. ii. 14, and in the whole 
LXX. only four times, all in Esdras. 
It is rare in ordinary Greek ; see Eurip. 
Phccniss. 753, and Polyb. Fray. Hist. 
69. The ToC is omitted by Lachm. 

with BCDiFG; 2 mss. ; Theoph., 
but, as being less usual, esp. when pre 
ceded by a prep., is more probably re 
tained, with AD 3 EJK ; nearly all mss. ; 
Chrys., Theod., Dam., al. (Tisch.). 
iv i 6/j.( t > SiKaiov<rbt] are being 

justified in the laio, in lege," Vulg., 
Clarom. ; Iv not being instrumental 
(Ewald), but pointing to s the sphere of 
the action ; compare notes on ch. iii. 11. 
The pres. 8iKoot;<r&e is correctly referred 
by the principal ancient and modern 
commentators to the feelings of the sub 
ject (is uTroAa/u^ocere, Thfophyl., ut 
vobis videtur, Fritz. Opusc. p. 156); 
compare Goth. garaihtans qi J>i t i/.vis 
[ justos dicitis vos]. On this use of the 
subjective present (commonly employed 
to indicate certainty, prophetic confi 
dence, expectation of speedy issue, etc. ), 
see Bernh. Synt. x. 2, p. 371, Schmal- 
feld, Synt. 54. 2, p. 91. T rj s 

X"piros t eir t (T ar f] ye fell aicay 
from grace ; the aor., as in the first 
clause, referring to the time when legal 
justification was admitted and put for 
ward ; see. however, notes to Transl. 
On the meaning of tKiritrrtii rivbs ( al- 
iqua re cxcidere, scil. ejus jacturam 
facere ) see Winer, de Verb. Comp. Fasc. 
it p. 11, and comp. Plato, Rep. vi. 496, 
tKiTtaf tv <(>i\o(ro<j>ia.s, Polyb. xn. 14, 7, 
^KTr/TTTttr rov Ka&y\Kovros. The Alex 
andrian form of aor. ^erreVare is noticed 
and illustrated by exx. in Winer, Gr. 
13. 1, p. 68 sq. ; compare Lobec-k, 
Phryn. p. 724. 

5. fifjals ydp] For we; proof of 
the preceding assertion by a declaration 
e contrario of the attitude of hope and 
expectancy, not of legal reliance and 
self-confidence, which was the charac 
teristic of the Apostle and of all true 
Christians. If Se had been used, the 
opposition between rjftfis and o lnvts 
(ri/j.e is) would have been more prominent 
than would seem in harmony with the 
context and with the conciliatory char 
acter of the present address. 



CHAP. V. 5. 

Tlv(i>naTi] by (he Spirit, Spiritu, 
Vulg., Clarom., with an implied con 
trast to the ffap| which was the active 
principle of all legal righteousness ; 
comp. ch. iii. 3, and notes in loc. The 
dative is not equivalent to lv nvtvptm 
(Copt.), still less to be explained as 
merely adverbial, spiritually (Middl. 
in loc.), but, as the context suggests, 
has its definite ablatival force and dis 
tinct personal reference ; our hope flows 
from faith, and that faith is imparted 
and quickened by the Holy Spirit. No 
objection can be urged against this in- 
terpr. founded on the absence of the 
article, as neither the canon of Middle- 
ton (Gr. Art. p. 126, ed. Rose), nor the 
similar one suggested by Harlcss (Ephes. 
ii. 2 2.), that rb FI)/t>ia is the personal 
Holy Spirit, iri/eCjuo the indwelling in 
fluence of the Spirit (Horn. viii. 5), can 
at all be considered of universal applica 
tion ; see vcr. 16. It is much more 
natural to regard nvef /ua, Tlvtv/na ayiov, 
and rivfvua Qfov as proper names, and 
to extend to them the same latitude in 
connection with the article ; see Fritz. 
Rom. viii. 4, Vol. n. p. 105. IK 

iriffTfus] from faith, as the origin 
and source (comp. notes on ch. iii. 22), 
in opposition to the lv vo .uy of the 
preceding clause, which practically in 
cludes the more regular antithesis { 
(pycav. t \ir i$ a SiKaiotrv- 

v TJ s] the hope of riyhtcoiisncss. This 
is one of those many passages in the 
N. T. (see Winer, Gr. $ 30. 1, p. 168) 
in which it is difficult to decide whether 
the genitive is xttbjecti or object i ; the fv 
5ia SuoiV, spein et justitiam (ajternam), 
suggested by Aquinas, being clearly in 
admissible. If (a) the gen. be snbjecti, 
f \iriSa, Sucaioff. must be ipsum pra> 
mium qnod speratur, sc. vitam aetcr- 
nam (Grot.), corona m gloria; qusn jus- 
tificatos rnanct (Tk za), <?Airh being used 
HfT<aivjj.iKus for the thing hoped for : 

if (0) objccti, then simply speratam 
justitiam, the hope which turns on 
SiKaioffvvy as its object, fairly para 
phrased by ./Eth., we hope we may be 
justified ; sim. Tynd., Cran. Of these 
() seems clearly most in accordance 
with the context, as this turns not so 
much upon any adjunct to SIKCUOOWTJ as 
upon SiKcuoffvvi) itself ; Ye, says St. 
Paul, in ver. 4, think that ye are al 
ready in possession of Sucatoff. (SiKai- 
ovcrSf) , we on the contrary hope for it. 
There is no difficulty in SIKOIOO-WTJ thus 
being represented future. For in the 
first place this view necessarily results 
from the contrast between Judaism and 
Christianity. The Jew regarded SIKCUOO; 
as something outward, present, realiza 
ble ; the Christian as something inward, 
future, and, save through faith in Christ, 
unattainable. And in the second place, 
Sixaioavvr) is one of those divine results 
which, as Xcandcr beautifully expresses 
it, stretch into eternity : it conveys 
with it and involves the idea of future 
blessedness and glorification ; ovs eSiKai- 
(iiafv TOVTOVS Ku.1 tSo^afftv. Horn. viii. 30 ; 
see Neand. Planting, Vol. i. p. 478 
note (Bohn). t\Tri5a aireK- 

te^^fjitSia.} tarry for, patiently 
tcait for. This expressive compound 
has two meanings (a) local, witji refer 
ence either to the place from which the 
expectation is directed to its object ( in 
quo locatus aliqucm cxpectcs, Fritz.), 
or, more usually, the place whence the 
object is expected to come ( nude quid 
expectarctur, Winer), a decided trace 
of which meaning may be observed in 
Phil. iii. 20 : (b) ethical, with rcf. to 
the assiduity of the expectation, studi- 
ose constanter expectarc, the mean 
ing in the present case and nppy. in all 
the remaining passages in the N. T. ; 
comp. viii. 19, 23, 2o, 1 Cor. i. 7, Ileb. 
ix. 28, 1 Pet. iii. 20 (Lachm., Tisch.), 
and see Tittmann, Synon. p. 106, Fritz. 

^^t^ } /" 

Z 3,, 2. 

2 ^ 


CHAP. V. 6. 



6 ev jap Xpiarw Irjcrov ovre rrepiro^ ri la-^vei ovre a 

Opusc. p. 156, Winer, Verb. Comp. 
Fasc. iv. p. 14. It may be added 

that the expression ^ &ir/c5. is not 
pleonastic for (Air. SLK. tx o f* fv (^^t., 
com p. JEth.), but, as Fritz, observes, 
forcible and almost poetical (Eur. Alcest. 
130, t \iriSa, irpocrSfX^^at), ^ATTi So being 
the cognate accus. ; comp. Acts. xxiv. 15, 
(\iri8a . . . ^v Kal avrol OUTOI TrpoffSexov- 
rai, Tit. ii. 13, irpoffSfxofJ-fi oi TT/J /uao- 
piav (\iriSa. The whole clause may be 
thus paraphrased : by the assistance of 
the Holy Spirit we are enabled to cher 
ish the hope of being justified, and the 
source out of which that hope springs 
is faith; comp. Ust. Lehrb. n. 1, p. 90 
sq., and for a fuller explanation of the 
verse, Chillingworth, Works, p. 402 sq. 
(Lond. 1704), Manton, Serrn., Vol. iv. 
p. 027 sq. (Lond. 1698). 

G. tV yap Xpiffrtf 1 770-.] For in 
Christ Jesus ; confirmation of the pre 
ceding statement that the aireKSoxh was 
fK -n-iffTftas ; when there is a union with 
Christ, neither circumcision or uncir- 
cumcision avails anything, but faith 
only ; it is clear, then, why we entertain 
the hope of righteousness from faith. 
The solemn formula iv Xp. Irjir. is not 
to be explained away, as in Christ! 
regno, ecclesia (Paraeus), Christ! re- 
ligione (Est.), Christi lege (Grot.), 
all of which fall utterly short of the 
true meaning, but, as the regular use 
of eV Xp. and the addition of IrjtroD 
distinctly suggest, conveys the deeper 
idea of union, fellowship, and incorpo 
ration in Christ crucified : comp. notes 
on ch. ii. 17. For an elaborate but 
wholly insufficient explanation of the 
vital expression li/Xp., comp. Fritz. Rom. 
viii. 1, Vol. ii. p. 82, and contrast with 
it the deep and spiritual illustrations of 
J3p. Hall, Christ Mystical, ch. 2, 3. 

5<* aydirris ivfpyovfjLfvri] ener 
gizing, displaying its activity through 
love, u<ra SeiKwrai Theoph., efficax 
est, Bull, Andrewes (Serm. v. Vol. in. p. 
193) ; comp. 1 Thess. i. 3, rov KOTTOV TY/J 
aydwr}*, Polyc. ad Phil. 3, irianv .... 
tira.KO\o jSov<n]s TTJS f\iri8os irpoayoixr-ris 
r-r/j ayairris, and see esp. Ust. Lehrb. 
ii. 1. 4, p. 236 sq., and reff. in notes on 
1 Thess. I. c. The verb tvfpytia&a.i may 
have two meanings, (a) passive, is made 

perfect, | Vn A. V"> [qua3 perficitur, 

Schaaf, but see Capell. in loc.] Syr., 
adschueyhyal, Arm., maintained by 
the older Romanist divines, Bellarm. al. 
(see Petav. de Incarn. vm. 12. 15, Vol. 
v. p. 407), as well as several Protestant 
interpreters, Hammond, al., and even 
the recent editors of Steph. Thesnur. 
s. v. ; or (b) active, is operative, Vi.lg , 
C larom., Goth., Copt., as maintained 
by nearly all recent commentators. Of 
these (a) is perfectly lexically tenable 
(Polyb. Hist. i. 13, 5, ivepyttrai ir6\f- 
IJLOS), but distinctly at variance with the 
usage of the word in the N. T. (see- 
Meyer, 2 Cor. i. 6, Bretsch. Lex. s. v.^. 
while (b) harmonizes with the prevail 
ing usage, and can be correctly distin 
guished from the active ; ivtpyelit being 
vim exercerc, and commonly applied 
to persons, fi>pyf?<T&ai ex se (ant suam); 
vim exercere, a species of what has been 
called the dynamic middle (Kriiger, 
Sprachl. 52. 8), and commonly applied 
to thinys, see Fritz. Rom. VoL ii. p. 17, 
Winer, Gr. 38. 6, p. 231. Al 

though the pass, meaning is not now 
maintained by the best critical scholars 
of the Church of Rome, the passage is 
no less strongly claimed as a testimony 
to the truth of the Tridentine doctrine 
(Sess. vi. c. 7) of fides formata; see 

V- J~ 




CHAP. V. 7, 8. 

Who pervprtf <\ yon t 
Whosoever they ore they 
hall he punished, for their 
dot-trine is nut mine. Yea, 
I wish they would cease from all communion with you. 

/caXco?- Tt <? u/ia? fveKo-^rev rf} 

t 8 ? TTeHTaOVT) OVK K 

"\Vindischm. in loc., and comp. Mohler, 
Symbolik, $ 16, p. 131 note, 17, p. 

7. ^Tp x*r KoAcis] Ye were 
running well ; forcible and yet natural 
transition from the brief statement of 
the characterizing principle of Christian 
life, once exemplified in the Galatians, 
but now lost sight of and perverted ; 
liraice? -rbv Sf)6fj.ov xal dpr/ffl TOV 8pJ/uou 
rijf irai<\ai>, Theod. T I s v ju a s 

i v t K o vj/ v] if ho did hinder you; 
not without some expression of surprise, 

roffovroif iffxvffcu, Chrys. ; comp. ch. iii. 

I. The primary meaning of the verb 
tyxdn-Ttiv (Ilesych. (VfnoTrrourjv ivtiro- 
R C Suid a. v r Cfi- a. TroS C i- 
4yn6jrret) appears to be that of hinder 
ing by breaking up a road (e. g. Greg. 
Tsa/.ianz. Or. xvi. p. 260, T) Kaxias tyKoir- 
TottfVijs Sucnra^eia Tcav irovrjpiai , ?) aperf/j 
{JSoTroioujiiecT/s fvnajbetq "rlav fif \TioveaV . 
comp. intcrcidcre, e.g. Ca?s. Dell. Gall. 

II. 9, pontem, etc.) ; while that of tu>a.K&ir- 
TUV (lice.) is rather that of hindrance 
with the further idea of thrusting back ; 
compare Horn. Odyss. xxi. 47, frvptcav 
av(KOTTTfv ox^a-as. The reading of Rec. 
(avfKotyfv) is, however, opposed to all 
the uncial MSS., and appy. to nearly all 
mss. and Ff., and neither on internal 
(opp. to Bloomf.) nor external grounds 
has any claim on attention. The accus. 
is similarly found with fyK&irrtiv, Acts 
xxiv. 4, 1 Thess. ii. 18; see also The- 
mist. Or. xiv. p. 181 c. T fj 
a. A. TJ d\ |U?/ TTfl&fff&ai} that ye 
should not obey the truth ; infin. ex 
pressive of the result or effect, with 
some trace of the purpose or end con 
templated, this being one of those forms 
of the consecutive sentence, which may 

be regarded as partly objective and aa 
partly final; see Donalds. Gr. 602. 
The popular explanation that ^ with 
the infin., after certain negative and 
prohibitive verbs, is pleonastic (Meyer 
compare Herm. Viger, No. 271), is now 
justly called in question (see esp. Klotz, 
Devar. Vol n. p. 668), the true expla 
nation being that the py is prefixed to 
the infinitive, whether in its more sim 
ply objective form (Donalds. Gr. $ 584 
sq.), or its more lax and general ref. to 
result (Bernh., Synt. ix. 6. b, p. 364, 
Madvig, Synt. 156. 4), to indicate the 
further idea of some latent purpose in 
volved in the action which specially 
contemplated or tended to the effect 
expressed by the infinitive ; see esp. 
Schmalfcld, Si/nt. 181. 2, p. 359, and 
for an illustrative example compare 
Aristoph. Pax, 315, ^u,7ro5o/ /, juV ytvT}- 
rai TTJJ/ SK^V ju^ IfcXittVai ; see Madvig, 
Synt. 210. The elliptical mode of 
explanation adopted by Gayler (de Par- 
tic. Neg. p. 359) in the parallel expres 
sions apvou/ fj.7] Spucrai, so. nrgo, et 
dico me non fecisse is appy. doubtful in 
principle, and certainly is not here ap 
plicable. Lachm. omits the article 
before aAr;&. but only with Al>, and 
appy. a few mss. 

8. TJ ir e j a n o v i)l the persuasion, (jj^^ 
suasio, Clarom , scil. scrvandi lega- ^ (^ 
lia, Lyra; the subst. being regarded as 
active, and the article (not this pcrs. 
Arm., Auth., a most doubtful usage 
in the N. T., see Winer, Gr. $ 18. 1, p. 
97 sq.) marking the particular (coun 
ter-) persuading of the false teachers 
implied in the rts V/JMS Ivfxofyfv. Ow 
ing to the apparent paronomasia, and 
the nature of the termination (compare 
Donalds. Crahjl. $ 255 ) the meaning of 


CHAP. V. 8,9. 



o\ov TO 

irti(ru.ov}) is slightly doubtful. As the 
similar form v\tjfffj.ov7i means both *a- 
tietas (the state) and expletio (the act), 
Col. ii. 23, Plato, Symp. 186 e, irA. *al 
Kccoxm, so -irfiff/jiovi) may mean (a) the 
state of being persuaded, i. e. conviction 
(0e?>s ra Ka\f"tif ril Sf TTfi&fO~&cu rav vira- 
Kov6vra>v, Theod. ), or (6) the act of per 
suading persuadendi sollertia, Schott. ; 
comp. Chrys. on 1 Thess. i. 4, ov vcicr/ioci) 
ai>5ptoirirri . . . fy rj . . . ird^ovffa. Of 
these (a) has here the support of the 
Greek expositors rb irtiffSrii/ai rots \eyov- 
fftv, CEcum., compare Chrys, Theoph.), 
and certainly on that account deserves 
consideration ; (6) however, is to be pre 
ferred, as lexically defensible (see below), 
as in harmony with the active rov 
KO\OVITOS ; rj irfifft*. pointing to a gra 
cious act in which the human will is 
regarded more as subjected to the divine 
influence (John vi. 44), rov /coA. to one 
in which it is regarded more as free; 
comp. Meyer in loc. In three out 

of the four instances cited by Wetst. 
from Eustath. (ad II. o, p. 21. 46; 99. 
45, II. i, p. 637. 5), the prevailing mean 
ing appears to be pervicacia ; but in 
Justin Mart. Apol. I, 53, avrapKtls els 
7rer l uo!/T)f, Epipban. Hares, xxx. 21, ei j 
Tredr^ot ^/f TT)S taurtav ir\-r)po(f>opias, Apol- 
lon. de Sijnt. p. 195. 10, rfy { aAATJAwj/ 
irpbs aAATJAovy irfur/j.ovriv, the active 
meaning is sufficiently distinct. Ignat. 
Rom. 3, is commonly adduced, but here 
Cod. Colb. reads (TJWTTIJI. OVK 

IK rov Ka\ovvros] is not from 
him who calleth you, i. e. does not ema 
nate, does not result from, see note, ch. 
ii. 16; not an answer to the preceding 
question, which is rather an expression 
of surprise than a mere interrogation, 
but a warning declaration. The & KO.- 
Ktav is obviously not St. Paul (Locke), 
wot even Christ (Theoph.), but as usual, 

God ; the act of calling in St. Paul s 
Epp. (e.g. Rom. ix. 11, 24; 1 Cor. i. 
9, vii. 15, al. ) being regularly ascribed 
to the Father; see notes and reff. on 
ch. 1. 6. The tense of the participle 
need not be pressed either as a definite 
pres. ( non desinit etiam nunc vocare, 
Beza), or, still less probably as an im- 
perf. ( qui vos vocabat, Beng.), 6 *a- 
A&> , as Chrys. appears to have felt (OVK 
l>ca\fffti> v/ o K*\(av), being only the 
common substantival participle ; see the 
numerous exx. collected by Winer, Gr. 
45. 7, p. 316, comp. Bernhardy, St/nt. 
vi. 23, p. 318, Madvig, Syntax, 180. b, 
and notes on 1 Thess. v. 24. 

9. fjiiKpa fvfi.ii K. r. A.] a little 
leaven Icaveneth the whole lump ; pro 
verbially expressed warning (compare 1 
Cor. v. 7), forming a sort of antithetical 
continuation of what has preceded. It 
is somewhat doubtful whether U;UTJ is to 
be considered as (a) having an abstract 
reference to the false teaching (rb /juapbr 
rovro Kcu<6v, Chrys. ; compare Theoph.), 
or as ( b ) pointing in the concrete ( hi 
pauci," Paraus ; compare Aug., Jerome) 
to those who disseminated it ; see Clem. 
Horn, viii, 17 (cited by Hilgenf.), where 
the race of men living before the flood 
are characterized as a Katcrj C V ?- On 
the one hand, (a) yields a pertinent 
sense, and is appy. confirmed by Matth. 
xvi. 11, and by 1 Cor. 1. c. (where ver. 
8 seems distinctly to show that ^U/UTJ 
does not mean the individual so much 
as his sin) : on the other, the active 
meaning assigned to irfUTu.ovr,, and still 
more the seeming quantitative limitation. 
hinted at in the use of the individualiz 
ing singular in ver. 10 (compare Beng.) 
appears to preponderate in favor of (4). 
We adopt, therefore, the concrete refer 
ence, and necessarily continue it to the 
following <f> ; vel pauci homines 



CHAP. V. 10, 11 

10 eyat TreVoi^a et? tyza? eV Kvpirp on ovSev a\\o ^povr^crere 6 
Tapdacrwv u/za<? /Qaoracret TO /cpi/ia, oVrt? at/ 77. n e yco Se, aSe 

ceded ; 6 to.po.aa. not being used on the 
one hand, for 01 Tapaffaoirrts (Brown), 
nor on the other, in ref. to some one par 
ticular false teacher (Olsh. ; contrast 
Davids. In/rod. Vol. n. p. 315), but in 
accordance with the exact selective and 
definitive force of the article, to the one 
who, for the time being, comes under 
observation. Of rapd.iTffai Tfs u^Ss 

(ch. i. 7) are the class generally, 6 ra- 
pdaffinv is the individual of the class 
who may happen to call forth the Apos 
tle s censure ; tirripe rbv \6yov, Chrys. ; 
compare Madvig, Synt. (j 14. 
ftaffTaffti T& Kptfj.a] shell bear 
( ut grave onus, Bcng. ), the judjmcnt 
(he deserves) ; Kpl^a. not being equiva 
lent to KaraKptna,, nor used as cause for 
effect, sc. punishment (S^hott, Olsh.), 
but retaining its proper meaning both 
here and Horn. ii. 3, al. and with app. 
ref. to the judgment which he will re 
ceive from God ; 5i/cas b<pt (\ovai TW 0eaJ, 
Theod. The idea of punishment, or 
4 condemnation, is conveyed by, and to 
he deduced from the context ; see Fritz. 
Rom. I. c. Vol. i. p. 94. ocms 

to/ p] whoever he mny be ; not with 
any reference to the dignity of the 
momentarily-selected individual (K&V 
fj.fyd\ot rives SoKiaffi Kai a^ioiriffTOL, 
Theoph.), but simply with the inclu 
sive reference of the formula ; comp. 
Acts. iii. 23. 

11. tyw 5 e, a8e\(f>oi] But J, 
brethren, with abrupt reference to 
what might have been said of himself. 
The connection between this and the 
preceding verse is not perfectly clear. 
The use of the expression 6 Tapdacrtav 
appears to have suggested the remem 
brance that he himself was open to the 
charge of being a subvertcr, inasmuch 
as he had circumcised Timothy. The 

pcrperam doccntcs possent omnen [totum] 
coetum corrumpcrc, Winer in loc. 

10. fyta] I for my part ; emphatic, 
and not without a reassuring contrast. 
The insertion of tit [OFG ; a few mss. ; 
Demid., Aug., Syr. -Phil., al.] is due to 
the desire to make this contrast still 
more apparent. c < y v p. u s] 

with rajard to you; this more lax use 
of (is is noticed by Winer, Gr, $ 53, p. 
473, and Bernh. Synt. \. 11. p. 220. 
The addition of the words lv Kvpiy (sc. 
l7j<roD, Rom. xiv. 14, compare Winer, 
Gr. 19. 1, p. 113) serves to designate 
the ground of the hope, and to show that 
it was not an earthly and doubtful, but 
a heavenly (Phil. ii. 24) and certain 
assurance which St. Paul entertained ; 
compare 2 Thess. iii. 4, irfiroi&a[i.fv 5 tV 
Kvpiia lq> v/, where tVl is used in a 
sense little different from the present eir, 
to denote the objects about whom the 
hope was felt, tv Kvp. the nature of that 
hope; see notes on 2 Thcss. I. c., where 
distinctions are drawn between the ethi 
cal uses of tiy, eiri, and irp6s. 
ovSff &\\o] nothing else than 
what r Either specially, than the 
subject and purport of the words imme 
diately preceding ; or, generally, than 
the doctrines which St. Paul had pro 
pounded. The latter accords best with 
the future <f>poinicrerf, which seems more 
naturally used in reference to the general 
issue (on 8wp$ia<Tf<T&, Chrys. ), than 
merely to the time when the words 
would be read. Alf. refers to Phil. iii. 
15 (compare Usteri, no novel senti 
ments ), but there the word is (Tf pccs ; 
see notes in loc. 6 5t r apdff- 

ff CD v] but he that dislurbeth you ; 
contrast, not with the preceding tyu 
(Ilik-k.), but generally with the expres 
sion of confidence which has just pre 

X 3 : / J" - -2 : ^ 3 

/ v // 

a 3 

: 1 3 

CHAP. V. 11. GALATIANS. 125 

<ot, el Trepirofjirjv ert Krjpvacra), TI eri Sica/copai ; apa 

replication is final and decisive ; But 
if it be a fact that I really do still 
preach circumcision, what further ground 
is there for persecuting me ? t. e. the 
very fact of my persecution is a proof 
that I am not a preacher of circumci 
sion ; see esp. Theoph. in Inc. 
al Trepir. TJ /C7jputr<r] If I 
preach circumcision, if, as is assumed 
to be a matter of fact (compare notes on 
eh. i. 9), circumcision is still what I 
preach ; the emphasis resting not on 
Krjpvfftrca (Tovrttrnv 011% ovru /cA.uo> irur- 
rtvftf , . TrepifTffj,ov nty yap [rbc Ti/j.6- 
&tor], OVK ^K-fjpv^a Sf TrepiTo/uTjj , Chrys.), 
but on the prominently placed irfpiTo/j.i iv. 
The en does not suggest any contrasted 
reference to the period before the coming 
of Christ ( still as in the ante-Chris 
tian times," Olsh.), a reference which 
would here be very pointless, nor again 
to any special change in the Apostle s 
teaching since he had become a Chris 
tian, for which there is not the slight 
est grounds, but simply to the period 
prior to his conversion, still, in contrast 
to my former Judaism ; comp. Wieseler, 
Chronol. p. 206 note. The Apostle might 
not have preached circumcision before 
his conversion, but he strenuously advo 
cated (TrepiffffOTtpias j^jXaiTrys uirap^aip TWV 
irarpiKuv /j,ovirapa56<Tfu>v, eh. i. 14) all the 
principles of Judaism ; comp. Neander, 
Planting, p. 304, note. The present 
tense is probably used, as Schott ob 
serves, from his having the present ac 
cusation of his adversaries in his mind. 
ri ? T t 5 iu] why am I still 
persecuted, almost why am I to be, 
etc. ; this second en being, as De Wette 
observes, logical ; see Rom. iii. 7, ri tn 
vayo) ws ajuaprwAoj Kpivu/nai, what fur 
ther ground is there for, etc., Rom. ix. 
19, al. Up a] then after all, 

ergo, Vulg., Clarom. (see Hand, Tur- 

sell. Vol. ii. p. 450 sq.) ; inference from 
what has preceded, not perhaps here 
without some tinge of ironical reference 
to a conclusion that could not have been 
expected. The fundamental idea of apa 
is * distance or progression (to another 
step in the argument) ; from which 
the derivative meaning, that at the 
advanced point at which we have ar 
rived, our present view is different to 
our antecedent one, can easily be de 
duced ; see esp. Donalds. Crat. 192. 
That this, however, is the normal and 
primary idea of the particle (see Har- 
tung, Partik. apa, i. 3, Vol. i. p. 422) 
cannot now be maintained ; see Klotz, 
Devar. Vol. 11. p. 160 sq., where the 
whole question is discussed at great 
length. According to this writer, apa 
involves signiticationem levioris cujus- 
dam ratiocinationis, qua? indicat rebus 
ita comparatis, aliquid ita aut esse aut 
fieri, in Devar. p. 167. The inter 

rogatory form (5pa), as adopted by Syr., 
Ust., al., seems here less forcible and 
appropriate. rb a K di>Sa\ov 

TOV ffravpov] the offence of the 
cross, offendiculum crucis, Beza ; the 
offence which the Jews took at Chris 
tianity, because faith in a crucified 
Saviour, faith without legal observ 
ances, was alone offered as the means 
of salvation ; ou5e 7op OI/TOJ? & trravpbs 

"tlV <TK(lV$a\iC(JJV TOVS *\OV$UIOV$ US T& 

/i)j SeTy irei deo &ai rois irarpyots robots, 
Chrys. ; compare 1 Cor. i. 18, etc., see 
Brown, Galat. p. 278, listen, Lehrb. n. 
2. 1, p. 253. *&Kdv$a\ov, though occur 
ring (quotations included) 15 times in 
the N. T. and 25 times in the LXX and 
Apocrypha, is scarcely ever found apud 
profanos. ^KafSd\r)^pov rb tvundfj.*- 
vov rati pvdypcus, Poll. Onomast. x. 34, 
occasionally occurs ; e. g. in a metaphor 
ical sense, Aristoph. Acharn. 687. 

12(5 GALATIANS. CHAP. V. 12. 

TO (TK(iv%>a\.ov TOV (TTavpov. 12 o(f>e\ov Kal aTTOKo-^rovrat, 01 avatr- 

communion with you, Brctschn. ; or 
() / would that they would (not only f-l* 
circumcise, but) even ^casti ate them- , 
selves ; /j.)j irtpiTtfj.v4ai$u>ffa.v p.6vov, a\\a v^v^ 
<col airoKcnrreadtaaav, Chrys., airoKuirovs ^~t 
iavrovs fwoirfffav, CEcum. : see exx. in vi 
Wetst. in loc. This latter reference to "^ * 
bodily mutilation is adopted by the prin 
cipal patristic expositors, as well as by . 
most modern writers; and it must be ^ 
admitted that thus not only -oi is more 
readily explained, and the expression of 
the icish (u<(>t\ov) more easily accounted 
for, but that there is also a species of 
parallelism in the use of Kararo^-tiv, 
Phil. iii. 2. Still as there seems no cer 
tain trace of this corporeal reference in 
any of the ancient Vv., as in some 
(JEth.-Platt, and perhaps Arm.) the 
reference seems plainly ethical, as there 
is a seeming contrast in the KoA.eij tirl of 
the confirmatory clause which follows, 
and as this seems alone suited to the 
earnest gravity with which St. Paul 
is here addressing his converts, we adopt 
somewhat unhesitatingly the former in 
terpretation. The Apostle s deep in 
sight into the exact spiritual state of the 
Galatians, and the true affection that 
throughout the Epistle tempers even his 
necessary severity, leads him here to ex 
press as a wish, what he might have 
(as in 1 Cor. v. 11) urged as a com 
mand : comp. Waterl., Works, Vol. in. 
p. 458. oi avatrra.?. u/xas] 
1 they who are unsettling you, Ilamm., 
sc. your subverters; the participle with 
its case becoming by means of the arti 
cle a kind of substantive ; see notes and 
reff. on ch. i. 23. The verb avtuntnovv 
(Ilesych. avarpfirfiv) occurs three times \ r t 
in the N. T. (Acts xviLJ), xxL 38 ) as * 
an equivalent of the more usual avaara- 
tov iroitlv, but is of rare occurrence 

12. u(f>\ov] / would that; indig 
nant wish called forth by the last 
deduction, and by the thought of the 
antagonism of circumcision to the cross 
of Christ ; see Ewald in loc., and com 
pare ch. ii. 21. This word is used 
purely as a particle, both in the N. T. 
(see 1 Cor. iv. 8, 2 Cor. xi. 1 ), and in 
the LXX, e. n. Exod. xvi. 3, Numb. xiv. 
2, xx. 3, Psalm cxviii. 5 ; see Winer, 
Gr. $41.5. 2, p. 270, Sturz, de Dialect. 
Maced. s. v. $ 12. Its construction, 
then tore, here with a future, though 
unusual and (appy. according to Lucian, 
Solccc. 1) soloccistic, need not have 
caused Ben gel to alter the punctuation 
(TO (TKttJ^SctAov TOV (TTCivpov* u(pt\ots,}, 
and to connect u</>eAoj/ as a kind of ex 
clamation ( velim ita sit! ) with what 
precedes. On the similar use of &q>e\ov 
and &(p\f in later writers, comp. Matth. 
Gr. 513. obs. 3, and on the correct and 
classical use ( Sxp(\ov non nisi turn adhi- 
beri, quum quis optat, ut fucrit aliquid, 
vel sit, vel futurum sit, quod non i uit, 
aut est. aut futurum est ), sec Ilerm. 
Viger, No. 190. Kal air OK 6- 

j/ o v T a. (] they would even cut themselves 

ft t w> el** o g, ^ nm you j, The cxact mcaning of 

, these words has been much discussed. 
yvtA. f &-V* The usual passive translation ( abscin- 
jjUn. If l"i * s dantur, Vulg., Goth., appy. Syr. 
JioU"^"^ ^^ [Schaaf], ^Eth.-Platt, Arm.), cannot 
be defended, as the N. T. furnishes no 
certain instance of a similar enallage. 
The most plausible is 1 Cor. x. 2, /col 
irai/T*s t /Sairna-ajTo, but even here the 
middle voice (sc. baptismum suscepe- 
runt, Beng. ) may be correctly main 
tained ; see Winer, Gr. $ 38. 4, p. 228, 
and exx. in Jelf, Gr. 364. 4. a. We 
have thus only two possible translations, 
(a) / mould that they would even cut 
themselves off (plane discedant) from 

UM ,K 

_ (/) (r**- <( ^JA cJiC^^ , /A^cc i> <)o. 

CHAP. V. 13, 14. 





:t , oXXo. Bta rrj< 
6 yap Tra? ^6/z.o? Iv evl \6y(i) 

, aSeX- 
et? d<pop/j,riv rfj 

SoV\VT d\\1J- 
V Tft) 

(Wetst. on ^4c& xvii. 6), and is said to 
belong to that somewhat numerous class 
of words (Tittm. Synon. p. 266) which 
are referred to the Macedonian dialect ; 
see Sturz, de Dial. Maced. 9, p. 146. 
It has a stronger meaning than rapaffva, 
and is admirably paraphrased by Chrys., 
oirb TT)S &.v<a lfpovffa\^]fi. iced rjjy eAev&e- 
pas fK/3a\6vres, fiia^u/jLevoi St KaSdirfp 
cu\fJM\<i>Tovs Kal yutTavacTTos irAai ao &ai. 

13. u/ueTs 7 op] For ye/ com 
mencement of a new paragraph, and 
according to Olsh., De "\V., al., of a 
new portion (the hortatory) of the Epis 
tle ; tv ravda \onrbv Sowe? /> eir "thy 
ij&iKbi t/j.paivtii> \6yov, Chrys. St. Paul 
knew so well the human heart, its ten 
dencies and temptations, and saw so 
clearly how his own doctrine of Chris 
tian liberty might be perverted and 
adulterated, that he at once hastens, 
with more than usual earnestness, to 
trace out the ineffaceable distinction be 
tween true spiritual freedom, and a car 
nal and antinomian license. There is, 
however, no marked or abrupt division, 
but one portion of the epistle passes in 
sensibly into the other. y a p is 
thus not illative (Turner), nor a mere 
particle of transition (Brown), but stands 
in immediate connection with the pre 
ceding words, which it serves to confirm 
and justify ; and I may well wish that 
they would cut themselves off from your 
communion, for ye were called to a state 
with which they have nothing in com 
mon. The reading 5e, found in FG ; 
80 ; Chrys., Aug., al., seems a very pal 
pable correction. i ir 4\svbt- 
pf?] for freedom ; firl here denoting 
the purpose or object for which they were 
called ; compare 1 Thess. iv. 7, ou 7^ 

where see notes in loc. Further exx. 
will be found in Winer, Gr, 48. c, p. 
351, and in Host. u. Palm, Lex. s. v. n. 
2. f, Vol. I. p. 1010. ju), r^v ] make not your liberty ; 
scil. irote iTf, rptirfrt [not, however, used 
in N. T.], Surf (FG; Boern., al), or 
some similar verb. Instances of this 
very intelligible and idiomatic omission 
of the verb after JUT; are cited by Har- 
tung, Partik. /ut), 6. b. 4, Vol. n. p. 153^ 
Klotz. Devar. Vol. n. p. 669, Winer, 
Gr. \ 66. i. 5, p. 663 : compare Hor. 
Epist. i. 5. 12, Quo mihi fortunas, si 
non conceditur uti. Such ellipses must 
of course be common in every cultivated 
language. 5io TTJJ a.ja.irt\i\ 

by the love ye evince , by your love ; 
not in your love* (Peile), with any 
reference to state or condition (compare 
Rom. iv. 11, St atcpo&vffrias, viii. 25, 8t 
uTrojUoi/rjs, al. ; Winer, Gr. 47. i, p. 
339), but simply per caritatem, Vulg., 
Armen. [instrumental case], Copt. ; love 
was to be the means by which their re 
ciprocal Snv\fia was to be shown. 
The reading TTJ aydini TOV n^et jtioToy, 
found in DEFG ; 81; Clarom., Goth., 
Copt. [Wilk., but not Bottich.] ; Bas., 
al., is in addition suggested by the pre 
ceding ffapKus. $ov\evtTf] 
be in bondage, servite, Vulg., Cla 
rom. ; in antithesis to the preceding 
t\fv!$fpiav : OVK ilitfv ay air art aA\T)Aouj, 
oTTAoij, oAAa Sov\fi>Tt, r^jv ^irjTera- 
lt.*vT\v 5rj\iav <pi\ia.v, Chrys. 

14. ii 7ckp iros vo/uoy] For the 
whole law ; confirmation from Scripture 
of the command immediately preceding, 
5ia TTJJ a7air7ji K. r. \. A few instances 
of this order occur in the N. T. ; see 



CHAP. V. 14, 15. 

ver tca 

TOV 7r\r/criov aov o>? creavrov. 
/ere, ySXevrere fj,r) VTTO 

el 8e ak\r)\ovs Sdic- 

14. creavrov] Tisch. (ed. 2) here adopts the more difficult, though not wholly 
unusual reading ta.uT- bv (see Winer, Gr. 22. 5) too much in defiance of external 
authority, ^tavrlv is supported by ABCDEK ; very many mss. ; Marc. ap. 
Epiph., Theodoret, Dam. (Rcc., Gricsb., Schols, Tisch. ed. Lachm.). Eaurbv ap 
pears only in FGJ ; appy. the majority of mss. ; Thcophyl., CEcum., ( Mey., Tisch.). 
Usteri very plausibly suggests the fulling away of one of the contiguous sigmas 
in the course of transcription. 

Middl. Greek Art. ch. vn. p. 104, note 
where Rose cites Acts xx. 18, 1 Tim. i. 
16 (sing.), Acts xix. 7 (plural); add 
xxvii. 37. Iv fvl \6yiu] in 

one word, scil. in one declaration or 
commandment: comp. Rom. xiii. 9. 
ireirATjpoiTOj] hath been (and is) ful 
filled This reading is supported no 
less by external evidence [ABC; 6 
mss.; Marc, in Epiph., Damasc. (2), 
Aug.] than by internal probability. 
"While Tr\-r)povra.i (Rec.) would imply 
that the process of fulfilment was still 
going on, the perfect TrtirK^ptarai suita 
bly points to the completed and perma 
nent act ; comp. Rom. xiii. 8, & a-ya-n-wv 
rbv ertpov v6/j.ov n-fir\ fipwKfi>, a mean 
ing of the perf. which Marcion (accord 
ing to Tertull. adv. Marc. v. 4) appears, 
either ignorantly or wilfully, to have 
misunderstood, adimpleta est, quasi jam 
non adimplenda. It may be ob 

served that there is no discrepancy 
between this passage and Matth. xxii. 
38, Mark xii. 29 ; for, as Meyer observes, 
St. Paul here takes a lofty spiritual 
eminence, from which, as it were, he 
sees all other commands so subordinated 
to the law of love, that he cannot con 
sider the man who has fulfilled this in 
any other light than as having fulfilled 
the whole law : comp. Usteri, Lehrb. n. 
1. 4, p. 242, Reuss, Thtol. C/irdt. iv. 19. 
Vol. n. p. 204 sq. The explanation of 
Vorstins and others irA.TjpoDo-.dai = 
<t>a\a.iovffdai, Rom. xiii. 9, here falls far 
short of the full spiritual meaning of 

the passage, and also is at variance with 
the regular meaning of irATjp. in the 
N. T. ; see Matth. iii. 15, Rom. viii. 4, 
xiii. 8, Col. iv. 17. 07 air ri 

ff e is] Thou shalt love. The use of the 
imperatival future appears in the N. T. 
under three forms ; (a) as a mild im 
perative, in simple prohibition ; compare 
Matth. vi. 5, OVK effjj ws ol imoKpirai ; (b) 
as a strong imperative, including pro 
hibition and reproof; compare Acts xiii. 
10, ou iravffri Siaffrpe ptav Tor otiovs Kv- 
piov ; (c) as a legislative imperative, 
both negatively (Matth. v. 21, Rom. vii 
7, al ), and positively, as here, and Rom, 
xiii. 9. The two former usages (which 
in fact may be considered as one, varied 
only by the tone of the speaker) are 
common in classical Greek, see Jelf, Gr. 
413. 1, 2, Bernh. Synt. x. 5, p. 378 . 
the latter seems distinctly Hebraistic ; 
comp. Gayler, Part. Ney. n. 3. 3, p. 75, 
Winer, Gr. 43. 5, p 282. The uses 
of the future in the LXX appear to be 
very varied, and serve to express, nega 
tively, quod non convenit (Gen. xx. 9), 
quod non potest (Gen. xxxii. 12 : comp. 
Matth. iv. 4, al.), and positively, quod 
licet (Numb, xxxii. 24), quod solet 
(Deut. ii. 11). These are almost purely 
Hebraistic ; see esp. Thiersch, de Pentat. 
in. $ 1 1 sq. 

15. Sa/ccere K al KaTfff&ifTf] 
bite and devour ; OVK tlirf, 5 a K v f r ( , 
IL/IVOV oirtp ftn\ &v/>ov. aAAo xal, K a- 
T f a <b ( f T (, oirfp tffrli/ rrj iro- 
b /j.ff yap SaKfuv opyrjt fir\-f]pvff( 

- 0) 

^ ^": 

/ : 3^, 

CHAP. V. 16. 



Be, Uvev/jLari Trepnrarelre teal TTI- 

Walk according to the 16 t 

Spirit, whose fruits no -* J 

law condemns; and not according to the flesh, the works of which exclude from the kingdom of God. 

Trios & 5* Karea^idiv &T/pia>5i aj fffxartis ffX fv airoSei^tv, Chrys. Instances of 
a similar use of Sa/cfere are cited by 
Kypke, Obs. Vol. n. p. 287, Wctst. in 
loc. a v a A ta b ~i r e] be con 

sumed, consumamini, Vulg., Clarom. ; 
continuation of the metaphor, there 
being appy. a species of climax in 
the three verbs SaKvert, Karea-SrifTe, and 
oi The meaning is sufficiently 
explained by Chrys., 7? yap 5idffTa<ns KO! 
i] /uax^j (p&opoirotbi ical itvaKuriKbis Kal Tiav 
SfXo/j.fvwv aurrjv, Kal elffa.y6i>T<av. 

16. \ t y ta 5 t] Now I say. The 
Apostle now reverts to the first portion 
of the command in ver. 13, ^ rriv t\cu- 
btpiav tls a<f>op,uV rij ffapKi. 
n v v fj. a r i] by the Spirit ; not exactly 
in (khen) the Spirit, Copt., still less 
Spiritui vitam consecrate (dat. corn- 
modi; Fritz. Rom. Vol. i. p. 225), but 
simply Spiritu, Vulg., Clarom., the 
dative being here what is called the dat. 
normcc, and indicating the metaphorical 
path, manner, or rule of the action ; 
compare ch. vi. 16, Acts xv. 1, Phil. iii. 
16, and see Hartung, Casus, p. 79, 
Winer, Gr. $ 31. 6. b, p. 193, Bernh. 
Synt. in. 14, p. 102, and exx. collected 
by Fritz. Rom. xiii. 13, Vol. in. p. 142. 
It is necessary to observe that Hvev/jLart 
is not after a heavenly or spiritual man 
ner, Peile (Kara rats iri/ev/jiariKas fVroAas, 
Schol. ap. Matth.), a very insufficient 
paraphrase, nor even, in accordance 
with indwelling grace (iri/eD^a 5e T^V 
tvoiKovffav \aptv, avrrj yap Vi ra 
Kpeirru iroSTjye? r^v tyvx-fiv, Thcod.), as 
all such cases tend to obscure the true 
nature of the contrast between nvtvpa 
and ffdp. Whenever these two words 
stand thus opposed, it has been satisfac 
torily shown by M tiller ( On Sin, Vol. i. 
p. 354 sq., Clark,) that the Uvev^a is 
not either the spiritual part of man (das 


Geistige), or the human spirit, if even 
always strengthened by the Holy Spirit, 
the divinized spiritual ( das Geist- 
liche; comp. Reuss, Thtel. Chr&t. Vol. 
n. p. 54), but the Holy Spirit itself, in 
so far as it is conceived the governing 
principle in man, the active and ani 
mating principle of Christian life, the 
nftvfj.a TT)S faris tv Xp. Irjcr. Rom. viii. 
2, the Hi/. Xpwrov, Uv. Qtov, ib. ver. 9 ; 
see also Neander, Planting, Vol. i. p. 
4G7 (Bohn), and esp. Ilofmann, Schriftb. 
Vol. i. p. 254 sq. On the omission 

of the article, see notes on ver. 5, and 
on the meaning of n-fpiwarsii as imply 
ing life in its regular and practical 
manifestations, see notes on Phil. iii. 
12, and on 4 Thcss. iv. 12. 
eirt&v fj.1 a.v <rap K 6 s] the desire of 
the flesh ; scil. all the motions and 
desires of the merely natural man, all 
that tends to earth and earthiiness. 
The meaning of <rap| in this important 
and deeply suggestive passage deserves 
the reader s careful consideration. The 
context seems clearly to show that here, 
as in many other passages in the N. T., 
<rap| is not merely the carnal as opposed 
to the spiritual, the purely sensational 
part of man, but comprehends in a more 
general notion the whole life and move 
ment of man in the world of sense (Miil- 
ler), or perhaps, to speak a little more 
precisely, the whole principle and realm 
of earthiiness and earthly relations 
(ffj-pxa evravSa T&J/ \ /coAe? TOV 
ytvSri, Chrys.); selfishness, as Miiller 
has well observed, ever appearing in the 
background. The transition from this 
to the more definitely ethical notions of 
weakness, sin, and sensationalism, which 
Miiller has too much lost sight of (see 
notes on Col. ii. 11), is thus easy and 
natural ; see esp. the good article of 
Tholuck, Stud. u. Krit. for 1855, p. 



CHAP. V. 17. 

crap/cos ov fir) reXe crT/re. ir rj <yap crap% 

17. ravra ydp] So Lachm. and TwcA. (ccl. 1), with BD EFG ; 17; Vulg., 
Clarom., Copt., Arm. ; Latin Ff. (Mcy., Alf., Dayje), and appy. correctly, as 
5, though strongly supported, viz., by AC1) 3 JK ; nearly all mss. ; Syr. (both), 
yEth. (both) ; Chrys., Thcodorct, Dam., al. (lice., Griesb., Pcholz) is inucli more 
likely to have been a change from -yap (to avoid the seeming awkwardness of a 
repetition of the particle) than viic versa. There is also some weight in the in 
ternal evidence ; the repetition of yap being so well-known a characteristic of the 
Apostle s style. 

485488, Midler, On Sin, Vol. I. p. 
350 sq. (Clark), and compare Beck, 
Seelcnl. n. 18, p. 53, Delitzsch, Bibl. 
Psychol. v. 6, p. 325 sq. ov /u$j 

"Tf\f<rr]Tf] ye shall not accomplish; 1 
< non perficietis, Vulg., Clarom.; comp. 
Matth. x. 23, OH /j.i) Tt\tariTt ras ir6\(is. 
This clause may be translated either 
(a) imperatively ; KOI being the simple 
copula joining two imperatival clauses, 
the first expressed affirmatively, the 
second negatively (Copt., Arm., - Eth., 
and more recently Ilamm., Mey., al.), 
or (6) as a future, in which case Kal will 
be consecutive, and nearly equiv. to ita 
fict ut ; compare notes on Phil. iv. 42. 
Of these (a) is perfectly admissible on 
grammatical grounds ; for the general 
principle that ov /ur; with the 2nd 
pcrs. fut. is prohibitive, and that, with 
the other persons of the future and all 
persons of the subj., it enounces a ne 
gation, and not a prohibition (Hirinann 
onKlmsl. Mud. 1120, p. 39 1 ) includes 
so many scarcely doubtful exceptions 
even in classical Greek (see cxx. in 
Gayler, Partic. Ne/j. p. 435), that it 
may be sometimes doubted whether the 
first negative both in ov /ufy and /J.TJ ov 
may not really be oratorium magis 
quam logicum (Gayler). Be this as it 
may, it seems certain that in the later 
Greek and esp. in the LXX, this use 
of oil HTJ in nearly all combinations, but 
esp. with subj., is so very abundant (see 
exx. in Gayler, p. 440), that no gram 
matical objections (opp. to Bloomf.) can 

be urged against the prohibitive usage. 
As, however, there is no distinct in 
stance of such a construction in the 
N. T., and still more as the next verses 
seem more naturally to supply the rea 
sons for the assertion than for the com 
mand, it seems best with Vulg., Clarom., 
Syr., and appy. Goth, (see De Gabcl. 
Gr. Goth. $ 182. 1. b. 3) to adopt the 
future translation. On the use of the 
subj. aor. for the future in negative 
enunciations, see notes and rcff. on ch. 
iv. 30 ; and on the subject of the verse 
as limited to religious contentions, see 
2 sermons by Howe, Works, Vol. in. 
p. 123 sq. (ed. Hewlett). 

17. 7) y op o-o. p| K. r. A.] for the 
Jlesh lustcth against the Spirit ; reason 
for the foregoing declaration that walk 
ing after the Spirit will preclude the 
fulfilling the lusts of the flesh ; merito 
hoc addit cum in uno et codcm homine 
regenerate sit caro et Spiritus : cujus 
certamcn copiosissime explicatur, Rom. 
vii. [15 20], Beza. In the following 
words the order OI/TIK. a\\ri\ots \Rcc. 
with JK ; mss. ; Ff.] is rightly reversed 
with greatly preponderating aut-hority. 
Iva. furj] to the end that ye may not; 
not* so that ye cannot do, Auth. (oO;< 
tirl aiViav fltrfv, a\\ us ax6\oudo> Kara 
TO oiKflov iSi oDjuo, Theod.), but with the 
usual and proper (tclic) force of iVo ut 
non quaecunque vultis ilia (ista, Cl.) 
faciatis," Vulg., Clarom., compare Goth., 
JEth. ; the object and end of the TO av- 
TiKfia&at on the part of each Principle 

fa t^s 

CHAP. V. 17, 18. 



TOV Tlveviunos, ro &e Ilvevfjia Kara TV}? erap/eoV ravra yap aX\.ij- 
Xot? dvTiKeirai, iva fj,rj a av ^eXtjre ravra Troiijre. 18 el Se Ilvev- 

is to prevent man doing what the other 
Principle would lead him to ; rb nceD^a 
impedit vos, quo minus perficiatis TO TV]S 
ffapKos, contra i] ffap adversatur vobis 
ubi TO. TOV Tlyt s peragere studetis, 
Winer ; see Fritz. Excurs. in Matth. p. 
838, Baur, Paulus, p. 533 sq., and com 
pare the very good remarks of Ham 
mond, Serin, vii. Part i. p. 123 (Angl. 
Cath., Libr.) where, although he quotes 
the eventual (ecbatic) sense of iva in 
translation he almost appears to adopt 
the final sense in his remarks and de 
ductions. On the use of iva. in the 
N. T., see notes on Eph. i. 17, Fritz. 
Excurs. 1. c., and Winer, Gr. 53. 6, 
p. 40G, and for a notice and example 
of its secondary-telic, or sub-final use, 
notes on 1 Thess. v. 4. Neither this 
derivative sense, however, nor any as 
sumed eventual force (opp. to Ust. and 
De W.) is here to be ascribed to the 
particle, both being appy. inconsistent 
with the probable meaning of di\r\rf ; 
see next note. & kv & t A ij T ] 

whatsoever ye may wish. This latter 
clause will admit of three different ex 
planations, according as dt ATjre is re 
ferred to (a) the carnal will; John. viii. 
44, 1 Tim. v. 11 ; (6) the moral or better 
will, or (c) the free-will in its ordinary 
acceptation. Of these explanations, the 
first (a), though supported both by Chrys., 
Theod., and several distinguished mod 
ern expositors (Bull, Harm. Ap. II. 9. 
25 sq., Neander, Planting, Vol. i. p. 
468, ed. Bohn), must still be pronounced 
logically inconsistent with ravra, yap 
a\\. ain- iK., which seems rather to point 
to the opposition incurred than the vic 
tory gained by the Spirit. The second 
(b), though perhaps in a less degree, is 
open to the same objection, notwith 
standing the support it may be thought 

to receive from Rom. vii. 15 sq., where 
&t\tw seems to point to the imperfect 
though better will ; see Calv., Schott, 
De W., who conceive that St. Paul is 
here expressing briefly what in Rom. 
I. c. he is stating more at length. The 
simple and logical connection of the 
words is, however, much better sup 
ported by (c), subject only to this neces 
sary and obvious limitation, that this 
I(r6ppoiros M"X*? m ust be only predicated, 
in its full extent, of the earlier *nd 
more imperfect stages of a Christian 
course ; see Olsh. in loc. The stai e of 
the true believer is conflict, but with final 
victory, a truth that was felt even by 
the Jews, among whom Abraham, Isaac, 
Jacob, and more especially Joseph, were 
ever cited as instances of a victorious 
issue : Schoettg. de Litctd Camis et 
Spiritus, in. 10, 11 (Vol. i. p. 1204 ) 

18. i 5 e K. T. \.] But if ye be led 
by the Spirit ; contrasted state to the 
struggle described in the preceding verse ; 
4 ubi vero Sp. vincit, acie res decernitur/ 
Beng. When the Spirit becomes truly 
the leading and guiding principle, then, 
indeed, the doubtful struggle has ceased ; 
there would be no fulfilling of the works 
of the flesh, and by consequence no 
longer any bondage to the law ; compare 
Maurice, Unity of N. T., p. 510, and 
Baur, Paulus, p. 534, note. 
TIvfvp.aTi Hytff&f] by the Spirit ; 
instrumental dative ; comp. 2 Tim. iii. 
G, ayo/Atva firt&v/j.icus irot/, and see 
Winer, Gr. 31. 7, p. 194, and ex. 
collected by Kypke, Obs. Vol. n. p. 172. 
Who can doubt, says Miiller (Doctr. 
Sin, Vol. i. p. 355, Clark), that rir. 
&yfff&. here entirely corresponds in the 
mind of the Apostle with Rom. viii. 14, 
nyer/uoTi fov 6.yovTcu\ and that thus 
the fuller and deeper meaning of TlvfiJ^a 



CHAP. V. 19 

tryeo^Ve, OVK ecrre into vofiov. 19 <f>avepa Be ecrriv ra 
Hpya TT}V crap/ros, anvd ecrriv Tropveia, atca^apaia, acreA/yeta, 

plurals [FG ; Orig., al.] are rightly re 
jected by the best recent editors with 
ABC ; 3 mss., Vulg., Syr., Copt., JEih. 
(both) ; Clem., Marc, in Epiph. ; Cyr., 
al. aKa&apffia, afff\yeta] 

uncleanncss, tcantonness ; com p. Horn, 
xiii. 13, 2 Cor. xii. 21 (where the same 
three words are in connection), Eph. iv. 
19. The distinction between these words 
is thus drawn by Tittmann, Synonym. 
p. 151, dwad. (more generic) qiurli- 
bet vita? animique impuritas ; a.ffe\y. t 
protcrvitas et impudens petulantia 
hominis a.crf\yovs (qui nullam verecun- 
dia? pudorisque rationem habet), non 
obsca>nitas aut fcrditas lubidinis ; comp. 
Etym. Ma;/. affe\yfia- (ToijudrTjs irpbs 
ira.aa.v r/Sovfif, and Trench, Synon. J xvi. 
where this latter word is defined as 
petulance or wanton insolence, and as 
somewhat stronger than protervitas, 
and more nearly approaching petulan 
tia. The derivation is very doubtful ; 
it does not seem from dt A-ysij/ (Trench), 
but perhaps from dcr. (satiety) and f\y. 
connected with a\y. (Benfcy, Wurzi llex. 
Vol. n. p. 15), or more probably (Don 
alds.) from d priv. and o-aAa7-[<raAa7e u), 
0-c Aas], the primjiry idea being dirti 
ness, foulness. Winer observes 
that the vices here enumerated may be 
grouped into four classes, ( 1 ) sen 
suality ; (2) idolatry, not merely spir 
itual, but actual, amalgamation of 
Christianity and heathenism ( 1 Cor. 
viii. 7 ) ; comp. Neander, Planting, Vol. 
i. p. 243 note (Bohn) ; (3) malice; (4) 
excesses. Beng. similarly divides them as 
peceata commissa cum proximo, adver- 
sus Deum, adversus proximum, et circa se 
ipsum, cui ordini respondet enumcratio 
fructus Spiritus. There does not, how 
ever, appear any studied precision in the 
classification ; St. Paul, as Aquinas re- 

must be maintained throughout this par 
agraph. OVK 4<r-rt uwb v6fj.ov] 
ye are not under the law ; not, on the 
one hand, because there is now no need 
of its beneficial influences (ov Se7rat rfjj 
orrb ToG v6fj.ov jSorj^fms, Chrys., al. ), nor 
on the other, because it is now become 
an alien principle (Ustcri, Lchrb. i. 4. 
A, p. 57), but simply because it finds 
nothing in you to forbid or to condemn ; 
see ver. 23. The more obvious conclu 
sion might have seemed, ye are not 
under the influences of the flesh ; but 
as the law was confessedly the principle 
which was ordained against the influ 
ences and tpya T/JS crap/cos (Horn. vii. 7 
sq. ), the Apostle (in accordance with 
the general direction of his argument) 
draws his conclusion relatively rather to 
the principle, than to the mere state and 
influences against which that principle 
was ordained. 

19. (pavtpa of] But, to explain 
and substantiate more fully the last as 
sertion (OVK iffrt virb vo^ov), the open 
difference between the works of the 
flesh (against which the law is ordained) 
and the fruit of the Spirit (against which 
there is no law) shall now be manifested 
by special examples. & T iv a. 

tart] of which class are ; not quite so 
much as quippc qua?, l)c "\Vette, qua? 
quiclem, Schott., but merely such 
for instance as, 8<rni having appy. here 
its classifying force ; see notes on ch. iv. 
24 . TO pv da] fornication. 

Observe the prominence always given to 
condemnations of this deadly sin, it be 
ing one of the things which the old 
pagan world deemed as merely aSiacpopa ; 
see Meyer on Acts xv. 20. The 

insertion of juo<x<a [Kec. with DE (FG 
e?a) JK; Clarom., Goth., Syr.-Phil. ; 
Gr. and Lat. Ff.] and the change to 

CHAP. V. 20. 



i a, $>appaiceia, 

marks, non intcndit enumerare omnia 
vitia ordinate et sccundum artem, sed 
ilia tantum in quibus abundant, et in 
quibus excedunt illi ad quos scribit. 

> o v 
20. <(>a.p fjiaKfia] sorcery, |^o^i-a 

[magia] Syr. This word, like the Lat. 
veneficium (Vulg., Clarom.), may 
either imply (a) poisoning, as JEth., 
perhaps Goth., lubjaleisei [compare 
Angl.-Sax. lib.], al., or () sorcery, as 
Syr. (both), Copt, (appy.), Arm., al. 
The former is not improbable on account 
of its juxtaposition to *xdpcu ( see cxx - * n 
Schleusn. Lex. in LXX. s. v., Exod. vii. 
11, al.) ; the latter, however, seems here 
more probable, sorcery, as Meyer notices, 
being especially prevalent in Asia ; see 
Acts xix. 19. On the subject generally, 
see" Delitzsch, EM. Psychol. iv. 17, p. 
262, sq. Both in this and the fol 

lowing words there is much variation 
between the sing, and plural forms. 
JRec. commences the list of plurals with 
tX&pai ! the singulars tpis [ABD 1 ; mss.] 
and -r,A.os [A BD^E (FG tf\ovs) ; 17. 
Goth.] seem, however, to have the crit 
ical preponderance and are adopted by 
Lachm, Tisch., and most mod"rn ed 
itors. & v n o i] displcijs of 
wrath; 1 both this and the associated 
plurals serving to denote the various 
concrete forms of the abstract sins here 
specified ; see exx. of bu^oi noticed by 
Lobeck, Ajax, 716, Bernhardy, Sijnt. n. 
6, p. 62, and esp. the good note of Ilein- 
ichen on Euseb. Eccl. Hist. vni. 6, Vol. 
in. p. 18 sq. The meaning of &v/j.6s, 
as its derivation implies [&v<a, perhaps 
connected with Sanscr. dim, agitarc, 
Pott, Etijm. Forsch. Vol. i. p. 211], is 
not so much inimicitia hominis accrbi 
et iracundi (Tittm. Synon. p. 133), as 
iracundia, or rather excandescentia, the 
principal idea being that of eager mo 
tion towards, impulse ; see esp. Don 

, ept9, 77X09, 

alds. Crat. 473, where, however, the 
derivation of Stvu is plausibly referred to 
0E-, on the principle of suggestion by 
contrast. It thus differs from opyf], 
both in its rise, as more sudden (Luke 
iv. 28, Acts xix. 28), and its nature, as 
less lasting (compare Ecclus xlviii. 10, 
Koira.ffa.i opyy]t> irpb &U/JLOV) ; see Trench, 
Synon. xxxvu., Fritz. Rom. Vol. i. p. 
lOo, and notes on Eph. iv. 31. 
f p i & e ? a i] caballing s ; compare Syr. 

" * 

j \ ^. V [rebellio, calumnia]. The ac 
curate meaning of the word fprSfia 
appears to have been missed by mo?t of 
the older, and indeed most of the mod 
ern expositors, by whom it is commonly 
connected with tpis (compare CEcum.), 
and understood to mean contention ; 
comp. rixa, Vulg. inritationes, Cla 
rom. Its true etymological connection, 
is, however, with the Homeric word 
tprdos, a day-laborer, and thence 
either with tpiov (TTIV {pya.ou.tvr\v rck 
pia, Phavor. Ecloy. p. 201, cd. Dincl.), 
or more probably with"EPn, tp3o>, fptdta ; 
compare Lobeck, Patholoy. p. 33.3. Its 
meaning, then, is (a) Labor fur hire; 
compare Suidas, s. v. Se/ca^ecr^at ; (0) 
Scheming or intriguing for office, am 
bitus : compare Aristot. Pol. v. 2. 3 : p. 
1302, (ed. Btkk.); (7) Party-spirit- a 
contentious spirit of faction ; compare 
Schol. ap. Matth. fp&. tfj.(pt\6veiKot 
irpdtfis, and Steph. Thcs. s. v. where 
there are also traces of a right percep 
tion of the true meaning. Of these 
(y) seems to be the prevailing meaning 
in the N. T., where e ptd. occurs no less 
than 7 times, and in the following com 
binations; in Rom. ii. 8, of e{ f pi&. are 
coupled with oi airf&ovi>Tfs rrj aArj^ei a, 
and in antithesis to of /cod- VTTOIJ.OVY]! tp- 
yov ayaSov; in 2 Cor. xii. 20, ep&flat 
are enumerated between &v/j.ol and Kara- 
\a\iai , -n Phil. i. 16, tptb- is in antithesis 


G A L A T I A N S . 

CHAP. V. 21 

alpecreis, 21 (j&rovoi, <j)6voi< yue^at, KWfjiOi, real ra o/j,oia 
rovroif a TrpoXtryo) u/ui>, a^a>? tcai Trpoelrrov, on 01 ra 

21. <<W] Omitted by Tisch. with B; 17. 33. 35. 57. 73; Demicl. Aug.*; 
Clem., Marcion ap Epiph., Iron. ; Cypr., Ilicron. (distinctly), Ambrst., Aug. 
([Lac Am.], approved by Mill). The authorities for the text are ACDEFGJK ; 
great majority of mss. ; Clarom., Bocrn., Vulg., Syr. (both), Copt., al. ; Chrys., 
Theod., al. (lice., Gricsb., Scholz, Mey., Alf., BajyeJ. These so decidedly prepon 
derate, the characteristic paronomasia is so probable, and the omission in transcrip 
tion, owing to the similarity in words, so very likely, that we do not hesitate to 
restore <povoi. 

to o-yaTTT) ; ib. ii. 3. it is connected with 
Kro5oia, and in James iii. 14. 16, with 
7)Aor. In Ignat. Phuad. 8, ip&. is 
opposed to xpKrro,uadia. It would thus 
seem that in all these passages, with the 
exception perhaps of Rom. I. c., and 
Phil. I.e., where the context points 
less to party-spirit than to the conten 
tiousness it gives rise to (see notes on 
Phil. i. 17, Transl.) the meaning of 
ip&. is fairly covered by the definition 
of Fritz, as summa invidia pcctore in- 
clusa proclivitasque ad machinationcs ; 
see Riiekert on Rom, ii. 8, and esp. 
Frit/,. Excursus on tp&os, tptdtta, ipi- 
&fvo/, Connn. on Rom. Vol. I. p. 143 
sq. St^offTafftai, alp^fftts] 

divisions, parties; the standing 
apart (comp. tvisstasseis, Goth.) and 
divisions (Rom. xvi. 17) implied in the 
former woid, leading naturally to the 
more determinate choice ( eleetio pro;- 
sertim discipline cnjnsdam Schott) 
exercised in the formation of the latter ; 
comp. Theoph. and Bagge i loc. 

21. fjL e & a i, K 1 /j. o t] * drunkenness, 
revi lliiirjs, ebrietates, comessationcs, 
Vulg., Clarom. ; the latter being the 
more generic and inclusive, to which 
the former was the usual accompani 
ment. On the nocturnal KUUOI (ra 
ifff\yri Kal iropt>tK& &ff/j.ara, au/j.ir6tria, 
llesyeh.) of the ancients see Sehwarz. 
de Comisx. Vet., Altdorf, 1744, Welcker 
in Jacobs, Philnstr. i. 2, p. 20 2 sq. 
and on the derivation of the word 

[appy. connected with Koi/jL<ita, and 
from a root KI-] Bcnfey, IVurzelkx. Vol. 
II. p. 150. & irpo\eyta v^i iv] 

about which I tell you beforehand; 
cither prremoneo, priusquam veniat dies 
retributionis, sive jndicii, qticm hie res- 
picit, Est., or more simply, pnrdico, 
ante even turn, Beng. ; comp. 1 Thcss. 
iii. 4. It is not necessary to refer & to 
irpdcra-oi Tes, as an aecus. derived by at 
traction from the accus. objecti after that 
word (Schott, Olsh.) ; the ordinary ex 
planation, quod attinet ad ea quac, 
(Camerar. ), being perfectly satisfactory. 
In such cases, the relative is really gov- 
crm d by the finite verb as a species of 
quantitative accus. ; its prominence in 
the sentence, and app J. absolute use 
being designed to call attention to that 
on which the thought or action princi 
pally turns ; comp. John. viii. 54, and 
see Scheuerl. Synt. 8. 4, p. 55. Such 
sentences often involve a slight, but 
perfectly intelligible, anacoluthon ; see 
Fritz. Rom. vi. 10, Vol. i. p. 393, and 
compare notes on ch. ii. 20. 
Ka&a>r a! irpof tirov] an I also 
told you beforehand, sc. when I was 
with you ; the KOL appy. reminding them 
that these were warnings not new to 
them. The particle is omitted in 15 FG ; 
Amit., Demicl.; Chrys. (1), al , and 
bracketed by Larhm., but rightly re 
tained as part of the text by most recent 
editors, the external evidence in its fa 
vor [ACDEJK ; nearly all mss., and 

CHAP. V. 22. 



7rpd(T(TOvre<; /3acn\eiav Oeov ov KXr/povou-rfcrovcriv. 22 o Be 

rov rivevparos ecmv dyuTrij, %/?, elprjvri, fj,aKpa&vfJ,ia, %prja"r6- 

most Vv. ; Clem., Chrys., Theod.] being 
so greatly preponderant. TK 

T o tavr a] stick things as these all 
such thinys. The article with TOIOVTOS 
denotes a known person or thing, or the 
whole class of such, but not an unde 
fined individual out of the class ; as in 
that case TOIOVTOS is anarthrous ; see 
Kiihner on Xenoph. Mem. i. 5. 2, and 
Kriigcr, Sprachl. $ 50. 4. 6. 
j8<TJA. Qtov ov K\i)pov.\ shall 
not inherit the kimjdom of God; comp. 
Eph. v. 5, where with equal pertinence 
the declaration is made of present time. 
On the meaning of the inclusive term 
f}a(n\fiav Qtov, that kingdom which 
was completely established at the ascen 
sion (see Jackson, Creed, x. 45. 2), of 
which Christ is the founder, and Christ 
(and God, Rev. xi. 15, xii. 10) the 
King, and of which the true Christian, 
even while here on earth, is a subject, 
see esp. Tholuck, Berypred. p. 72 sq., 
Bauer, Comment. Theol. n. p. 107 sq., 
Heemskerk, Notio rrjs /8o<r. K. r. A. 
(Amst. 1839), and the comments of 
Reuss, Thuol. Chret. n. 4, Vol. i. p. 
180 sq. On its distinction (whether 
in sensu initiali or finali ) from the 
more collective and, so to say, localized 
(KK\riaia, see Stier, Ephes., Vol. n. p. 
252 sq. 

22. Kapiros] fruit; used appy. 
with a significant reference to the or 
ganic development from their root, the 
Spirit (Olsh., Bloomf.) ; S& rt oe Kapir bv 
/caAe? rov riv. ; OTI ra ntv irovT\pb. tpya 
?;/uti>i/ yiyverai fjt.6voi>- 8ib xal tpya. Ka\ti- 
ra 8e /caAo ov TTJS r t fjifT(pas 4iri^f\fins 
Sfirai fjL&vof, o\Aa KOLI rrjs rov Qeov tpt- 
Xa^pcoTrios, Chrys. It is possible that 
no marked distinction may be intended 
(Mey.), still, as Kapiros is nearly always 
used by St. Paul in bonam pai tern. 

(Rom. i. 13, vi. 22, xv. 28, Eph. v. 9, 
Phil. i. 11, 22, iv. 17), and as even in 
Rom. vi. 21, where it is used in ref. to 
evil works, the same meaning ( what 
fruit, i. e. what really beneficial result 
had ye, etc.) appears to be preserved, 
we may safely press the peculiar mean 
ing and significance of the term ; see an 
excellent sermon on this text by San 
derson, Serm. xvn. (ad Aul. ), p. 594 
sq. (Lond. 1689). bydirij, 

Xapd] love, Joy; bydirri, as Mey. ob 
serves, standing at the head, as the mov 
ing principle of all the rest (compare 
1 Cor. xiii. 1 sq.), and x a P& following, 
as that special gift of the Spirit ( comp. 
1 Thess. i. 6), which ought to be the 
pervading principle of Christian life 
(Phil. iv. 4) ; comp. Reuss. Theol. Chret. 
iv. 1 8, Vol. ii. p. 202. lp ?j v i\\ 

peace ; not so much here in ref. to 
peace with God (Phil. iv. 7, see notes tit 
loc. ) as, in accordance with the associated 
and partially contrasted terms ex^P 
K. r. A. (ver. 20), peace with one 
another; compare 1 Thess. v. 15. On 
the meaning of naKpoSv^ia, (dementia, 
qua iron tempcrans delictum non statim 
vindiccs, Fritz. Rom. Vol. i. p 98), see 
notes on Eph. iv. 2, and for its distinc 
tion from V7ro/j.ovfi, notes on Col. i. 1 1 . 
Xpn ff T or rj s, ayabtaavvij] benev 
olence, goodness. These words are 
nearly synonymous. The former (de 
fined in [Plato] Def. 412 E, as ijdovs &TT- 
Aotrria /uf-r fv\oyi<niai) may perhaps 
denote that benevolence and sweetness 
of disposition ( benignity, Wicl., 
Rhem.) which finds its sphere and 
exercise in our intercourse with one 
another ; comp. Tit. iii. 4, where it is 
joined with ^lAa^pcoirio, and see Tittm. 
Synon. p. 140, Planck, Comment. Theol, 
Part i. p. 197, and the citation from 





CHAP. V. 23. 

,* - 

eyKpaTGia Kara TWV TOIOV- 

Jerome in Trench, Si/non. Append, p. 
198 (cd. 1). The latter (dyad.), 

a somewhat rare word (though occur 
ring in three other places in St. Paul s 
Epp. Rom. xv. 14, Eph. v. 9, 2 Thess. 
i. 11), seems more than ) ain)pTi<Tp.evr\ 
bpfT fi (Phavorinus, Zonaras) or even, 
< animi ad optima quucque propensio 
(Gom. on Rom xv. 14), and may not 
improbably be extended to that pro 
pensio as exhibited in action, the pro- 
pension both to will and do what is 
good ; see Sticr, F.phcs. Vol. n. p. 2 60, 
and compare Suicer, Thes. Vol. i. p. 16, 
The idea of bountifulness, Nehcm. 
ix. 25, is necessarily included. It may 
thus be distinguished from the some 
what late word aya^orrjs (Lob. Phri/n. 
p. 350), which rather denotes goodness 
in its essence, and is thus commonly 
used in reference to God. -n ( cr- 

r i s] faith; not merely fidelitas, 
veracitas in promissis (Men. ap Pol. 
Syn.), i. e., good faith (Matth. xxiii. 
23 ; Tit. ii. 10, n-urns a-yob-h), but trust 
fulness (Conyb. ), faith in God s promises 
and mercies and loving trust towards 
men ; compare 1 Cor. xiii. 7, TTO-VTO. iriff- 
Ttvft, where, like juoKpodu/ui a and xP r l ff ~ 
T^THS (ver. 4), it stands as one of the 
characteristics of dyaTrrj. 

23. TrpauTTjs] meekness, mocles- 
tia, Vulg. The Trpavs is denned by 
Tittmann, Si/non. p. 140, as mansue- 
tus, qui sequo animo omnia fert (sanft- 
mu /iiy), compare Aristot. Eth. iv. 11. 
This, however, seems wholly insufficient ; 
the Chi is/inn grace of irpavrris is not 
mere gentleness or arapa^ia, (rb ou<Ti<lv7)- 
TOV elccti irpbs ras 6pyds, Stob. Floril. I. 
18), but appy. denotes a submissivcness 
to God as well as man, and may be 
distinguished from tiriti><eia as having 
its seat in the inner spirit, while the 

latter seeks to embody itself in acts ; 
see Trench, Synon. $ XLIII. 16, and notes 
on Col. iii. 12. On the orthography 
Trpa6rris (appy. the more Attic form, 
Phot. Lex. p. 386) or irpairrTjj, compare 
Lobeck, Phryn. p. 403. ty K pa 

rt ia] temperance, the exercise of 
control over passions and desires ; com 
pare Acts xxiv. 25, 2 Pet. i. 6 ; tyxp. 5e 

iaTIV apfTT) TOV eVt&UjUTJTIKoD KO<y %I/ 

KaTfxovffi Ty \oyiff/j. a TOS tiri$u/j.ias &p- 
fjiUffCLs (ir\ TO.S (pav\as r/Soyas, Stob. 
Floril. i. 18. It is distinguished by 
Diog. Laert. from ffaifypoffvvi) as implying 
a control over the stronger passions, 
whereas the latter implies a self-restraint 
in what is less vehement ; ^ aia$poG\)vr\ 
i]pf[j.a.ias fX fl T " s 3iri&v/j.las, ?; 5 tyKpd- 
reia <r^)o5jjas, Snid. Lex s. v. Vol. I. p. 
1138 (ed. Gaisf.). The addition of 
ayvtia (D EFG) ; Clarom. Vulg. [not 
Ainit. ; Bas., al.] is rightly rejected by 
appy. all recent editors. T w v 

T o to vr wv) nil such things ; not masc. 
(Tlieod.), but as seems much more nat 
ural, and is perhaps suggested by the 
art. (Olsh.) neut. in reference to the pre 
ceding virtues ; compare the somewhat 
parallel passage, Stohrcus, Floril. 18, fin., 
d/coAou^ei 5e TJ; apery \py)(noTT)s, (Trifl- 
Kfta, tvyv<a^offvvr\, t\irls aya^-f), trt St 
Kal TO. roiavra. Brown s argument (p. 
307) is certainly not convincing, TOI- 
ovriav and roia.vT<av, a curious over 
sight. OVK i<rri v6p.os\ 
there is no (condemnatory) law. The 
explanation per meiosin, tantum abest 
ut iis legis Mosaic-EC terrores sint metu- 
endi, ut potius Deo sint grati, Piosenm. 
(cited by Brown), is not satisfactory. 
St. Paul draws a contrast between the 
legal judgment under which the former 
class lay, and the freedom from it which 
those who are led by the Spirit enjoy ; 


CHAP. V. 24, 25. 



row OVK ea-Tiv v6jj.o<s. ~ 4 ol Be TOV Xpicrrov TTJV adpfca ecrravpwcrav 
<rvv rot? TraStrjpao-iv real rat? eTTt^-y/ii at?. K el 

24. roG Xpurrov] Tisch. adds Irjo-oD with ABC ; mss. ; Copt , Sahid., JEih. 
(both); Cyr. (often), Doroth., Bas., Procop., Dam., al. ; Aug. [Lachm.]. The 
external authorities for the omission are DEFGJK (FG add eires, scil. ovr*s) ; 
Vulg., Clarom., Syr. (both), Goth, Arm.; Chrys., Thcodoret, Pseud-Ath., al. ; 
very many Lat. Ff. (Rec., Griesb., Schoh, Alf.). Owing to the importance of 
ABC, the external evidence may perhaps be considered slightly in favor of the 
addition; the order, however, is so unusual (Eph. iii. 1, Col. ii. 6, but in both 
with var. readings), and external evidence for and against so nearly balanced, that 
we decide in favor of the shorter reading. 

compare Bull, Exam. Censura, xvii. 16, 
where, however, the masc. interpr. of 
TotovTui is adopted. 

24. o I 5 e] Note they ; slightly con 
trasted application of the whole foregoing 
particulars to the special case of Chris 
tians, 8 not being simply continuative 
(Auth. ), nor yet resumptive, in ref. to 
ver. 16 (DeW.), or to ver. 18 (Beng.), 
but almost syllogistic, the application to 
Christians forming a sort of practical 
propositio minor to the foregoing group 
of verses. The connection of the whole 
paragraph, then, from ver. 16 appears to 
be as follows : The Spirit and the 
flesh are contrary to each other ; if the 
flesh prevail, man is given over to all sin, 
and excluded from the kingdom of God : 
if the Spirit be the leading principle, 
man brings forth good fruits, and is free 
from the curse of the law. Now the 
distinguishing feature of the true Chris 
tian is the crucifixion of the flesh ; con 
sequently, as must be obvious from what 
has been said, the living in and being 
led by the Spirit ; see Riickert in loo. 
eff TO i; pea ffa. v\ crucified, scil. when 
they became Christians, and by bap 
tism were united with Christ in His 
death ; compare Rom. vi. 3. Though 
this ethical crucifixion is here designated 
as an act past (compare Rom. vi. 6, 6 
ira\aibs Jtfl&v &vSp(eiros ffvvfffTavpca&T]), 
it really is and must be a continuing act 
as well; compare Rom. viii. 13. This 


however the aor., with its usual and 
proper force, leaves unnoticed ; it simply 
specifies, in the form of a general truth, 
the act as belonging to the past, without 
affirming or denying any reference to 
the present ; see Fritz, do Aor. Vi, p. 17, 
notes on 1 Thcss. ii. 16, and compare 
Soph. Antig. 1318 (last line) t8i$aa.v, 
on which Wex remarks, unum exem- 
plum, quod aliquando evenerit, tanquarn 
norma proponitur : see also Schmalfold, 
Synt. 60. 2, p. 128. In all such cases 
the regular reference of the tense to the 
past may be felt in the kind of summary 
way in which the action is stated, the 
sort of implied dismissal of the subject, 
and procedure to something fresh ; com 
pare Donalds. Gr. 433. On the- 
vital truth, that our crucifixion of the 
flesh is included and involved in that of. 
Him with whom we are united, eomp.. 
Usteri, Lehrb. n. 1.3, p. 202 sq. ; and 
on the whole verse read the good sermon 
of South, Serm. xxm. Vol. iv. p. 338 
sq. (Lond. 1843). 

25 ia[j.fv Tlvfvfj.aTt] If we 
live by the Spirit ; if, as a matter of 
fact (see notes on ch. i. 9), we live (em 
phatic) by the efficacy and operation of 
the Spirit ; assumption naturally arising 
from the preceding declaration of cruci 
fixion of the opposing principle, the 
flesh ; enecata in hominibus Christianis 
Trj crapitl, necesse est in iisdcm vivat 
suamque vim libere exserat ri TlvtvfM., 

Ilvevfiari KOI 


CHAP V. 26. 

Schott. The omission here of all illa 
tive particles makes the exhortation more 
forcible and emphatic ; comp. 1 Cor. iii. 
17. There is some little difficulty 

in the explanation of the dative n/tu- 
fian. It is certainly not (a) a dative of 
manner, scil. spiritually Middl. ; as 
thus not only the force of the verse, but 
the connection with what precedes, aris 
ing from the opposition of the FIceD/ua 
and the crd.p, is completely lost. Nor 
again (b) is it a dative of relation, si 
vitam nostrum ad Spiritum referimus, 
ad Spiritum etiam dirigamus vitam, 
Fritz. (limn. xiii. 13, Vol. in., p. 142) ; 
for though Horn. xiv. 6 8 supplies a 
somewhat parallel sentiment, the an 
tithesis between the two clauses is thus 
obviously deprived of all force and per 
tinence. On the whole, then, the or 
dinary explanation (c) would seem to be 
most satisfactory, according to which 
Tlvti>u.a.n is to be regarded as a form of 
the instrumental or ablatival dative 
(Winer, Or. 31. 7, p. 194), and as 
here adopted rather than Sta with the 
accus. (John vi. o7, compare Winer p. 
35G), as thus forming a sharper antithe 
sis to the dative which follows, if 
we live by the Spirit (if the Spirit is our 
principle of life) by the Spirit let us also 
walk ; compare 2 Cor iii. fi, rb 5e Flcer/ita 
faoiroitt, and see Ncand. Planting, Vol. 
I. p. 4G9 sq. (Bohn). The second i is obviously the dat. nnrni(e, 
Scil. Kara TOI/S iKf ivov v6[j.ous Tro\tTfv6uf- 
voi, Chrys., see notes on vir. 1G. Fritz 
(Rom. iv. 2 2, Vol. i. p. 22-5) explains it 
as a dat. commorli, Spiritui vitam con 
secrate ; but this, on Rom. xiii. 13, he 
appears to have retracted. or T o ->} let us icalk. The hortatory 
imperative is not without some doctrinal 
significance (Ust.); the Apostle evi 

dently assuming the union and coexist 
ence of the Divine and human powers 
in the heart of the true Christian ; com 
pare Beck, Scelenl. i. 8, p. 29, n. 13, p. 
32 sq., TJsteri, Lehrb. n. 1. 3, p. 218 
note. The command is substantially the 
same as that in ver. 16, except perhaps 
that <noixt1i> [trrtx-] may imply a more 
studied following of a prescribed course, 
than the more general TTfpnraTfw (notes 
on Phil. iii. 18) ; compare Polyb. Hist. 

XXVIII. 5. 6, <TTOIX<V TJ7 T?]S ffVJK\r]TOU 

irpob((rt~i, Dion. Hal. Antiq. vi. 65, 
<TTO(Xf< / TOIS ir\fioffi yvtafiats, and the 
somewhat unusual expression o-ToixfiV 
/jiS. jwami, Schol. Arist. Pint. 773. 

26. fji-fi yiviafi.t&a K. T. A..] Let us 
not become ; not let us not be," Auth. 
(comp. Syr.), but ne efficiamur Vulg., 
Clarom., vnirtamma, Goth, there be 
ing appy. no less in the verb than in the 
person an intentional mildness, which 
seems to imply that the sin of KtvoSo^ia. 
had not yet taken root, though the very 
warning suggests that it was to be ex 
pected. The verse thus forms a suitably 
concluding warning against those par 
ticular sins of the Galatians to which 
the Apostle alluded in ver. 13 Iii and 
at the close of ver. 20, and belongs to 
Chap, v., though it also serves very 
naturally to connect the doctrinal with 
the more directly admonitory jxirtion of 
the Epistle, which begins with the next 
chapter. A close connection with Ch. 
vi. (Mcy., al.) seems clearly at variance 
with the introductory a5A(^oi (compare 
ch. iv. 12), and the change of person. 
a\\-f)\. irpoKa\avfjitvoi\ provok 
ing each other ; scil. tis <(>i\oi>(iKia.s Kal 
tptis, Chrys. < calling one another out to 
the field of controversy, Brown ; see 
Herodian, Hist. vi. 9 (Oxon., 1704), 
irpoKaAf?T(u ?;/uas eir u.dx.i]v, and simply, 

i "7 A^ Vi^-^1 T CcJLA l^^^T LT 

L Cr 



CHAP. VI. 1. 



Ye who are spiritual 
nhould bear ai.d forbear; 
examine yourselves be 
fore ye judge others. 

VI. ASe\<poi, eav KOI 
7TO? ev TIVI TrapaTTTMfjMTi, vpeis ol 

Polyb. Hist. i. 46. 11, irpoita\ov/j.ffos 
roiis iro\ifiiovs. The meaning of 

Q&ovovvTes has been modified by 
some commentators, withholding out 
of envy (Olsh.), hating (Brown). 
This is not necessary ; <p^ovflv is the 
correlative act on the part of the weak, 
to the irpoKaA.f iffbcu on the part of 
the strong. The strong, vauntingly 
challenged their weaker brethren : the 
weak could only retaliate with envy. 
It may be remarked that fybovsiv does 
not occur elsewhere in N. T. ; in James 
iv. 2, the correct reading is <povtvtTt. 

CHAPTER VI. 1. aof\<pol] Breth 
ren; conciliatory mode of address in 
troducing the more directly admonitory 
portion ; latet in hoc etiam uno verbo 
argumentum, Beza. 4av Kal 

it p o \ T) /j. </> 3- fj] if a man be even stir- 
prised or cauyht ; praeoccupatus fuerit, 
Vulg., Clarom., Syr., gafauhaidan, 
Goth. The verb irpo\rifj.<pS>fi has received 
several different interpretations, in ac 
cordance with the different meanings 
assigned to irp6. The more strict tem 
poral meaning, antea, whether referred 
to the arrival of the Epistle (Grot.), to 
a recurrence of the offence (Winer), or 
to the attempt at restoration, the 
\an&a.veffdai taking place before the 
Ky.ra.p-r. (Olsh.), is unsatisfactory, as 
the emphatic position of irpoA.ijjd]7 and 
the force of KCU are thus both obscured. 
The common reference to the unexpected 
ness of the sin ( notat improvisam oc- 
cupationem, Vorst., tav trvvaptrayfj, 
Chrys. ), is also inconsistent with /cat, 
as this meaning of irpb would tend to 
excuse and qualify, whereas Kal seems 
to point out an aggravation of the of 
fence. If, however, irpb be referred to 
the power of escape, be caught before 

he could escape, flagrante delicto, 
not only the intensive force of icat, but 
the emphatic position of irpo\riiJi<pfrfj and 
the general tenor of the exhortation is 
fully preserved. This meaning of irpo- 
Aau/3., it must be admitted, is rare, but 
see exx. in Kypke, Obs. Vol. n. p. 289, 
and esp. Wisdom, xvii. 17, 

On the Alexandrian form i 
see Winer, Gr. 5, 4, Tisch. Proleyom. 
p. xx., and on the difference between 
&v Kol and Kal tdV, see note, ch. i. 8, 
Herm. T iyer, No. 307, Klotz, Devar. 
Vol. II. p. 519. tv TIVI ir a- 

p a it T w ft. a r i] in any transgression 
in any particular act of sin, esp. on the 
side of error, stumbling, or transgression 
of a command. On the distinction 
between irapdirrcafjia (more particular), 
and a/jLapria (more general), see notes on 1. ujueisotirj/eu- 

ju a r i K o I] ye the spiritual ones, ye 
that are spiritual. The tenor of the 
exhortation, coupled with the similar 
distinctions which St. Paul seems else 
where to have recognized in his converts 
(e. g., 1 Cor. iii. 1 ), appears in favor of 
the opinion that the Apostle is here 
designating not merely those who were 
subject in el ij irvfv/j.aTiKoi, i. e. , who thought 
themselves so (comp. Windischm.), but 
those who were objectively irvevnar., those 
who had remained true to him and his 
doctrines ; see Olsh. in loc. That the 
teachers are mainly addressed in ver. 
1 6, and the hearers and laity in ver. 
6 10, is also probable. ita-r ap- 

r i e T f] ( restore. The technical mean 
ing dirb Ttav t lap^p^juarwc reponere in 
artu luxata membra, Steph. ( Thes. 
Vol. iv. p. 1213), adopted by Beza, 
Blooomf., Brown, al., does not appear 
here alluded to, as examples of the sim- 



CHAP. VI. 1, 2. 


Karaprit,ere rbv roiovrov eV rrvevfjiari Trpaiirrjros, cncorrwv creavrov 
fj,ij Kal (TV rreipaafer)?. " a\\ij\a)v ra flapr) /Sacrra^ere, Kal OI/T&J? 

2. a.vair\7jpu!<T(T(] Tisch. (ed. 2) reads ii/owATjpcieraTt with ACDEJK ; nppy. 
nearly all mss. ; Syr.-Philox., perhaps Goth, [but conjunct, acts both for fut. and 
imper. ; De Gabel. Gr. 182, 186]; Clem., Ath., Chrys., Theodoret, Dam., al. 
(Rcc., Griesb., Scholz). The authorities for text are BFG ; 2 mss. ; Vulg., Cla- 
rom., Syr., Arm., Copt., Sahid., --Eth. (both); Theodoret (mss.) Aster. Prod., 

pie ethical sense (Stop&ov-rt. Chrys.) are 
sufficiently common ; comp. Ilcrodot. v. 
28, Karapri^siv (MiATjTov,) Stob. Floril. 
I. 85, KarapT. <pi\ovs Sta.tyfpo/ ovs, Greg. 
Nazianz. Orat. xxvi. Vol. i. p. 443 B, 
ir6&tv ovv opjojuoi Karapri^tiv upas d5eA- 
ifioi (cited by Dindorf). irvtv- 

/t a T i TTpavrriTos] the spirit of 
meekness ; not merely a meek spirit, 
a wholly inadmissible dilution of the 
true meaning of the words, but a 
spirit of which the principal constituent 
(comp. Bernhardy, Synt. HI. 44, p. 161) 
or characterizing quality (Scheurl. Synt. 
16. 3, p. 115) is irpaiirris, compare 
Winer, Gr. 34. 2. b, p. 212. The an 
arthrous iri/fvfj.a (but after a prep.) refers 
ultimately, as Chrysostom felt, to the 
Holy Spirit, one of whose especial char- 
isms is gentleness ; see ch. v. 23. This 
reference, however, must not be over 
stated, or expressed by the use of a cap 
ital letter ; for, as in 1 Cor. iv. 2 1 
(where irv. Trpavrr]Tos is joined with 
o-yoTTTj), so here irv. seems immediately 
to refer to the state of the inward spirit 
as wrought upon by the Holy Spirit, 
and ultimately to the Holy Spirit as the 
inworking power ; compare Horn. i. 4, 
ifv. aytiacrvirris, viii. lo, irv. ut odeer/or, 
2 Cor. iv. 13, irv. TTJS TrurTecer, Eph. i. 
17, irv. ffo<pias, in all which cases irv. 
eeems to indicate the Holy Spirit, and 
the abstract gen. the specific xp iff / Lia > 
see Ilamm. in loc., and notes on 2 Tim. 
i. 7. ffKOiriav fffavrdi/} look 

ing to thyself ; temporal clause stating 
the (proper) concomitants of the action 

( considering all the time thy own 
case ), or perhaps with a secondary- 
causal force hinting at the reasons for 
it; see Kriiger, Sprachl. 56. 12. 1, 
Schmalfeld, Synt. fj 207, and compare 
Donalds. Gr. 615. For instances of 
the emphatic and individualizing enal- 
lage of number, see Bernhardy, Synt. 
xn. 5, p. 421. Larhm. connects this 
clause Avith ver. 2, putting a full stop 
after irvtvu. irpavrriTos, and a comma 
after itftpaaSfjs, but thereby obviously 
weakens the whole force and point of 
the address. The Tn/euuaTi/co! were re 
minded of their own liability to fall into 
temptation : why ? Surely not to urge 
them merely generally to bear one an 
other s burdens, but particularly to 
evince their Christian spirit, by restoring 
one who had fallen, only after all, as they 
themselves might. ft ij K. T. A..] 

lest thou also shouldst be tempted, scil. 
in a like case ; subjunctive ( vcrentis 
est ne quid nunc sit, simulque nes- 
cire se utrum sit necne signiiicantis, 
Herm. Soph. Ajax, 272), and in the 
aor., in reference to an event still im 
pending ; see "\Vincr, Gr. J 46. 2, p. 
447, and the copious list of exx. of this 
and similar constructions in Gaylcr, 
Part. Nerj. p. 325. 

2. d \\-fj\wv TO. #upr?] the bur 
dens of ONI; ANOTHER; the dAA^A., as 
Meyer rightly observes, being emphatic, 
not however, with any oblique reference 
to the burden of the Law (Alf. ), but 
simply in opjx)sition to that selfish feel- 
ins which would leave each one to bear 




^ ; /r\/;/o; 

i t Vv, t $ 2 1^^\ / 3 ; a % 

; / i". 


CHAP. VI. 2, 3. 



rov vopov rov Xpurrov. 8 el <yap Boicel rt? elvat rt 

Marc. ercm. ; Tert., Cypr., al. (Lachm., Tisch., ed 1, Meyer, De Wette, approved 
by Mill, Prolcgom., p. 123). The preponderance of MSS. evidence is thus plainly 
in favor of the imper. ; still the testimony of the Vv. joined with the extreme 
probability of a change from the future to the imperfect (see Mitt, 1. c.) seems 
sufficient to authorize the rejection of a reading, which on strict grammatical 
principles may be pronounced somewhat suspicious. 

his own ; contrast the Apostle s own 
example, 2 Cor. xi. 29. The meaning 
of this expressive word must not be too 
much circumscribed. It seems chosen, 
with inclusive ref. to all forms of weak 
nesses (acrdvfi/j.aTa, Rom. xv. 1), suffer 
ings, and, perhaps more especially, sins ; 
the purport of the command being <pt- 
pfiif TO. T(av it\i\a(ov f^arrw/jtara, Chrys., 
or, with more exactness, liriKovtyi^tiv r^v 
tyvxrji virb T/JJ rov a/xapT^/uaros ffuvftSr)- 
ffftas f}>Tiv, Theod. Mops. p. 129. 
f3a<rra.fTc] bear, i.e. sustain as a 
superimposed burden. On the particular 
use an( i meaning o f Qaa-rd^ttv in the 
important doctrinal statement, Matth. 
viii. 17, as exemplified by this pas 
sage, see Magee, Atonement, No. xui. 
Vol. I. 415 sq. Kal our us 

ayair\ijp<a(Tfr(] and thus shall ye 
fulfil, thus, in this way, and no 
other, viz., by following the exhortation 
just given. Future after imperat., as 
in ch. v. 16. On the whole (see crit. 
note), the future seems the more proba 
ble, as well as perhaps the more strictly 
grammatical reading ; for though no 
opposing argument can be founded on 
the use of the imperfect aor. combined 
with the imperfect present (the former 
often stating the general command, the 
latter some of the details ; comp. Scho- 
mann, Isaus, p. 235), still in the case 
of this particular verb the use of the 
future (compare Barnab. Ep. ch. 21, 
&.vav\ripovTf Tcaoav fi/roK^v), is much 
more natural. The compound avair\rt- 
povv is not simply synonymous with 
ir \rjpovv (Ruck., al.), but appears in all 

cases to denote a complete filling up, and 
to point to a partial rather than an en 
tire vacuum ; haec demum erit perfecta 
legis impletio, Winer, Verb. Comp. 
Fasc. in. p. 1 1 ; compare Plut. Poplic. 
11, aveir\T)pcoffe r^]v ^ov\rjif 6\iyafSpov- 
aav ( made up the full number of), 
and see notes on Phil. iii. 30. The ex 
planation of Chrys., Kowfj ir-ocres ir\i)- 
pcaffare, is not satisfactory. r ov 

vop. ov rov Xp.] the law of Christ; 
not generally le mobile des actes du 
Chretien (Reuss, Thiol. Chr. iv. 16, 
Vol. ii. p. 168), but definitely tftie law 
of love" (TTJV a.ya.iri)v (f>ri<riv, Theod. 
Mops.), which he gave (John xiii. 34, 
ivro\rjv Ka.ivr}V SiScafj.i V/MV, iva ayarrare 
a.\\-f)\ovs ; 1 John iii. 23, ayaTrta^ev a\- 
\T)\ovt KaAus fSwKfv ivroK^v T)(jiiv), and 
which lie so graciously exemplified, 
aurbs yap ras a/uapTtas riu.iav avf\affe Kal 
ras voaovs t$<io~rao~ev, Schol. ap. Matth. 
The peculiar term i>6fj.os is perhaps here 
chosen with some reference to the case 
of the Galatians: they affected an ob 
servance of the law of Moses, here was 
a law of Christ in which was included 
the fulfilment of the whole law ; comp. 
ch. v. 14. This novttm praeceptum 
Christi is illustrated and explained by 
Knapp, Script. Var. Arg. No. x. p. 369 

sq- ^ ~ 

3. l yiip K. r. \.] For if any one 0**** 
thinks, etc. ; confirmation of the fore- -7 ~f 
going exhortation to gentleness and ** **" 
humility, by showing the evils of the 
opposite course. The best motive to 
indulgence towards others is, as Olsh. 
remarks, the sense of our own weakness. 



CHAP. VI. 3, 4. 

cor, <f)peva7ra,Ta eavrov. * TO Se epyov cavrov 


H TJ 5 t v la v\ when he is nothing, be 
ing all the time nothing ; temporal, or 
in the more accurate language of Schmal- 
feld, temporal-concessive participle, 
stating what the man after all is, in 
spite of his opinion of himself; see the 
exx. in Schmalfeld, Synt. $ 207. 2, p. 
415. Alforcl finds in this use of the 
subjective nrffv rather than ouSiv (abso 
lute) a fine irony, being if he would 
come to himself, and look on the real 
fact." This, however, is somewhat pre 
carious, as the use of the subjective ne 
gation with participles is the prevailing 
usage in the N. T. ; see Green, Gr. p. 
122. "While, then, we may press oo 
when so connected, we must be careful 
in overpressing ^?j ; see notes on 1 Thess. 
ii. 15, iii. 1. For illustrative exx. 

of the general form of expression, see 
Wetst. in loc., and Kypke Obs. Vol. n. 
p. 291 ; one of the most apposite is, 
Plato, Apol. p. 4 1 E, i av SoKuffi n flvai, 
ft.-n^tv forts. <ppfi/airara] de- 

ceiveth his own mind, inwardly de- 
ceiceth himself; comp. Goth., f ral>ja- 
marzeins ist, [intellectus deceptio estj. 
The verb is an $.ira. \ty. in the N. T. ; 
comp., however, (pptvairaT-ris, Tit. i. 10, 
and James i. 26, airarui/ KapS tav avrov. 
This last passage may perhaps enable 
us to draw a distinction between airara 
tavrbv and typfvairara tavr6v. The for 
mer may imply a deception which had 
something objective to rest upon ; the 
latter a more studied inward-working, 
and purely subjective deception ; comp. 
notes on Tit. i. 10. Hence the force of 
the command which follows, rb tpyov 
$oKt/j.atTu, put to the proof his out 
ward acts, and form his judgment upon 
them. The gloss of Ilesych. (x^(vdti), 
or even of Zonaras (5iairai Ci) does not, 
consequently, seem quite sufficient. 
The order tavrbv tpptvair. [Rec. with 

DEFGJK ; al.] is well supported, but 
inferior in point of critical authority to 
that of the text (Lachm., Tisch., with 
ABC; 80, aL), and not improbably a 
correction to give sav-rdy studied promi 

4. rb fpyov iav-rov JOKI/U.] 
prove his own work; put to the test 
all that he is particularly engaged on ; 
rent non opinionem do se," Ik ng. The 
singular with the article is appy. here 
used collectively (De W., Mey.), scil. 
ras fairrov irpa|6U, Thcophyl ., TO /3/8iar- 
jUfVo auTip, (Ecum. ; universain agendi 
rationem complectitur, Schott : comp. 
Pu)m. ii. 15, 1 Pet. i. 17, and see Winer, 
Gr. 27. 1, p. 157. On the meaning 
of 8oKi/j.deti JT a.Kpt0tiat ^frd^etv, 
Theoph.), see notes on Phil. i. 10, Suicer, 
Thcsaur. s. v. Vol. i. p. 930, and for a 
good practical sermon on this and the 
preceding verse, see Usher, Serm. in. 
Vol. xin. p. 31 sq. (ed. Ellington). 
rb /coyx^M K. r. \.] his ground 
of boasting. The true meaning of this 
passage has been somewhat obscured by 
a neglect of the exact meaning and force 
of the different words. ( 1 ) The con 
crete, yloriandi materies (Rom. 
iv. 2, 1 Cor. ix. 15, 16, al.), must not 
be confounded with waux 7 7" s > gloriatio 
(Rom. iii. 27, al.), the distinction be- 
tween these words being appy. always 
observed in the N. T., even in 2 Cor. 
v. 12, ix. 3, al. (2) The article is not 
used Kar i^ox^v, but pronominally (Mid- 
dleton, ch. v. 3), his ground of boast 
ing, the tcavxrina which properly belongs 
to him ; compare 1 Cor. iv. 5, r6r( & 
tiraivos ytvl)a-fTat tKaffrca. (3) The prep, 
t y must in each clause bear the same 
meaning (opp. to De Wette) ; the most 
simple and suitable appearing to be, 
with regard to, in relation to, not 
contra, Schott (which can be justified, 


CHAP. VI. 4, 5. 



s, Kal Tore et<? eavrbv IJLOVOV TO /cav^r^a eei, /cat ou/c et? 
TOI> erepov. 5 e*aoTo<? 7<zp TO i, 8tov <j>opTiov 

c. . Luke xii. 10, but connected with 
IctvT. would involve an artificial expla 
nation) ; comp. 2 Cor. xi. 10, ^ Kauxw* 
afrrrj ou <r(ppayiff(rai fts ^yuf, Eph. iii. 16, 
KparaicD^^at .... t<? roc lera> afdpu>7roi ; 
comp. Winer, Gr. 49. a, p. 354, Berrih. 
Synt. v. 11, p. 220. (4) The force of 
T b v f-rfpov ( not fTfpov, as implied by 
Auth.) must not be overlooked, scil. 
the one with whom he is contrasting 
himself; his neighbor, Copt., Arm. 
The meaning of the whole clause then, 
will be, If any one wishes to find mat 
ter for boasting, let it be truly searched 
for in his own actions, and not derived 
from a contrast of his own fancied vir 
tues with the faults of others ; compare 
Hammond in loc. True Christian KO.V- 
X*)M a n ^e St. Paul s, must be found 
either in a deep and thankful acknowl 
edgment of blessings and successes (l 
Kvpiea jcoux ^dco, 2 Cor. x. 17), or in 
afflictions and weakness (2 Cor. xi. 30, 
xii. 5). which still more show forth both 
the mercy and the mighty power of the 
Lord ; comp. 2 Cor. xii. 9. 

5. fKaffros yp] For each, man; 
confirmatory clause standing in close 
connection with the last words of ver. 
4, and assigning a reason why a man 
would have little real ground or justice 
for claiming spiritual superiority over his 
neighbor ; he had only to look at him 
self, to see that he had his own burden 
to bear ; KM <rv Ko/cfiVos rj> ~R>iov Qopriov 
/3acrTcureTe, CEcum. (f> o p r I a v] 

load not identical with the preceding 
/Sitpos, ver. 2 (Vulg., Clarom., Arm., 
but not any of the other Vv.), which 
perhaps is used as a more general term 
in reference to the community at large, 
while <popr. has a more individualizing 
reference to the particular load of sins 

and infirmities which each one, like a 
wayfarer (comp. Wisdom xxi. 6, Xenoph. 
Mem. in. 13. 6), had to carry: alia 
sunt onera participanda; infirmitatis, alia 
reddendiB rationis Deo de actibus nos- 
tris: ilia cum t ratribus sustentanda com- 
municantur, ha^c propria ab unoquoque 
portantur, August, de Consens. Evang. 
it. 30. 72. The qualitative and hum 
bling distinction of Chrys. (TOJJ WO/MUTI 
rov ipopriov KOI rjjy ax^otpopias iritfay 
avriav rb ffwtibos), and the quantitative 
of Beng. ( <f>opTioi>, par ferentis viribus; 
/Sop?? qua? excedunt ) do not appear so 
natural or probable. The allusion 

which Conyb. here finds to ^Esop s well- 
known fable (the rirjpat Svo ? p. 165, ed. 
De Furia) is not very plausible, as the 
point of the fable and the tenor of this 
verse are far from being identical. 
/SadTatrei] shall bear, scil. has to 
bear, must bear. The future does 
not here refer to the day of judgment 
(Theod., al. ; see ch. v. 10), nor even 
(like ) to the future period when the 
conviction is arrived at, * will find he 
has to bear (Windischm., al.), but U 
appy. used ethically, in ref. to what ac 
cording to the nature of things must be 
the case; compare notes on Eph. v. 31, 
Thiersch, de Pent. in. 11, p. 158, sq., 
and see exx. in Jelf, Gr. 406. 3, and 
Bernhardy, Synt. x. 5, p. 377. It was 
not so much from a sense of future re 
sponsibility, as from a consciousness of 
present unavoidable ax&ofyop ta, that a 
man would be led to think humbly 
of himself and kindly of his neigh 
bor. The observation of Fritzsche on 
the use of the future is worthy cf 
citation ; Futurum in sententift gen- 
erali recte ponitur, quandoquidem rei 
quae in nullum tempus non convenire 

4" :io 



CHAP. VI. 6 

Be liberal to your touch 
ers; u ye ow now, 
whether it be to tin- flesh or to the Spirit, >o nhull ye reap. 

6 KoivwveLTO) Be 6 Karrj%oi>fj,evo<; TOV \6yov 

vidcatur, ctiam futuro temporc locum 
futurum essc jure sumitur," on Rom. vii. 
3, Vol. ii. p. 9. 

6. KOtvofVtirv 5t K. r. A.] l bttt 
let him that is instructed share with, 
etc. ; exhortation to the duty of sharing 
temporal blessings with others, placed 
in contrast (5e) to the foregoing declara 
tion of individual responsibility in spir 
itual mutters. With regard to the con 
struction there is some little doubt 
whether Koivwvttv is here transitive ( sit 
benignus in magistrum in omni bono- 
rum gencre Fritz. Rom. I. c. ; compare 
Chrys., iraaav eiriSfiKvvffdca irepi aiirbf 
So.-.J/iA.etai ) or intransitive. The verb has 
three constructions in the N. T. ; (a) 
with gen. of the thing; only Ileb. ii. 
It ; (b) with dat. of thing, the common 
construction, Rom. xii. 13, xv. 27, 
1 Tim. v. 22, 1 Pet. iv. 13, 2 John 11 ; 
(c) dat. of person, the thing under the 
regimen of a prep., Phil. iv. 15. In all 
these instances (even in Rom. xii. 13) 
the meaning seems clearly intransitive. 
The Rame appears to be the meaning in 
the present case : for though the transi 
tive const r. is lexically admissible (Thorn. 
Mag. Kowuvta ffoi Siv tx ta > avTi TOV /j.fra- 
Si S&yu), and yields a perfectly good sense, 
still the prevailing use of Koivwveiv in 
the N. T., the analogy of construction 
between this passage and Phil. iv. 15, 
ovSfn ia. /J.OI fKK\t]<Tia, tKoivwuriatv ets \6yov 
SoVeois (cal A.rj^4/ea>j, and the general con 
text supply arguments in favor of the 
intransitive meaning, which seem dis 
tinctly to preponderate. & KO.- 
TIJ \o v ^.. T b v \6yov] he that is 
instructed in THE word, scil. in the Gos 
pel (sec Acts xv. 7, T~OV \6yov TOV tvay- 
yt\io\>, and compare Luke i. 2), rbf 
\6yov being the accus. of reference, or 
what is termed the qualitative object 
(Ilartung, Casus, p. 55, Gl) after the 

pass. part. Karrixov^tvot (Acts xviii. 25 ) ; 
see "Winer, Gr. 32. 5, p. 104, and esp. 
Schmalfeld, Synt. 25, compared with 
16, and fin. With regard to the mean 
ing of KOTT/xf w which has here been 
somewhat unduly pressed, we may ob 
serve that the word appears to have four 
meanings; (a) snno ; aj/rl TOV TJX> F>\A- 
das; () sono impleo ; compare Lucian, 
Jup. Tray. 39, KaTqSoucri Kal /caTTjxoOm ; 
(y) viva voce erudio, irpoTptirofj.a.1 Kal 

irapaivia, Suid. ; compare Syr. ^ Vn ^< 

[qui audit], yl^th., and see Joseph. Vit. 
69, where this meaning seems con 
firmed by the context cLVrjdeiaj f/j.ap- 
Tvptt; and lastly (S), with a more general 
and unrestricted reference, edoceo (8- 
SdaKu, Hesych., Zonaras), appy. the 
meaning in the present case ( sa laisida, 


[qui institult] Syr.- 

Phil.), and in the majority of the pas 
sages in the N. T. (Luke i. 4, Acts 
xviii. 25, Rom. ii. 18, perhaps even 
1 Cor. xiv. 20, Acts xxi. 21, 24), in 
which it occurs ; the idea of oral teaching 
being merged in that of general instruc 
tion however communicated. On the 
use of the word, esp. in Eccl. writers, 
see Suicer, Thesaur. s. v. Vol. i. p. 69 
sq., where this word is fully explained. 
Iv iraffiv &7o&o?s] in (sphere of 
the action of Kowiavtlv) all good things, 
i. e. all temporal blessings ; compare 
1 Cor. ix. 11. There does not seem 
sufficient reason for leaving the ancient 
interpretation, K\CU TOJS Trvtv^txriKuv 
a.iro\avovffi / 

(Ecum. : see Neand. Planting, Vol. i. 
p. 152 note (Bohn). The usual objec 
tions are based on the isolation of tho 
verse from ver. 5 and ver. 7, which this 
interpretation is thought to cause. This, 
however, does not appear to be the case. 

/ ^ ; / iu ; 2 3 . 3 




o yap eav <nreipp 

The concluding words of ver. 5, if left 
without any further addition, might 
have been misconstrued into an implied 
declaration, that it was not right to be 
chargeable on anybody. This the Apos 
tle specially, but almost parenthetically, 
obviates, indicating with Se (see above) 
the contrast between the spiritual and 
the temporal application. 

7. /*}) ir\ai>a<r&e] .Be not de 
ceived; continuation of the subject in a 
more general and extended way, though 
still not without reference to the subject 
of the special command. This solemn 
and emphatic mode of admonition is 
used by St. Paul in two other passages, 
1 Cor. vi. 9, and xv. 33 ; in the former 
with reference to an evil act, in the lat 
ter to an evil conclusion, just mentioned. 
In the present case the reference appears 
rather to what follows ; though a refer 
ence to what precedes ( praestringit 
tenaces, Paraeus) need not be excluded. 
Ignatius uses the same form, Eph. 5, 
10, Philad. 3, Smyrn. 5. ov 

f*.vKTTiplfTat] is not ( actually or 
with impunity) mocked ; non irridetur, 
Vulg. This emphatic word is used 
several times in the LXX, and occa 
sionally in later classical writers : /J.VK- 
Trjpi^eiv \tyofjitv TOVS tv rf Biaira t^fiy 
Tivas Tov-r6 irws TO /ue por (fivKTripa) tiruT- 
irwvras, Etym. M. s. v. HVKTJIP, p. 594 
ed. Gaisf.). Eisner (Obs. Vol. n. p. 
199) has illustrated this meaning by a 
few examples, e. g. Quintil. List. vm. 
6. 59, Sueton. August. 4, Cicero, Epist. 
Fam. xv. 19. In Hippoc. p. 1240 D, it 
occurs in the sense of bleeding at the 
nose. fc yap lav K. r. \.] 

for whatsoever a man sowelh ; con 
firmation of the truth of the preceding 
assertion by means of a significant im 
age (compare Matth. xiii. 39) derived 

7 fir) 7T\ai/aCT^6, 0609 OV fJLVK- 

TOVTO /cat 

from the natural world. TOVTO 

Kal &fpl<rti] this and nothin g 
else than this shall he also reap ; the 
Kal with its ascensive force pointing to 
the regularly developed issues. "Wetst. 
in loc. aptly cites Cic. de Orct. n. 65, 
ut sementem feceris ita metes. On 
this text see two sermons by Farindon, 
Serm. LXI., LXII. Vol. I. p. 52 sq. (Lond. 

8. on 6 ffir f I pea v\ because he that 
is sowing ; reason for the concluding 
TOVTO Kal &pifftt, and exemplification, 
of it in spiritual things ; he that is sow 
ing one kind of seed (the Spirit) will 
reap the regular products and develop 
ments of that seed ; he that is sowing 
another (the flesh), those of that other: 
&aiffp yap tVJ T>V ffirep/j.aTaii> OVK tvi 
ffireipovTa opofiovs (vetches) a~irov o.uJr\- 
ffar Sf? yap TOV UVTOV ytvous Kal TOP 
ff-rropov flva.1 Kal TOV a^rov, Chrys. 
tis T^]V o~ dp K a e OUT ov] unto, or 
for, his own flesh, not in carne sua, 
Vulg., Clarom. ; for though the flesh 
and the Spirit are represented under the 
image of two corn-fields, in which seed 
is sown, and from which the harvest is 
gathered, the meaning of ely is still not 
local ( in, tanquam in agrum, Bnng.), 
but, in accordance with its more usual 
meaning, ethical ( carni sute, Beza, com 
pare Copt. ) ; the prepp. used in the N. 
T. in a strictly local sense being appy. 
iv and liri, the former in reference 
to the inclosure in which the seed is 
sown (Matth. xiii. 24, 27, ib. 19, and 
metaphorically, Mark iv. 15), the lat 
ter to the spot on which it is cast (Mutth. 
xiii. 20, 23, Mark iv. 16, 20, 31). In 
the expression tit 7 as aKav&as (Matth. 
xiii. 22, Mark iv. 18) iy rather means 
among ; comp. Plato, Leg. vm. 839 A. 
The force of the pronoun iavrov must 



CHAP. VI. 8, 9. 

6 cr7reipo)v et<? TIJV (rdpfca eavrov etc TT}<> crap/co? ^epicrei (fisopdv, o 
Be cnreipdiv et>> TO -TZWO/ia e /c rov IIvvp,aTos ^epiaei a);i/ alaiviov. 
9 TO Be Ka\ov TTotouyTe? /AT) ey/ca/cco/Aey Kaipfi yap i&iy 

not be overlooked, selfishness being im 
plied as well as carnality ; caro suitati 
dedita est, Ikng. : compare Aquinas 
(cited by AVindisch.), sed nota quod 
cum agit de seminatione carnis dicit, in 
carne sud, quia caro est nobis, de natura 
nostra ; sed cum loquitur de semine 
Spiritus non dicit suo, quia Spiritus 
non est nobis a nobis, sed a Deo." 
<pd o p df\ corruption, of the whole 
man, both tody and soul ; not merely 
in the narrower physical sense of decay* 
(Kal yap aura (p-bfipovToi Kal ffvfj.<p&fipfi 
rb ffta/j.0,, Chrys. ) ; but also in the fuller 
ethical sense of corruption of soul, in 
which of course eternal death and de 
struction (Ilesych. (pibopd- u\&pos) are 
involved and implied : see 2 Pet. i. 4, 
ii. 12, 19, and compare Rom. vi. 21, 
22. The use, however, of <pdopa rather 
than diroiAfi a (Phil. iii. 19), though 
it possibly may be introduced as more 
applicable to <rdp (Schott), seems to 
preclude our adopting destruction as 
the primary meaning ; see Stier, Ephes. 
Vol. n. p. 180. 

<i> r] v a. I u v i o v\ eternal life ; tai)v, 
in contrast to the preceding tySopdv 
(comp. Psalm ciii. 4, Jonah ii. 6), and 
that too, as the nature of the principle 
to which the sowing is made distinctly 
suggests, alwvtov. On the meaning of 
the term alwfios, comp. notes on 2 Tkess. 
i. 9. 

9. T J> Sf Ka\bv ir o 10 v vr t s\ But 
in well-doing let us, etc. ; exhortation 
to perseverance in the form of sowing 
just mentioned, the 5i idiomatically in 
troducing an address after foregoing de 
tails (compare Kurip. Rhes, 1G.5, vai, KO! 
Sixain, ravra TOCU 5t ^Krdbi/ K. r. A..), 
and, though practically approaching in 
meaning to olv ( so let us not ), still 

preserving its proper force in the contrast 
between the corrupted class just promi 
nently mentioned, and the better class 
which is now addressed : see exx. in 
Ilartung, Partic. 5t, 2. n, Vol. i. p. 1GG. 
On the general and inclusive meaning 
of T& Ka\6v, see notes on vcr. 10. 
H )) tyKa.KUfjL(v] t letus not lose heart. 
Both here and in the other passages 
where the word occurs (Luke xviii. 1. 
2 Cor. iv. 1, 1C, Eph. iii. 13, 2 Thess. 
iii. 13) Lachm. and Tisch. read tyKax. 
instead of IKKO.K. (Rcc., al.), and rightly ; 
as it seems very doubtful whether ^KKOLK. 
is a genuine word at all, and whether 
its occurrence in lexicons and use in 
later writers (see exx. collected by L. 
Dind. in Steph. Thes. s. v. Vol. v. p. 
430) is not, as Usteri thinks, entirely 
due to these doubtful readings. At any 
rate, if IKKO.*. exist, the difference will 
be very slight ; iKKaKtiv may perhaps 
mean, to retire from fear out of any 
course of action," (nearly InroKaKf iv) ; 
tyKOLKtiv, to behave cowardly, to lose 
heart, when in it. In Host u. Palm, 
Lex. (Vol. i. p. 833), Polyb. Hist, iv, 
19. 10 is cited in favor of iKxaxtlv- 
This is an oversight ; the reading is 
ti>fxdKT](Tfv, and is actually so cited by 
Host u. Palm under fyKOKtw ; see p. 762. 
K a i p i 5 1 a] in due, proper time ; 
1 tempore praestituto (Be/a), the time 
appointed by God for the reward to be 
given ; compare Katpols iSiots, 1 Tim. ii. 
6, vi. 15. On the present use of the 
dative to denote the space of time within 
which the action takes place, more 
correctly expressed with an inserted tV 
(Horn. iii. 26, 2 Thcss. ii. 6, al ), see 
notes on 1 Tim. ii. 16, and comp. Eph. 
ii. 12. /nr) 4K\v6(j.fvoi] if 

(noicj we faint not (in our well-doing ), 

CHAP. VI. 9, 10. G A L A T I A N S . 147 

pr) etc\vdfj,evoi. 10 dpa ovv, o><? Kcupov eyppev, cpyafope^a TO 

1 provided that we do not ; hypothetical 
use of the temporal participle, the pres 
ent tense pointing to the state in which 
they must now be if they would reap 
hereafter : see Kriiger, Sprachl. 56. 
11, and exx. in Schmalfeld, Synt. 207. 
5, p. 415. The simple predicative con 

nection with 


\ [et non erit molestum nobis] Syr., 
\ 4 

or the more practically adverbial, with 
out fainting (surely not unweigerlich, 
Ewald), scil. -xbvQv 8i x<* frtpiffontv 
(Theod., Theoph. al., who thus draw a 
contrast between the toilsome nature of 
the earthly, and the unwearying nature 
of the heavenly harvest) does not seem 
satisfactory. For though this interpre 
tation cannot be pronounced grammati 
cally incorrect, on account of the use of 
the^ rather that ov (Ruck., Schott), 
the connection of ,11.77 with participles be 
ing so distinctly the prevailing usage in 
the N. T. and later writers (see notes on 
ver. 3, and comp. exx. in Winer, Gr. $ 
65, 5, p. 428 sq., and in Gayler, Partic. 
Neg. p. 3G), it still must be rejected 
on exeyetical grounds, as adding no par 
ticular force to the general exhortation ; 
whereas the conditional meaning serves 
fully to bring out the mingled warning 
and encouragement (irporptirfi Kal <?</> \- 
Kfrai, Chrys. ), which seems to pervade 
the verse. The distinction drawn 

by Beng. between tKKaKtlv (in velle) and 
(K\\ifada.L (in posse), the former referring 
to the faintness of heart, the latter to 
the unstntnrj state, and the (interna) 
virium remissio seems fairly tenable : 
see exx. in Steph. Thesaur, s. v., from 
which we may select (though with a 
more simply physical ref. ), Plutarch, 
Moral, vi. G13, 4K\f\vfj.tvos KCU KtK/j.t)- 
lews, A sensible sermon on this verse 

will be found in Sherlock, Serm. xxxix. 
Vol. n. p. 275 sq. (ed. Hughes). 

10. op a ovv] Accordingly then, 
So then ; collective and inferential ex 
hortation arising immediately out of the 
preceding statements, and bringing to a 
natural close the group of verses begin 
ning with ver. 6, and the more directly 
hortatory portion of the epistle. The 
proper meaning of &pa, rebus ita com- 
paratis, and its primary reference to 
simple progression to another step in 
the argument (Donalds. Crat. $ 192), 
is here distinctly apparent ; its weaker 
ratiocinative force being supported by 
the collective power of olv : as things 
are so, let us in consequence of their 
being so, etc. In Attic Greek this 
combination is only found in the case 
of the interrogative apa , 3ee Ilerm. 
Vigor, No. 292, and on the general dis 
tinction between apa. and ow, see Klotz, 
Devar. Vol. n. p. 717, but compare 
Donalds. Gr. $ 601, and notes on ch. 
iii. 5. o>s tcatpbv tx~ 

fnfv] as we have opportunity, i. e. an 
appointed season for so doing ; not 
merely prout, i. e. quandocunque et 
quotiescunque occasio naseatur (Wolf), 
but, as, in accordance with the circum 
stances ; see Meyer in loc. The parti 
cle us is thus neither causal, quoniam 
(Ust., al.), nor temporal dum (Vulg., 
Clarom., Syr.-Phil. ), as appy. Ign. 
Smyrn. 9, us TJ tttuplv txo/uec (Loth, 
esp. the latter, very doubtful meanings 
in St. Paul s Epp., though not uncom 
mon in classical writers ; see Klotz, 
Devar. Vol. n. p. 759), but has only its 
simple relative force; the true link be 
tween this and the preceding verse being 
supplied by KaipAs (Brown, p. 348) ; as 
there is a Kcupb? for rb btplfav, so is 
there one for rb cnrfipfiv. As \ve have 
it then, let us act accordingly and make 

148 GALATIANS. CHAP. VI. 10, 11. 

rbv Trpbf Trdvras, p.d\icna Be Trpb? TOIK; oiiceiovs TT}<? 

I8ere TrrjXiicois ypd/jifutaiv eypaifra 

Recapitulation. Tour 

false tcachcri icck to have 

you circinm-Ndl to avoid persecution and to boast of your submission. All true boosting, however, must be 

in Christ and Ilii Crow. 

the most of it ; Kartireiyft KO! avw&t i, 
Chrys. Hammond (on Phil. iv. 10) 
translates K aipbv ability, but the exx. 
cited by Wctst. in loc. will show this 
modification to be quite unnecessary. 
TO ay a& 6 v] that which is good ; 
the thing which in each case is good, 
whether considered in a spiritual or 
temporal sense. The distinction between 
TO <caAoV, as implying good in its highest 
sense, and TO ayadov, as referring more 
particularly to kindness, etc. (Baum.- 
Crus.), does not seem tenable in the 
Iv T. : as ^b Ka\bv includes what is 
beneficent (Matth. xii. 12), as well as 
what is morally good (I Thess. v. 21), 
so TO a.yc& bv includes what is morally 
and essentially good (Rom. ii. 10), as 
well as what is merciful (Fhilem. 14, 
compare Eph. iv. 28), aya^tacrvfrfv as 
well as eiin-ojfac, Heb. xiii. 16; compare 
notes on 1 Thess. v. 21. The 

reading ^/yoo>e&a adopted by Lac fun. 
cd. stereot. (but retracted in larger ed.) 
with AB -J and some mss., is rightly re 
jected by recent editors on decidedly 
preponderant external evidence [IJU DE 
FGK (-ffunf&a), and a gnat majority of 
mss. Vv. and Ff.] and not without some 
probability of the interchange of the o 
and 01 (though rare in such MSS. as B) 
being here accidental ; comp. Scrivener, 
Collat. p. LXIX. sq. tcp bs rovs 

oixflovs TTJS irlffT.] unto them 
who belong unto the faith. The mean 
ing of irpbf is here not merely the gen 
eral ethical one, with regard to, but the 
particular one, ergo, ; comp. Eph. vi. 9, 
1 Thess. v. 14 (notes), and exx. in 
"Winer, Gr. \ 49. h, p. 361. The mean 
ing erga, or contra (this latter rare if a 
hostile notion is not implied in the verb, 

Joseph. Apion. i. 31) will result from 
the context. With regard to the pecu 
liar phrase olnt ioi TTJS irio-Ttou, it may be 
observed that it does not appear to in 
volve any allusion to olitos in the pecu 
liar sense of the house of God ( Schott), 
or to any especial idea of composing a 
single family (Reuss, Thenl Chrit. iv. 
p. 124), as the numerous exx. from lat 
ter writers of this use of outtios with an 
abstract subst. (c. g. olxtioi <><A.o<ro<f>i as, 
o\ryapx a ?t 7 6a) ypa;pias, Tpi/<J>!;s) all seem 
to show that the adjective has lost its 
meaning of peculiar, and only retaiiw 
that of general though close connection ; 
see Schweighseus. Lex. Polyb. s. v., and 
Wetst. in loc. A sermon on this and 
the preceding verse, but of no particular 
character, will be found in Tillotson, 
Serm. LXXXIX. Vol. II. p. 592 (Lond. 

11. Try \i K o i s v fi"! v y pa, /j. n a ff t v 
fypatya] in what large letters I have 
written to yon. The only possible way 
of arriving, even approximately, at the 
meaning of this much debated clause, 
is to adhere closely to the simple lexical 
meanings of the words. These it will 
be best to notice separately. 
ie t\ \ i K o s strictly denotes geometrical 
magnitude, how large (comp. Plato, 
Meno, 82, irrjXiVrj ns tffTat fKflvov r\] ; so too Zachar. ii. 2. ITJJA.I KOI rb 
irAaros . . . TTT]\(KOV TO /UTJKOS) in contra 
distinction to arithmetical magnitude, 
expressed by ir6a-os, how many. This 
meaning and distinction appear to have 
been observed in the X. T., as in the 
only other passage in which mjAiwoi 
occurs, Heb. vii. 4, irrjAiVoj OUTOJ, the 
same primary idea of magnitude (though 
in an ethical sense) is distinctly recog- 

CHAP. VI. 11. 



nizable. To assume then in the present 
case (a) any confusion of ir?j\i/tos with 
ir<J<roi (Schott, Neander, Planting, Vol. 
I. p. 221, Bohn), when there is no trace 
of such a usage either in the N. T. o*- 
LXX, seems distinctly uncritical; nor 
can (b) any assumed equivalence with 
rows ( qualibus literis, Vulg., Clarom., 
Arm., wileikaim, Goth., compare 
Hesych. irTjAt /cov, citoi>, biroiov, and see 
Tholuck, Anzeig. 1834, No. 32), and 
any reference to the<pia of the let 
ters (Chrys., Theoph., CEcum., Thcod. 
2 ; comp. Zonar. Lex. s. v. TT-^XIKOV rb iv 
a/j.op(piq tjf. us irapa. rip AirovToky ISfrt 
K. r. A.., Vol. n. p. 1547) be pronounced 
otherwise than purely arbitrary; for 
magnitude does not mean shapelessness. 
We can have then no other correct trans 
lation than simply, how large ; &ya,v 
Htiocrtv fXpytraTo ypd/ u , Theod., 
who, however, appears to limit the au 
tographic portion to what follows. 
y p d fj. n o T a may be interpreted an 
epistle; see Acts xxviii. 21, compare 
1 Mace. v. 10, Ignat. Rom. 8: but (a) 
St. Paul in no other passage so uses it, 
though he has occasion to use a word 
denoting a letter ( &rurroA.TJ ) seventeen 
times; and (b) this species of cognate 
dative ypatyai ypa^affiv (compare dire 
\6yea, Matth. viii. 8) is not found in St. 
Paul s Epp., nor has here any of the 
additional force which the usage implies 
(Bernh. Synt. in. 16, p. 107), and which 
alone could account lor the introduction 
of a third dative (instead of the natural 
accus.) in a sentence of eight words. 
We seem, therefore, forced to adhere to 
the simple meaning, letters, characters, 
as in Luke xxiii. 38, 2 Cor. iii. 7 (Rec.): 
so Copt, han-skhai, and appy. Arm. ; 
the other Vv. are ambiguous. 
typatya] / irrote, or in idiomatic 
English, / have written, in ref. to 
the whole foregoing epistle ; not I 
write (Scholef. Hints p. 197, Conyb., 
al.), epistolary aorist. The real diffi 

culty lies in this word, owing to the 
different conclusions to which historical 
and grammatical considerations appear 
respectively to lead us. On the one 
hand it appears distinctly (Rom. xvi. 
22, 24, 1 Cor. xvi. 21, Col. iv. 18, 2 
Thess. iii. 17), that St. Paul was in the 
habit of using an amanuensis, and of 
adding only the concluding words. 
From ver. 11 to end would seem, then, 
very probably such addition. But, on 
the other hand, it is very doubtful 
whether St. Paul or any of the writers 
of the N. T. ever use the epistolary aor. 
Hypatya. exclusively in reference to what 
follows. The aorist in all cases appears 
to have its proper force, either (a) in 
reference to a former letter ( 1 Cor. v. 9, 
2 Cor. ii. 3, iv. 9, vii. 12, 3 John 9 [see 
Liicke in loc.]), or (b) in reference to an 
epistle now brought to its conclusion 
(Horn. xv. 15, 1 Pet. v. 12), or (c) to a 
foregoing portion of the epistle ( 1 Cor. 
ix. 15, 1 John ii. 21 [see Liicke and 
Huther in loc.] ; compare Philem. 19), 
and even stands in a species of antithe 
sis to ypdtyu in reference to what has 
already been written (1 John ii. 14, 
where see Huth.) ; see Winer, dr. 40. 
5. 2, p. 249, and notes on Philem. 19. 
With this partially conflicting evidence 
it seems impossible to decide positively 
whether St. Paul wrote the whole epistle 
or only the concluding portion. On the 
whole, however, the use of typatya, es 
pecially when contrasted with ypdtpu 
(2 Thess. iii. 17), inclines us to the 
former supposition, and we thus con 
clude, that to prevent any possible mis 
take as to the authorship of the epistle 
(Chrys.; compare 2 Thess. ii. 2), es 
pecially as tins was an encyclical mis 
sive (ch. i. 2, where see Olsh.), St. 
Paul here deviated from his usual cus 
tom, and wrote the whole letter with 
his own hand (Chrysostom, Theod., 
Theoph., CEcum.), and in characters, 
whether from design or inexpertness, 


777 t 



TOV fj,i] ouoK&mai. 

CHAP. VI. 12, 13. 

euTrpocrtaTrrjcrai e crap/a OVTOI 
pMvov I va ru> (rravpu> TOV Xpicr- 
ovoe yap oi irepi,Tep,v6^vo(, avrol 

2. SiwKutmcu] Titch. StwKovrai, with ACFGJK : many mss. ; few, however, 
will hesitate to consider this an improbable solrccism. The text is rightly adopted 
by Griesb., Scholz, Lachm., Alf., with B (Mai) DE, and appy. many mss. The 
transposition "va. ^ (Rec. with FGJK ; mss.) is rightly rejected by nearly all recent 

larger than those of the ordinary aman 

12. 8 trot &t \ovff iv] as many as 
wish ; concluding warning against the 
false Teachers whose true motives are 
here exposed, nnd contrasted with those 
which influenced the Apostle (ver. 14). 
fvirpoffwirTJffai i v ff a p K i] to 
make a fair show in the flesh, not so 
little as placere, Vulg., Clarom., or 


( ut glorientur] 

Syr., but rather pulchram facicm as- 
sumerc [sfii skcnho] Copt., scil. to 
wear a specious exterior in the earthly 
unspiritual clement in which they move. 
The verb tinrpocrwirtai is not used by any 
earlier writer : but from the use of the adj. 
finrp6(r<airos fair and specious* (Herod. 
vn. 1GS, Demosth. Coron. p. 277; see 
Eisner, Obs. Vol. n. p. 200), and the 
similar compounds, fff/nfOTrpofftaireca (Aris- 
toph Xub. 351! ), and (paivoirpofftairfdi (Cic. 
Att. vn. 21), cited by the commentators 
on this verse, the meaning would appear 
correctly stated by Chrys. as ii5o-i^i, 
though not necessarily irapa avdpwirois , 
see below. The appended words tv <rapi<l 
are commonly explained, cither (a) in 
obscrvationc rcrum carnalium," with 
physical reference to circumcision ; or 
(6) apud homines, with reference to 
judgment and opinions of others, iva 
avSpuTrois aptffwffi, C hrys. TI\V irapa a.v- 
Spdnrtiiv &T\p<!>ntvo{. 8<5|ar, Theod. lloth 
interpretations, however, seem distinctly 
insufficient, as they put out of sight that 

more profound and far-reaching meaning 
of, the earthly existence and con 
ditions of man, notio universa rerum 
externarum (Schott), which pervades 
this whole epistle; see notes ch. v. 16, 
and Miillcr, on Sin, ch. n. ad fin., Vol. 
i. p. 353 (Clark). OVTOI] these; 

it is this class and this preeminently, 
that are engaged in constraining you, 
etc. ; see notes ch. iii. 7. rip 

ff T a v p if ] on account of the cross ; not 
exactly in crucc (Copt.), but ob cru- 
cem (15e/a), scil. for preaching the 
doctrine of the cross of Christ. The 
dative points out the around or cause of 
the persecution ; compare Horn. xi. 20, 
|K\ao-^7j<roj Tj? avKrria., and see "SViner, 
Gr. $ 31. 6, p. 193, Bernhardy, Synt. 
in. 14, p. 102. The ablatival explana 
tion, that they may be persecuted with- 
the cross of Christ ( perpessiones Christi, 
2 Cor. i. 5, Grot., comp. Vulg. crucis 
Christi persecutionem ), either, on the 
one hand, involves an unsatisfactory ex 
planation of o ffraupos, which, as 
Brown (p. 3o9) rightly observes, in such 
expressions as the present always implies 
the fact of the atoniny death of Christ, 
or, on the other, causes a still more 
untenable meaning to be assigned to 
$iu>Ko Tcu, viz. lest the doctrine of Christ 
wear a hostile aspect to them, as Neand. 
Planting, Vol. i. p. 226 (Bohn). The 
meaning, that they may not follow 
after, Arm. (comp. yEth. ut non ad- 
hacreatis ), is wholly xintcnable. 

13. oi>8i ybp...avroi\ For not 

CHAP. VI. 13, 14. 





repa craptc 

even they, nam ne ipsi quidem, Bcza, 
(hey of whom it might reasonably 
have been expected ; confirmation of the 
preceding by a statement of the openly 
lax conduct of the Judaizers, and of the 
true motis es by which they were influ 
enced ; tantum abest, ut illorum intersit, 
a vobis legem observari, Bong. On the 
force of oJSf a\\d, see on ch. i. 17. 
o / itfpiTtp.v6p.(voi\ t those who are 
having themselves circumcised, qui cir- 
cumciduntur, Vulg. ; pres. part , with 
reference to the prevailing practice of 
the false teachers either in respect of 
themselves or others. The explanation 
of Peile, Hilgenfeld, al., according to 
which the pres. part. irfpirt/Av. loses its 
precise temporal reference (Winer, Gr. 
45. 7, p. 316) and combines with the 
article to form a kind of subst., the 
party or advocates of the circumcision 
(comp. o jToi ol irfpiTffi.i d/ oi, Acta Pet. 
et Paul. $ 63, cited by Hilgenfeld), is 
plausible, but perhaps not necessary ; as 
the use of the pres. may be fairly ex 
plained on the ground that St. Paul 
includes in the idea not merely their 
conformity to the rite (which strictly 
becomes a past act), but their endeavor 
thereby to draw others into the same state, 
which is a present and continuing act. 
It must be admitted that the reading, 
7repjTT/irj/ii/oj [Laehm., Soholz, Rinck, 
Mcy., with B J ; 40 mss. ; Clarom., al. ; 
Lat. Ff.] would give a more appropriate 
sense ; the external authorities, however 
[ACDEK; Vulg., Syr. (both), al. ; 
Marcion, ap. Epiph., Chrys., Theodorct, 
al.], are distinctly in favor of the more 
difficult reading, irfpiTffjLv6ft.fvoi. 
v6/jiov] the law. Middleton here ex 
plains the anarthrous i/6/j.os as moral 
obedience ( the principle of Law, 
Peile), adducing the parallel passage, 

Rom. ii. 25 ; but there also, as here, 
v6/j.os is the Mosaic law : see Alford on 
Rom. I. c. The reason why these Ju 
daizers did not keep the law is not to be 
referred to their distance from Jerusalem 
(Theod.), nor to any similarly extenuat 
ing circumstances, but, as the context 
seems to show, is to be attributed simply 
to their consummate hypocrisy ; see 
Meyer in loc. v rrj v / e p<f 

ff a p K i] in YOUR flesh, your bodily 
and ritualistic mutilation ; i. e. iv ry 
KaraK^ir-Tfiv r}\v tpav ffdpica, Thcoph., 
not their own observances of that law 
for which they are affecting so zealously 
to contend. There is no contradiction 
between the two motives assigned for 
their enforcement of the circumcision. 
The second, as Usteri observes, states 
positively what the first did negatively. 
They boasted that they had not only 
made Christian, but Jewish converts 
( quod vos Judaismo implicuerint, 
Bcza), and thus sought to escape perse 
cution at the hands of the more bigoted 

14. 4/j.ol 8i pi) y4v. Kavx-] B u t 
from me far be it that I boast ; con 
trasted statement (8e) of the feelings of 
the Apostle and the substratum on 
which his Kavxtlffu alone rested. For 
exx. of this use of yevoiro with an infin., 
see Gen. xliv. 7, 17, Josh. xxii. 29, al., 
and Polyb. Hist. xv. 10. 4, yuTjSei/l yt- 
VOITO -irflpav v^tair \a.$e!v. v T tp 

ff T an p y] in the cross : i. e. in the 
principle of the sufferings and death of 
Christ being the only means whereby 
we are justiiicd and reconciled unto God 
(Rom. v. 9, 10) ; ai ri Ian rb /caux JM 
rov ffravpov } "On 6 Xpiffrbs Si ffj.f rbir 
Sov\ov, rltv ^x^poy, rbis ayvJinow aAA. 
o Jna /j.e T/yc.T7j<Tfv is nal ttunbv ex^ovvat 
apa, Chrys. See a sound sermon on this 



CHAP. VI. 14, 15. 

i> TU> <navpa> TOV Kvptov THMWV Irjaov XpicrTOv, St ov e/>tot KOG- 

^.09 ea-ravpwrai Kayo) TO> /cocr/i&r 5 ovre yap Treptropi] Tt ecrriv 

15. oKrt yap] So Tisch. with B; 17; Syr. (both), Goth,, Sah., .Eth., Arm. ; 
Chrys., Syncell. ; Ilicron., Aug. (De. IF., May., Bagge, Alf.) much commended 
by Gricsb. ; approved by Mill (Prolegorn. p. 85). The longer reading, lv ybp 
Xpiartf Irjffov is found in ACDEFGJK; Vulg., Clarom., Copt., .Eth.-Platt, Syr.- 

text by Bcveridge, Serm. xxi. Vol. i. p. 
396 sq. A. C. Libr.). Si ov] 

by whom ; scil. by whose crucifixion. 
The relative may refer either to <rravp6s 
(Theodoret), or to ITJ<T. Xpi<n6s. It is 
curious that Baumg. Crus. in adopting 
the latter reference, and Windisehm. the 
former, should both urge that, on the 
contrary supposition, St. Paul would 
have written tv ip instead of 81 ov. As 
far as this argument goes, both are right 
(see Winer, Gr. 48. a, p. 34G, 347), 
though probably the frequent use of lv 
in the X. T. with reference to Christ is 
slightly in favor of Windischm. com p. 
Eph. i. 7. The context, however, is a 
far surer guide, and here, as the impor 
tant and indeed emphasized subject TOV 
Kvp. ?;u. Irjff. Xp. immediately precedes, 
the relative will more naturally seem to 
refer to those words. K 6 a u. o s] 

the world j TO /3io)T</fi Trpa-y^ara, Chrys. ; 
not res ct religio Juduica, Schoettg. 
The full meaning has been well expressed 
by Calvin, mundus procul dubio op- 
ponitur novae creature ; quiequid ergo 
contrarium est spiritual! Christi regno 
mundus est, quia ad veterem hoinincm 
pertinet. Mundus est quasi object um 
et scopus vcteris hominis (cited by 
Peile). The present omission of the 
article with K<5cr,uoj is very unusual, and 
only to be accounted for by the supposi 
tion that Koalas was sometimes prac 
tically regarded in the light of a proper 
name : in all other places in the N. T., 
except the present, 2 Cor. v. 9, and, 
somewhat differently, 2 Pet. ii. 5, the 
omission is only found after a preposi 

tion (1 Cor. viii. 4, Phil. ii. 15, Col. ii. 
20), or when the noun is under the regi 
men of a preceding substantive (John 
xvii. 24, Horn. i. 28, iv. 13, xi. 12, 15, 
Eph. i. 4, al ) ; see Middl., Gr. Art. p. 
350 (ed. Hose), Winer, Gr. 19. p. 112. 
Whether in the concluding member 
the article is to be retained or rejected 
(Lachm.) is very doubtful. The exter 
nal authority (ABC iDiFG; 17, Orig. 
(3), Ath., al.] for /coV/ay is very strong; 
still as an omission to conform with the 
preceding member seems highly proba 
ble, and the external authority [C^C E 
JK; nearly all mss. ; Clem., Orig. (7), 
and many Ff.] of considerable weight, 
we retain with Tisch , Mey., al., the 
longer reading ry H.6fffj.<?. t n o i] 

1 to me ; dative of what is termed eth 
ical relation, a usage of this case 
which is more fully developed in the 
dat. commodi or incom. ; see Winer, Gr. 
31. 4, p. 190, Bernhardy, Synt. in. 9, 
p. 85, Kriiger, Sprachl. 48. 5. This 
reciprocal crucifixion is a forcible mode 
of expressing the utter cessation of all 
communion between the Apostle and 
world : as Schott well observes, alter 
pro mortuo habet alterum ; compare 
John vi. 56, 2 Thcss. i. 12, 1 Cor. vi. 13. 
On the profound significance of these 
expressions of union with Christ, comp. 
Ileuss, Thdol. Chrtt. iv. 16, Vol. n. p. 

15. o v r e 7ap] For neither? ex 
planatory confirmation of the preceding 
words Si ob K. T. \. , fISfs ffravpov Svva.- 

fj.iv ov yap S^i p.Ai>ov TO. rou KOfffj.ou 

irpdyf^ara tpiKfOMTtV aury iravTa, oAAa TO 

CHAP. VI. 15, 16. 



ovre dtcpofiva-Tta, d\\a Kaivr) 

tea ocroi ru> Kavvi TOVTW 

Phil, with asterisk ; Theod., Dam. ; Ambrst., al. (Rec., Scholz, Lachm.). The 
external evidence is thus very strong ; still, the probability that the longer reading 
is a gloss from ch. v. 6, seems so great that, supported as we are by ancient Vv., 
we do not hesitate in adhering to the shorter reading. The reading Iffxvei 

(Rec. with D3JK ; mss. ; al.), has less claim on attention. 

TTJS iro\irftas rrjs iraXatas avdrepov iro\- 
\y KctrfffT-nve, Chrys. On the reading, 
see critical note. K a. t v ^ K r i- 

<r is] a new creature. Krlvis has two 
meanings in the N. T. ; active, the act 
of creation (Rom i. 20), passive, the 
thing created, whether personal and 
individual (2 Cor. v. 17), or impersonal 
and collective (Rom. viii. 19). Either 
meaning will suit the present passage ; 
the latter, perhaps (com p. 2 Cor. v. 17, 
ft TIS eV XptffTip, KO.IVII KTiVu, is most 
probable. The form of expression may 
possibly have originated from the use of 
the similar term ni^n ~>-is, to denote 
proselytes (Schoettg. Hor. Ilebr. Vol. i. 
p. 328) ; the meaning, however, and 
application, is here, of course, purely 
Christian. On these words see an ad 
mirable sermon by Hammond, Serm. 
xxvii. Part. n. p. 380 sq. (A. C. Libr.), 
comp. also Beveridge, Serm. xix. Vol. i. 
p. 342 sq. (A. C. Libr.), and five ser 
mons by Tillotson, Serm. Vol. in. p. 324 
sq. (Lond. 1752). 

16. Kal tjffot] and as many as 
walk ; prominent specification of the 
personal subjects in regard of whom the 
prayer is offered, the nominatival clause 
standing isolated, and passing KOT ava- 
Ko\ovbiuv into another structure ; see 
Jelf. Gr. 477. 1. The reading is 

doubtful. On the one hand, the fut. 
<TToix4i<Jovcriv is fairly supported [B (Mai.) 
C*JK; mss.; Vulg. ; Chrys., Theod.], 
and perhaps not quite so likely to have 
been changed from the pres. as vice 
versa. Still, on the other, as the ex 
ternal evidence [AC J DEFG ; mss. ; Cla- 


rom. ; Syr. (both), Goth., Copt. (appy. ), 
Arm. ; Chrys., Jerome, Aug., al.] is very 
strong, and a change to a future, as 
pointing out the course the Galatians 
were to follow, not wholly improbable, 
we adopt with Tisch., Da IV., al. the 
present aroixovviv. ry KO.- 

vovi T ou Tea] according to this rule, 
scil. of faith; Kavuva. fKa\eoe r})v irpo- 
KfifJifvriv Si5affKa\iav, Theod. It is per 
haps slightly doubtful whether we are 
here to adopt the more literal meaning 
of Ka.vtlti , directing line (Mey.), 

]} >.-i ft [Semitam] Syr.) or the more 

o ^ 

derivative meaning maxim, norma 
vivendi (garaideinai, Goth., heg [lex] 
yEth.) ; the former seems, at first sight, 
in better accordance with a-Toixovaiv, 
but as this verb is used above (ch. v. 16), 
with but little tinge of its physical 
meaning (contrast Rom. iv. 12), and as 
Kavtav may very naturally be referred to 
the principle stated in ver. 15, the latter 
and metaphorical meaning (TW KO.V&VI. 
Kal rrj StSaxfi vainy, CEcum.) is here to 
be preferred. On the derivative mean 
ing of KO.V<I>V, see an article by Planck, 
in Comment. Theol. Vol. i. 1, p. 209 sq. 
and for exx. Eisner, Obs. Vol. n. p. 201. 
The dat. is obviously the clativus normee ; 
see notes on ch. v. 16, Winer, Gr. 31. 
6, p. 193, Fritz. Rom. xiii. 13, Vol. in. 
p. 142. elp-fivri ^JT avrovs] 

peace be upon them, super illos, 
Vnlg., Clarom., not perhaps without 
some idea of peace and mercy coming 
down upon them from heaven (Mey.); 
comp. Acts xix. 6, 2 Cor. xii. 9. It has 


Trouble me not : I am 
Christ * accredited er- 


, eipijvr) eV airrovs teal eXeo?, teal err\ rov Icrpa?)\ TOU 


been urged (De "\V.) that tvrlv or e<rTcu 
(Syr. |o<3lJ comp. Chrys.) is here to be 

supplied rather than cfrj, and that the 
verse is to be regarded as declaratory, 
and not benedictory. Both the position 
of the verse, however, and the signifi 
cant union of tlprivr) and e\eos ( 1 Tim. 
i. 2, 2 Tim. i. 2, 2 John 3, Jude 2) seem 
in favor of the ordinary construction ; 
^Trrji^aTO Tbv t\eov KO! TTJV flpr)VT]v, 
Theod. The order (contrast 1 Tim. i. 2, 
2 Tim. i. 2, Jude 2) may be due to the 
fact that the Apostle desires to put the 
effect before the causa efficiens ( Mey. ) 
as more in harmony with the reassuring 
character of the benediction, or arises 
merely from the feeling that in the 
absence of x^P ls > f p flf^n formed the 
more natural commencement. Jude 2 
is rather different, owing to the addition 
of aydirr). On the meaning of \eor, as 
involving not only misericordia (oln- 
Ttp/j.6s), but ipsum miseris succurrendi 
studium, see Tittmann, Synon. p. 69, 
sq. KaliirlTiy l(rpct7i\ 

rov & t o u] and upon the Israel of 
God. It is doubtful whether nai is ex 
plicative, namely, upon the Israel of 
God, or simply copulative. The ex 
planatory (cai, though needlessly ob 
truded on several passages of the N. T., 
is still distinctly found in St. Paul s 
Epp. (contr. De Wette), see Fritz. Rom. 
ix. 23, Vol. n. p. 339, Winer, Gr. $ 53. 
3, p. 388. Still, as it is doubtful whether 
Kal is ever used by St. Paul in so marked 
an explicative force as must here be as 
signed (the exx. cited by Meyer, 1 Cor. 
iii. 5, viii. 11, xv. 38, do not seem con 
clusive), and as it seems still more doubt 

ful whether Christians generally could 
be called the Israel of God (contrast 
Brown, p. 382), the simple copulative 
meaning seems most probable (Ps. 
Ambr., Grot, Est. ). St. Paul includes 
all in his blessing, of whatever stock 
and kindred ; and then, with his 
thoughts turning (as they ever did) to 
his own brethren after the flesh (Rom. 
ix. 3), he pauses to specify those who 
were once Israelites according to the 
flesh (1 Cor. x. 18), but now are the 
Israel of God ( TOV 0eoO auctorem in- 
nuit, quern Deus veluti pcculium suum 
reddidit, Schott), true spiritual chil 
dren of Abraham. 

17. rov \oiirov] Henceforth ; not 
for curb TOU \oiirov (Bos, Ellips. p. 461, 
Brown), or for \onr6t> (Bloomf.), though 
commonly used both for it and TO \otirbv 
in later writers (Bernh. Synt. in. 36, p. 
145), but the correct temporal genitive, 
denoting the time within which, or 
at some epoch of which the action is 
represented as taking place ; compare 
Madvig, Synt. 66. a. Thus, taken 
strictly, TOV \otirov K. T. \. is, let no 
one at any time in the future, etc., rb 
\onrbi K. T. A., let no one during the 
future," etc. ; comp. Hcrm. ad Vig. No. 
26, rJ> \onrl>v dicitur et TOV \onrov, hoc 
discrimine, quod rb \onrbt> continuum 
et perpetuum tempus significat ; TOV 
\onrov autem repotitionem ejusdem 
facti reliquo tempore indicat. The 
general temporal genitive, it may be 
remarked, appears to be more correctly 
referred to the partitive force of that 
case, than to ideas either of origination 
or antecedence (Hartung, Castts, p. 34, 
Jelf, Gr. 523), or of possession (Alf.); 


CHAP. VI. 17, 18. 




rov ^era TOV 

18 f TT * TT f * * * T ** XT 

H %apL^ TOV Kvpiov rjfiwv lr)o~ov Apur- 
i>p,wv, dBe\(f>ol 

see Scheuerl. Synt. 15, p. 100, 
Donalds. Or. 451. 
KOIT o v s irapfx 8 ] cause trouble ; 
surely not by obliging the Apostle to 
send further letters, but by troubling his 
spirit by their inability (<roA.euo/te^ot, 
CEcum.), and still more, as the next 
clause shows, by thwarting his apostolic 
authority. eyoi ycip] for I; 

reason for the command ; the iyb being 
emphatic and in opposition to the false 
teachers, not to /wjSeis (De W.), un 
less considered as one of them, and 
the ykp introducing the fact that he was 
a fully accredited servant of Christ : els 
tyofiov ir\t>ova. tft.^a.\\iav Kal irrryvvs rovs 
trap avrov Te&tvras v6fj.ovs, Chrys. 
r it ffriy jii a T a] the marks ; the local 
addition lv -rep ffca/^ari /uou necessarily 
referring the term to the wounds and 
scars and outward tokens of the persecu 
tions and sufferings which the Apostle 
had undergone in the service of Christ ; 
comp. 2 Cor. xi. 23 sq. There is appy. 
further a distinct allusion to the marks 
burnt on slaves to denote whom they 
belonged to; compare Herod, vn. 233, 
tffnov ffrly/j.. Pcun^ia, Martial, Epigr. 
xn. 61, stigmate non meo/ and espe 
cially Deyling, Observ. Sacr. Vol. in. 
No. 43, p. 423 sq., where the various 
classes of (mynaro^poi are enumerated, 
and the whole subject copiously illus 
trated. The gen. "I TJ tr o v thus indicates, 
neither origin ( auctore Christo," Gom.), 
nor remote reference to ( propter Chris 
tum, Pise. ; compare Olsh., a most 
doubtful translation both here and 2 Cor. 
i. 5), but simply the owner; the marks 
attested who the Apostle s Master was ; 
and were the signa militiae Christi quse 
me comprobant ejus esse, Gloss. Interl. 

(cited by Bagge). The insertion 

of Kvpiov before Iriffov (Rec.) is fairly 
supported [C 3 D3EJK; mss. Vulg., Cla- 
rom., Syr. (both), Goth., ./Eth.-Platt), 
but owing to the variations (D!FG, ripiav 
I. X. ; Copt., -(Eth.-Pol., al., rov Xp. ; 
al. aliter) rightly rejected by Lachm., 
Tisch. [ABC 1 ; mss. ; Amit., but not 
^Eth., Arm., as Tisch., Alf.] in favor 
of the text. Paffr dc] I bear ; 

either in the sensus molestus of ch. v. 
10, vi. 5, or perhaps, with some solem 
nity, in ref. to the dignifying nature of 
his Master s marks : OUK dirtv, e\<a, 
a\\d, |8a<TT<{(|a>, Sxrirep TIS eirl rpoiraiois 
jue ya <f>povo>i> ^ (TTj^eiois ficHTikiKots, Chrys. ; 
compare Acts ix. 15, j8a<TTa<rcn rb 6vofj.a 
pov, and Clem. Horn. ap. Coteler, Vol. 
i. p. 692, fiKwa. &eov Pturrdfair. 

18. fj x^P ls K. r. \.] On the varied 
nature of the Apostle s concluding bene 
dictions, see the exx. and illustrations in 
notes on 1 Thess. v. 28. /j. e T a. 

TOV ir v e v par o s v fi.u v\ be with 
your spirit; not appy- with any allu 
sion to the <rdp (aira. ytai avrovs T<av aap- 
KIKWV, Chrys.), but simply with reference 
to the wj/eDjua as the potior pars of man 
( hominem a potiore; parte sic antiquis 
dici Theologis, nee novum nee inusita- 
tum est, Heinsius, Exerc. p. 429), and 
not improbably to the fact that it is in the 
spirit of man that the operations of grace 
make themselves felt ; rrj \f>vxy Tr)v x^" / 
tirtvxrrai ytvfff&cu, CEcum. ; compare 
Philem. 25, 2 Tim. iv. 22, and notes in 
loc. aS ( \<poi] Here the un 

usual position of the word seems to be 
intentional : they were indeed brethren, 
and though for a while severed from the 
Apostle, and the subjects of his censure, 
still brethren in their common Lord. 



THE general principles on which this translation has been drawn up are 
explained in the Preface. I will here only again remind the reader that, as 
a general rule, I have not departed from the Authorized Version, unless it 
appears to be either incorrect, inexact, insufficient, obscure, or (see notice to 
Transl. of Past. Epp.) noticeably inconsistent in its translations of more im 
portant expressions. These deviations are all stated in the notes, and if not 
there specially alluded to, or self-evident, will be found to depend on reasons 
assigned in the Commentary. I have also subjoined, in all the more impor 
tant cases, citations from eight of the older versions, viz., those of Wiclif, 
Tyndale, Coverdale, (Bible), Coverdale (Testament), Cranmer, Geneva, 
Bishops , and Rheims. For the citations from five of these (Wiclif s, Tyn- 
dale s, Cranmer s, the Genevan and Rhemish Versions), I am indebted to 
THE ENGLISH HEXAPLA, of Messrs. Bagster. Those from Coverdale have 
been taken respectively from the first edition of his Bible in 1535 (now made 
accessible to the general reader by the reprint of the same publishers), and 
from the same venerable translator s Duglott Testament of 1538, which, 
though expressly taken from the Latin, still contains some interesting and 
suggestive translations. The citations from the Bishops Bible are derived 
from the second and slightly amended edition of 1572, a copy of the N. T. 
portion of which, in small portable quarto, appy. differing only from the folio 
edition in the modes of spelling, has been sometimes used for the sake of con 
venience. All these extracts, though but of doubtful authority in disputed 
texts, will still be found frequently to suggest useful alternative renderings, 
and will also give the reader such a practical acquaintance with the princi 
ples on which the Authorized Version was drawn up, as will tend to make 
him thankfully acknowledge, that it is truly, what Selden termed it, " the best 
translation in the world." 

The abbreviations in the notes will, I think, easily explain themselves. It 
may be only necessary to remark, that where an asterisk is affixed to a cita 
tion from the Authorized Version, the deviation in the text has arisen from a 
different reading. In the text, the italics (which slightly differ from those 

160 NOTICE. 

in the first edition of the Auth. Ycrs ) denote, as usual, words not in the 
original ; the small capitals mark words which are emphatic in the original, 
but which could not occupy an emphatic position in the translation, without 
harsh inversions. 

In the present edition, a few emendations (especially in reference to the 
aorist) have been introduced into the translation, and a few additional com 
ments, either on the reasons for the changes, or on general principles of 
translation, inserted in the notes : see Notice to Translation of the Epp. to 
the Thessalonians. p. 132.* 

As the subject of a revision of the Authorized Version is now becoming 
more and more one of the questions of the day, I again desire to remind the 
reader that the Revised Version which follows is only one designed for the 
closet (see Pref. to Pastoral Ejip. p. xvi.), and that it is in no way to be con 
sidered as a specimen of what might be thought a desirable form of an 
authoritative Revision. The more experience I gain in the difficult task of 
revising, the more convinced am I of the utter insufficiency and hopelessness 
of any single translator s efforts to produce a Version for general purposes. 
The individual may sometimes suggest something more or less worthy of pass 
ing consideration, but it is from the collective wisdom of the many that we 
must alone look for any hopeful specimen of a revision of the noble Version 
at present in use. 




PAUL, an apostle, not from men, neither by man, but by Jesus 
Christ, and God the Father who raised Him from the dead, 
2 and ALL the brethren which are with me, unto the churches of 
Galatia. 8 Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and 
our Lord Jesus Christ, 4 who gave Himself for our sins, that He 
might deliver us out of the present evil world, according to the will 

CHAPTER I, 1. From} Of, Auth. 
and the other Vv. Though it does not 
seem desirable in every case to change 
the familiar of, of Auth. into the now 
more usual from, it is perhaps better 
to do so in most of the cases where it is 
used as a translation of air6 : where, on 
the other hand, t /c is used, of ( out of) 
will often be found a very convenient 
translation; see notes on chap. iii. 16. 
With regard to Sid, it is nearly impossi 
ble to lay down any fixed principles of 
translation : where the idea of medium 
is designed to be expressed with especial 
distinctness, we may adopt through, 
but where this is not the case, the inclu 
sive by ( agent, instrument, cause, 
means, Johnson) will be found suffi 
ciently exact, and commonly much more 

2. Which] It maybe here observed that 
archaisms, as such, are not removed from 
the Authorized Version except where 


a positive error is involved. Here there 
is none; which is not merely the neu 
ter of who, but is a compound word ; 
Latham, Engf. Lang. 305. 4 (ed. 3). 

3. And our] And from our, Auth. 
and the other Vv. except Wicl , of. 
It seems desirable to leave out the prep 
osition in the second member, as more 
true to the original ; see notes on Phil. 
i. 2 (Transl). 

4. Out of] So Coverd. (Test.) : from, 
Aulh. and the remaining Vv In the 
next words it seems better to retain A nth. 
(changing this 1 into the ), as the 
transl. world of evil (ed. 1), though 
better preserving the unusual order of 
the Greek, might be thought to imply in. 
the original the existence of a gen. of 
quality. Neither of the usual transla 
tions, world, or age* (though the for 
mer perhaps more nearly) give the exact 
meaning of cuuv ; the best paraphrase 
seems, spirit of the age ; see notes on 


G A L A T I A N S . 

CHAP. I. 4. 9. 

of God and our Father : 6 to "whom be the glory for ever and ever. 

8 I marvel that ye are so soon changed over from Him that 
called you in the grace of Christ, unto a different gospel : 7 which 
is NOT another ; save that there are some who trouble you, arid 
desire to pervert the Gospel of Christ. 8 Howbeit even if we, or 
an angel from heaven, should preach any gospel unto you contrary 
to that which we preached unto you, let him he accursed. 9 As 
we have said before, so say I now again, If any man ] reacheth any 
gospel unto you contrary to that which ye received, let him be 
accursed. 10 For NOW am I making men my friends, or God ? or 

Eph ii, 2. God and our Father] 

Seholcficld (Flints on 1 Cor. xv. 24 ) ; 
while fully admitting the reference of the 
gen. only to the latter noun, suggests the 
omission of the copula in translation 
(so Syr., JEth.) as more conformable to 
the idiom of our language. As, how 
ever, there are several cases where the 
copula is omitted in the Greek, and. 
others, as here, where it is inserted, it 
seems best, in so solemn a designation, 
to preserve the distinction by a special 
and even peculiar translation : so Vulg., 
Claroin., Copt., Arm., and Syr.-Philox. 

5. The glory] Glory, Autlt. As the 
art. is appy. here used /car e|oxT)f (see 
notes), and may be inserted in this pas 
sage without seriously violating English 
idiom, it seems best to follow here the 
usage of Auth. in Matth. vi. 13 (Rec.). 

6. Chant/ing over] Removed, Auth.; 
moved, Wicl.: turned, Tynd., Cov. 
(both), Cran., Gen., Dish.; transferred, 
RJtem. J3y] So Cran.: into, 
Auth., Wicl., Rliem.; in, Ti/nd., Cor., 
Bi.-th.; unto, Cov. (Test.) Gen.: sec 
notes. A different] Another, 
Auth. and all the other Vv. 

7. Kn-e that] So Cor. (Test.): but 
there be some that, Auth.; but that there 
be some, \Vicl., Tynd., Cov., Cranmer, 
Gen., Bisk.; unless, Rhem. The 
present participle might at first sight seem 

to suggest the UPC of the auxiliary are 
troubling ; as, however, ol rapdaffovrfs 
is equivalent to a kind of substantive, and 
serves to mark the characteristic of the 
false teachers, the (iterative) present is 
more appropriate ; comp. Latham, Enyl. 
Lang., 573 (cd. 3 ). 

8. ITou-lteit} Similarly Cov., Bish., 
neuerthelesse : but, Auth. and the re 
maining Vv. Even if] Though, 
Auth. and the other Vv. except Rhem., 
although. Should preach] 
Preach. Auth. and all the other Vv. 
The idea of future contingency involved 
in the use of iiu> with subj. (Ilerm Virjer, 
No. 312). may here be suitably expressed 
bv inserting should. Am/ gospel, 
etc.] Any other gospel unto you than, 
Auth., Ti/nd., Cov., Cran., Bisfi.; other- 
waies than, Gen.; beside that. Wicl., 
Rhem. Preached} Have preached, 
Auth. and the other Vv. 

9. Have said] So Cov. (both), Rhem.: 
said, Anth. and the remaining Vv. 
Preacheth] Preach, Auth.; change to the 
indicative to preserve the opposition of 
moods in original ; see notes on 2 T/tess. 
iii. 14. (Transl.). Any gos/xl, etc.] 

Other gospel unto you than that, 
Auth. Received] Have received, 

Auth. and the other Vv. except Wicl., 
ban undirfongcn. 

10. .Volt-urn I making, etc.] Do I now 

CHAP. I. 1015. 



am I seeking to please men ? if I were STILL pleasing men, I 
should not be a servant of Christ. 

11 Now I certify you, brethren, touching the gospel which was 
preached by me that it is not after man. 12 For neither did I re 
ceive it from man, neither was I taught z , but through revelation 
from Jesus Christ. 13 For ye heard of my conversation in time 
past in Judaism, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church 
of God, and was destroying it ; " and made advance in Judaism 
beyond many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceed 
ingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers. 15 But when it 

persuade men, Auth., Bish.; Rhem.: 
counccil/ WicL; preach man s doc 
trine, Tynd., Gen.; preach I men, Cov.; 
speak fayre, Cov. (Test.) ; speak unto, 
Cran.; use persuasion/ Rhem. The 
change to the more definitely present, 
am I making/ seems required by the 
emphasis which evidently rests on &pri. 
On the nature of the English present, 
comp. Latham, Emjl. Lang. 573, 579 
(ed. 3). If] So WicL, Tynd., 

Rhem: for if/ Auth , Cran., Gen. 
Am I seeking] Do I seek/ Auth., WicL, 
Coverd. (Test.), Rhem.; go I about/ 
Tynd., and the remaining Vv. 
Were still pleasing] Yet pleased/ Auth. 
A] The/ Auth. and the other Vv. except 
WicL, Christis servant. 

11. Now] But/ Auth., Cov.; omitted 
in Tynd., Cran., Gen., Bish. 

Touching the Gospel, etc.] That the Gos 
pel which was, etc is not/ 

Auth. Perhaps the text, which is more 
exactly in accordance with the order of 
the Greek, makes the denial a little more 
emphatic. By] Of/ Auth. and 

all the other Vv. 

12. Did I receive] So Rhem.: I nei 
ther received it/ Auth., Cov., Cran ; ne 
I took it of man, ne lerned/ WicL; ne 
ther received I it/ Tynd., Gen.; I did 
not receive it nor learned it/ Cov. (Test.). 
There is here some little difficulty in both 
preserving the emphasis on I/ and also 
indicating that the first negative is not 

strictly correlative to the second. The 
insertion of the auxiliary perhaps par 
tially effects this, as it places the nei 
ther a little farther from the verb, and 
still leaves it in that prominence which 
it seems most naturally to occupy. In 
cd. 1 ( for I indeed received it not ), 
this latter point was perhaps too much 
sacrificed. From man] Of man/ 

Auth. and the other Vv. except WicL, 
bi man. Through rev. fi om] 

By the rev. of/ Auth. and the other Vv. 
except WicL, bi reuelacioun. 

13. Ye heard] Ye have heard, Auth. 
and the other Vv. Judaism] 
So Rhem.: the Jews religion/ Auth., 
Gen. ( the Jewishe rel. ), Bish.; the Ju- 
rie/ WicL; the Jews wayes/ Tynd.; 
the Jewshippe/ Cov. Was de 
stroying it] Wasted it/ Auth.; faughte 
agen it/ WicL; spoyled it/ Tynd., Cov., 
Cran., Gen., Bish.; drove them out/ 
Cov. (Test.); expugned it/ Rhem. 
This change is in consequence of the 
strong meaning of -rrop&tea, which it seems 
desirable to maintain. To resolve also 
the other imperfects would make the 
sentence heavy and cumbrous, and add 
but little to the sense. 

14. Made advance, etc.] Profited in 
(WicL, Gen., Bish., RJiem.) the Jews 
religion above/ Auth.; prevayled in/ 
Tynd., Coverd., Cranmer. For] 
Of/ Auth. 

1 5. Set me apart] Separated me/ 



CHAP. I. 1523. 

pleased God, who set me apart from my mother s womb, and called 
me through His grace, 1G to reveal His Son within me, that I 
might preach Him among the Gentiles ; immediately I conferred 
not with flesh and blood : 17 neither went I away to Jerusalem to 
them which were apostles before me ; but I went away into Arabia, 
and returned again unto Damascus. 18 Then after three years, I 
went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and I tarried with him fifteen 
days. Iy But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the 
brother of the Lord. M Now the things which I write unto you, 
behold, before God, I lie not. 21 Afterwards I came into the regions 
of Syria and Cilicia ; " and remained unknown by face unto the 
churches of Judaea which were in Christ : K but they were hearing 
only That he who was our persecutor in times past is now preach- 

Anth. and the other Vv. except Wicl., 
dcpartid me, and Cov. (Test), sun 
dered me. The change is made to pre 
vent from being understood as local : 
sec notes. Through] By, 

Autfi. and the other Vv. In this passage, 
it seems desirable to adopt the more 
rigorous translation of Sid, as suggesting 
more distinctly the fact that x-P l * W!ls not 
the instrument, but the causa medians ; 
see notes. 

10. Within] In, Aitth., Wicl., Cov., 
Dfsh., Rhem; by, Tynd., Cov. (Test.), 
Cnin.; to, Gen., Rliem.: heathen, Anlh. 
and the remaining Vv. Conferred] 

So Auth. This translation is not wholly 
adequate, but it is not easy to fix upon a 
more exact one. The original word 
seems to involve two ideas, aJdressiny 
one s st If to (irp6s, direction), and takinij 
counsel with. Most of the older transla 
tions give prominence to the latter and 
more important idea, e. n. I commened 
not of the matter, Tynd, Cor., Cran., 
Gi-nev ; some of the moderns, e. y. Meyer, 
Lewin, express more distinctly the for 
mer. It seems difficult to combine both 
without paraphrasing. The singular 
translation in Cov. (Test.), I did not 
graunt (comp. Rliem , I condescended 
not, ), results from the Vulg. acquicvi. 

17. Away (bis)]* Up, Auth. In the 
concluding clause it seems better to 
maintain the order of Auth. returned 
again, 1 not as the Greek order might 
seem to suggest, again returned ; for 
the Tr<i\iv is only idiomatically added to 
the verb, and is appy. without any special 
emphasis; comp. Acts xviii. 21, and see 
exx. in Runner on Xenoph. ^ft m. 1 1. 4. 4. 

18. Visit Cephas] See *Tetcr, Auth. 
and all the other Vv. I tarried] 
Sim. Rliem.: abode, Auth., Tynd., Cov. 
(both), Cran., Gen., Dish.; dwellid, 

19. The brother of tie Lord] Sim. 
Rliem., the brother of our Lord: the 
Lord s brother, Auth. and other Vv. 
This latter mode of translation is perhaps 
more appropriate when neither substan 
tive has the article. 

22. Remained] Was unknown, Auth- 
and all the other Vv. 

23. Were hearing] Had heard, Auth., 
Cov, Rhem., Bish.; haddcn oonli an 
hearynge, Wicl.; heard, T//nd., Cran., 
Gen. Conybeare and Ilowson have given 
a good paraphrase : tidings only were 
brought them from time to time ; comp. 
Erasm., rumor a pud illoa crat. 

Who u-as our persecutor] Which perse 
cuted us, Auth., Tynd., Cran., Gen., 

CHAP. II. 15. 



ing the faith which once he destroyed. M And they glorified God 
in me. 


THEN after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with 
Barnabas, and took Titus also with me. 2 And I went up by reve 
lation, and communicated unto them the gospel which I preach 
among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputa 
tion, lest by any means I might be running, or have run, in vain. 
3 Howbeit not even TITUS, who was with me, though he was a 
Greek, was compelled to be circumcised : 4 and that, because of 
the false brethren craftily brought in, men who came in stealthily 
to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they 
might bring us into bondage : 5 to whom we gave place by our sub 
mission, no, not for an hour ; that the truth of the gospel might 

Bish., Rhem.; that pursued us, I Fire/.; 
that persecuted us, Cov.; that did per 
secute us, : Cov. (Test.). 
Is now preachiny] Now preacheth, Auth. 
Tynd., Cov. ( pr. now ), Cran., Gen., 
Bish.; doth now preach, Cov. (Test.); 
doth now evangelize, Rhem. The 
change is made to mark more definitely 
the present act ; comp. notes and ref. on 
ch. i. 10. 

CHAPTER II. 1. After fourteen years] 
So Rhem: fourteen years after, Anth. 
and the other Vv. ( Tynd., Cov., after 
that ; Cran., thereafter ). The change 
is perhaps desirable as it slightly tends to 
prevent the last-mentioned events being 
considered as the terminus a quo of the 
fourteen years. Titus also] So 

RJtem.- Titus with me also, Auth., Tynd., 
Coo., Gen.; Titus also beynge taken 
with me, Cov. (Test.) ; the rest omit KO! 
in translation. 

2. The Gospel] So all Vv. except 
Auth., that Gospel. Might be 

running, etc.] Should (om. Wicl.) run or 
had run, Anth. and all Vv. The text 
seems to preserve more exactly, and per 

haps also more grammatically, the con 
trast between the pros, (subj.) and past 
tense. It may be observed that should 
simpliciter futuritionem indicat : might 
de rei possibilitate dicitur; Wallis, 
Gram. Ancjl. p. 107. 

3. Howbeit not even] Sim. Cov. (Test.), 
neuerthelesse nother : but neither, 
Auth.,Ii/iem.: and neither, Wicl.; also, 
Titus . . . yet, etc. Tynd., Cran., Gen. 
Though he was] Being, Auth. 

4. The false, etc.] Similarly Rhem.: 
false brethren unawares brought in, 
who, Auth.; and that because of ( cer- 
tayne, Cov.) incommers beynge falce 
br., Tynd., Cran., Bish. Stealth 
ily] Privily, Auth., Cov. (Test.) Cran., 
Gen., Bish ; Wicl. omits ; amonge other. 
Tynd., Cov.; craftily, Rhem. Perhaps 
the change is desirable as avoiding 
repetition, and as harmonizing slightly 
better with the action described by the 

5. By our submission] By subjection, 
Auth,, Bish; to subjeccioun ; as con 
cerning to be brought into subjection, 
Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen.; yelded not 
subjection, Rhem.; Cov. (Test.) omits. 



CHAP. II. 69. 

continue with you. But from those who were high in reputation, 
whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me ; God accept- 
eth no man s person, to me certainly they who were of reputa 
tion communicated nothing ; 7 but contrariwise, when they saw that 
I was entrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision, even as 
Peter was with that of the circumcision, 8 (for He that wrought 
for Peter towards the apostleship of the circumcision, the same 
wrought for me also towards the Gentiles), 9 and became aware 
of the grace that was given unto me, James, and Cephas, and John, 
who are accounted as pillars, gave to me and Barnabas right hands 
of fellowship ; that we should be apostles unto the Gentiles, and 

G. From] Of, Auth. and the other 
Vv. except Cov., as to them ; Cov. 
(Test.), as for them. The change here 
seems necessary to prevent of being 
considered a mere sign of the gen. case. 
Were hiijh, etc.] Seemed to be some 
what, Auth., Cran., and sim. Cov (Test.); 
that seemed to be great, Co>\, and sim. 
Tynd., (tin. The very slight distinction 
between So/cod/res and SOK. tlvai TI, and 
the apparent ref. to the judgment of others 
(see notes) are appy. both conveyed more 
nearly by this translation than by the 
more literal rendering of Anlh. 
To me, certainty, etc.] For they who 
seemed to lie somewhat in conference added 
nothing to me, Auth.; added nothynge, 
Tynd., Craii., Dish., Rhem.; taught me 
nothing, Cov ; avayled me nothing, 
Cov. (Test. ) ; dyd communicate nothing 
with me, Gen. 

1. I was entrusted, etc.] The gospel 
.... was committed unto me as the Gos 
pel of the circumcision teas unto Peter, 
Auth., and sim. the other Vv. The 
change of order is made, for the sake of 
keeping the emphasis on irtir(<TTtv/ 
gee Meyer. Even as] As, Auth. 

and all the other Vv. On the translation 
of Kc&ioi, see notes on 1 Thess. i. 5. 

8. Wrought] So Wlcl, Cov. (Test.), 
Rhem. : wrought effectually, Auth.; 
was mighty, Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen., 

Dish. The idea of effectual working, 
though to a considerable extent involved 
in tvtpyfiv, is perhaps scarcely sufficiently 
prominent to be expressed definitely; see, 
however, notes on 1 Tltcss. ii. 13. 
For] Similarly \Vicl., to Peter: in, 
Auth., Tynd, Cran., Dish., flhfiu.; with, 
Cov.; by, Cov. (Test.), Gen. 
Towards] To, Auth., Wicl, Cov., Dish., 
Rlicm.; in, Tyiid. and the remaining Vy. 
Wrought] Was mighty in me toward, 
Auth. All the other Vv. give the same 
translation to tvtpyfw in the second 
clause that they adopt in the first. 

9. And became aware, etc.] Similarly, 
as to order, \Vicl., Tynd., Cran., Dish., 
Rhem., except that they repeat the idio 
matic when in the translation of the tem 
poral participle yvomts, but thus slightly 
impair the natural sequence of the ffiovrts 
. . . Kai yv&vrts. Auth. inverts, and 
when James, Cephas, and John, who 
seemed to be, etc. ; Cov. turns into a 
finite verb, they perceived. 1 
And Cephas] Sim. \Vicl., Rhem.: Auth. 
and the remaining Vv omit and. 
Are accounted as] Seemed to be, Auth. 
and all the Vv. except Wid , wercn 
seyn to be ; Gen., arc taken to be. 
Rii/ht. hands] The right hands, Auth. 
and the other Vv. except Wicl , right 
bond. Be apostles] So Cran., 

Dish.: should go, Auth.; that we among 

CHAP. II. 915. 



they unto the circumcision. 10 Only they would that we should 
remember THE POOH ; which very thing I also was forward to do. 
11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, 
because he had been condemned. l2 For before that certain men 
came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles ; but when they 
came, he began to withdraw and separate himself, fearing them 
which tvere of the circumcision. 13 And the rest of the Jews also 
dissembled with him ; insomuch that even Barnabas was carried 
away with by their dissimulation-. " Howbcit when I saw that they 
were not walking uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I 
said unto Cephas before all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the 
manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, how is it that thou 
constrainest the Gentiles to keep the customs of the Jews ? 15 WE 
truli/ are by nature Jews, and not sinners of the Gentiles; 

thehethen, Wid ; shuld preach, Tynd., 
Cov. (both), Gen.; that we unto, Rhem. 
Gentiles] So Gen., Rfiem.: heathen, 
Auth. and the remaining Vv. 

10. Which very thing] The same 
which, Auth.; the whiche thing, Wid., 
Cov. Test, ( thing also ) ; whiche thing 
also, Tynd., Cor., Gen.; wher in also, 
(/ran., Dish.; the which same thing also, 

11. Cephas} * Peter, Auth. 

Came] So Cov. (Test.): was come, 
Auth. and the remaining Vv. Had 

been condemned] Was to be blamed, 
Auth., Bish.; was worthy to be blamed, 
Tynd., Cov., Cran , Gen., and similarly 
Wid., to be undirnomen ; was blame- 
able, Cov. (Test.); was reprehensible/ 

12. Certain men came] Certain were 
come, Auth. Was eating] Did 
eat, Auth., Cov. (both), Cran., Dish., 
R/iem.; etc, Wid., Tynd., Gen. 
Began to. etc.] Withdrew and separated, 
Auth and all Vv. The imperf. denotes the 
commencement and continuance of the 
act, or as Bengel, subducebat paullatim. 

13. The rest of the] So Cov. (Test.), 
Rhem: the other, Auth and the remain 

ing Vv. Also dissembled] Dis 

sembled likewise, Auth., Tynd., Cran., 
Dish.: the other Vv. omit the /col in 
translation Even Barnabas] 

Barnabas also, Auth. By 

their] Auth. omits by ; " into, Wid. and 
the remaining Vv. 

14. Howbeit] But, Auth. and all the 
other Vv. Were not walking] 
Walked not, Auth. Cephas] 
Peter, Auth. All] So Cov. 
(both), and sim. Wid., Tynd., Gen., all 
men : them all, Auth., and the remain 
ing Vv. How cometh it, etc.] * 
Why compellest thou, Auth., and sim. 
Rhem.. dost thou compel ; hou con- 
strcynest thou, Wid.; why causest thou, 
Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen., Bish. 

Keep the customs, etc.] To live as do the 
Jews, Auth., and sim. the other Vv. ex 
cept Rhem., Judaize. 

15. We (truly) are, etc.] Similarly 
R/iem : we who are Jews by nature, 
Auth, Tynd, Cran., Gen.; though wa 
be, etc. Cov.; we which are . . . know, 
Bish. This address of St. Paul to St. 
Peter involves so many difficulties both 
in meaning and connection, that it will 
be perhaps best to subjoin a free para- 



CHAP. II. 1517. 

16 but as we know that a man is not justified by the works of the 
law, save only through faith in Jesus Christ, we too believed in 
Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not 
by the works of the law ; since by the works of the law shall no 
flesh be justified. " But if, while we seek to be justified in Christ, 
we are found ourselves also to be sinners, is Christ therefore a 

phrase of the whole. We, I concede, 
are by birtli Jews, not Gentiles, anil con 
sequently, from our point of view, sin 
ners ; but as we know that a man is not 
justified by the works of the law, in fact 
is not justified at all, except through faith 
in Christ ; even we, witli all our privi 
leges, believed in and into Christ, that 
\ve might be justified, etc. But what, if, 
while we are seeking to be justified in 
Christ, the result show that we, with all 
our privileges, are sinners like the Gen 
tiles ; is Christ the minister of a dispen 
sation that after all only leads to sin? 
God forbid ! For if I (or you) build up 
again the system I pulled down, and set 
up nothing better in its place, it is thus, 
and not in seeking to be justified in 
Christ, that I show myself (vox horren- 
da!) a trunsyressor of the law; yes, a 
violator of its deeper principles. For I 
(to adduce a proof from my own spiritual 
experience) through the medium of the 
law, and in accordance with its higher 
principles, died unto it in regard to its 
claims and its curse : I have been and 
am crucified with Christ. Though I live 
then, it is no longer as my old seif, but 
as reanimated by Christ ; yes, the life 
which now I live, this earthly, mundane 
life, 1 live in the element of faith in Christ, 
who so loved me that He gave His own 
life for me. Thus I do not, like these 
Judaists, regard the grace of God as a 
principle that could be dispensed with ; 
for if, as they pretend, the law is suffi 
cient to make men righteous, the obvious 
inference is, there was no object in the 
death of Christ. 

16. But as we know] Know ing, Auth., 

Wicl., Cuv. (Test.), Rhem.; we which 
. . . knowe, Tynti., Cran., (it ll.. Zj/A /i.; 
yet insomuehe as we knowe, Cuv. 
S tvf on/// tlirowjh, etc.] But bv the faith 
of Jesus Christ, Audi, and the other Vv. 
except Cor., on J. C. ; Coo. (Test.), 
save by the faith by J. C. We 

too believed} Even we have believed in 
J. C., Auth.; and we bileuen, Wicl.; 
we have believed also, Cov.; we also 
beleue, Cov. (Test), Rhem.; and we 
have bel. on, Cran., Bish., Tynd; ( and 
therfor ) even we I say have bel. in, 
Gen. Faith in] The faith of, 

Auth. and all Vv. Since] For, 

Auth.; because that, Tynd., Cuv. (both), 
Cran., Gen.; wherfor, \Vicl.; because, 
Bish ; for the which cause, Rhem. 

17. In Christ] So Wicl., Cov. (Test.), 
Rliem.: by Christ, Auth. and remaining 
Vv. We nre found, etc.] We 

ourselves also are found sinners, Auth. 
English idiom here, in consequence of 
the union with the prcs. part., seems to 
require the prcs. are found " as the 
translation of tfyfbTiufv.The aorist in the 
original has an idiomatic reference to a 
discovery past and done with, and about 
which no more need be said, which can 
not be expressed without paraphrase ; 
comp. Donalds. Gr. 433. h 

Christ, etc.] Is therefore Christ the, 
Auth. God forbid} Auth. and 

all Vv. except Cov ( Test.), that be farre." 
On reconsideration it would seem best, 
and even practically most exact, that in 
a passage of the present nature, where 
the revulsion of feeling and thought is 
very decided, to retain the familiar and 
idiomatic translation of Auth. 

CHAP. IIL 1. 2. 



minister of sin ? God forbid ! 18 For if the things that I destroyed 
THESE again I build up, I prove myself a transgressor. 19 For I 
through the law died to the law, that I might live unto God. * I 
have been crucified with Christ : it is, however, no longer I that 
live, but Christ liveth in me ; yea the life which NOW I live in the 
flesh I live in faith, faith in the Son of God, who loved me, and 
gave Himself for me. 21 I do not make void the grace of God ; for 
if righteousness come THROUGH THE LAW, then for nought did Christ 


foolish Galatians, who did bewitch you, before whose eyes 
Jesus Christ was evidently set forth among you, CRUCIFIED. 2 This 
only would I learn of you, Was it by the works of the law that ye 

18. The things that I destroyed] I 
build again the things which I destroyed, 
Auth., Cran , Bish.; that which, Tynd., 
Coo., Gen. ; the same things againe 
which, Rhem. The inversion, though 
involving a slight irregularity in struc 
ture, seems here needed, as serving both 
to keep the emphasis on the right words, 
and to exhibit the true point of the argu 
ment. Prove myself] Make 
myself/ Auth. and all the other Vv. 

19. Died] Am dead, Auth. and the 
Other Vv. except Cran., haue bene deed. 

20. Have been crucified] Am cruci 
fied, Auth., and sim., as to the auxiliary, 
all the other Vv. Of the two modes of 
expressing the Greek perfect ( am and 
have been ), the latter seems here most 
appropriate, as the associated aor. ren 
ders the ref. to past time more prominent 
than one to present effects ; see notes on 
Col. i. 16 (Transi). It is, how 
ever, etc.] Nevertheless I live ; yet not 
I, Auth., sim. Cov., Cran.; I live verely, 
yet now not I, Tynd., Gen. Yea] 
And, Auth., Gen., Cran., Bish., Rhem.; 
for, Tynd., Cov.; but, Wicl, Cov. 
(Test). Now I] I now/ Auth. 


In faith, etc.] By ( in/ Wicl., Cov. (both), 
Rliem.), the faitli of/ Auth., Tynd., Cran., 
Gen., Bish. 

21. Make void] Frustrate/ Auth.; 
cast not awci, Wicl., Cov. (both), Rhem.; 
despyse not/ Tynd., Cran.; do not ab 
rogate, Gen.; reject not/ Bish. 
Through] So Wicl. : by/ Auth., Cov. 
(both), Rhem.; of/ Tynd., Gen., Cran., 
Bish. For nought] In vain/ 

Auth., Tynd, Cov., Cran., Bish., Rhem; 
without cause, Wicl., Gen. ( a cause. ) 
Did Christ die] Christ is dead/ Auth., 
Bish.; died/ Wicl., and the remaining 
Vv. The slight change in the text 
seems to give the due prominence to 
owptdv, and also to preserve a better 
rhythm than the unresolved died. 

CHAPTER IIL 1. Did bewitch] Hath 
bewitched, Auth. and the other Vv. 
*Auth inserts after you/ that ye should 
not obey the truth. 

2. Was it, etc.] Similarly RJiem., by 
the workes of the law did you receiuc : 
received ye the Spirit by the, etc. Auth., 
and sim. as to order all the remaining 



CHAP. III. 310. 

received the Spirit, or by the hearing of faith ? 3 Are ye so very 
foolish ? having begun with the Spirit are ye now being made per 
fect with the flesh ? 4 Did ye suffer so many things in vain, if 
indeed it really be in vain. fi He then, / say, that ministereth to 
you the Spirit and worketh mighty powers Avithin you, doeth he it 
by the works of the law T or by the hearing of faith ? 

6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him 
for righteousness. 7 Know ye then that THEY WHICH ARE OF 
FAITH, the same are the sons of Abraham. 8 Moreover the Scrip 
ture, foreseeing that God justifieth the Gentiles by FAITH, pro 
claimed beforehand the glad tidings unto Abraham, sayiny, In thee 
shall all the nations BE BLESSED. 9 So then they which be of faith 
are blessed together with the faithful Abraham. 

10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under curse : 

3. So very] So, Autfi. and the other 
Vv. except Cov., such fooles. 

Begun with] So Rhem.: begun in Auth. 
and the other Vv. except Cov., by. 
Being made perftct with] Made perfect 
by, Auth., Genev. ( in ); ben ended, 
Wici; no\ve ende, Tynd., Cov. (Test.); 
ende now then, Cov.; ende in, Tynd., 
Cran.; l>e consummate with, Rhem. 

4. Did ye suffer} Have ye suffered, 
Auth., Cov. (both), Dish , Rhem., and 
sim. the other Vv., except that they do 
not adopt the interrogative form. 
Indeed it reaHy bc\ It be yet, Auth., 
Btsh.; if that be vayne, Tynd., Gen.; 
yf it be also in vayne, Cran.; if yet 
without cause, Rhem. 

5. He then, etc.] He therefore/ Auth., 
Cov. (Test ), Gen., Dish., Rhem.; more 
over, he, etc., Cran.; Wici,, Tynd., Cov. 
omit olv in translation. Mf/hty 
powers, etc.] Miracles among you, 
Auth. and the other Vv. except Wici., 
vertucs in you; Cov., great actes. 

7. Then] Therefore, Auth. and the 
other Vv. except Cov., thus I know, 
and Gun., so ye know. The only other 
version that takes yivwo-Ktr* indicatively 
is that of Cranmer. Sons] So 

Wici.: children, Auth. and the remain 
ing Vv. 

8. Moreover] And," Auth., Wici., Cov. 
(Test.), Rhem.; for, Tynd. and remain 
ing Vv. ( Cov. omits). Justijieth\ 
So Wici., Coo. (Test.), Rhem.: would 
justify, Auth., Tynd., Cran., Gen ; jus- 
tifycd, Cov. The Gentiles] So 
Gen., Rhem.: the heathen, Auth. and 
the remaining Vv. By faith] 
So Cov. (Test.), Rhem., and sim. Wici., 
of faith : through faith, Auth. and the 
remaining Vv. Proclaimed be 
forehand, etc.] Sim. Tynd., Cor., Cran.: 
preached bc f ore the Gospel, Auth., Gen. 
( before hand ); told to for, Wici.; 
told, Cov. (Test.) ; shewed . . . before, 
Rhem. All the nations] Sim. 

Wici., Cov., allc the hcthen : all na 
tions, Auth. and the remaining Vv. ex 
cept Gen., all the Gentiles. The change 
in the translation of TO f&rti in the same 
verse seems required by a kind of chron 
ological propriety. 

9. Together with] With, Auth. and 
all the other Vv. The faithful] 
So Btsh., RJiem.: faithful, Auth. and 
all the remaining Vv. 

10. Curse] So Wici., Rhem., and sim- 

CHAP. III. 11 17. 



for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all 
things which are written in the book of the law to do them. n But 
further, that in the law no man is justified in the sight of God, it is 
evident ; because, The just shall live by FAITH. v ~ Now the law is 

not of faith ; but, He that doeth them shall live in them 

13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become A 
CURSE for us, because it is written, Cursed is every one that 
hangeth on a tree, 14 that unto the Gentiles the blessing of Abra 
ham might come in Christ Jesus ; that we might receive the prom 
ise of the Spirit THROUGH FAITH. 

15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men ; though it be but 
a MAN S covenant, yet when it hath been confirmed, no man annul- 
leth it, or addeth new conditions. 16 Now to Abraham were the 
promises made, AND TO HIS SEED. He saith not, And to seeds, 
as of many ; but as. of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. 
17 Now this I say, A covenant, that hath been before confirmed by 

ilarly Tynd., under malediccion : the 
curse, Auth., Cov. (both), Oran., Gen., 

11. But further, ttc.] But that no man 
is justified by the law, Auth. Be 
cause] So Rhem.: for, Auth. and the 
remaining Vv. 

12. Now] And, Auth., Cov. (Test), 
Gen., Bish.; Tynd., Cov., Cran., omit ; 
but, Wici, Rhem. He] * 
1 The man, Auth. 

13. Redeemed] Similarly Wici, agen- 
bought : hath redeemed, Auth. and the 
remaining Vv. except Cov., hath de- 
lyuered. Having become] Be 
ing made, Auth., Bish., Rhem.; and was 
made, Wici., Tynd.; when he became, 
Cov.; beynge become, Cov. (Test.); 
inasmo;-h as he was made, Cran. ; 
when he was made, Gen. Be 
cause] So Rhem : for, Auth. and the re 
maining Vv. 

14. Unto the Gentiles] Come on the 
Gentiles, A tit h. In Christ J.] 
Through *J. C., Auth., Tynd., Cran., 
Gen., Bish.; in/ Wici., Cov. (both), 

1 5. Yet when it hath been] Yet if it 
be, Auth. The temporal translation in 
the text is adopted by Tynd., Cov.; the 
hypothetical by Auth. with Cran., Bish.: 
the remaining Vv. adopt purely particip 
ial translations. Annullcth it, etc.] 
Disannulled! or addeth thereto, Auth., 
Bish.; ordeyneth above, Wici; addeth 
anything thereto, Tynd. Cov (sim. Test.), 
Cran., Gen.; further disposeth, Rhem. 

1C. Were the promises, etc.] Sim. Rhem., 
Wici.: and his seed were the promises, 
etc., Auth. and the remaining Vv. 

17. Now this] And this, Auth., Gen., 
Rhem.; but, Wici., Cov. (Test ) ; Tynd., 
Cov., Bish., omit 8. The translation of 
8 is here somewhat difficult. Though 
now" has just preceded, it must appy. 
be adopted again as the only translation 
which seems to preserve the resumptive 
force. A covenant] The cove 

nant, Auth. and the other Vv. except 
Wici and Coo. (both), this. 
Huth been before confirmed] Was con 
firmed before, Auth.. Tynd , Coy., Cran., 
Gen; was given, Cov (Test.); the 
test, being confirmed, Rhem.; 



CHAP. III. 1723. 

God [for Christ] , the law, which was four hundred nnd thirty years 
after, doth not invalidate, that it should make void the promise. 
18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise : 
but to Abraham God hath freely given it THROUGH PROMISE. 

19 What then is the object of the law ? It was added because of 
the transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise 
hath been made ; and was ordained by means of angels, in the 
hand of a mediator. ^ Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, 
but God is one. Is the law then against the promises of GOD ? 
God foibid! for if there had been given a law which could have 
given life, verily by the law would righteousness have come. 
82 But, on the contrary, the Scripture shut up all under sin, that 
the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to them that 
believe. a Now before that faith came, we were kept in ward 

wholly inverts. By God, etc.] 

Of God in Christ, Auth. Doth 

not, etc.] Sim. Ti/nd , Cran., Bish.: can 
not disannul, Auth., Gen.; mukith not 
Teyn, Wicl.; is not disannulled, Cov.; 
makith not void, Rhem.; Cov. (Test.), 
confuses. Make void] Similarly 

Wid. ( toavoide away ) and Cor. (Test): 
make the promise of none effect, Auth., 
Tynd, Cov., Cran., Gen., Bish.; to frus 
trate/ Rhcm. 

18. But to Abraham, etc.] But God 
gave it to Abraham by promise. Antf>. and 
the other Vv. except Cov., gave freely ; 

Wid., grauntide. Throuyh] 

By, Auth. and all the other Vv. 

19. What, then, etc.] Wherefore then 
erveth, Auth., Tynd., Cov. (sim. Test.), 
Cran , Gen , Bish ; what thannc the law, 
Wicl. ; why was the law then, Rhem. 
The trarugrftsions] Auth. and all the other 
Vv. omit the article ; in a passage, how 
ever, of this dogmatical importance, it 
ought appy. to be retained. Hath 
been made] Was made, Auth., Tynd., 
Cran , Gen.; He hadde made bcheest, 
Wicl ; He had promised, Cor. (Test.), 
Rhem. And WHS] And it was, 

. Auth. By means of] By, Auth. 

and the other Vv. except Cov., of an 

21. Given a law] A law given. Auth. 
Verily by the, etc.] Verily ( Wicl.) right 
eousness should have been by the law, 
Auth.; then no doute, Tynd., Cov., Cran., 
Gen , Bish.; shuld have come/ Tynd., 

22. But on the contrary] But/ Auth. 
and all the other Vv. The addition of 
the words "on the contrary" seem here 
required in translation to preserve the 
true force of a\\d, and to show clearly 
the nature of the reasoning. 

Shut up all] Similarly, as to the omission 
of hath/ Tynd., Cran., concluded all 
things : hath concluded all, Auth.. Bishj 
hath concluded all things/ Wicl., Gen., 
Rhem. faith in] Faith of/ 

Auth. and the other Vv. except Cov., 
faith on. 

23. AW] Bat/ Auth. nnd the other 
Vv. except Wicl., ; and ; Tynd. and Cov. 
omit. Before that] So Tynd., 
Cran., and similarly Wicl., to for that; 
Cov. (Test. ), afore that : before, Auth. 
and the remaining Vv. Kept 
in ward, etc.] Kept under the law shut 
up/ Auth.; kept under the lawe, en- 

CHAP. Ill 2329. 



shut up under the law for the faith which afterwards was to be 
revealed. 24 So then the law hath been our schoolmaster unto 
Christ, that we may be justified BY FAITH. 

25 But now that faith is come, we are no longer under a school 
master. * For ye are all sons of God through the faith in Christ 
Jesus. * For as many of you as were baptized into Christ put on 
Christ. ^ There is among such neither Jew nor Greek, there is 
neither bond nor free, there is no male and female : for ye all are 
one in Christ Jesus. ffl But if ye be Christ s, then are ye ABRA 
HAM S SEED, heirs according to promise. 

closid, WicL; kept and shut up, etc./ 
Tynd., Cov., Gen.; kept under the law 
and were shut up, Cran., Bi sh. 
For] Unto, Auth. Afterwards 

was, etc.] Which should aft. be rev, 
Auth., Gen., Bish. ; sim. Tynd., Cov., 
Cran. ( be declared ). 

24. So then] Wherefore, Auth., Ti/nd., 
Cran., Gen,, Bish.; and so, WicL; 
thus, Coo.; therefore, Cov. (Test.), 
Rhem. Hath been our school 

master unto] Was our schoolmaster to 
bring us unto, Auth., Gen.; undir mais- 
ter in Christ, WicL; scolemaster unto 
the time of, Tynd.; scolemaster unto, 
Coo. (both), Cran., Bish.; pedag. in, 
Rhem. There is much difficulty in fix 
ing on the most suitable translation of 
this word. The term schoolmaster 
certainly tends to introduce an idea (that 
of teaching) not in the original and also 
serves to obscure the idea of custodia 
( custos incorruptissimus, Hor. Sat. i. 6. 
81), which seems the prevailing one of 
the passage. Still as the same objection 
applies in a greater or less degree to 
pedagogue (cd. 1) and tutor, it will 
l>e perhaps better, in so familiar a pas 
sage, to return to Auth. May 

be] Might be, Auth.: change to preserve 
what is called the succession of tenses, 
Latham, Enal. Lang. 616 (ed. 3). 

25. Now that] So Cov.: after that,* 
Auth. and the other Vv. except Cov. 
(Test.), whan the fayth did come; 
Rhem., when the faith came. 

26. Sons] So Ti/nd., Gen : Auth. and 
the remaining Vv , the children. 
Through the faith] By faith, Auth., Gen., 
Bish., Rhem.; thorugh bilciie, WicL; 
by the fayth which is in, Tynd, Cov. 
(Test.) ; because ye believe in, Ci-nn. 

27. Were baptized] Have been bap 
tized, Anlh; are baptized, Tynd. ( \Vid. t 
ben ) and all the remaining Vv. 

Put on] Have put on, Auth. and the 
other Vv. except Wicl , ben clothid. 

28. There is among such, etc.] There 
is neither, etc.. Auth. JVo male 
and ftmale] Neither male nor female," 
Auth. None of the other Vv. seem to 
have marked the change. All 
are] Arc all, Auth. and the other Vv. 
except Rhfin., al you are. 

29. Bnt] So "Cov. (Test.): and, 
Auth., WicL, Rfiem. The rest omit the 
particle. Heirs] So Rhem~ * 
and heirs, Auth. 



Ciixr. IV. 1 


Now I say, That the heir, as long as ho is a child, differeth in 
nothing from a bond-servant, though he be lord of all ; 2 but is 
under guardians and stewards until the time appointed of the father. 
8 Even so we, when we were children, were kept in bondage under 
the rudiments of the world : 4 but when the fulness of the time 
came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the 
law, * that He might redeem them that were under the law, that 
we might receive the adoption of sons. 6 And to show that ye AHE 
SONS, God sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, 
Abba Father. 7 So then thou art no more a servant, but a son ; 
and if a son, an heir also through God. 

8 Ilowbeit, at that time, truly, not knowing God, ye were in 

CHAPTER IV. 1. In nothing] Noth 
ing, Anth., Wicl, Cor. (Tost), Dish., 
Rhcm.; ditf ereth not, Tynd., Cran., Gen ; 
there is no diff., Cov. Bond 

servant] Servant, Antk. and all the other 
Vv. It seems desirable to keep tip the 
idea of bondage and slavery which 
pervades the whole simile. 

2. Guardians} Tutors/ Anth. and the 
other Vv. except Wicl., kepers ; Cov., 
rulers. It seems desirable to make a 
change in translation to preserve a dis 
tinction between (irirpoiros here and TTCU- 
Saycaybs in the preceding chapter. 
Sleicartl.t] Governors, Aut/i. and the 
other Vv. except \Vicl., kcpcrs and 

3. Kept in bondage] Were in bondage 
under, Auth. and the other Vv. except 

Wicl., serueden undir; Cov. (Test.), 
Rltem., were seruynge under. 
Rudiments] So Gen., Dish.: elements, 
Auth., Wicl , Rltcm.; ordinances, Tynd., 

Cran.; tradicions, Con. (both). 

4. Ciime] So Wicl . Rhem.: was come. 
Auth. and sim. the remaining Vv. 
Born . . . l>orit] Made . . . made, Auth., 
Wicl., Rite m , ttish ( and made under ) ; 
born . . . made hondc unto, Tynd., ("run.; 
borne and put under/ Cov.; m;;de . . . 

made bondc unto, Gen. The meaning 
preferred by Scholef. (Hints, p. 96), 
made subject to the law, involves a 
change of meaning in ytv6nfi>ov, which 
docs not appear necessary or natural. 

5. That lie might] So R/tem., and sim. 
Wicl., Co>\ (Test): to redeem, Auth. 
and the remaining Vv. Here as in ch. 
iii. 14 it seems most exact to indicate the 
repeated iva. by the same form of trans 

6. To show that] Because, Anth. and 
the other Vv. except Wicl., for ye ben ; 
Cov., forsoinuche then as. 

Smt forth] Sim. Wicl., Cov. (Test.), 
sente : hath sent forth, Auth; hath 
sent, Tijnd., Cov., Cran., R/ieni.; hath 
sent out, Gen. Our hearts] 

* Your hearts, Auth. 

7. So then] Wherefore, Anth., Gen., 
Bish.; and so, Wicl.; wherefore now, 
Ti//id., Cov., Cran.; therefore, Cowl 
(Test.). Rhem. An Inir, etc.] 
Then an heir *of God through Christ, 

8. At that time, etc.] Then when ye 
know (sic in Bagst. ) not, Anth.; tlianno 
ye unknowynge, Wicl.; when ye knewe 
not, Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen., Dish.; 
but then truely not knowynge, Cov. 

CHAP. IV. 8 15. 



bondage to them which by nature are not gods. 9 But now that 
ye have come to know God, or rather have been known by God, 
how is it that ye turn back again to the weak and beggarly rudi 
ments, whereunto ye desire to be again anew in bondage. 10 Ye 
are carefully observing days, and months, and seasons, and years. 
11 1 am apprehensive of you, lest haply I have bestowed upon you 
labor in vain. 

12 Brethren, I beseech you, become as I am, for I also have 
become as ye are. Ye injured me in nothing : 13 yea ye know 
that it was on account of weakness of my flesh that I preached the 
gospel unto you the first time ; 14 and your temptation in my flesh 
ye despised not, nor loathed, but received me as an angel of God, 
yea as Christ Jesus. is Of what nature then was the boasting of 

(Test.) ; then in decde knowing, Rhem. 
The change in the translation of r6rt is 
to prevent then being mistaken for the 
inferential particle. Were in bond 

age] Ye did service, Auth. Not 

god*] * Xo gods, Auth. 

9. Now that ye, have come to know] 
Now, after that ye have known, Auth. 
Have been known] Are known, Auth. 
and the other Vv. except Gen., are 
taught. By God\ Of God, 
Auth., and all the other Vv. How 
is it thai] So Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen.: 
how, Auth., Wicl, Co. (Test.), Bish., 
Rhem. Ye turn back] So Cov.: 
turn ye, Auth. and the other Vv. except 
Gen., are turned backward unto. 
Rudiments] So Bish.: elements, Auth., 

Wicl., Rhem.; cerimonies, Tynd, Gen.; 
tradicions, Co;;, (both); ordinaancea/ 
Cran. Again anew] Sim. Tynd, 

Cov., Cran., Bish., agnine afrcsslio: 
again, Auth., and sim. Cov. (Test), 
Rhem.; as from the begynnyng ye wil 
be in bondage backwardly, Gen. 

10. Carifidly observing] Observe, 
Auth. and the other Vv. except Wicl.., 
taken kepe to. Seasons] Times. 
Auth. and all the other Vv. 

11. Am apprehensive] Am afraid, 
Auth ; I drede, Wicl.; am in feare of, 

Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen, Bish.; feare 
me, Cov. (Test ); fear, Rhem. 

12. Become as, etc.] Be as I am ; for 
I am as ye are : ye have not injured me 
at a l, Auth., Bish.; ye have not hurte 
me ut all, Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen. 

13. Yea ye ki ow, etc.] Ye know how 
through infirmity, etc., Auth. and the 
other Vv. except Wicl, Rhem., bi in- 
firmyte; Cov., in weakness. The 
slight changes made by substituting tho 
simpler word weakness for infirmity, 
and my for the, seem to make the 
reference of the Apostle to some bodily 
affliction or illness slightly more appar 
ent. The first time] At the first, 
Auth. and the other Vv. except Wicl., 
now bifor ; Cot;. (Test.), a whyle ago : 
this translation leaves the meaning am 
biguous ; see notes. 

14. Your] * My, Avth.; sec notes. 
In my] So Wicl, Cov. (Test.), 
Rhem.; which was/ Auth., Cran. Gen., 
B/ /tfi., and sim. Tynd. Loathed] 
Rejected, Auth., Rhem.; forsaken, 
Wicl.; abhorred/ Tynd., Cran., Gen., 
Bish. Yea] So Tynd., Cov. 
(Test.), Gen.: even/ Auth., Cov., Cran, 
Bish.; Wicl., Rhem. omit. 

15. Of u liat naturr, etc.] Where* is 
then the blessedness ye spake of/ Auth.; 



CHAP IV. 1524 

your blessedness ? for I bear you record, that, if it had been possi 
ble, ye would have plucked out your eyes, and have given them to 
me. 16 So then, am I become your enemy, by speaking to you the 

17 They pay you court in no honest way ; yea, they desire to 
exclude you, that ye may pay THEM court. 18 But it is good to be 
courted in honesty AT ALL TIMES, and not only when I am present 
with you ... 19 My little children, of whom I am again in travail, 
until Christ be formed in you, 20 1 could indeed wish to be present 
with you now, and to change my tone, for I am perplexed about 

21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the 
law ? ffi For it is written, that Abraham had two sons ; one by the 
bond-maid, and one by the free-woman. *" Howbeit, he who was 
of the bond-maid was born after the flesh ; but he of the free-maid 
was through the promise. 24 All which things are allegorical ; for 

your blcssynge/ Wicl. ; how happy 
were ye then, Tynd., Cov.; your hap- 
pyncssc, Cov. ( Test ) ; your felicitie, 
Cran., Dish ; boasting of your fel., Gen ; 
your blessedness, Ehem. Your] 

So Wicl, Cov. (Test.), Ehem.: your 
own, Auth. and the remaining Vv. 

1C. So then] Am I therefore, Auth. 
and the other Vv. except Wicl.. Ehem., 
thannc. By speaking] Because 

I tell, Anth. and the other Vv. except 
Wicl., seiynge ; Cov. (Test.), Ehem, 

17. Pay you court, etc.] Zealously 
affect you, but not well, Auth.; gclous 
over you amyssc, Tynd. and other Vv. 
except Wicl., loucn you not well; 
Ehem., emulate. Desii to] 
Would, Auth., Wicl., Cov., Ehem.; 
intcnde to, Tyd., Cran., Gen., Dish.; 
wyll, Cov. (Test.). Afity jxiy 
them court] Might affect them, Auth. 

18. To lie courted, etc.] To be zeal 
ously affected always in a good thing, 
Auth.: to be fervent, Tynd., Cov., Cran.; 
to love earnestly, Gen.; to be zelous, 

19. Am again] Travail in birth again, 

20. / could indeed wish] I desire, 
Auth.; but I desire, Bish.; I woldc I 
were, Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen., and 
similarly the remaining Vv. Tone] 
Voice, Auth. and all the other Vv. 
Am perplexed, etc] I stand in doubt of 
you, Auth., and similarly Tynd., Cov., 
Cran, Gen., Bish ; am ashamed of you, 
Cov. (Test.); am confoundid, Wicl., 

22. One and one] So Wicl., Ehem: 
the one the other, Auth. and the re 
maining Vv. except Cov. (Test.), the 
one and one. The lond-maid 
.... the free-woman] Sim. Ehem.: A 
bond-maid . . . a free-woman, Auth., and 
sim. the remaining Vv. 

23.] Eut, Aulh, Wicl., Cov. 
(Test.), Ehem.; yce and, Tynd, Cran., 
Gen. ; Cov. omits. Bond-maid] 
Bond-woman, Auth. Through] 
By, Auth., and sim. remaining Vv. 
except Cov. (Test), after. 

24. All which, etc.] Which things are 
an allegory, Auth.; ben seide bi anothir 

CHAP. IV. 2431. 



these women are two covenants, the one from Mount Sinai, 
bearing children unto bondage ; and this is A gar. " For the word 
Agar signifieth in Arabia Mount Sinai ; and she ranketh with 
Jerusalem which now is, for she is in bondage with her children. 

26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, AND SHE is our mother. 

27 For it is written, Rejoice thou barren that bearest not ; break 
forth and cry, thou that travailest not : for many children hath the 
desolate one more than she which hath an husband. ^ But ye, 
brethren, as Isaac was, are children of PROMISE. ^ Still as then, he 
that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the 
Spirit, even so it is now. * Nevertheless what saith the scripture ? 
Cast out the bond-maid and her son : for the son of the bond-maid 
shall in no wise BE HEIR with the son of the free-woman. 31 Where 
fore, brethren, we are not children of a bond-maid, but of the free- 
woman. CHAP. V. Stand fast then in the liberty for which 

nnderstondinge, Wicl. ; betoken mys 
tery, Ti/nd.; betoken somewhat, Cov.; 
are spoken by an allegory, Cran., and 
sim. Cov. (Test.), Rhem.; by the which 
thinges another thing is ment, Gen., 
Bish. Two] * The two, Auth. 

These, women] So Tynd., Con.; these, 
Auth. and the remaining Vv. except 
Gen., these mothers. Bearing 

children, etc.] Which gendereth to. Auth. 
and the other Vv. except WicL, Rhem., 
1 gendrynge ; Cov. (Test), engendrynge. 
And this] Which, Auth. 

25. The word, etc.] This Agar is 
Mount Sinai in Arabia, Auth., Bisk. 
( the mount ) ; for mounte S. is called 
A. in Arab., Ti/nd.; for Agar is called 
in Arabia the Mount Sin., Cov.; for 
Sin. is a mountaine in Ar., Gen., Cov. 
(Test.), Rhem. Ranketh with] 
Answercth to, Auth., Gen.; is joyned 

to it, WicL, Cov. (Test.); bordereth 
upon, Tynd., Cran., Bish. (see notes); 
reachcth unto, Cov. ; hath affinitie 
to, Rhem. For she] * And she, 


26. And she, etc.] Which is the 
mother of us all, Auth. 


27. For many more, etc.] Sim. Rhem.: 
for the desolate hath many more chil 
dren than she which hath, Auth. 

An husband] So Auth. and all the other 
Vv. Idiom seems to require this less 
accurate translation. 

28. But ye] Now * we, Auth. 
Children] So Tynd., Gen: the children, 
Auth. and the remaining Vv. except 

WicL, sones. 

29. Still] But, Auth. and all the 
other Vv. 

30. Bond-maid (bis)] Bondwoman, 
Auth. Shall in no wise] So Bish. 
(ed. 2): shall not, Auth. and all the 
other Vv. This seems one of the cases 
in which we may press the translation 
of ou ny : see notes on 1 Thess. iv. 15. 

31. Wherefore] * So then, Auth. 
A bond-maid] The bondwoman, Auth. 
and all the other Vv. Free-woman] 
Free, Auth. 

CHAPTER V. 1. Then] Therefore, 
Auth. and the other Vv. except WicL, 
Rhem., which omit For which] 

Wherewith, Auth., Tynd, Cran., Bish.: 
WicL, Gen., follow different readings. 



CHAP. V. 17. 

Christ made us free, and be not held fast again in a yoke of 

2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, CHRIST 
will profit you nothing. 3 Yea I testify again to every man who 
has himself circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the WHOLE law. 
4 Ye have been done away with from Christ, whosoever of you are 
being justified in the law ; ye are fallen away from grace. 5 For 
we, by the Spirit, are tarrying for the hope of righteousness from 
faith. 6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth anything, 
nor uncircumcision, but faith working through love. 

7 Ye were running well ; who did hinder you that ye should not 

Made us] Hath made, Auth. Held 

fust, etc.] Entangled again with a, Auth., 
wrappe not yourselves in the, Tynd., 
Cran., and sim. Cov., Gen.; be not lioldcn 
with (in the, Wicl.), Cov. (Test.) Rhem. 

2. 117/7] Shall/ Auth. and the other 
Vv. except Cov. (present) ; simple predi 
cation of result : in primis personis shall 
simplicitcr praediecntis est, will quasi 
promittentis aut minantis; in secundis 
et tertiis personis shall promittentis est 
aut minantis, will simpliciter prtediccn- 
tis, Wallis, Gr. Anal, p. 106. 

3. Yea] For/ Auth., Gen., Dish.; 
and/ Wicl., Cor. (Test.), Rhem.; Tynd., 
Cov., Cran. omit. Who has him 
self, etc.] That is circumcised/ Auth., 
and similarly Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen., 
Dish.; circumcidith hym silf/ Wicl.; 
sim. Cov. (Test.), Rhem. 

4. Ye have, etc.] Christ is become of 
no effect unto you/ Auth.; and yc ben 
voidid aweie fro/ Wicl.; arc gone quyte 
from/ Tynd., Cov., Gen.; Christ is be 
come but in veyne unto/ Cran., Dish.; 
arc evacuated from/ Rhem. Here idiom 
seems to require the English perfect : 
the pure aoristic translation, yc were 
done away with from Christ/ stands in 
too marked a contrast with the following 
present, and to the Enylish reader too 
completely transfers the action to what 
is purely past ; see notes on 1 Thess. ii. 

16 (Transl.). Are being justified] 

Are justified/ Auth. and the other Vv. 
except Cov., wyll be made ryghteous ; 
Cov. (Test ), are made ryghteous. 
In the] So Wicl., Rhem.: in the/ Auth. 
and the remaining Vv. Fallen 

away] Fallen, Auth. 

5. By the Spirit, etc.] Through the 
Spirit wait for the hope of right, by faith/ 
Auth., Dish.; we loke for and hope in the- 
sprite to be justified thorow, Tynd.,Cran.; 
in the sprite of hope to be made ryght- 
uous by faith/ Cov.; in sprite by faytho 
we waytc for/ Cov. (Test.); we wayt 
for (by the Spirit through faith) the hope 
of, Gen. Are tarrying for] Wait 
for/ Auth. Cov. (Test.), Gen. Dish.; 
abidcn/ Wicl.; lokc for/ Tynd., Cran.; 
way te/ Cov.; expect/ Rhem. 

6. Working] Which worked)/ Auth. 
and the other Vv. except Wicl., Rhem., 
that workcth / Cov., which by lone is 
mighty. The practice of inserting the 
relative before the anarthrous participle, 
even when idiom can scarcely be urged in 
its favor, is an inaccuracy that is not un 
commonly found in the older Vv. Per 
haps even in Eph. ii. 1, Col.ii. 13, it might 
seem better to adopt the concessive trans 
lation, though, etc. : see, however, notes 
inlocc. (Transl.). Through] By/ 
Auth. and all the other Vv. 

7. Were running] Did run/ Auth., 

CHAP. V. 816. 



obey the truth ? 8 The persuasion cometli not of Him that calleth 
you. 9 A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. 10 I, for my 
part, have confidence in you in the Lord, that ye will be none 
otherwise minded ; but he that troubleth you shall bear his judg 
ment, whosoever he be. u But I, brethren, if I still preach CIR 
CUMCISION, why do I still suffer persecution ? then is the offence 
of the cross done away with. 12 I would that they who are unset 
tling you would even cut themselves oft from you. 

13 For ye were called unto liberty, brethren ; only use not your 
liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by your love serve one 
another. H For the whole law is fulfilled in one saying, even in 
this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 15 But if ye bite and 
devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of 

16 Now I say, Walk by the Spirit and ye shall in no wise fulfil 

Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen, Bisk.; run- 
nen, Wicl.; ranne, Cov. (both), Rhem. 
8. The] Cran., Rhem.; this, Wicl., 
Auth., Cov. (Test.), Gen.; that, Tynd.; 
such, Cov. That calleth] So rightly 

Auth.: not called, Tynd., Gen., or is 
calling, as the iterative force involved 
in the English present more nearly ap 
proaches to the idiomatic use of the par 
ticiple than cither the past tense or the 
resolved present ; comp. notes on Phil. 
iii. 14, (Trans!.), and Latham, Enijl. 
Lang. 578 (ed. 3). 

10. I for my part] I, Auth. and 
all the other Vv. Li] So the 
other Vv. except Auth., Gen., through 

11. But I] So Cov. (Test.) : and I, 
Auth. Still (his)] Yet, Auth. 
Done away with] Ceased, Auth. and the 
other Vv. except Wicl., voidid; Rhem., 

12. Are unsettling] Trouble, Auth. 
and the other Vv. except Wicl., dis- 
turblen; Gen., do disquiet. 

Would even, etc.] I would they were even 
cut off which trouble you, Auth., and 
similarly R tem.; kuttcaweie, Wicl., Cov. 

(Test.); were seperated, Tynd., Cran.; 
were roted out, Cov. ; were cut off 
from you, Gen. 

13. For ye, etc.] For brethren ye 
have been," etc., Auth, and sim. all the 
other Vv. as to the forward position of 
brethren. The aor. e /cA^^re is trans 
lated by different auxiliaries, ye are, 

Wicl., Cov. (both), Rhem.; were, Tynd., 
Cran.; have been, Gen., Dish., Auth. 
Your liberty] So Tynd, Cov. (both), Cran., 
Gen.: liberty, Auth., Dish.; frcdom, 
Wicl. ; this liberty, Rhem. 
Your love] Love, A nth., and the other 
Vv. except Wicl., Rhem., charitc ; Cov., 
the loue. 

14. The whole] All the, Auth. and 
the other Vv. except Wicl., everi lawe. 
Sayin/j] Word, Auth. and the other 

16 Now I say] This I say then, 
Auth I save, Tynd., Cov , Cran.; then 
( and, Wicl.) I say, Gen., Bish. 
By] In the, Auth. and the other Vv. 
except Wicl, Cov. (Test.), which omit 
the article. Shall in no wise] 

Shall not, Auth., Coi\ (Test.) Gen., 
Bish ; ye schalen not parfounnc, Wicl; 



CHAP. V. 1724. 

the lust of the flesh. 17 For the flesh lustcth against the Spirit, 
and the Spirit against the flesh : for these are opposed the one to 
the other, that ye may not do the things ye may wish. ]8 But, if 
ye be led by the Spirit, ye are not under the law. 19 Now the 
works of the flesh are manifest, of which kind are, fornication, 
unclcanness, wantonness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, hatreds, strife, jeal 
ousy, deeds of wrath, caballings, dissensions, factions, zl envyings, 
murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like : of the which I 
tell you beforehand, as I also told yon beforehand, that they which 
do all such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. K But 
the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, long-suffering, benevo 
lence, goodness, trustfulness, ^ meekness, temperance : against all 
such things there is no law. 24 Now they that are Christ s have 

and fulfill not (imper.), Tynd., Cran.; 
so shall yc not fulfyll, Coy.; shal not 
accomplish, Rhcm. 

17. Are. opposed] Are contrary, Aufh. 
and nil Vv. except Wii-l., Rht-m., l>en 
adversaries togidre. That ye may 
not] Comp. Wicl.: so that yc cannot do, 
etc., Aut/i and the remaining Vv. except 
Cov. (Test.), that the thynges that ye 
will, yc do not the same; Rlirm., that 
not what things soever you wil, these 
you doe. For] * And, Anth. 
Ye may wish] The things that yc would, 
Ant/i, (! en ( the same ); that yc wvl- 
len, Wicl.; that which ye wolde, Ti/mL, 
Cor.; the thynges that ye wyll/ Cor. 
(Test.); whatsoever ye woldc, Cnm ; 
what yc woldc, Bish.; what soever 
you will, R/um. 

18. %] So Wicl, Cor (Tcst),Rhem~- 
of, Auth. and the remaining Vv. 

19. Of which kind an] Which arc 
these, Auth. and the other Vv. except 

Wicl., and Cov. (Test.), which arc. 
Fornication] * Adultery, fornication, 
Aut/i. Wantonness] Lascivious- 

ness, Auth. and the other Vv. except 
Wicl., Cor. (Test ), Rhem leechcrie. 

20. Sorcery, etc.] Witchcraft, hatred, 
* variance, * emulations, wrath, strife, 
seditions, heresies," Auth , Gen.; witehc- 

craft . . . variance, zelc . . . sectcs, Tynd., 
Cran., Bish. 

21 Tell you beforehand] Tell you 
before, Auth. and the other Vv. (Cov. 
Test., afore ) except Wicl., seie; 
foretell vou, Rhem. Told you 

b< forehand] Have also told you in time 
past, Anth.; haiic told you to for, 
Wicl.; hauc toldc you in tymc past, 
Ti/nd., Cor., Cran.; hauc toldc you, 
Gen., Bish.; hauc foretold you, Rlifm. 
All suc/t things] Such things, 
Anth. and the other Vv. except Coo. 
(hoth), such. 

22. Benevolence] Gentleness, Auth., 
Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen., Bish.; benyng- 
nite, 117(7., Rhtm. Trustfulness] 
Faith, Auth. and the other Vv. except 
Tynd., Cov., Cran., faithfulness. 

23. All such things] Such, Auth and 
the other Vv. except Wicl., suche 

24. Now they] And they, Auth., 
Wicl, Rhtm.; hut, Cov. (both) ; for, 
Gen ; they truly, Bish.: Tynd and Cran. 
omit. Hare crucified] So Auth. and all 
the other Vv. Here again it seems 
desirable to preserve the perfect in 
translation, as the English aor. tends 
to refer the crucifixion too exclusively 
to the past; see notes on verse 4. 

CHAP. VI. 17. 

G A L A T I A N S . 


crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. ^ If WE LIVE by 
the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit. * Let us not become 
vain-glorious, provoking one another, envying one another. 


1 BRETHREN, if a man should be even surprised in a fault, ye 
which are spiritual restore such an one in the spirit of meekness ; 
considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted. 2 Bear ye one 
another s burdens, and thus shall ye fulfil the law of Christ. 3 For 
if a man think himself to be something, when he is nothing, he 
deceiveth his own mind. 4 But let each man prove his own WORK, 
and then shall he have his ground of boasting only in what con- 
cerneth himself, and not in what concerneth the other. 5 For each 
man must bear his own load. 

6 But let him that is taught in the word share with him that 
teacheth in all good things. 7 Be not deceived ; God is not 
mocked : for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. 
8 For he that soweth unto his own flesh shall of the flesh reap 

25. By the . . . by the] So Wicl. ( bi. 
Spirit ): Atith. and the remaining Vv. 
in the ... in the. 

26. Become] So Cov. (Test.): be, 
Atilh., Ti/nd , Cov., Cran., Gen., Bish.; 
be made, Wicl., Rhem. Vain 
glorious] So Tynd , Cov. : desirous of 
vain glory, A nth. and the remaining Vv. 
except Wicl , coueitous of veyne glory. 

CHAPTER VI. 1. Should be even sur 
prised] Be overtaken Auth., Cov. 
(both); be occupied, Wicl.; befallen 
by chance, Tynd. ; be taken, Cran. ; 
by occasion, Gen., Bish.; be prcticcu- 
pated, Rhem. 

2. Thus shall ye, etc ] * So fulfil, 
Auth., Ti/nd.. Cran., Gen. 

3. Dfeireth his own mind] So Cran. ; 
deceiveth himself, Auth., Cov. (both); 
bigilith hym silf, Wicl. ; dcceaveth 
hym silfe in his ymaginacion, Tynd., 
Gen.; in his own faiioie, Bish.; se- 
duceth himself, Rhem. 

4. Each] So Wicl. ; every, Auth. and 
the remaining Vv. His ground 
of boast iny etc.] Rejoicing in himself 
alone and not in another, Auth., and 
similarly, Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen ., Bish.; 
haue glorie, Wicl.; : so shall he rejoice 
only in himself, Cov. (Test.); have the 
glorie, Rhem. 

5. Each] So Wicl.; every, Auth. 
and all the remaining Vv. Must 
bear] Shall bear, Auth. and all the 
other Vv. Load] Burden, Auth. 
and the other Vv. except Wicl., charge. 

6. But let him] So Cor. (both): let 
him, Auth. and the remaining Vv. ex 
cept Rhem., and let him. 

8. Unto his own flesh] To his flesh, 
Auth., Gen.; in his flcisch, Wicl., Tynd., 
Coverd. (Test.), Cran., Rhem.; upon the 
fleshe, Cov. Unto the Sj>.] To 

the Spirit, Auth. Eternal I if,-] Life 
everlasting, Auth. and the other Vv. 
except Wicl., Cov., (Test.), which pre 
serve the more correct order everlasting 



CHAP. VI. 915. 

corruption ; but he that soweth unto the Spirit shall of the Spirit 
reap eternal life. 9 But let us not lose heart in well-doing ; for in 
due season we shall reap, if now we faint not. 10 Accordingly, 
then, as we have opportunity, let us do what is good unto all men, 
hut especially unto them who are of the household of faith. 

11 See in what large letters I have written unto you with mine 
own hand. u As many as desire to make a fair show in the flesh, 
THEY constrain you to be circumcised ; only that they should not 
suffer persecution for the cross of Christ. 13 For not even do they, 
who are being circumcised, themselves keep the law ; but they 
desire to have YOU circumcised, that they may glory in your 
flesh. " But far be it from ME to glory, save in the cross of our 
Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I 
unto the world. M For neither doth circumcision avail any thing, 

life. It is not desirable to invert the or 
der in English except when the adjective 
in the original occupies the emphatic, i. e. 
the first place ; comp. Winer, Gr. 59, 
2, p. 464. On the translation of alAvtos, 
comp. notes on 2 Thess. i. 9 (Tninsl.). 

9. But] And, Auth., Wid., Cou. 
(Test.); the rest omit Si in translation. 
Let us not lose heart] Let us not *be 
weary, Anth., and sim. Tynd., Cov., 
Cran., Gen.,Bish.; faile, Wid., Rhem.: 
fayntc, Cov. (Test.) If now] If, 
Auth., Gen., Bish. ; not failynge, Wicl., 
Rhem.; without weryncs, Tynd., Cran.; 
without ceassynge, Cov. ; not ceas- 
synge, Cov. (Test.). 

10. Accordingly then, etc.] As we have 
therefore, Auth. ; therefor while, Wicl., 
and similarly the remaining Vv. 

What is good] Good, Anth. But 

especially} So Rhem., Coverd. ( spe 
cially ), and sim. Wicl, hut moost; 
Cov. (Test.), but moost of all: and 
specially, Tynd., Cran., Gen.; Auth., 
Biah. alone omit 8i in translation. If 
by the fine idiomatic turn of the house 
hold, etc., nothing more be meant than 
close and intimate union, it may be advan 
tageously retained : sec, however, notes. 

11. See] So Wid. ( se ye ), Rhem.: 
ye see, Auth , Cran., Gen., Bish.; be- 
holde, Tynd, Cov. (both). In what, 
etc.] -How large a letter, Anth., Tynd., 
Cran., Gen., Bish. ; with how many 
words, Cov. ; with what manner of let 
ters, Rliem., and sim. Wicl.; with what 
letters, Cov. (Test.). 

1 2. That they, etc.] Lest they should, 
Anth., Cov. (both), Cran.; that thei 
suflfrc, Wicl. ; because they wolde not, 
Tynd., Gen. ; that they may not, 

13. Not even, etc.] Neither they them 
selves who are circumcised, Auth. and 
all the other Vv. The circum 
cision-party, is far from an improbable 
translation ; see notes. They desire] De 
sire, Auth. 

14. Far be it] So Wid., Cov., (Test.) : 
God forbid that I should glory, Auth. 
and the remaining Vv. To glory] 
That I should glory, Auth., Bish., 
Rhem ; to haue gloric, Wid. ; that I 
shuld rejoycc. Tynd., Cov., Cran., Gen. ; 
to rejoyce, Cov. (Test ). 

15. for neither, etc.] For * in Christ 
Jesus nei.her circumcision availeth, 

CHAP. VI. 1618. 



nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. 16 And as many as walk 
according to this rule, peace be upon them, and mercy, and upon 
the Israel of God. ir Henceforth let no man trouble me : for I 
bear in my body the marks of Jesus. 

18 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit, 
brethren. Amen. 

16. Ujion] So Cov.,Rhem.: on, Auth. 
and the remaining Vv. except Cov. 
(Test), unto them; Gen., shal be to 

17. Henceforth] From henceforth, 
Auth. and the other Vv. except WicL, 

1 and here aftir. Of 

Jesus] Of the * Lord Jesus, Auth. 

18. The grace] Brethren, the grace, 
Auth. and the other Vv. except Wicl., 
Cov. (Test.), Rhcm., which adhere to 
the order in the original. 






" T~ 







o Q o n c 4 

o o u D 

* < ~"V I ~ - T-,