See other formats

Full text of "Commentary on the Greek text of the epistle of Paul to the Galatians"

:CO 



A COMMENTARY 



ON THE 



rREEK TEXT OF THE EPISTLE OF PAUL 



TO 



THE GALATIANS. 



BY 



JOHN EADIE, D.D., LL.D., 

PROFESSOR OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE AND EXEGESIS TO THE UNITED 
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 



EDINBURGH : 

T. & T. CLARK, 38, GEORGE STREET. 
LONDON: HAMILTON & CO. DUBLIN: JOHN ROBERTSON & CO. 

MDCCCLXIX. 



-MURRAY AND GIBE, EDINBURGH. 
1 KIXTLRS TO HER MAJESTY S STATIONERY OFFICE 



PREFACE. 



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



VI PREFACE. 

to biblical interpretation, as may be seen in so many of the 
proof-texts attached to Confessions of Faith. The divine words 
of Scripture are " spirit and life," and have an inherent vitality, 
while the truth wedged into a system has often become as a 
mummy swathed up in numerous folds of polemical dialectics. 

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



PREFACE. Vll 

sudden and perfect intuitions which he terms Revelation. The 
contents and circumstances of the epistle endeared it to Luther, 
for it fatted in wondrously to his similar experiences and trials, 
and he was wont to call it, as if in conjugal fondness, his 
Katherine von Bora. One may also cordially indorse the 
eulogy of Bunyan : " I prefer this book of Martin Luther s 
(except the Bible) before all the books that I have ever seen, 
as most fit for a wounded conscience." For the epistle un 
veils the relation of a sinner to the law which condemns him, 
and from which, therefore, he cannot hope for acceptance, 
and it opens up the great doctrine of justification by faith, 
which modern spiritualism either ignores or explains away. 
Its explicit theology is, that through faith one enjoys pardon 
and has the Spirit conferred upon him, so that he is free from 
legal yoke ; while his life is characterized by a sanctified 
activity and self-denial, for grace is not in conflict with such 
obedience, but is rather the spring of it death to the law 
being life to God. It is also a forewarning to all time of the 
danger of modifying the freeness and fulness of the gospel, 
and of allowing works or any element of mere ritual to be 
mixed up with the atoning death of the Son of God, as if to 
give it adaptation or perfection. 

Any one writing on Galatians must acknowledge his obli 
gation to the German exegets, Meyer, De Wette, Wieseler, and 
the others who are referred to in the last chapter of the Intro 
duction. Nor can he forget to thank, among others at home, 
Bishop Ellicott, Dean Alford, and Prof. Lightfoot, for their 
learned and excellent labours. Each of these English com 
mentaries has its distinctive merits ; and my nope is, that this 
volume, while it has much in common with them, will be found 
to possess also an individual character and value, the result of 
unwearied and independent investigation. Ellicott is distin 
guished by close and uniform adherence to grammatical canon, 
without much expansion into exegesis ; Alford, from the fact 
that his exposition extends to the whole New Testament, is of 



Vlll PREFACE. 

necessity brief and somewhat selective in his remarks ; while 
Lightfoot himself says, that " in his explanatory notes such 
interpretations only are discussed as seemed at all events possi 
bly right, or are generally received, or possess some historical 
interest;" and his collateral discussions occupy longer space than 
the proper exposition. I have endeavoured, on the other hand, 
to unite grammatical accuracy with some fulness of exegesis, 
giving, where it seemed necessary, a synopsis of discordant 
views, and showing their insufficiency, one-sidedness, ungram- 
matical basis, or want of harmony with the context ; treating 
a doctrine historically, or throwing it into such a form as may 
remove objection ; noticing now and then the views and argu 
ments of Prof. Jowett ; and, as a new feature in this volume, 
interspersing several separate Essays on important topics. 
Authorities have not been unduly heaped together ; in the 
majority of cases, only the more prominent or representative 
names have been introduced. The text is for the most part, 
but not always, the seventh edition of Tischendorf, to whom 
we are indebted for the Codex Sinaiticus N*, and for his recent 
and exact edition of the Vatican Codex of the New Testament. 

My thanks are due to Mr. John Cross, student of Balliol 
College, Oxford, for looking over the sheets as they passed 
through the press. 

And now, as an earnest and honest attempt to discover the 
mind of the Spirit in His own blessed word, I humbly dedicate 
this volume to the Church of Christ. 



JOHX EADIE. 



6 THORNVILLE TERRACE, BILLHEAD, 
GLASGOW, 1st January 1869. 



CONTENTS. 



SOME of the longer illustrations and separate discussions referred to 

in the Preface are noted in the following brief Table of Contents : 

PAGE 

Abraham in him, with him, . 

Accursed, 

Adoption, 

All things to all men, . . 

Allegory, . . 359-363 

Antagonism, inner, ..... 

Brothers of our Lord, neither step-brethren nor cousins patristic 

and modern theories reviewed (a Dissertation), . . 57-100 

Christ s self-oblation not a mere Jewish image, as Jowett affirms, 12 

Clementines, , 199-200 

Cut off which trouble you meaning of the phrase, . 397-400 

Druidisni, ..... xxxiv-xxxix 

Dying to the law living to God, 

Elements, . . 295 

Faith, life by, . 

Fault, overtaken in, 

Flesh, works of, . 415-420 

Four hundred years, . 259-261 

Galatia province its history, . 

Population of, Keltic in blood, . xx 

Introduction of the gospel into, . xxviii 

Epistle to contents of, . xxxix 

,, genuineness of, . . xlvii 

,, commentators on, . Ixii 

Hagar Mount Sinai : allegory, 364-368 

Harmony of Paul with the other apostles, . . 123-135 

Israel of God, ... 470 

James brother ; relationship discussed, . 57-100 

James, certain from, at Antioch, . 397 

Jowett on atonement, reviewed, . 12, 192-194 

Judaism, exclusiveness of, 



X CONTENTS. 

PAGE 

Justification by faith, ..... 1GG, 229-235 

Law, meaning of, ...... 103-104 

Law as instrument of death to itself, .... 182 

Law 430 years after the promise, .... 259 

Law, uses of, etc., ...... 2G2-2G9 

Law, not under meaning of, . . . . . 412-415 

Law a paedagogue, ...... 279-284 

Love the fulfilment of the law, . . 402-400 

Letters, large, used by the apostle, .... 454-459 

Mediator not of one God is one, .... 2G7-275 

Xatnes of the Saviour meaning and varying use, . . 109-170 

Paganism, religious truth underlying, . . . . 312 

Paul and Peter at Antioch long correspondence between Jerome 

and Augustine on the subject (a Dissertation), . . 198-213 

Putting on Christ, .... . 280-287 

Revelation, its nature, ...... 45 

Righteousness, ....... 227-230 

Sarah, Jerusalem above, ..... 368-309 

Seasons, sacred condemna titoa of keeping them, no argument 

against Christian Sabbath-keeping, . . . 313-317 

Seed harvest, . . ... 444-448 

Seeds Seed, ..... . 25G-258 

Sinners, found to be meaning of the phrase, . . . 170-177 

Son, minor, servant Roman law, .... 290-290 

Spirit, fruit of, ... . 421-420 

Thorn in the flesh, the apostle s infirmity in Galatia (a Disserta 
tion), ..... 329-345 

Visits of the apostle to Galatia, .... xxviii-xxxi 

Visits of the apostle to Jerusalem (a Dissertation). . . 133-145 



GREEK WORDS AND PHRASES. 



A/3/3S 6 Trarij/j, . 

A8f\<pos TOV Kvpiov, . 



Afiapnav with dj/rl, Tiepi, 



AtreAyeta, 



Aid, .. 

AiadrjKT), . 

AlKatOCTVVT), SiKCllUO), 

Acopeai/, . 



Els, eVo s, . 

Evdi/o/uit, . 

"Epya z/d/iov, . 

Eptdeia, . 

"Erepoy, . 

ZijAoff, . 

zijv, ^17, . 

euro s, . 

KXI/tti, . 

Aoyifo/iat V, . 



Ov8e yap, 



PAGE 

.. 303 

.. 57100 
.. 14 
.. 220 

. . 10 
. .26-28 
.. 95 
. . .416 
. .215 

. 102, 320-325 

.. 453 

. 229235 

. . 196 
, . 424 
. 269-274 
.. 286 
.. 163 
.. 418 
. .22 
417 

185-190 

. .417 
, .53 

. 228-229 
. .19 
.. 445 

163-164, 262-269 
.. 453 

.. 35 

. .282 
. .41 

.. 455 
244-246 



Xll GREEK WORDS AND PHRASES. 

PAGE 

Hpocrcinrov Aa/z/3aVe if, .... 120 

..... GO 



..... 
2irepp.a. .... 255-258 

Srty/na, . . . . .472 

Srot^eta, . . . 295 

2ri\os,jig. . . . .126 

2w, eV, . . . 238-240 

..... 423 



EEKATA. 



Page 15, line 6 from foot, for /mra rmtZ /card. 

Page 44, lowest line, for fjfj.ds read fmas. 

Page 56, line 2 from top, for bearing read losing. 

Page 120, line 15 from top, for Aa/i/3am rc 

Page 134, line 4 from foot, for 7re(j)opr)K5)s read Tr 

Page 364, line 6 from foot, for Pro read De. 

Page 418, line 19 from top, for ?) read f] ; for epideia read 

Page 459, line 6 from foot, for Pro read De. 



INTRODUCTION, 



I. THE PROVINCE OF GALATIA. 

Galatia or Gallogrsecia of the " Acts," the region to 
JL which this epistle was sent, was a central district in Asia 
Minor, bounded on the north by Bithynia and Paphlagonia, on 
the south by Cappadocia and Phrygia, on the east by Pontus 
and Cappadocia, and on the west by Phrygia and Bithynia. 
The Roman province of Galatia was considerably larger than 
this territory, and comprised Lycaonia, Isauria, Phrygia, and 
Pisidia the kingdom as ruled by the last sovereign Amyntas. 1 
Some critics therefore hold that this epistle was sent espe 
cially to believers in Lystra and Derbe ; Mynster, Niemeyer, 
Paulus, Ulrich, Bottger, and Thiersch arguing that in the 
reign of Nero, Galatia included Derbe and Lystra along with 
Pisidia, and that therefore in Acts xiii. and xiv. there are full 
details of the apostle s missionary labours in the province. But 
Galatia is not used in the New Testament in this wide Roman 
sense ; it has always a narrower signification. For by its side 
occur the similar names of Mysia, Pisidia, and Phrygia. Nay, 
Lycaonia, Pisidia, Phrygia all included in the Roman province 
are uniformly mentioned as countries distinct from Galatia ; 
the obvious inference being that the terms denote various locali 
ties, without reference to political divisions. Thus the author of 

1 Galatia quoque suit hoc provincia facta est, citm antea regnum fuisfset 
primusque camM. Lollius pro prsetore administravit. Eutropius, vii. 8. Tot/ 
3 AftvvTOV r&wr haot.VTns oil tolg Trotiffiv minou TVJV dpx,^" iiFfrff>^lit t XX s; 
Tqy i/Trqxoov lasjyissye, KOC.I wru x.a.1 y Ycthartot ftiTct TV; Avzaovt as fufActlov 
Kpxoyra, ia^e. Dion Cassius, liii. 3, vol. ii. p. 48, ed. Bekker. See also 
Strabo, xii. 5, 1. Pliny puts the Lystrem in the catalogue of the tribes 
occupying the Roman province : Hist. Nat. vii. 42. 



XIV INTRODUCTION. 

the Acts describes the apostle and his party as going "throughout 
Phrygia and the region of Galatia" (Acts xvi. 6); and these are 
again distinguished from Lycaonia and Pisidia, Acts xiii. 14, 
xiv. 6, 24. Nay, the phrase first quoted ryv (frpwylav KOI r^v 
Ta\arLKr]v ^copais, " the Phrygian and Galatian country"- 
implies that while Phrygia and Galatia were different, they 
were closely connected geographically; for the Galatian district 
was bounded south and west by Phryffia, nay, it had originally 

v , O */ / O 

been Phrygian territory before it was conquered and possessed 
by the Gauls. 1 The towns of Lystra and Derbe, " cities of 
Lycaonia," with Iconium and Antioch, are never regarded as 
belonging to the apostolic Galatia, though the Roman Galatian 
province apparently included them. At the same time, in the 
enumeration of places in 1 Pet. i. 1, an enumeration running 
from east to west, Galatia may be the Roman province men 
tioned with the others there saluted. 

The compound name TaXko^/paiKia Gallogrecia Greek 
Gaul, is connected with the eastward migration of a fragment 
of the great old Keltic race which peopled western Europe. 
Indeed, Keltai, Galli, Galatse, are varying forms of the same 
name. The first of these terms, Ke\rol, KeXrat, is probably 
the earliest, being found in Hecatasus 2 and Herodotus ; 3 while 
the other form, JaXcma, is more recent (o-v^e), as is affirmed 
by Pausanias, 4 though it came to be generally adopted by 
Greek writers as the name as well of the eastern tribes in Asia 
Minor, as of the great body of the people to the west of the 
Rhine. It occurs on the Augustan monument in the town of 
Ancyra ; and being applied alike to the Asiatic and Euro 
pean Gauls, there needed occasionally some geographical nota 
tion to be added, such as that found in ./Elian PaXara? 
JEuSo^o? TOU? rijf jEcoa? \eyet, Spav roiavra ; and it has been 
found on an inscription dug out from Hadrian s Wall in the 
north of Enland. Diefenbach* shows that this name had an 



1 Strabo writes : \v (>s rrt ftiaoyxix Tqy n (frpv/iay, q; itrri ftip o; 57 n TUV 
TaKhoypoiixuv hsyofttvYi YxhctTitx. : Gcofj. ii. 5, 31. 

2 Fragment. 19, 20, 21, ed. Miiller. 

3 Hist. ii. 33, iv. 49. Polybius, ii. 13 ; Diodorus Sic. v. "2-2. See 
Suidas, sub race FAXo/, and the Etymologicum Magnum, sab voce 

4 Dcscript. Gnxc. i. 3, 5, vol. i. p. 18, ed. Scliubart. 

5 DC Nat. Anim. xvii. 19, vol. i. p. 382, ed. Jacobs. 
G Cdtica, ii. p. C, etc., Stuttgart 1839-40. 



KELTS, GAULS, GALATIANS. XV 

extensive range of application. Ammianus Marcellinus 1 says, 
Galatas ita enim Gallos Sermo Grcecus adpellat ; and Appian 2 
explains, e? rrjv Ke\riKrjv rrjv vvv Xeyo/jiev rjv PaXarlav. Galli 
JTaXXoi, Gauls was the current Roman name, though the 
other terms, Kelt and Galatian, are also used by Latin writers 
the last being confined to the people who had settled them 
selves in Phrygia. Julius Caesar s 3 words are, tertiam qui ipso- 
rum lingua, Celtce, nostra Galli appellantur. Livy, 4 in narrating 
the eastern wars in Galatia, calls the people Galli. Pa\\la 
is also employed by late Greek writers, and at a more recent 
period it almost superseded that of Galatia. Theodore of Mop- 
suestia has ra<? vvv KaXovfjiev^ .TaXX/a? ad 2 Tim. iv. 10, 
Fragm. p. 156, ed. Fritzsche. Diefenbach 6 quotes from Galen, 
De Antidot. i. 2, a clause identifying the three names : KaXovcn 
<yap avTOVs evioi fj,ev PaXara?, evioi Be PaXXov?, avvrjOea-repov 
e TWV Ke\T(ov ovofjia. Strabo 7 reports some difference of lan 
guage among the western Galata3 a statement which may be 
at once believed, for, not to speak of Welsh and Erse, such 
variations are found in places so contiguous as the counties 
of Inverness and Argyle. Appian, 8 speaking of the Pyrenees, 
pays, " that to the east are the Kelts, now named Galatians and 
Gauls, and to the west Iberians and Keltiberians." But the 
names are sometimes used vaguely, and sometimes also for the 
sake of inter-distinction, as in the definition of Hesychius, 
Ke\rol eOvos erepov Ta\cnS)v ; in Diogenes Laertius, 9 -KeXroi? 
KOI Ta\drai<^ , and in fine, we have also the name KeXro- 
7<zXo.Tta. These ethnological statements imply that the know 
ledge of ancient writers on the subject was not only vague and 
fluctuating, but often merely traditionary and conjectural, and 
that the various names Greek and Roman, earlier and later, 
eastern and western given to this primitive race, led to great 
confusion and misunderstanding. Perhaps it is not far from 
the truth to say that Kelt was the original name, the name em- 

1 xv. 9. 2 Hann. iv. p. 115, vol. i. ed. Bekker. 3 Bell. Gall. i. 

4 Hist, xxxviii. 12, 27. For these various names, see also Contzen, 
die Wanderungen der Kelten, p. 3, Leipzig 1861 ; Gliick, die lei C. J. 
Csesar vorkommende Keltischen Namen, Miinchen 1857. 

5 Wright s Celt, Roman, and Saxon, p. 325. G Celtica, ii. 7. 
7 Geog. iv. 1, 1. 8 Hisp. i. p. 48, vol. i. ed. Bekker. 
P. 1, vol. i. ed. Huebner. 



XVI INTRODUCTION. 

ployed by the people themselves; and that the Greeks, on getting 
the name or some peculiar variation of it, represented it by 
Galatse ; while the Romans, by another initial change far from 
being uncommon, pronounced it Galli the t or at in Kelt 
or Galat being a species of Keltic suffix. 1 Not only is the 
initial letter of Kelti and Galli interchangeable, but there is a 
form KaXarla, Kd\arov, allied, according to some, to Cael- 
don the Gauls of the hills Celadon, Caledonii. The northern 
form of the word is Gadhael, Gaidheal, or Gaoidheal, of which 
the Scottish term Gael is a contraction. Hence Argyle is ar- 
Gadhael, the coast of the Gael, and Argyle has become Argyll, 
just as Gael became Gall, Galli. The conflicting mythical 
derivations of the name need not be referred to ; it seems to 
be allied to the Irish Gal, " a battle," Gala, " arms," and will 
therefore mean "armed" pugnaces, ar-mati? This derivation 
is abundantly verified in their history, for they were, as Strabo 
says, "warlike, passionate, and ever prepared to fight." 3 The 
essential syllable in the earlier name is found in Celtiber, 
Ke\Tij3i)pi and the other form, Gall, makes the distinctive part 
of Gallicia, a province in the Spanish peninsula, of Galway 
and of Galloway, connected with the idea of foreign or hostile ; 
hence the old Scottish proverb about " the fremd Scots of 
Galloway." The same syllable formed portion of the grand 
chieftain s name latinized by Tacitus into Galgacus, into whose 
mouth, in his oration before the decisive battle, the son-in-law 
of the Roman general puts those phrases which in their point 
and terseness have passed into proverbs : omne ignotum pro 
magnifico ; solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant? 

The Celtic races were among the earliest migrations from 
the East, and occupied western Europe ; they were as far 
west, according to Herodotus, as to be " beyond the Pillars of 
Hercules" "they are near the Kynetae, which are the most 
western population of Europe." 5 They were also found in 
northern Italy, France, and the British Isles. Many Latin 

1 T derirans in nominibus GaUicia rel Britannicis vetustis. Sinyularis 
accedcns ad radiccm as Critognatus from <jnu. Zeuss, Grammatica Celtica, 
vol. ii. pp. 757, 758, Lipsiae 1853. 

2 Do. vol. i. p. 993. 3 Geog. iv. 4, "2. 

4 Agricolse Hta, xxx. p. 287, Op. vol. iv. eel. Rupcrti. 

5 ii. 33, iv. 49. Plutarch, Vitx, Marius, p. 284, vol. ii. ed. Bekkcr. 



KELTIC EXPEDITIONS. XVli 

terms connected with war are of Keltic origin. 1 But the 
ocean prevented any farther westward progress, and in their 
restlessness the Kelts retraced their steps, and commenced a 
series of movements towards the East. After some minor 
expeditions, and in the year 390 B.C., a portion of them, under 
Brennus or Bran, crossed the Apennines, captured Rome, 
and spread themselves over the south of Italy. According to 
Livy and Diodorus, these invaders came from the vicinity of 
Sens, and were therefore Kelts according to Caesar s account 

/ o 

of the races of Gaul. Others suppose them to have belonged 
to the Kymric branch of the Gauls : Kip/Spot, Ki/m/Aeplot,? 
About 279 B.C. another body of Gauls, under a leader of 
the same name, rushed eastward into Greece, overran Thrace 
and Macedonia, found immense wealth, and enriched them 
selves for another and more violent expedition, their forces 
being said to consist of 150,000 infantry and 61,000 cavalry. 
These hardy hordes otytyovoi T troves, late-born Titans 
swarmed thick as snow-flakes vufidSeo-a-iv eot/core?, as the 
poet describes them. 3 On pushing their way to Thermopylae 
so famed in olden story, they met 20,000 Greeks assembled to 
defend the pass, the shore being guarded also by an Athenian 
fleet. The Gauls, in spite of their numbers, were beaten 
back ; and one party of them, crossing the mountains into 
.ZEtolia, ravaged the country with incredible barbarity. The 
leader then marched in haste on Delphi, gloating over 
the rich prize that should fall into his hands the sacred 
treasures and statues and chariots dedicated to the sun-god ; 
profanely joking, according to Justin, 4 that the gods were so 
rich that they could afford to be givers as well as receivers. 
But the Delphian Greeks, mustering only 4000, proved more 
than a match for Brennus and his impatient troops. The 
defenders had an advantageous situation on the hill, and, 
aided by a stern arid intense wintry cold, they bravely re 
pulsed the barbarians. Their general, wounded and carried off 

1 Pri chard s Eastern Origin of the Celtic Nations, p. 124, Latham s ed. 

2 Appian, Celtic, vol. i. pp. 34, 42, ed. Bekker ; Diodor. Sic. v. 32 ; 
Arnold s History of Rome, vol. i. p. 524, etc., 3d ed. 

3 Callimachus, ad Delum. 175, p. 33, ed. Blomfield. 

4 Justin, xxiv. 6. Contzen, Wanderungen der Kelten, p. 193, etc.; 
Wernsdorf, De liepub. Galat. vii. ; Pausanias, Descript. Grxc. x. 19. 

b 



XVlll INTRODUCTION. 

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



SETTLEMENT IN ASIA MINOR. XIX 

clized them, and they are found in Egyptian as well as in 
Syrian battles. But they were dangerous friends ; for after 
helping to gain a battle for Antiochus Hierax, they turned and 
compelled him to ransom himself and form a bond with them. 
Their spreading over the country like a swarm velut examen, 
and the terror Gallici nominis et armorum invicta felicitas, are 
referred to by Justin. 1 In this way they became the terror of all 
states, an ungovernable army, whose two-edged sword was ever 
ready to be drawn to glut their own lust of booty, and which, when 
paid for, often cut on either side of the quarrel for which they 
had been bought, and was seldom sheathed. They knew their 
power, and acted according to their wild and rapacious instincts. 
But their unquenchable turbulence became intolerable. Atta- 
lus, prince of Pergamus and father of Eumenes, gained a great 
victory over them, or rather over the two tribes, the Trocmi 
and Tolistoboii ; he refused to pay them tribute, and hemmed 
them into the province proper of Galatia, about B.C. 230. 2 Yet 
we find Attains employing another horde of the same hirelings 
in one of his wars, who, as their wont had been, broke loose 
from all restraint, and plundered the countries and towns along 
the Hellespont, till their defeat by Prusias, about B.C. 216. 3 
But Rome was about to avenge its earlier capture. Some 
Gallic or Galatian troops had fought on the side of Antiochus 
at the battle of Magnesia ; and the consul Manlius, against the 
advice of the decem legati who were with him, at once invaded 
their country, while the native Phrygian hierarchy, trodden 
down by the Gauls, encouraged the invaders. The Gauls, on 
being summoned to submit, refused stolida ferocia; but they 
were soon defeated, in two campaigns and in a series of battles, 
with prodigious slaughter. Certain conditions were imposed on 
them, but their country was not wrested from them. They may 
by this time have lost their earlier hardihood, and, as Niebuhr 
remarks, have become quite effeminate and unwarlike, as the 
Goths whom Belisarius found in Italy. Fifty- two Gallic chiefs 
walked before the triumphal car of Manlius at Rome, B.C. 189. 
In subsequent years they were often employed as indispensable 
auxiliaries; they served both with Mithridates and with Pompey 
who showed them some favour, and some of them were at 
Actium on the side of Antony. Roman patronage, however, 
1 Hist. Philip, xxv. 2. 2 Livy, lib. xxxviii. 16. 3 Polybius, v. 11. 



XX INTRODUCTION. 

soon crushed them. Deiotarus, first tetrarch, and then made 
king by Pompey, was beaten at Pharsalia, but he was defended 
at Rome by Cicero ; the second king of the same name was 
succeeded by Amyntas, on whose death Augustus reduced the 
country to the rank of a Roman province, B.C. 25, the first 
governor of which was the proprietor, M. Lollius. The differ 
ence between the limits of Galatia and the Roman province 
so named has been already referred to. 

The Gauls who had so intruded themselves into Asia 
Minor, and formed what Juvenal 1 calls altera Gallia, were 
divided into three tribes : the names of course have been 
formed with Greek terminations from the native terms which 
may not be very accurately represented. These three tribes 
were the To\ta-To/3o<yioi, to the west of the province, with 
Pessinus for their capital ; the TeKroa-dyes in the centre, with 
Ancyra for their chief city which was also the metropolis of the 
country ; and the TpoKfjioi, to the east of the territory, their 
principal town being Tavium. 2 Each tribe was divided into 
four tetrarchies, having each its tetrarch, with a judge and a 
general under him ; and there was for the twelve tetrarchies a 
federal council of 300, who met at Drynaemetum, or oak- 
shrine the first syllable of the word being the Keltic denv, 
oak (Derwydd, Druid), and nemed in the same tongue mean 
ing a temple. 3 That, says Strabo, was the old constitution 
TraXai, fiev ovv r]v Toiavrr] -m ?} Siara^t?. 4 

The previous statements, however, have been questioned, 
and it has been denied that those fierce marauders were Gauls. 
There are, it is true, contradictions and uncertainties among 
the old writers about them, statements that can neither be 
fully understood nor satisfactorily adjusted. The outline is 

1 Sat. vii. 16. 

2 Memnon in Photii BiUiotlieca, pp. 227-8, ed. Bekker. The spelling of 
the names varies, and under the Emperor Augustus the epithet Ss/Sacmji/o/ 
was prefixed to them. Who would not have thanked Tacitus, if in his 
Life of Agricola, instead of his stately Latin terminations, he had spelled 
the proper names as nearly as possible according to the pronunciation of the 
natives of Pictland or Caledonia? But the Romans looked with contempt on 
such an effort. Pliny sneers at a barbara appdlatio (Ilist. Nat. iii. 4), and 
a professed geographer says, Cantabrorum aliquot populi amiiesque sunt, sed 
quorum nomina nostro ore concipi nequeant. P. Mela, De Situ Orbis, iii. 1. 

3 Diefenbach, Celtica, i. 160. 4 xii. 5. 



GALATIANS, WHETHER KELTS OR GERMANS ? XXI 

often dark, and the story Is sometimes left incomplete, or filled 
in with vague reports, legends, or conjectures. But the wild 
wanderers referred to were generally believed to be Gauls 
proper from the west, and probably of the great division of 
Kymri or Welsh Kelts. Latham, in his edition of Prichard s 
Eastern Origin of the Celtic Nations, p. 104, etc., throws out 
the conjecture that the Galatians were from Austrian Gallicia, 
and therefore of Sclavonic origin ; but his arguments are 
neither strong nor strongly put. Others maintain that those 
Gauls or Galatians were of a German stock. There are ob 
scurities in the distinctions made by Greek and Latin authors 
between the German and Gothic races, of which Suidas under 
KeXroi is an example; for he says the Kelts are called Germans, 
adding, that they invaded Albion, and are also called Senones 
a Gothic race beyond all dispute. Dion Cassius falls into 
similar blunders. " Some of the Kelts," he says, " whom we 
call Germans, holding the whole of Keltike toward the Rhine, 
have made it to be called Germany." 1 He places the Kelts on 
both banks of the Rhine, or rather with this odd distinction, ev 
dpicrTepa fjuev rrjv re TdKariav . . . ev Se^ia Se rov$ KeXroy?. 
He also identifies Kelts and Germans, calling the latter KeXro/, 
and the Belgians Ke\TtKoi\ nay, vaguely regarding K\TIKIJ 
as a Celtic territory bordering on Aquitania, he sometimes gives 
it the special meaning of Gallia, and at other times uses it in 
the broader sense of Western Europe containing Kelts and Ger 
mans. 2 Other old writers were apparently quite as bewildered 
on the subject, and as various in their references. A know 
ledge of the geography and the history of outlying regions 
could not be easily obtained in those days, and much of it 
must have been the result of oral communication, so liable to 
mistake, exaggeration, and distortion. But a distinction was 
usually made, though it was not consistently adhered to ; and 
the hypothesis that these Gauls were of a Teutonic origin 
is quite contrary to the current traditions and the ordinary 
beliefs of the earlier times. There are extreme views on 
both sides ; such as the theory of Mone, 3 that Germany as 

1 liii. 12, xxxix. 49. 

2 xxxix. 46, 49. See Brandes, das Etlmograpliisclie Verhaltniss der 
Kclten und Germanen, p. 203, Leipzig 1857. 

3 Celtisclie Forschunrjen, Freiburg 1857. 



XXll INTRODUCTION. 

well as Gaul was peopled with Celts, and that of Holtzmann, 1 
that the two peoples named Celts and Germans were both 
alike a Teutonic race. Something like national vanity has 
been mingled with this dispute, which is not unlike a fierce 
and famous quarrel nearer home as to the origin and blood of 
the Picts. Thus Ilofmann, in his Disputatio de Galat. Antiq. 
1726, cries : En igitur coloniam Germanorum in Grcecia en 
virtutem majorum nostrorum quai sua arma ad remotissima loca 
protulit. Selneccer (Wernsdorf, De Repub. Galat.} is jubilant 
on this account : cum ad Galatas scripsisse Paulum leyimus, 
ad nostros majores Germanos eum scripsisse sciamus. Germani 
ergo epistolam hanc sibi vindicent, ut hceredes et posteri. 2 Luther 
also says, " Some imagine that we Germans are descendants of 
the Galatians. Nor perhaps is this derivation untrue, for we 
Germans are not very unlike them in temper." " The Epistle 
to the Galatians is addressed to Germans," Olshausen writes ; 
" and it was the German Luther who in this apostolical epistle 
again recognised and brought to light the substance of the 
gospel. It can scarcely be doubted that the Galatians are the 
first German people to whom the word of the cross was 
preached." Tournefort warms into enthusiasm when his travels 
carry him among Keltic affinities. Gleams of the same spirit 
are found in Thierry ; and Texier says more distinctly, Pour 
nous, nous ne devons pas nous rappeler, sans un sentiment 
cCorgueil national, que les Gaulois out penetre jusqit a centre de 
VAsie mineure, s i/ sont etablis, et out laisse dans ce pays des 
so uvenirs imper is sables? 

Now, first, the names of these Galatian tribes appear to 
be Keltic names. The Tolisto-boii, or perhaps Tolisto-boioi, 
are Keltic in both parts of their appellation. For Tolosa is 
yet preserved in France and Spain ; 4 and the second portion 
of the word is Keltic also, the Boii beino; a well-known Gallic 

/ O 

tribe a turbulent and warlike race who left Transalpine Gaul, 
crossed into northern Italy by the pass of the Great St. 
Bernard, fought against the Roman power at intervals with 

1 Kelten und Germanen, Stuttgart 1855. See Prof. Lightfoot s Essay, 
in his Commentary on Galatians, p. 229. 

2 Wernsdorf, De Repub. Galat. 94. 

3 Revue des Deux Alondes, 1841, p. 575. 

4 Diefenbach, Cellica, ii. p. 339. 



PROOFS OF KELTIC ORIGIN. XX111 

varying fortunes, but on being at length driven out of the 
country, settled on a territory named from them Boien-heim 
home of the Boii Bohemia. 1 The Tectosages bear also a 
Keltic designation. A Gallic tribe of the name is mentioned by 
Caesar as being also a migratory one, like so many of its sisters : 
Germanice loca circum Hercyniam silvarn Volcce Tectosages occu- 
paverunt atque ibi consederunt ; 2 and Tolosa Tectosagum occurs 
in Pom. Mela, ii. 5, as among the cities of Gallia Narbonensis. 
The Tectosages are supposed indeed by Meyer and others to have 
been a German tribe, called by CaBsar Volcse Tectosages ; but 
Volcse has no connection with the Teutonic Folk or Vblk, for they 
were a Keltic race who had conquered a settlement in Germany 
and adopted German manners (Caesar says these things not from 
his own knowledge), while the great body of the tribe occupied 
the basin of the Garonne, with Tolosa (Toulouse) for its capital. 
The name of the Trocmi is more obscure. Some, as Strabo, 
followed by Texier, derive it from a chief; Bochart took it from 
Togarmah ; 3 others connect it with @pr)ifce$ Thraces ; while 
others identify them with the Taurisci mountain-dwellers. 4 
Secondly, the persons engaged in the expedition into Greece, 
and the chiefs noted among them afterwards, have Keltic names 
like the Gallic ones in Ca3sar; ending in rix (chief), like Dum- 
norix; Albiorix, Ateporix occur after the lapse of two cen 
turies ; or in marus (mar, great), as Virdumarus, and in tarus 
or toruS) as Deiotarus, tar being equivalent to the Latin trans, 
The leader Brennus (king) was called Prausus terrible 
(Gaelic, bras ; Cornish, braid). Brennus had a colleague or 
^vvdp^cav ; Pausanias calls him Aici xwpiosf and Diodorus 
Siculus Kt^copto?. In the Kymric tongue the name would be 
Kikhou iaour, or Akikhou iaour, which without the augment a 
would be Cy9\viawr. 6 Thirdly, names of places often end in the 
Keltic briga (hill) and iacum. 1 Fourthly, Pausanias refers to 
a plant which the Greeks called /co/cvo?, the kermes berry, but 
which the Galatians tywvf) rfj eTTi^wpiw call 9, or according to 
a better reading va-yij, the dye being called v&yivov. 8 Now, the 
Kymric has hesgen, a sedge, and the Cornish has heschen. 

1 Tacitus, De Germania, c. 28. 2 De Bell. Gall. vi. 24. 

3 Phaleg. iii. 11. 4 Diefenbach, Celtica, ii. 256. 

* x. 19. 6 Thierry, Hist, des Gaulois, i. 129. 

7 Zeuss, Celt. Gram. 772. 8 x. 36. Suidas, sub voce. 



XXIV INTRODUCTION. 

Pausanias 1 tells also that one mode of military arrangement 
among the invading Gauls was called rpi^apKLaia, from their 
native name for a horse, ftdp/cas ; tri or tri being Celtic for 
three, and march or marc the name of a steed. In Irish and 
Gaelic and Welsh, trimarcliwys signifies " men driving three 
horses." Fifthly, the long lance, the distinctive weapon of the 
infantry, was the ryalaov ; hence the epithet ^aivaTai TaXa-Tai? 
It is in Irish gad, a lance, gaide, gaisthe, s solitaria often falling 
out. 3 It is often incorporated into proper names, as Rada- 
gaisus, Gaisatorix, not unlike Breakspear, Shakespear. It is 
allied to the Saxon goad, and the old Scottish gad, the name 
of a spear and a fishing-rod. The account of the word and 
epithet given by Polybius is wholly wrong. Talcros occurs in 
the Sept., Josh. viii. 18, and in the Apocrypha, Judith ix. 9. 
Sixthly, Jerome is a witness whose testimony may be trusted, 
for it is that of an ear-witness. He had sojourned both among 
the Treviri for some time when a young man adolescen- 
tulus, and he had journeyed to Galatia, and seen its capital 
Ancyra. In a letter to Ruffinus he refers to a pilgrimage 
totum Galatice et Cappadocice iter? In the preface to the second 
book of his Commentary he says, Scit mecum qui videt Ancyram 
metropolim Galatice civitatem. 5 Not only does he mention his 
being in Gaul, but he writes more definitely to Ruffinus, in 
the letter already quoted quum post Romana studia ad Rheni 
semibarbaras ripas eodem cibo, pari frueremur liospitio. In his 
second book against Jovinian he tells a story about the canni 
balism and ferocity of the natio Scotorum whom he saw in 
Gaul; 6 and more precisely still, he informs Florentius of a 
literary work, librum Sancti Hilarii quern apud Treviros manu 
mea ipse descripseram. 1 Now, Jerome s distinct words arc : 

1 x. 19. 

2 Polybius, ii. 23. Gsesum occurs Bell. Gall. iii. 4. Athenseus, lib. vi. 
p. 548, Op. vol. ii. ed. Schweighauser. 

3 Zeuss, Celt. Gramm. p. 64. 4 Op. vol. i. p. 10. 5 Op. vii. p. 430. 

6 Vol. ii. p. 335. The tribes called Scots in those days were Irish ; and 
Irish -wanderers came gradually over to Argyleshire, and founded the old 
kingdom of Dalriada. St. Columba is called utriusque Scotlie patronus, 
there being a Scotia and a Dalriada in Ireland as well as in Britain. Pro 
bably the name Scot itself is allied to Scyth, the vague title assigned to a 
wild and distant race. 

7 Op. vol. i. p. 15, ed. Vallars. Yenetiis 1766. 



PROOFS CONTINUED. XXV 

" It is true that Gaul produces orators, but Aquitania boasts 
a Greek origin" et Galatce non de ilia parte terrarum, sed de 
ferocioribus Gallis sint profecti. . . . Unum est quod inferimus, 
Galatas excepto sermone Grceco quo omnis Oriens loquitur, pro- 
priam linguam eandem pene habere quam Treviros. 1 So that 
six hundred years after their first settlement in Asia Minor 
their old language was spoken by them. 

But, according to Meyer, Winer, Jablonski, Niebuhr, Hug, 
Hermes, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, Holtzman, 2 German 
was the language spoken then, as now, in and around Treves. 
This statement, however, though partially true, does not prove 
the point contended for. For there had been an intrusive change 
of population toward the end of the third century. A colony of 
Franks had settled in the territory of the Treviri, and natu 
rally brought their language with them rep/j,avovs ol vvv 
$pd<yyoi fca\ovvTcu. 3 Yet the older tongue survived, and might 
survive for a long period afterwards, like the Welsh tongue of 
the present day, centuries after the annexation of the princi 
pality to England. Wieseler argues from the testimony of early 
writers as to the Germanic descent and blood of the Treviri. 
Tacitus says indeed that the Treviri and the Nervii affected a 
German origin, a confession that they were not pure Germans, 
and he proceeds to distinguish them from peoples which were 
German hand dubie* Strabo indeed seems to admit that the 
Nervii were a German race. But the Treviri are called Belga? 
and Gauls again and again, as by Tacitus in his Annal. i. 42, 43, 
iii. 44. In his Hist. iv. 71, 72, 73, Cerealis addresses them, 
Terrain vestram ceterorumque Gallorum. . . . Cassar says, Tre 
viros quorum civitas propter Germanice vicinitatem . . . ; livec 
civitas longe plurimum totius Gallice equitatu valet . . . ; Gallus 
inter Gallosf in which places they are distinguished from 
Germans ; and Pom. Mela writes, Clarissimi Belgarum Treveri. 7 
Their leaders names are Keltic, such as Cingetorix. Some 
doubt is thrown on this by the way in which Pliny speaks of 
them, 8 and there may have been, as Thierry allows, some German 

1 Op. vol. vii. pp. 428-430. 2 Kelten und Germanen, p. 88. 

3 Procopius, Bell. Vandal, i. 3. 

4 De Germania 28. * Geog. iv. 24. 
6 Bell Gall. viii. 25, v. 3, v. 45, vi. 2, vii. 8. 7 iii. 2. 

8 Hist. Nat. iv. 81. 



XXVI INTRODUCTION. 

tribes mixed up with them, as was the case among the Keltic 
Belgians. 1 Caesar s statement, De Bell. Gall. ii. 4, may be ac 
counted for in the same way, and the apparently Teutonic 
names of some of the leaders in the invasion, such as Lutarius 
(Luther) and Leonnorius, may be thus explained. Great stress 
is laid on the names of these two leaders, and on the name of a 
tribe called Teutobodiaci, and a town oddly styled Germano- 
polis. Thierry supposes that the Tolistoboii were Teutonic, 
because of the name of Lutarius their leader. But the Teu 
tonic origin of even these names has been disputed. With 
regard to the first word, there is a Keltic chieftain in Ctesar 
named Lucterius, 2 and Leonorius is the name of a Cymric saint. ;i 
The second syllable of the tribal name is found in the name of 
the warrior queen Boadicea, in the name Bodotria, and the o 
being resolvable into ua, the word assumes the form of liidid, 
victoria? Zeuss also adduces such forms as Tribodii, Catbud, 
Budic, etc. Germanopolis, as Prof. Lightfoot remarks, is an 
exceptional word, and probably denotes some fragment of an 
exceptional population ; or the name may have been one of later 
introduction, as the Greek termination may indicate. The name 
does not appear till more recent times, it being conjectured 
that a foreign colony had been planted there. Still more, 
the dissyllable German itself, not being the native Teutonic 
name of the people, may have a Keltic origin, according to 
Grimm, from garm, clamor^ or according to Zeuss, from ger or 
gair, vicinus. 6 

Lastly, Ammianus Marcellinus, writing in former times, 
speaks of the tall stature, fair and ruddy complexion of the Gauls, 
and the blue eyes of their women; 7 and Diodorus 8 describes the 
white skins and yellow hair of the f EXkT]vo^a\draL. If any faith 
can be placed in national resemblance of form and feature in 

1 Hint, des Gaulms, i. p. 225. 2 Bell Gall. vii. 7. 

3 Diefenbach, Celtica, ii. 254. 4 Zeuss, Gram. Celt. vol. i. p. 27. 

5 "Wernsdorf, De Repullica Galat. p. 219. 

6 G. C. vol. ii. p. 375. Some deny that the Belga? were Kelts. Caesar 
distinguished them from the Celtse and Aquitani ; but it is admitted that 
among them were German colonies who had expelled the aborigines and 
settled near the Rhine, so that many Germans were mixed up with them. 
But the people itself was Keltic, and to them Csesar gave the generalized 
name of Belgse the name being allied to Belg, Fir-bolg in Irish. 

7 xv. 12. 8 v. 28, 32. 



ORIGINAL PHRYGIAN ELEMENT. xxvil 

two periods so remote, Texier may be listened to : Sans chercher 
a se faire illusion, on reconncfit quelquefois, surtout parmi les 
pasteurs, des types qui se rapportent merveilleusement a certaines 
races de nos provinces de France. On voit plus de clieveux 
blonds en Galatie qu en aucun autre royaume de VAsie mineure, 
les tetes carries et les yeux bleux rappellent le caractere des 
populations de Vouest de la France. Cette race de pasteurs 
est repandue dans les villages et les yaela (camps nomades) des 
environs de la meiropole. 1 

All these points enumerated are conclusively in favour of 
the old and common belief of the Keltic origin of the Galatians. 

The original population of the province indeed was Phrygian, 
though in the current name no account is taken of that people, 
but of the Greeks who were settled in it, as in all the East 
since the period of Alexander s conquests, so that Strabo calls it 
TaXa-ria EXkrjvwv? The partial amalgamation of these races 
must have occupied a long time. The Phrygian superstition may 
have taken hold of the Kelts from some points of resemblance 
to their ancestral faith and worship ; and they learned to use 
the Grecian language, which was a kind of common tongue 
among all the tribes round about them, while neither the 
Phrygian nor the Gallic vernacular was wholly superseded. 
The Gauls had coins with Greek inscriptions prior to the 
Christian era. The consul Manlius, addressing his troops, 
says of the Galatians : Hi jam degeneres sunt mixti, et Gallogrceci 
vere quod appellantur . . . Phrygas Gallicis oneratos armis? The 
Galatian lady who is praised by Plutarch and others for killing 
her deforcer, spoke to her attendants in a tongue which the 
soldiers knew not. The Jewish dispersion had also been 
spreading itself everywhere, and was found in Galatia. The 
population was therefore a mixed one, but it was profoundly 
pervaded by a Keltic element which gave it character. The 
manifestations of that temperament occasioned this epistle, and 
are also referred to in it. The TaXariKa of Eratosthenes has 
been lost, and we can scarcely pardon Jerome for giving us no 
extracts from Varro and other writers on Galatia, forsooth on 
this weak pretence, quia nobis proposition est, incircumcisos 
homines non inlroducere in Templum Dei. 

1 Revue des Deux Mondes, 1841, p. 598. 2 Gcog. i. 4. 

3 Livy, xxxviii. 17. 



XXV111 INTRODUCTION. 



II. INTRODUCTION OF THE GOSPEL INTO GALATIA. 

It was during the apostle s second great missionary circuit 
that he first preached the gospel in Galatia, probably about 
A.D. 51 or 52. A mere passing hint is given, a mere allusion 
to evangelistic travel, as it brought the apostle nearer to the 
sea-board and his voyage to Europe. The simple statement is, 
" Now when they had gone throughout Phrygia and the region 
of Galatia, and were forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach 
the gospel in Asia." 1 The apostle had proposed to visit Asia 
or Ephesus, but the set time had not come ; and on arriving in 
Mysia, he and his party prepared to go north-east into Bithynia, 
but " the Spirit of Jesus did not suffer them" such is the better 
reading. Thus checked and checked again, passing by Mysia, 
they were guided to Troas, the point of embarkation for Greece. 
They could not therefore purpose to preach in Bithynia after 
such a prohibition, and probably the prohibition to preach in Asia 
suggested the opposite continent of Europe. If the apostle had 
any idea of crossing to Europe at this time, the effort to ad 
vance into Bithynia may have been to reach Byzantium, and 
get to the West by the ordinary voyage and highway. 2 These 
brief words with regard to Galatia are thus a mere filling 
up of the apostle s tour, during which he was guided into a 
way that he knew not, and led by a path that he had not 
known. When it is said that he went through the Galatian 
territory, it is implied that he journeyed for the purpose of 
preaching, as is also shown by the contrast that he was for 
bidden "to preach" in Asia preaching being the one aim and 
end of all his movements. In the cities of Galatia, then, the 
apostle preached at this time, and naturally formed associations 
of believers into churches. But nothing is told of success or 
opposition, of inquirers, converts, or antagonists. 

The apostle s own reference to this visit is as brief, inci 
dental, and obscure as the passage in Acts. " Ye know how, 
through infirmity of the flesh, I preached the gospel unto you 
at the first:" Gal. iv. 13. The plain meaning of this decla 
ration is, that he was detained in the province by sickness, and 
that on this account, and not because of any previous plans and 
1 Acts xvi. G, 7. 2 Wieseler, Chronol. p. 32. 



SUPPOSED EARLIER VISIT. XXIX 

arrangements, he preached the gospel at his first visit to Galatia. 
The phrase Si aadeveiav admits grammatically of no other mean 
ing, and Trporepov refers to the earlier of two visits. See the 
commentary under the verse. But he reminds them of his 
cordial welcome among them as " an angel of God, even as 
Christ Jesus;" asserts, too, that in their intense and demonstra 
tive sympathy they " would have plucked out their eyes, and 
given them to him," and that they overlooked that infirmitv 
which tended from its nature to create loathing of his person and 
aversion to his message. See commentary on iv. 14. Their 
impulsive and excitable nature flashed out in enthusiastic re 
ception of him; and their congratulations of one another on the 
message and the messenger were lavished with characteristic 
ardour, all in sad contrast with their subsequent defection. 
But we learn, too, from some allusions in his appeals, that in 
Galatia as everywhere else, he preached Christ and His cross, 
pictured Him clearly, fully, as the one atoning Saviour, 
and announced as on a placard to them the Crucified One. 
That preaching was followed by the descent of the Spirit; 
miracles had been wrought among them, and their spiritual 
progress had been eager and marked "Ye were running 
well." But the bright morning was soon and sadly overcast. 

Some indeed suppose that an earlier visit than the one 
now referred to is implied in Acts xiv. 6, which says that Paul 
and Barnabas, on being informed of a persecution ripening 
against them in Iconium, " fled unto Derbe and Lystra, cities 
of Lycaonia, and unto the region that lieth round about." But 
these geographical notations plainly exclude Galatia, as we 
have seen in the previous chapter ; and 97 Trepfytopos, the 
country surrounding Lystra and Derbe cities toward the 
south of Lycaonia, cannot include Galatia which was situated 
so far to the north, Phrygia lying between. Such references 
as Macknight gives in proof to Pliny and Strabo have been 
already disposed of. Koppe maintains that the mention of 
Barnabas in Gal. ii. 13 presupposes a personal knowledge of 
him on the part of the Galatians, which could only be acquired 
through an earlier visit. But Acts xiv. 6 will not, as we have 
just seen, warrant any belief in such a visit; nor does the state 
ment of the strength of that current of Judaistic influence 
which at Antioch carried even Barnabas away, really imply 



XXX INTRODUCTION. 

any more than that his name, as the apostle s recognised fellow- 
labourer, must have been in course of years quite familiar to 
them. It is a mistake on the part of Koppe and Keil to affirm 
that the visit on the second missionary circuit was one of confir 
mation only, which must therefore imply previous evangelical 
labour. It is true that Paul and Barnabas resolved on such a 
journey, and that, from a difference of opinion as to the fitness 
of Mark to accompany them, Paul and his new colleague 
Silas carried out the intention. " They went through Syria 
and Cilicia confirming the churches," xv. 41 ; then proceeded 
to Derbe and Lystra where Timothy joined them ; and the 
result of the tour is formally announced thus : " So were the 
churches established in the faith, and increased in number 
daily." But this daily increase implies that the confirmation 
of believers was not the only service in which the apostle en 
gaged ; he also preached the gospel so as to gain numerous 
converts. The description of this journey ends at xvi. 5, and 
the next verse begins a new and different section the account 
of a further journey with a somewhat different end in view, 
preaching being the principal aim and work. 

During his third missionary circuit, a second visit was paid 
by the apostle to the Galatian churches, probably about three 
years after the first, or about A.D. 54. As little is said of this 
visit in Acts as of the first. It is briefly told in xviii. 23, that 
"he went over the Galatian country and Phrygia in order, 
strengthening all the disciples." The apostle passed through 
Phrygia in order to reach Galatia, and therefore Phrygia pre 
cedes in the first account ; but at the next visit he passed 
through Galatia in order to reach Phrygia, and Galatia natu 
rally stands first in the second account. The results are not 
stated, but we know that the effects of this " strengthening" 
were soon exhausted. It may be safely surmised that the 
allusions in the epistle to his personal presence among them, 
which have in them an element of indignation or sorrow, refer 
to his second visit all being so fair and promising at his first 
residence. During the interval between the first and second 

O 

visit, incipient symptoms of defection seem to have shown 
themselves; the Judaistic teachers had been sowing their errors 
with some success. The constitutional fickleness of the people 
had begun to develop itself when novelty had worn off. lie 



SECOND VISIT. xxxi 

did not need to warn them about " another gospel " at his first 
visit ; but at the second visit he had felt the necessity of utter 
ing such a warning, and that with no bated breath : He, the 
preacher of such a gospel, angel or man, let him be accursed. 
The solemn censure in v. 21 might be given at any of his visits, 
for it fitted such a people at any time ; though perhaps, after a 
season of suppression at their conversion, these sins might re 
appear in the churches during the reaction which followed the 
first excitement. At the second visit, the earlier love had not 
only cooled and its effervescence subsided, but estrangement 
and misunderstanding were springing up. Such a change is 
implied in the sudden interrogation introducing an exposure 
of the motives of those who were paying them such court, and 
superseding him in their affections: "Am I become your enemy 
because I tell you the truth ?" See commentary under iv. 15, 
16, 17. The apostle had the fervent and abiding interest of a 
founder in the Galatian churches : in the crisis of their spiritual 
peril, he travailed in birth for them Suffered the throes of a 
first travail at their conversion, and those of a second now, 
that " Christ might be fully formed in their hearts." 

It is probable that the apostle followed in Galatia his com 
mon practice, and preached " to the Jews first, and also to the 
Greeks." The historian is silent indeed on this subject, and it 
is wholly baseless in Baur, Schneckenburger, and Hilgenfeld 
to allege that the reason of the silence is because Paul did 
not follow his usual method, there being in fact no Jews to 
preach to. Hofmann inclines to the same view, though not for 
the same reasons. But the view of Baur assumes a primarily 
improbable hypothesis, that Luke constructed his narrative for 
the purpose of showing how the gospel was transferred from 
the rejecting Jews to the accepting Gentiles. In reply, besides, 
it may be stated, that on that ground the accounts of his labours 
at Lystra and at Athens must be taken as exceptions, which 
certainly show the improbability of the hypothesis. The rea 
son alleged by Olshausen for the historian s brevity, viz. that 
he wished to bring the apostle over as speedily as possible to 
Rome, is nearer the truth; only Olshausen s argument can 
scarcely be sustained, that Luke thereby consulted the wishes 
and circumstances of his first readers. Nor is it less likely that 
the apostle at his first visit, and so far as his feeble health 



XXXll INTRODUCTION. 

permitted, would labour in the great centres of population 
in Ancyra, Pessinus, Tavium, and Gordium. 1 But we have 
several indirect arguments that many Jews had settled in the 
province and neighbourhood. We find in Josephus a despatch 
of king Antiochus, in which he says that he had thought proper 
to remove two thousand Jewish families from Mesopotamia 
and Babylon into Lydia and Phrygia. 2 "Wherever there was an 
opening for gain, wherever traffic could be carried on, wherever 
shekels could be won in barter or commercial exchange, there 
the Jews were found, earnest, busy, acute, and usually success 
ful, the Diaspora surged into all markets ; yet in the midst 
of its bargains, buying, selling, and getting gain, it forgot not 
to build its synagogues. Josephus quotes an edict of Augustus 
addressed to the Jews at Ancyra, protecting them in their 
special religious usages and in the enjoyment of the Sabbath ; 
and he ordains that the ^(f)Lcrfj.a formally granted by them 
be preserved (avareOfjvai), along with his decree, in the temple 
dedicated by the community of Asia in Ancyra. 3 Names and 
symbols found in the inscriptions lead to the same conclusion. 
So that there was to be found in the territory a large Jewish 
population, to whom the apostle would prove that Jesus was 
the promised Messiah. How many of them received the gospel, 
it is impossible to say. 

The churches, therefore, were not made up wholly of 
Gentiles, as Baur, Schneckenburger, and Hilgenfeld contend. 
That there was a body of Jews in them is probable also from 
the clauses in which the apostle identifies himself with them : 
"we Jews by nature," ii. 15; "redeemed us from the curse 
of the law," iii. 13; "we were kept under the law," iii. 
23 ; " we are no longer under a schoolmaster," iii. 25 ; " we 
were in bondage under the elements of the world," iv. 3. 
Heathen believers are specially appealed to in many places, 
iv. 8-12 ; and to preach to them was his special function, 
i. 16, ii. 9 : they are assured that to get themselves circum 
cised is of no avail, v. 2 ; and the party who would force cir- 



1 Strabo writes : Hwaiyov; S sarlv eftTropttov ruv Ta.i/ry /aiytaToy, Geoij, 
xii. 5, 3 ; and Gordium is described by Livy id hand magnum quidem 
oppidum est, sed plus quam Mediterranean, celclre et frequens emporium, 
tria maria pari ferme distantia intervallo halet : xxxviii. 18. 

Antiq. xii. 3, 4. 3 Ibid. xvi. 6, 2. 



CHURCH MADE UP OF JEWS AND GENTILES. XXXlii 

cumcision upon them are stigmatized as cowardly time-servers, 
vi. 12, 13. These Gentiles are regarded by Storr, Mynster, 
Credner, Davidson, and Jowett as proselytes of the gate ; but 
the assertion has no sure foundation. Some may have been 
in that condition of anxious inquirers, but in iv. 8 they are 
accused of having been idolaters ; and the phrase " weak 
and beggarly elements," to which again 7rd\iv they desired 
to be in bondage, may characterize heathenism in several of its 
aspects as well as Judaism. See commentary on iv. 8. But it 
is no proof of the existence or number of Jewish Christians to 
allege that Peter, i. 1, wrote to elect strangers in Galatia ; for 
a-Tropd may be there used in a spiritual sense, and it is certain 
that many words in that epistle must have been addressed to 
Gentiles : ii. 11, 12, iv. 3. Besides, the apostle makes a free 
and conclusive use of the Old Testament in his arguments a 
mode of proof ordinarily unintelligible to a Gentile. Again 
and again does he adduce a quotation as portion of a syllogistic 
argument, conscious that his proof was taken from what was 
common ground to them both from a source familiar to them 
and acknowledged to be possessed of ultimate authority. It is 
true that the Old Testament contained a divine revelation pre 
paratory to the new economy, and that the apostle might use 
it in argument anywhere ; but there is in this epistle a direct 
versatility in handling the Hebrew Scriptures, as well as an 
uncommon and esoteric application of them, which presupposes 
more familiarity with them and their interpretation than Gen 
tiles by birth could be easily supposed to possess. 

The amazing success of the apostle s first labours in the 
midst of numerous drawbacks, might be assisted by various 
secondary causes, such as the novelty of the message, and 
the unique phenomenon of its proclamation by one who was 
suffering from epileptic paralysis. The Celtic temperament, 
so easily attracted by novelty, might at once embrace the new 
religion, though, on the other hand, nothing could be more 
remote than the Phrygian cultus from the purity and simplicity 
of the gospel. Yet that gospel, presented in the enthusiastic 
eloquence of a man so wildly earnest as to appear " beside 
himself," and yet so feeble, so stricken, and so visibly carrying 
in himself the sentence of death, arrested and conquered them 
with ominous celerity. It is impossible to say what about the 



XXXIV INTRODUCTION. 

gospel specially captivated them, though there is no doubt that 
the cross was exhibited in its peculiar prominence. The appeal 
in iii. 1 would seem to imply, that as the public and placarded 
presentation of the Crucified One is brought forward to prove 
the prodigious folly of their apostasy, it may be inferred that 
this was the doctrine by which they had been fascinated, and 
which spoke home, as Prof. Lightfoot surmises, to their tradi 
tionary faith in the atoning efficacy of human blood. 1 That 
the blood of bullocks and of goats could not take away sin, 
was a profound and universal conviction in old Gaul, if Caesar 
may be credited; and man for man appeared a juster and more 
meritorious substitution. Might not, then, the preaching of 
the man Jesus put to death as a sacrificial victim throw a 
wondrous awe over them, as they saw in it the realization of 
traditionary beliefs and hopes ? 

Still Christianity had nothing in common with the Phry 
gian religion, which was a demonstrative nature-worship, both 
sensuous and startling. The ciiltus was orgiastic, with wild 
music and dances led by the Corybantes not without the 
usual accompaniment of impurities and other abominations, 
though it might have mystic initiations and secret teachings. 
Khea or Cybele (and Rhea might be only another form of 
epa, the earth), the mother of the gods, was the chief object 
of adoration, and derived a surname from the places where her 
service was established. The great Mother appears on the 
coins of all the cities, and many coins found in the ruins of 
the Wall of Hadrian have her efnVy. At Pessinus her ima<ie 

Cr/ O 

was supposed to have fallen from heaven, and there she was 
called Agdistes. Though the statue was taken to Rome during 
the war with Hannibal, the city retained a sacred pre-eminence. 
Strabo says that her priests were a sort of sovereigns endowed 
with large revenues, and that the Attalian kings built for her a 
magnificent temple. 1 The Keltic invaders are supposed to have 
been accustomed to somewhat similar religious ordinances in 
their national so-called Druidism. But the Druidical system, 

1 Quod, pro vita hominis nisi hominis vita reddatur, non posse a liter 
deorum immortalium numen placari arlitrantur, publiceque ejusilem gait-ris 
habent mstituta sacrificia. Bell. Gall. vi. 16. StraLo adds that sonic of 
their human victims were crucified, Ge.oy. iv. 4, 5. 

2 Hid. xii. 5, 3. 



DRUIDISM EXAGGERATED. XXXV 

long supposed to be so specially characteristic of the Keltic races, 
has been greatly exaggerated in its character and results. The 
well-known description in Csesar was based on reports which 
he harmonized and compacted ; and the value of those reports 
may be tested by others which follow in the same Book as to the 
existence of a unicorn in the Hercynian Forest, and as to another 
animal found there like a goat, which had no knee-joints, and 
which was caught by sawing through the tree on which it leaned 
when asleep, for it could not rise when it had been thrown 
down. 1 The statement of Csesar, based on mere unsifted 
rumour, was amplified by succeeding writers ; and Pliny,^ 
Strabo, 3 Ammianus Marcellinus, 4 and Pomponius Mela have 
only altered and recast it, while Lucan 6 and Tacitus 7 added 
some new touches. If the Druids held the high and mysterious 
rank assigned to them in popular imagination, if they dis 
pensed laws, taught youth, offered sacrifices, possessed esoteric 
science, and held great conventions, how comes it that they 
never appear in actual history, but are only seen dimly in the 
picturesque descriptions of these Greek and Roman authors, 
not one of whom ever saw a Druid ? In all the previous inter 
course of Gaul with Rome, no living Druids ever appear on 
the scene, and no one notices their presence or influence in any 
business in any consultations or national transactions. Csesar 
never alludes to them save in the abstract, never, in his marches, 
battles, or negotiations in Gaul and Britain, comes into contact 
with one of them, or even hints at their existence. Tacitus 
relates that when the Capitol was burned during the struggle 
between Otho and Vitellius, the Druids predicted (Druidce cane- 
bant) from that occurrence the fall of the empire. 8 The same 
author records, indeed, how at the invasion of Mona (Anglesea) 
they w T ere seen in terrible commotion, the Druidesses like weird 
women or furies screaming and brandishing torches. His pic 
ture, however, is coloured for effect, since no genuine informa 
tion is imparted by his description. 9 Ausonius describes the 
Druids as an ancient race, or rather caste, but he has no allu 
sion to their sacerdotal character. Descent from them is in 

1 Bell. Gall. vi. 12-18, 25. 2 Hist. Nat. xvi. 95. 

3 Geog. iv. 4, 4. 4 xv. 9. 5 De Situ Orbit, iv. 2. 

6 Pharsalia, p. 14, Glasguae 1785. r Annul, xiv. 3. 

8 Hist. iv. 54. 9 Annal. xiv. 30. 



XXXVI INTRODUCTION. 

his view a special honour, like that from any of the mythical 
deities : stirpe Druidannn satus, si fama non fallit fidem ; stirpe 
satus Druidum. 1 Lucan also vaguely alludes to them in the 
first book of his Pharsalia, and they help to fill up his elaborate 
picture. 2 Again, if the Druids had possessed the authority 
claimed for them, how is it that we never find them in flesh 
and blood confronting the first Christian missionaries ? The 

O 

early church makes no mention of them, though there was a 
continuous battle with heathenism from the second century to 
the age of Charlemagne. It is remarkable that in no classic 
author occurs the term Druid as a masculine noun and in the 
singular number. The forms Amides and Druidce do not always 
distinctly determine the sex : but the feminine term undoubt 
edly occurs so often as to induce a suspicion that the order 
consisted chiefly of females. It is somewhat remarkable that 
in the Keltic church of the Culdees in Ireland, the person 
holding the office of Co-arb was sometimes a female, and that 
office was one of very considerable territorial influence. The 
only living members of the Druidical caste that we meet with 
are women. -ZElius Lampridius puts among the omens pre 
ceding the assassination of the Emperor Alexander Severus, 
that a Druidess accosted him with warning mulier Dry as eunti 
exclamamt Galileo sermone. 3 Vopiscus 4 tells of Aurelian con 
sulting Gallic Druielesses Gallicanas Dryadas on the ques 
tion whether the empire should continue in his posterity ; and 
he further relates that Diocletian, when amoni; the Tunm-ians 

O O 

in Gaul, had transactions with a Druidess as to futurity : cum 
in quadam caupona moraretur, et cum Dryade quadam muliere 
rationem convictus cotodiani faceret. These Druidesses appear 
in a character quite on a level with that of a Scottish spaewife. 
Divitiacus the .ZEduan, a personal friend of Cicero, is said by him 
not to be a Druid indeed, but to belong to the Druids, and he 
is described as being famous for fortune-telling and guessing 
as to events to come." The Druids were probably a sacerdotal 
caste of both sexes that dealt chiefly in divination. Suetonius 
says that Druidism, condemned by Augustus, was put down 

1 Pp. 8G, 92, ed. Bipont. 2 P. 14, GlasguK 1785. 

3 Scriptores Historic Augustie, vol. i. p. 271, ed. Peter, Lipsise 1865. 

4 Scriptores Historic Augustse, vol. ii. pp. 167, 223, do. do. 
" De Divinatione, i. 40. 



KELTIC HEATHENISM IN SCOTLAND. XXXvii 

by Claudius. 1 An extirpation so easily accomplished argues 
great feebleness of power and numbers on the part of the 
Druids, and no one else records it. Yet Tacitus afterwards 
describes the seizure of Mona and the cutting down of the 
grove. The anecdotes given by Vopiscus one of which he 
had heard from his grandfather (avus meus mild retulit) ex 
hibit them as late as the third century. The nearest approach 
to the apparition of a living pagan Druid fighting for his faith 
is that of a Magus named Broichan at the Scottish court of 
Brud king of the Cruithne or Picts, who dwelt by the banks 
of the Ness. The magic of St. Columba proved more powerful 
than his ; and the Magus, if he were a Druid, was not a whit 
exalted above the mischievous Scottish witches. In a Gaelic 
manuscript quoted by Dr. M Lauchlan, and which he ascribes 
to [the 12th or 13th century, this Magus is called a Druid. 2 
Dr. M Lauchlan is inclined to hold that the old Scottish 
heathenism had magi, and that these were of the order of the 
Druids ; but he does not point out a single element of resem 
blance between the Scottish Geintliglieclit and the description 
of the Druids in the sixth book of the Gallic War, or between 
it and the Zoroastrian system to which he likens it. The 
oriental aspect of the Scottish paganism is faint, save in super 
stitious regard for the sun in some form of nature-worship. 
The naming of the four quarters of the heavens after a position 
assumed towards the east, the west being behind or after, the 
north being the left hand, and the south the right hand, may 
spring not from the adoration of the elements, but from univer 
sal instinct, as it is common alike to Hebrew and Gaelic. 3 The 
connection of cromlechs, upright pillars and circles of stones, 
with the Druids is certainly not beyond dispute. The Roman 

1 Vita Claudii, xxv. But the spelling Druidarum in the clause is 
challenged ; and as the interdiction by Augustus referred tantum civibus, 
the extirpation may have been also confined to Rome, and may be likened 
to the expulsion of Jews from the capital. Indeed the two events are told 
in the same breath. 

2 Early Scottish Church, p. 35, Edin. 1865. 

3 Druid is connected with dru, an oak. The supreme object of 
Druidical worship is called by Lucan, Teutatis : Pharsalia, i. 445. Maxi- 
mus Tyrius says that the Kelts worshipped Dis, and that his image was 
an high oak. The name Teutatis is said to signify strong, and the oak 
was the symbol of strength. Max. Tyr. Dissert, p. 400, ed. Cantab. 1703. 



XXXVlll INTRODUCTION. 

Pantheon was not very scrupulous as to the gods admitted into 
it; and if the Druids were extirpated, it must have been for other 
reasons than their religion. What kind of theoloo-y thev taught. 

O O/ " 

it is impossible to say ; the careless way in which Caesar speaks 
of the population of Gaul as being divided into equites and 
plebs as in Roman fashion, and in which he gives Roman names 
to their objects of worship, takes all true historical value from 
his account. Not more trustworthy is Pliny s statement about 
the amulet used by the Druids which himself had seen, a 
large egg, to the making of which serpents beyond number 
contributed ;* and on his sole authority rests the tradition of 
the white robe of the arch-Druid, the misletoe, and the golden 
sickle. The Druids, if a sacerdotal caste, were apparently de 
voted to astrology or some other kinds of soothsaying, and they 
are socially ranked by Cresar with the equites. According to 
Strabo 2 and Caesar, 3 they affirmed that souls were immortal like 
the world that matter and spirit had existed from eternity. 
Some liken Druidism to Brahmanism, and Valerius Maximus 
pronounces it a species of Pythagoreanism. But so little is 
really known of the songs of the Bards, the ritual of the Ovates, 
or the teaching of the Druids (f)i\6cro<poi Kai Oeo\6yoi, that all 
attempts to form a system rest on a very precarious foundation 
"y chercher davcmtaye cest tomber dans Vhypotliese pure" ( 
They served in some idolatrous worship, and they taught 
immortality in the shape of transmigration, though they seem 
to have had also a Flaith-innis or Isle of the Blessed. Their 



1 Hist. Nat. xxix. 12 : Angitcs inmnneri estate convoluti salivis fauciurn 
corporumque spumis artijici complexu glomerantur . . . vidi equidem id ovum 
mail orbiculati modici maynitudine. For an interesting dissertation on the 
Druids, see Burton, History of Scotland, vol. i. chap, vi., and an article by 
the same author in the Edinburgh Review for July 1863. On the other 
side, compare The Celtic Druids, or an attempt to show that the Druids were 
the priests of Oriental colonies, . . . who introduced letters, built Carnac and 
Stonehenge, etc., by Godfrey Higgins, London 1829. 

2 Geog. iv. 4, 4. 8 Bell. Gall. vi. 14. 

4 Memorab. ii. C, 9. 5 Diodorus Sic. v. 31. 

6 Pressense, Histoire des trois Premiers Sicclcs de I Eglise Chretienne, 
deuxieme serie, tome premier, p. 54, in which section a good account of 
Druidism is given, with a review of the theories of Henri Martin in his 
Histoire de France, vol. i. p. 48, and those of M. Reynaud in his article on 
Druidism in the Encyclopedic noucdle. 



PHRYGIAN RELIGION. XXXIX 

system might find some parallel in the Phrygian worship, and 
be absorbed into it. But in a word, there is no foundation what 
ever for what has been apparently surmised sometimes, that so- 
called Druidical teaching might have disposed the Galatians to 
that immediate reception of the truth which is described in this 
epistle. The attempt to prove from a symbolic tree called Esus 
figured on an old altar found under Notre-Dame in Paris, that 
the Druids worshipped a personal god not unlike the Jehovah 
of the Old Testament, is only a romantic absurdity. 

The Phrygian system of religion was one of terror, 
Paul s was one of confidence and love ; dark, dismal, and 
bloody had been the rites of their fathers, the new economy 
was light, joy, and hope. Perhaps the friendless, solitary 
stranger, unhelped by any outer insignia, nervous and shat 
tered, yet unearthly in his zeal and transported beyond him 
self in floods of tenderness and bursts of yearning eloquence 
on topics which had never greeted their ears or entered their 
imagination, might suggest one of the olden sages who spoke 
by authority of the gods, and before whose prophesying their 
fathers trembled and bowed. But apart from all these auxi 
liary influences, there was the grace of God giving power to 
the word in numerous instances ; for though with so many 
perhaps with the majority the early impressions were so soon 
effaced, because profound and lasting convictions had not been 
wrought within them, yet in the hearts of not a few the gospel 
triumphed, and the fruit of the Spirit was manifest in their 
lives. The Christianity planted in Galatia held its place, in 
spite of numerous out-croppings of the national character, and 
in spite of the cruelties of Diocletian and the bribes and tor 
tures of Julian. In the subsequent persecutions not a few were 
found faithful unto death. 



III. OCCASION AND CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE. 

The Judaists had apparently come into the Galatian churches 
before the apostle s second visit (Credner, Schott, Keuss, Meyer), 
though at that period the mischief had not culminated. But 



xl INTRODUCTION. 

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

1 Acts xxi. 20. 



SUDDEN CHANGE. xli 

But while the false teachers were undermining his apostolic pre 
rogative, they seem to have tried also to damage him by repre 
senting him as inconsistent in his career, as if he had in some 
way or at some time preached circumcision. He had circum 
cised Timothy, and had been, as his subsequent life showed, 
an observer of the " customs," and it was insinuated that he 
accommodated his message to the prejudices of his converts. 
Since to the Jews he became as a Jew, there might be found 
in his history not a few compliances which could be easily 
magnified into elements of inconsistency with his present preach 
ing. In some way, perhaps darker and more malignant, they 
laboured to turn the affections of the Galatian people from 
him, and to a great extent they succeeded. We learn from the 
apostle s self-vindication what were the chief errors propagated 
by the Judaists, and what were the principal calumnies directed 
against himself. 

These open errors and vile insinuations did immediate 
injury. The noxious seed fell into a congenial soil among the 
Galatians. Their jubilant welcome to the apostle cooled into 
indifference, hardened into antagonism. Their extreme readi 
ness to accept the gospel indicated rather facility of impression 
than depth of conviction. The temperament which is so imme 
diately charmed by one novelty, can from its nature, and after 
a brief period, be as easily charmed away by a second attrac 
tion. Their Celtic nature had sincerity without depth, ardour 
without endurance, an earnestness which flashed up in a 
moment like the crackling of thorns, and as soon subsided, 
a mobility which was easily bewitched witched at one time by 
the itinerant preacher, and at another time witched away from 
him by these innovators and alarmists. What surprised the 
apostle was the soonness of the defection, as well as the extent 
of its doctrinal aberrations and its numerical triumph. It had 
broken out like an infectious pestilence. The error involved 
was vital, as it supplanted his gospel by another " which is not 
another," neutralized the freeness of justification, rendered 
superfluous the atoning death of the Son of God, set aside the 
example of Abraham the prototype of all believers in faith and 
blessing, was a relapse to the weak and beggarly elements, and 
brought an obligation on all its adherents to do the whole law. 

Besides, there was apparently in the Galatian nature a 



xlii INTRODUCTION. 

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

O 

the Judaists ; and perhaps they were on this point more readily 
listened to, as the people in Pessinus abstained from swine s 
flesh. Pausanias gives a mythological reason for the absti 
nence. 1 

The peril being so imminent, the alarmed and grieved 
apostle wrote to them in indignant surprise. He felt that their 
defection was all but incomprehensible, as it was in such con- 

1 vii. 15, 7. 



SELF-VINDICATION. xliii 

trast to their early and hearty reception of the gospel and him 
self. Pie was filled with holy anxiety for them, though he has 
nothing but angry censure for their seducers who had no true 
respect for the law which they were trying to bind on them, 
for they did not themselves keep the whole of it, but were only 
by a wretched diplomacy endeavouring to escape from perse 
cution, that is, by representing to the bigoted Jews that they 
made heathen believers Jewish proselytes as a first and indis 
pensable step in their change to Christianity. 1 

And first, and formally, the apostle vindicates his full 
apostolic authority : affirming, that his office was primal like 
that of the original twelve ; that his gospel was in no sense 
of human origin or conveyance, but came to him directly 
by the revelation of Jesus Christ ; that his change from 
Judaism to Christianity was notorious ; that his views as the 
apostle of the Gentiles had all along been decided ; that when 
false brethren stealthily crept in to thwart him, he had opened 
out his teaching fully to James, Peter, and John, who acquiesced 
in it ; that he would not circumcise Titus, his fellow-labourer ; 
that the apostles of the circumcision acknowledged his mission 
and gave him the right hand of fellowship ; and that so averse 
to any compromise on the point of a free gospel was he, that 
at Antioch he publicly rebuked Peter for his tergiversation. 
While his opponents were meri-pleasers, his whole conduct 
showed that another and opposite motive was ever ruling him, for 
men-pleasing and Christ s service were incompatible ; that the 
insinuation of his preaching circumcision was met and refuted 
by the fact that he was still persecuted ; and that, finally, he 
desires to be no further troubled, for his connection with the 
Saviour had left its visible traces upon him, as he bears in his 
body the marks of Jesus. 

Secondly, as to the doctrine of the Judaists, he utterly 
reprobates it ; calls it a subversion of the gospel of Christ ; 
asserts that justification is not of works, but only of faith in 
Christ; identifies this doctrine with his own spiritual experience; 
adduces the example of Abraham whose faith was counted 
for righteousness ; proves that law and curse are associated, 
and that from this curse Christ has redeemed us ; argues the 
superiority of the promise to the law in a variety of particulars; 
1 See Commentary under vi. 12, 13. 



xliv INTRODUCTION. 

shows the use of the law as a poedagogue, while during paedagogy, 
and prior to the fulness of the time, the heir was a minor, differ 
ing nothing from a bond-slave; repeats his sense of their danger; 
fortifies his argument by an allegory based on the history of 
Abraham, the lesson of which is the spiritual freedom of the 
children of the promise, and in which they are exhorted to stand 
fast ; utters a solemn warning, that if a man gets himself cir 
cumcised, Christ profits him nothing, and that all who seek 
justification by the law are fallen from grace; affirms that cir 
cumcision and uncircumcision are nothing in themselves, and 

O / 

that he who troubled the Galatians, whoever he might be, shall 
bear his judgment, exclaiming in a moment of angry contempt, 
" I would they were even cut off that trouble you." Toward 
the end of the epistle the apostle recurs to the same errors ; 
accuses their patrons of being simply desirous of making a fair 
show in the flesh, and of wishing to avoid persecution ; and he 
concludes by avowing his glorying in the cross, and his belief 
that what is outer is nothing, and what is inner is everything. 

There are in the epistle some elements of Galatian character 
referred to or implied. The Galatians are warned against 
making their liberty an occasion for the flesh ; against biting 
and devouring one another ; against fulfilling the lusts of the 
flesh and doing its works which are specified ; against vain 
glory, and mutual provocation, and envy. Exhortations are 
also tendered to them against selfishness and conceit ; against 
sowing to the flesh, for the harvest is certainly of the same 
nature as the seed ; against exhaustion or despondency in well 
doing; and they are encouraged, at the same time, as they have 
opportunity, to do good. 

It may be safely surmised that these advices were not ten 
dered at random, but that they were meant to meet and check 
certain national propensities detected by the apostle in the 
Galatian people. Whatever modifying effect their long resi 
dence in Asia Minor might have had, however much certain 
earlier characteristics may have been toned down, they were 
not wholly obliterated. Their fickleness (Gal. i. 4) has been 
noticed by several observers. Cassar pictures this feature of 
their western ancestors : Partim qui mobilitate et levitate animi 
novis imperils studebant" 1 Again he says, Et infirmitatem 
1 Bell. Gall. ii. 1. 



FEATURES OF KELTIC CHARACTER. xlv 

Gallorum veritus, quod sunt in consiliis capiendis mobiles et 
novis plerurnque rebus student ; l and he adds some touches about 
their anxiety for news, and their sudden counsels on getting 
them. 2 In another place, where he repeats the sentiment, he 
asserts, Ad bella suscipienda Gallorum alacer ac promptus est 
animus, sic mollis ac minime resistens ad calamitates perferendas 
mens eorum est. 3 Livy observed the same feature : Primaque 
eorum prcelia plus quam virorum, postrema minus quam femin- 
arum esse. 4 Tacitus speaks of one tribe as levissimus quisque 
Gallorum et inopia audax? Polybius says, Sia TO ^ TO 
7T\elov, aX\a crvX\,rj(3& r]V CUTTOV TO >yi<yvouevov VTTO TWV TaXaTtav, 
6vua> [j,a\Xov 77 \oyi(T/jio:> (3pa/3evea@ai. ti Their modern historian 
also thus characterizes them : Les traits saillans de la famille 
Gauloise, ceux qui la distinguent le plus, a mon avis, des autres 
families humaines peuvent se resumer ainsi, une bravoure per- 
sonnelle que rien n egale chez les peuples anciens, tin esprit franc, 
impetueux, ouvert a toutes les impressions, eminemment intelli 
gent ; mais a cote de cela une mobilite extreme, point de Constance, 
une repugnance marquee aux idees de discipline et d ordre si 
puissantes chez les races Germaniques, beaucoup d ostentation, 
enfin une desunion perpetuelle, fruit de V excessive vaniteJ 

The passion of their ancestors for a sensuous religion has 
been also marked : Natio est omnium Gallorum admodum dedita 
religionibus* Diodorus Siculus relates the same characteristic." 
Cicero tells of Deiotarus, that he did nothing without augury, 
and that he had heard from his own lips that the flight of an 
eagle would induce him to come back, after he had gone a 
considerable portion of a journey. 10 That the old nation was 
impetuous and quarrelsome has been told by several writers, 
and there is earnest exhortation in the epistle against a similar 
propensity in the Galatian churches. Ammianus brands them 
as extremely quarrelsome, and of great pride and insolence 
" their voices are formidable and threatening, whether in anger 

1 Bell. Gall. iv. 5. 2 Ibid. v. 5. 

3 Ibid. iii. 19. See Commentary under iii. 1. 4 x. 28. 

5 De German, xxix. p. 136, Op. vol. iv. ed. Ruperti. 

G ii. 35 ; Opera, vol. i. p. 201, ed. Schweighiiuser. 

7 Thierry, Ilistoire des Gaulois, Introd. xii. 

8 Cajsar, Bell. Gall. vi. 16. 9 v. 27. 
10 De Divinatione, i. 15, ii. 36, 37. 



xlvi INTRODUCTION. 

or in good humour." 1 Diodorus affirms their love of strife 
and single comhats among themselves after their feasts ; their 
disregard of life arising from their belief in the Pythagorean 
doctrine of transmigration : Kdrotvoi Se 6We? /caO V7rep{3o\i]v 
. . . peOvcrOevTes et9 VTTVOV rj i^aviddSeis? "The nation," says 
Ammianus Marcellinus, " is fond of wine, and of certain liquors 
resembling it ; many of the lower class, their senses being 
weakened by continual intoxication, run about at random." 3 

The warring against the works of the flesh might also allude 
to certain national propensities. Their ancestors were marked 
by intemperance and quarrelsomeness they are forbidden to 
bite and devour one another. 

What effect was produced by the epistle we know not. 
The Judaistic influence may have been neutralized for a time, 
but it might not be uprooted. Some of the fathers witness 
that the errors rebuked still continued, with more or less modi 
fication. Jerome says without hesitation, that the traces of 
their virtues and their errors remained to his day. 4 They 
followed the Jewish reckoning of the paschal feast. One sect 
is described as insanientes potibus et bacchantes. Galatia was 
the region of later ecclesiastical strifes and heresies. Jerome 
gives a catalogue of them in his second preface to his com 
mentary on the epistle. 

The epistle consists of two parts the first doctrinal, and 
the second practical ; or it may be taken as consisting of three 
sections : the first containing personal vindication, and in the 
form of narrative the first two chapters ; the second, doctrinal 
argument the third and fourth chapters ; and the third, prac 
tical exhortation the fifth and sixth chapters. The autobio 
graphical portion is linked on to the dogmatic section by the 
language addressed to Peter at Antioch ; and the conclusion at 
which he arrives, at the end of the fourth chapter the freedom 
of believers suggests the admonition to stand fast in that 
freedom, and then not to abuse it, but to walk in love and in 
the spirit the works of the flesh being so opposite. Other 
counsels follow, connected by some link of mental association. 

1 xv. 12. 2 v. 2(>, 30. 

" J xv. 12. Compare Suidas, sub voce "Aor,y. 4 Vol. vii. 417. 

" See Milrnan s History of Christianity, vol. ii. 1G2, London 18G7. 



PATRISTIC EVIDENCE. xlvii 



IV. GENUINENESS OF THE EPISTLE. 

The earlier fathers have no direct citations from the epistle, 
but their allusions betoken unconscious familiarity with its lan 
guage. Thus Clement writes : " Christ our Lord gave His 
blood for us by the will of God" 1 not unlike Gal. i. 4 ; " His 
sufferings were before your eyes" 2 a faint reminiscence of 
Gal. iii. 1. Ignatius says : " He obtained the ministry not of 
himself, nor by men," 3 like Gal. i. 1 ; " If we still live accord 
ing to Jewish law, we confess that we Jiave not received 
grace," 4 borrowed from Gal. v. 3, 4. Though these Ignatian 
epistles may not be genuine, they are early productions, and 
give us the echoes of a sub-apostolic writer. In the Syriac 
recension, Ignatius, ad Polycarp. enjoins : " Bear all men as 
the Lord beareth thee ; bear the infirmities of all men, as thou 
saidst;" which may be compared with Gal. vi. 2. Polycarp 
is more distinct : " Knowing then this, that God is not mocked,"* 
Gal. vi. 7 ; " Built up into the faith delivered to us, which is 
the mother of us all," 6 Gal. iv. 26 ; " The Father, who raised 
Him from the dead," 7 Gal. i. 1. The allusions taken from Bar 
nabas xix. and Hennas, Simil. ix. 13, may scarcely be quoted as 
proof. In the Oratio ad Grcccos, ascribed to Justin Martyr, 
occurs the quotation from Gal. iv. 12, ytveaOe 009 eya) OTI 
Kajfo tfprjv Co? u/xet? ; and the sins named in Gal. v. 20 are 
quoted with the apostle s addition : ical ra op,oia TOVTOIS. In 
his Dial c. Trypli. cap. 90, 96, he adduces two quotations from 
the Old Testament like those in Gal. iii. 10, 13, and in the 
apostle s version too, which agrees neither with the Hebrew 
nor the Septuagint. The first quotation is introduced by the 
apostle s marked words, inro Kardpav. In his Apology, i. 53, 
Justin quotes Isa. liv. 1, and works upon it, as does the apostle 
in Gal. iv. 27. 



1 To aCipat, aiiTW fouziv tv QihqfAKri Qtov. Ad Corinth, i. 

2 T vetSvifteifret a.\nw f /iv x-po oQda. hfAuv vpuv. Do. ii. 

3 Oux. $ ectvTov ovos 0< cLvdpuvuv. Ad Phttadelph. i. 

4 E/ KMTX. vciftov Iov%aix.o!> ^ufAsv, ofto hciywptu xa-piv 
Ad Maynes. 8. See Cohortatio ad Griecos, 40. 

5 E/$orf bvv OTI o Qec; ov ftvxrypi^SToti. Ad Philip. V. 
n/oT/v, %ITI; ts~l fAqntip 7?u.vTuv y^uy. Do. 3. 

7 Qui resuscitavit eum a mortals. Do. 12. 



xlviii INTRODUCTION. 

Irenaeus quotes the epistle by name : Sed in ea quce est ad 
Galatas sic ait, quod ergo lex factontm, posita est usque quo 
veniat semen cui promissum est. 1 Allusions are also found in 
iii. 6, 5, to Gal. iv. 8, 9, in iii. 16, 3, to Gal. iv. 4, 5, which is 
avowedly quoted from the apostle s letter to the Galatians in 
epistola qua? est ad Galatas ; and in v. 21, 1 are quoted Gal. iii. 
15, 19, and iv. 4. The Alexandrian Clement quotes expressly 
Gal. iv. 19, under the formula JTauXo? Ta\drai<? eTncrreAA&w." 
Tertullian is as explicit in referring to Gal. v. 20 : Paulus 
scribens ad Galatas. The Epistle to Diognetus contains the 
expression : TrapaT^prjcriv rwv fjirjvojv Kai ro)V rj/^epwv Troieladai." 
Melito repeats in spirit Gal. iv. 8, 9. 4 Athenagoras cites the 
phrase, " the weak and beggarly elements." 6 This epistle is 
found in all the canonical catalogues, in the Muratorian Frag 
ment, and it is included also in the old Syriac and Latin ver 
sions. Marcion recognised it, and placed it in pre-eminence 
jyrincipalem adversus Judaismum. 6 According to Hippolytus, 
the Ophites made considerable use of it, and their writings con 
tain many quotations : 7 77 avw lepovcraXtf/j,, Gal. iv. 26, in 
Hceres. v. 7 ; and in do. v. 8, Gal. iv. 27 is quoted. The 
Valentinians were also well acquainted with the epistle, as 
IrensBus testifies in i. 3, 5. Celsus asserts that the Christians, 
whatever their wrano;lings and shameful contests, agreed in 

Cj O J O 

saying continually, " The world is crucified to me, and I to 
the world;" Origen quietly adding, rovro <yap povov airo rov 
TIav\ov eoiKe fjie^vriiJiovevK&vai 6 .KeXcro?. 8 See commentary 
under ii. 11, and the attitude of the Clementine Homilies in 
relation to the passage. 

The one exception against all critics is Bruno Bauer, 
who regards the epistle as made up of portions of llomans 
and 1st and 2d Corinthians, and condemns the compilation as 
stupid, aimless, and contradictory. To review his assertions 
would be vain ; they are so weak that the merit of perverse 

1 IliKres. vii. 7, 2. - Strom, iii. 

s Just, Mart, Opera, vol. ii. 474, ed. Otto. 

4 Oral, ad Anton. Cxs. Cureton s Spiciley. Syr. pp. 41-49. 

5 Ilptafatat, 16. G Tertullian, Adv. Marc. v. 2. 

7 Pp. 106-114, ed. Miller. 

8 Origen, c. Celsum, p. 273, ed. Spencer. 

9 Kritik der Paulinischen Briefe, Erste Abtheil, Berlin 1850. 



OBJECTIONS OF BRUNO BAUER. xlix 

or learned ingenuity cannot be assigned to them. The process 
is a simple one, to find similar turns of thought and expression 
in the same man s letters on similar or collateral themes, and 
then, if he write three letters in such circumstances within a 
brief space of time, to argue that one of them must be spurious 
from its accidental or natural resemblances to the other two. 
The shortest, like the Epistle to the Galatians, may be selected 
as the one to be so branded. And yet such similarities of thought 
and diction as are adduced by Bruno Bauer are the standing 
proofs of identity of authorship, for every writer may be 
detected by the unconscious use of them. Some of the simi 
larities which he arrays throughout his seventy-four pages are 
close like those taken by him from Romans where the apostle is 
illustrating the same truths as he has been discussing in this 
epistle ; but many other instances have no real resemblance 
are only the accidental employment of like terms in a totally 
different connection. Baur himself says of this epistle, that to 
Rome, and the two epistles to Corinth, gegen diese vier Brief e ist 
nicht nur nie auch nur der geringste Verdacht der Undchtheit 
erhoben werden, sondern sie tragen auch den Character paulin- 
ischer Originalitdt so unwidersprechlich an sich, dass sich gar 
nicht denken Idsst, welches Recht je der kritische Zweifel gegen 
sie gelten maclien konnte. 1 

The genuineness of the epistle has thus been unanimously 
acknowledged the slight exception of Bruno Bauer not suffic 
ing to break the universal harmony. The apostle s mental cha 
racteristics are indelibly impressed on the letter. In a doctrinal 
discussion or a practical dissertation, in a familiar correspondence 
on common things, or in any composition which does not stir 
up feeling or invoke personal vindication, one may write without 
betraying much individualism ; but when the soul is perturbed, 
and emotions of surprise, anger, and sorrow are felt singly or 
in complex unity, the writer portrays himself in his letter, for 
he writes as for the moment he feels, what comes into his mind 
is committed to paper freshly and at once without being toned 
down or weakened by his hovering over a choice of words. 
The Epistle to the Galatians is of this nature. It is the apostle 
self-portrayed ; and who can mistake the resemblance ? The 
workings of his soul are quite visible in their strength and suc- 
1 Paulus, p. 248. 
d 



1 INTRODUCTION. 

cession ; each idea is seen as it is originated by what goes before 
it, and as it suggests what come after it in the throbbings of 
his wounded soul ; the argument and the expostulation are 
linked together in abrupt rapidity, anger is tempered by love, 
and sorrow by hope ; and the whole is lighted up by an earnest 
ness which the crisis had deepened into a holy jealousy, and 
the interests at stake had intensified into the agony of a second 

O v 

spiritual birth. The error which involved such peril, and 
carried with it such fascination, was one natural in the circum 
stances, and glimpses of its origin, spread, and power are given 
us in the Acts of the Apostles. Who that knows how Paul, 
with his profound convictions, must have stood toward such 
false doctrine, will for a moment hesitate to recognise him as 

/ O 

he writes in alarmed sympathy to his Galatian converts, who 
had for a season promised so well, but had been seduced by 
plausible reactionists the enemies of his apostolic prerogative, 
and the subverters of that free and full gospel, in proclaiming 
and defending which he spent his life ? 



V. PLACE AND TIME OF COMPOSITION. 

The place and time of composition have been, and still are 
disputed, and the two inquiries are bound up together. If the 
letter was written at Ephesus, the period was relatively early ; 
but if at Rome, it was late in the apostle s life. 

Those who hold that the gospel was preached in Galatia 
at an earlier epoch than that referred to in Acts xvi. 6, 
assign a correspondent date to the epistle. Others hold that 
it was written before the apostolic convention in Jerusalem, 
as Baumgarten, Michaelis, Schmidt. Koppe, Keil, Borger, 
Paulus, Bottger, Niemeyer, Ulrich, though not for the same 
reasons, generally maintain this view. Marcion seems to have 
believed, like these critics, that it was the earliest of Paul s 
epistles. According to Tertullian and Epiphanius, he set this 
epistle first in his catalogue ; but as he places the Epistles to the 
Thessalonians after the Epistle to the Romans, no great credit 
can be reposed in his chronology, for which, however, Wieseler 



OPINION ON DATE OF THE EPISTLE. ll 

contends. Tertullian s words are, principalem adversus Judais- 
mum epistolam nos quoque confitemur qua; Galatas docet, and 
there follows a running comment on the epistle. The epithet 
principalis has apparently an ethical meaning, placed first as 
being the most decided against Judaism. Epiphanius SRAS of 
Marcion s canon, al eTTicrroXal al Trap avrw Xeyo/^evai elai 
Trpcarrj fj,ev Trpos PaXara?, Bevrepa Se vrpo? KopivOtovs. 1 Again : 
Avrr) jap Trap avrw Trpwrr) Kelrai. f H//.et<? Se rrjv dva\.ojrjv 
rore eTTOiTjad/jieOa ov% co? Trap aurw, aAA, co<? e ^et TO cnrocr- 
TO\IKOV prjTOV, rrjv Trpo? Pco/zatou? rd^awres Trpcarrjv. 2 But the 
chronology is wrong which dates the apostle s first visit to 
Galatia before Acts xvi. 6, and the relative o{mw<? ra^eox; in i. 6 
is rather an indefinite term on which to found a distinct date. 

But the epistle is by some supposed to be the last of 
Paul s epistles, and to have been written at Rome. The 
epigraph eypdiprj CLTTO Pco^s is found in several MSS., as B 2 , 
K, L, the two Syriac and Coptic versions. The same con 
jecture is found, among the fathers, in Eusebius of Emesa, 
Jerome, Theodoret, Euthalius, and CEcumenius ; and their 
opinion has been followed in more recent times by Flacius, 
Baronius, Bullinger, Hunnius, Calovius, Lightfoot, Hammond, 
Schrader, Kohler, and Riccaltoun. Theodoret dates the epistle 
as the first of the Roman imprisonment ; and Kohler dates it 
the last, in A.D. 69, two years before Nero s death. The notion 
that the apostle was in prison when he wrote the letter has partly 
given rise to the hypothesis. But the language of the apostle in 
iv. 20, " I desire to be present with you," does not prove that he 
was in bonds does not bear out all Jerome s paraphrase, vellem 
nunc prcesens esse si confessionis me vincula non arctarent. 
Jerome repeats the same idea under vi. 11 (prohibebatur quidem 
vinculis). Theodoret merely gives his opinion in his general 
preface, and CEcumenius in his brief prefatory note to this 
epistle. On iv. 20, the commentator named Eusebius in the 
Catena says, eVeiS?) erv^ave 8eSefte^o9 Kal /eaTe^o / uez>o?. 3 
Riccaltoun says on vi. 17, that "the clause, from henceforth 
let no man trouble me, would go near to persuade one that 
this epistle was written near about the time when he finished 

1 Panar. lib. i. torn. iii. ; Hseres. xlii. ps. 5GG, vol. i. cd. GEliler. 

2 Panar. lib. i. torn. iii. 68, p. 638, vol. i. ed. CEhler. 

3 Catena, p. 67, ed. Cramer. So also Carey. 



Hi INTRODUCTION. 

his course, and much later than that which is commonly fixed 
on ; and the note of being written from Rome, which is allowed 
not to be authentic, seems much nearer the true date than any 
other which has been pitched upon before he went thither." 
The clauses so referred to are otherwise better and more natu 
rally explained. See the commentary under them. The con 
jecture that the epistle was sent from Home has therefore no 
authority no warrant from any expression in the letter itself, 
is plainly contradicted by the chronology of the Acts, and the 
ovrco To^e&>9 would certainly be inapplicable to a period so 
very late. 

Other opinions may be noticed in passing. Beza assigns 
Antioch as the place of composition, before the apostle went 
up to Jerusalem ; Macknight fixes on the same place, but dates 
the epistle after the council ; Michaelis supposes it to have been 
written from Thessalonica, and Mill from Troas ; while Lard- 
ner, Benson, and Wordsworth hold that the apostle only once 
had visited Galatia, and that the epistle was written at Corinth 
during his first visit to that city, Acts xviii. 11. These 
opinions may be at once set aside. Wordsworth s argument 
based on the omission of any direction about a collection for 
the poor is exceedingly precarious, especially when viewed in 
connection with 1 Cor. xvi. 1. 

It has been held by perhaps the majority that the epistle 
was written at Ephesus. The apostle, on leaving Galatia, after 
his second visit of confirmation, having " passed through the 
upper coasts," arrived at Ephesus, and there he remained three 
years, from A.D. 54 to 57. In this city he could easily and 
frequently receive intelligence of the Galatian churches ; and 
if the news of their danger reached him, he w y ould at once 
despatch a remonstrant epistle. The OUTW? ra^eW fits into 
this period, and to any year of it his surprise that they 
were changing so soon after his second visit to them, or so 
soon after their conversion or after the intrusion of the false 
teachers. The elastic OVTCO ra^ew? will suit any of these ter 
mini, but it would not so naturally suit an epoch very much 
later, though perhaps a year or so might make no great differ 
ence. In such a conclusion one might be content to rest, the 
sojourn at Ephesus being alike probable in chronology and in 
circumstances as the place and period of composition. The 



SIMILARITY TO OTHER EPISTLES. liii 

first Epistle to Corinth was written at this time and from 
Ephesus, and in that epistle there is a reference to the Galatian 
churches : " Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I 
have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye," 
xvi. 1. These words may not mean that the apostle sent a 
written order to the Galatians, for they may refer to some 
command given by him during his second and recent visit. 

But there are other letters written nearly at the same 
period which have a generic resemblance to the one before us. 
Between it and the first Epistle to the Corinthians there are 
no such striking points of similarity as would imply an all but 
simultaneous orimn. The case is different with the second 

O 

Epistle to the Corinthians and that to the Romans ; and it 
has been suggested that the resemblances are so close and so 
numerous, as to furnish an argument for supposing the three 
epistles to have been written about the same period. The 
reasoning is quite legitimate. The state of mind under which 
one writes in any crisis does not soon subside, especially if 
similar topics are presenting themselves for illustration and 
similar perils are prolonging the excitement when another 
epistle is to be composed. The previous thoughts, if they are 
to be repeated, clothe themselves instinctively in the previous 
words ; the old allusions recur ; and though there may be much 
that is new, though there may be fuller statement and varying 
appeal, still there is a ground-tone of similarity, like the vibra 
tion of a chord which had been already struck a brief period 
before. What we refer to is not repetition or mechanical 
identity, nor the jejune iteration of characteristic idioms and 
turns of expression, nor the formal recalling and employment 
of the earlier diction ; but the spirit has been so moved by a 
recent train of ideas and emotions as unconsciously to combine 
them with newer thoughts and fresher arguments. 

In the second Epistle to the Corinthians there are themes 
akin to those more briefly handled in Galatians, but with 
marked difference of circumstance. The apostle s vindication 
of his office as compared with that of the original twelve, while 
it is as undaunted in spirit as in Galatians, is not so incisive 
not so autobiographical in character, and is wrapt up with 
other elements of his career. The challenge to his enemies 
and to the false apostles is laden with touching allusions and 



llV INTRODUCTION. 

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



SIMILARITY TO SECOND CORINTHIANS. Iv 

taking for its motto, " I am of Christ ;" there had been false 
philosophies at work denying the resurrection, along with pro 
pensities to idolatry, and the sexual impurities connected with 
it. Spiritual gifts, such as that of tongues, had been abused, 
and had led to scenes of disorder. The apostle is anxious to 
impress upon them his unabated love in the midst of his stern 
rebukes, and his disinterestedness in all his labours, which some 
had apparently called in question, and his care not to build on 
another man s foundation, which some had been mean enough 
to do. Little of this field of discussion is found in Galatians. 
In a word, both epistles are loving letters, not cold and imper 
sonal treatises ; and they let out more of the writer s heart of 
his joys, his loves, his griefs, his anxieties, his fears, his hopes, 
his physical weakness and trials than any other parts of his 
writings. They are a true cardiphonia, and in them you learn 
more of him as a creature of flesh and blood of like passions 
with those about him ; beneath the mantle of inspiration you 
find a man intensely human and sensitive no one more alive 
to affront and disparagement, or more keenly desirous to stand 
well with those whose spiritual benefit he was spending himself 
to promote. 

Now all these general points of similarity are certainly a token 
of identity of authorship, but they scarcely amount to a proof 
that both epistles were written at the same period. The diversity 
is as great as the resemblance; the crisis was somewhat alike in 
both cases ; and though some time elapsed between the dates 
of the two letters, such resemblance would be easily accounted 
for. But there are other points of coincidence. The points 
first adduced by Prof. Lightfoot are not very striking, and 
little stress can be laid on them. " Christ redeemed us from 
the curse of the law, being made a curse for us," 1 is quite 
different, save in general doctrinal import, from " He hath made 
Him to be sin for us who knew no sin." 2 The image, " What 
soever a man soweth, that shall he also reap," 3 is not "reproduced 
in almost the same words," " He that soweth sparingly, shall 
reap also sparingly;" 4 for in the first case it is the certain 
identity of the harvest with the seed, and in the second case it 
is its amount apart from its character, which is asserted ; in 
Galatians it is like quality, but in Corinthians like quantity. 

1 Gal. iii. 13. 2 2 Cor. v. 21. 3 Gal. vi. 7. 4 2 Cor. ix. 6. 



Ivi INTRODUCTION. 

There are other and more striking similarities which Prof. 
Lightfoot has adduced, though he professes not to lay any 
great stress upon them : 

Gal. i. 6, " another gospel," and in 2 Cor. xi. 4. 

Gal. i. 9, v. 21, " tell you before," and in 2 Cor. xiii. 2. 

Gal. i. 10, "persuade men," and in 2 Cor. v. 11, but in a different 

sense. 
Gal. iv. 17, " zealously affect you," and in 2 Cor. xi. 2, "zealous over 

you." 
Gal. vi. 15, "a new creature," and in 2 Cor. v. 17. 

These are more than fortuitous cases ; they indicate the use 
of favourite phraseology. Some words are peculiar to the 
two epistles. The figure /carea-Blew occurs Gal. v. 15 and 
2 Cor. xi. 20, cnropov^ai,, Gal. iv. 20, 2 Cor. iv. 8 ; </>o- 
/Bov/^at, /i?;7rax?, Gal. iv. 11, 2 Cor. xi. 3, xii. 20, and nowhere 
else ; TOVVCIVTIOV, Gal. ii. 7, 2 Cor. ii. 7, and nowhere else in 
Paul s epistles ; /cvpoco in Gal. iii. 15, 2 Cor. ii. 8, and nowhere 
else in the New Testament; and Kav&v is found in Gal. vi. 16, 
and in 2 Cor. x. 13. These words are not so distinctive or so 
numerous as to form a substantial proof, but they have some 
weight when taken along with other coincidences. 

Prof. Lightfoot adduces one peculiar connection between 
the two epistles the counsel to restore a fallen brother. In 
Galatians it certainly comes in abruptly, and seems to have 
been suggested by something without, not by anything in the 
immediate course of thought. It is surmised that what had 

O 

happened at Corinth gave rise to the admonition. A. member 
of that church had fallen into sin, and the apostle had bidden 
the church subject him to discipline. But the church had in 
severity gone beyond what was necessary, and the apostle 
pleads for his forgiveness and restoration. Such an event so 
happening at the time might suggest the injunction, " Restore 
such a one in the spirit of meekness," guarding against ex 
cessive seventy. 

The similarity of the Epistle to the Galatians in many 
points to that to the Romans has often been remarked. Jerome, 
in the preface to his Commentary, says : ut sciatis eandem esse 
materiam et Epistoltx Pauli ad Galatas et qnce ad Romanes scripta 
est, sed hoc differre inter utramque, quod in ilia, altiori sensu et 
profundioribus usus est argumentis. Similar themes are sur- 



SIMILARITY TO ROMANS. Ivii 

rounded with similar illustrations. There is very much more 
material in Romans, both at the beginning and end of the 
epistle, but the Epistle to the Galatians is imbedded in it. The 
one is like an outline, which is filled up in the other, but with 
less of a personal element. The Epistle to the Romans is 
more massive, more expansive, and has about it as much the 
form of a discussion or a didactic treatise as of a letter. The 
presumption then is, that as the likeness between the two 
epistles is so close, they were written much about the same 
time. Nobody doubts the likeness, though many deny the in 
ference, for the plain reason that this similarity will not prove 
immediate connection of time, since the inculcation of analogous 
truths may, after even a considerable interval, lead to the use of 
similar diction. No one can safely or accurately measure the 
interval from the nature or number of such similarities. It is 
certain, however, that no long time could have elapsed between 
the composition of the Epistle to the Galatians and that to the 
Romans, and their juxtaposition in point of time may not 
exceed the relative limit implied in ovra)s ra^iw^. 

The points of similarity between Galatians and Romans are, 
generally, as follows in this table : 

Gal. ii. 16. Knowing that a man Rom. iii. 20. Therefore by the 
is not justified by the works of the deeds of the law there shall no flesh 
law, but by the faith of Jesus be justified in his sight : for by the 
Christ, even we have believed in law is the knowledge of sin. 
Jesus Christ, that we might be jus 
tified by the faith of Christ, and not 
by the works of the law : for by the 
works of the law shall no flesh be 
justified. 

Gal. ii. 19. For I through the law Rom. vii. 4. "\Yherefore, my breth- 
am dead to the law, that I might ren, ye also are become dead to the 
live unto God. law by the body of Christ ; that ye 

should be married to another, even 
to him who is raised from the dead, 
that we should bring forth fruit 
unto God. 

Gal. ii. 20. I am crucified with Rom. vi. G. Knowing this, that 
Christ : nevertheless I live ; yet not our old man is crucified with him, 
I, but Christ liveth in me : and the that the body of sin might be de- 
life which I now live in the flesh I stroyed, that henceforth we should 
live by the faith of the Son of God, not serve sin. 
who loved me, and gave himself for 
me. 



Iviii 



INTRODUCTION. 



Gal. iii. 5, 6. lie therefore that 
ministereth to you the Spirit, and 
worketh miracles among you, doeth 
he it by the works of the law, or 
by the hearing of faith ? Even as 
Abraham believed God, and it was 
accounted to him for righteousness. 

Gal. iii. 7. Know ye therefore 
that they which are of faith, the 
same are the children of Abraham. 



Gal. iii. 8. And the scripture, 
foreseeing that God would justify 
the heathen through faith, preached 
before the gospel unto Abraham, 
saying, In thee shall all nations be 
blessed. 

Gal. iii. 9. So then they which be 
of faith are blessed with faithful 
Abraham. 



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



Rom. iv. 10, 11. How was it then 
reckoned ? when he was in circum 
cision, or in uncircumcision ? Not 
in circumcision, but in uncircum 
cision. And he received the sign of 
circumcision, a seal of the right 
eousness of the faith which he had 
yet being uncircumcised : that he 
might be the father of all them that 
believe, though they be not circum 
cised ; that righteousness might be 
imputed unto them also. 

Rom. iv. 17. (As it is written, I 
have made thee a father of many 
nations,) before him whom he be 
lieved, even God, who quickeneth 
the dead, and calleth those things 
which be not as though they were. 

Rom. iv. 23, 24. Now, it was not 
written for his sake alone, that it 
was imputed to him ; but for us 
also, to whom it shall be imputed, 
if we believe on him that raised up 
Jesus our Lord from the dead. 



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

Gal. iii. 11. But that no man is 
justified by the law in the sight of 
God, it is evident: for, The just 
shall live by faith. 

Gal. iii. 12. And the law is not of 
faith : but, The man that doeth 
them shall live in them. 



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



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



Rom. i. 17. For therein is the 
righteousness of God revealed from 
faith to faith : as it is written, The 
just shall live by faith. 

Rom. x. 5. For Moses describeth 
the righteousness which is of the 
law, That the man which doeth 
those things shall live by them. 

Rom. iv. 13-16. For the promise, 
that he should be the heir of the 
world, was not to Abraham, or to 



^STANCES OF RESEMBLANCE. 



lix 



be confirmed, no man disannulleth, 
or addeth thereto. Now to Abraham 
and his seed were the promises made. 
He saith not, And to seeds, as of 
many ; but as of one, And to thy 
seed, which is Christ. And this I 
say, that the covenant, that was 
confirmed before of God in Christ, 
the law, Avhich was four hundred 
and thirty years after, cannot dis 
annul, that it should make the pro 
mise of none effect. For if the 
inheritance be of the law, it is no 
more of promise : but God gave it 
to Abraham by promise. 

Gal. iii. 22. But the scripture hath 
concluded all under sin, that the 
promise by faith of Jesus Christ 
might be given to them that believe. 

Gal. iii. 27. For as many of you 
as have been baptized into Christ 
have put on Christ. 



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



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



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



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



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



Rom. vi. 3, xiii. 14. Know ye not, 
that so many of us as were baptized 
into Jesus Christ were baptized into 
his death ? But put ye on the Lord 
Jesus Christ, and make not provi 
sion for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts 
thereof. 

Rom. viii. 14-17. For as many as 
are led by the Spirit of God, they 
are the sons of God. For ye have 
not received the spirit of bondage 
again to fear ; but ye have received 
the Spirit of adoption, whereby we 
cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself 
beareth witness with our spirit, that 
we are the children of God : And if 
children, then heirs ; heirs of God, 
and joint-heirs with Christ ; if so 
be that we suffer with him, that we 
may be also glorified together. 

Rom. ix. 7, 8. Neither, because 
they are the seed of Abraham, are 
they all children : but, In Isaac shall 
thy seed be called : That is, They 
which are the children of the flesh, 
these are not the children of God : 
but the children of the promise are 
counted for the seed. 

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



Ix 



INTRODUCTION. 



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



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



Gal. vi. 2. Bear ye one another s 
burdens, and so fulfil the law of 
Christ. 



commandment, it is briefly compre 
hended in this saying, namely, Thou 
shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 
Love worketh no ill to his neigh 
bour : therefore love is the fulfilling 
of the law. 

Rom. viii. 4. That the righteous 
ness of the law might be fulfilled in 
us, who walk not after the flesh, but 
after the Spirit. 

Rom. vii. 23, 25. But I see another 
law in my members warring against 
the law of my mind, and bringing 
me into captivity to the law of sin 
which is in my members. ... So then 
with the mind I myself serve the law 
of God, but with the flesh the law 
of sin. 

Rom. xv. 1. AVe then that are 
strong ought to bear the infirmities 
of the weak, and not to please our 
selves. 



These resemblances are very striking, and would seem to indi 
cate nearness of period in the composition. But Dean Alford in 
terposes thus: "It may be that the elementary truths brought out 
amidst deep emotion, sketched, so to speak, in rough lines in the 
fervent Epistle to the Galatians, dwelt long on St. Paul s mind, 
even though other objects of interest regarding other churches 
intervened, and at lensjth worked themselves out under the 

J O 

teaching and leading of the Spirit into that grand theological 
argument which he afterwards addressed, without any special 
moving occasion, but as his master- exposition of Christian 
doctrine, to the church of the metropolis of the world." The 
statement is true, but it does not on this point bring out the 
whole truth. For the resemblances are closer, more definite, 
and in every way more characteristic than the objection allows. 
Not only is the Galatian outline preserved in Romans, but its 
minutiae, its sudden turns, its rapid logic beating down opposi 
tion, its peculiarities of quotation and proof are rewritten ; the 
smaller touches are reproduced as well as the more prominent 
courses of argument ; forms of thought and imagery suggested 
and sharpened by personal relations and direct collision in the 
shorter letter, are reimpressed on the longer and more impersonal 



COMMENTARIES ON THE EPISTLE. Ixi 

production, without any immediate necessity. The parallel is 
about as close in many sections as between Ephesians and Colos- 
sians. See our Introductions to these epistles. There are also 
words peculiar to the two epistles, such as Kw^oi, fj,arcapio-/uios, 
SaaTa^eiv, e\ev6epou>, t Se, Kardpa, KaTapaadai, 
9, Trapa/Bdrifi ; and phrases also, as rl eri; Trap o, ol ra 
Toiav-ra Trpacrcrowres, ri Xeyet f) <ypd<prj So that Prof. Light- 
foot s argument becomes very plausible, and, to use his own 
words, " The reasons given certainly do not amount to a demon 
stration, but every historical question must be decided by striking 
a balance between conflicting probabilities ; and it seems to me 
that the arguments here adduced, however imperfect, will hold 
their ground against those which are alleged in favour of the 
earlier date." He ingeniously concludes that the epistle may 
have been written between the second Epistle to the Corin 
thians and the Epistle to the Romans, and on the journey 
between Macedonia and Achaia. This view is adopted by 
Bleek, 1 and virtually by Conybeare and Howson, who date the 
epistle from Corinth, while Grotius and De Wette do not 
definitely commit themselves to it. 

Looking, in a word, at both sides of the question, we feel 
it still to be impossible to arrive at absolute certainty on this 
point, and critics will probably oscillate between Ephesus and 
Greece. The opinion that Greece was the place where the 
epistle was written has certainly very much to recommend it, 
though we may not be able to reach a definite and indisputable 
conclusion. 



VI. COMMENTARIES ON THE EPISTLE. 

There are the well-known commentaries of Chrysostom, 
Theodoret, CEcumenius, and Theophylact, with some extracts 
from Eusebius Emeseuus, Severianus, and Theodore of Mop- 

1 Einkitung in das Neue Testament, p. 418, Berlin 1862. Storr has a 
good essay with this heading, Prolmio de consensu Epistolarnm Panli ad 
Hebrxos et Galatas (Comment. TJieol. ed. Velthusen, Kuinoel, et Ruperti, 
vol. ii. p. 39-4), Lipsise 1795. 



Ixii INTRODUCTION. 

suestia in Cramer s Catena. Extracts from Gennadius and 
Photius are found in CEcumenius. Among the Latin fathers 
may be named Marius Yictorinus (Abbe Migne s Pat. Lat. 
viii.), the pseudo-Ambrose or Hilary, Jerome, Augustine, 
Pelagius, Primasius, and others of less note. Mediaeval writers 
may be passed over. Luther follows, with Calvin, Beza, Eras 
mus, Musculus, Bullinger, Calovius, Zanchius, Crocius, Coc- 
ceius, Piscator, Hunnius, Tarnovius, Aretius, Wolf, etc. : and 
the Catholic commentators, Estius and a-Lapide. Wetstein, 
Grotius, and the writers in the Critici Sacri and Fratres Poloni 
are well known, and so are the collectors of annotations, as 
Eisner, Kypke, Krebs, Knatchbull, Loesner, Alberti, Kiittner, 
Palairet, Heinsius, Bos, Keuchenius, Dou;hta3us, and Hom- 
bergk. There are also the older English expositors, Ferguson, 
Dickson, Hammond, Chandler, Whitby, Locke, Doddridge, 
etc. etc. We have also the general commentaries of Koppe, 
Flatt, MoruSj Rosenmiiller, Jaspis, Hyperius, Cameron, and 
Eeiche 1859. 

The following more special commentaries may be noted : 
Luther, 1519 ; Pareus, 1621 ; Wesselius, 1756 ; Semler, 1779 ; 
Schulze, 1784 ; Mayer, 1788 ; Krause, 1788 ; Carpzov, 1794; 
Borger, 1807 ; Paulus, 1831 ; Eiickert, 1833 ; Matthies, 1833 ; 
Usteri, 1833; Schott, 1833; Zschokke, 1834; Sardinoux, 1837; 
Olshausen, 1841 ; Windischmann, 1843 ; Baumgarten-Crusius, 
1845; Peile, 1849; Conybeare and Howson, 1850; Jatho, 1851; 
Hilgenfeld, 1852 ; Brown, 1853 ; Jowett, 1855 ; Bagge, 1856 ; 
Trana, 1857; Ewakl, 1857; Bisping, 1857; Winer, 4th eel., 
1859; Wieseler, 1859; Wordsworth s New Test. P. iii., 1859: 
Webster and Wilkinson, do. vol. ii., 1861; Meyer, 1862; 
Schmoller, J^aur/es J3ibelwerk, viii., 1862 ; Kamphausen, 
Bunsen s jBibehcerk, viii. Halb-band, 1863 ; Hofmann, 1863 ; 
Gwynne, 1863 ; Ellicott, 3d ed., 1863 ; Alford, New Test. 
vol. iii., 4th ed., 1865; Matthias, 1865; Lightfoot, 1865; 
Vomel, 1865 ; Carey, 1867 ; Larsen (Kjobenhavn), 1867. 
Reference may be made also to Bonitz, Exam. Gal. iii. 20, 
1800 ; Hank, Exeget. Versuch tibcr Gal. iii. 15, 22, Stud. u. 
Kritik. 1862 ; Hermann, de P. Epist. ad Galat. tribus primis 
capitibics, 1832 ; Elwert, Annot. in Gal. ii. 1-10, 1852 ; Keerl 
in Gal. vi. 1-10, 1834; Holsten, Inhalt, etc., des Briefes an 
die Galaten, 1859, enlarged and reprinted, 1868; Fritzsche, 



COMMENTARIES ON THE EPISTLE. Ixiii 

de nonnullis ad Galat. Epistolce locis, Opuscula, p. 158, etc., 
1838. 

Of a popular and practical nature are Perkins, 1609 ; 
Riccaltoun, 1772; Barnes, 1840; Haldane, 1848; Anacker, 
Leipzig 1856 ; Twele, Hannover 1858 ; Kelly, 1865 ; Bayley, 
1869. Exegetical remarks on portions of the epistle may also 
be found of a rationalistic nature in Holsten s Zum Eoangelium 
des Paulus und des Petrus, Rostock 1868 ; and of an opposite 
character in CErtel s Paulus in der Apostel-geschichte, Halle 
1868. 

When Buttmann, Matthias, Kiihner, Winer, Scheuerlein, 
Bernhardy, Madvig, Schmalfeld, Krliger, Schirlitz, Green, A. 
Buttmann, and Jelf are simply named, the reference is to their 
respective Grammars ; and when Suidas, Hesychius, Host mid 
Palm, Wahl, Wilke, Bretschneider, Robinson, Cremer, Liddell 
and Scott are simply named, the reference is to their respective 
Lexicons. The references to Hartung are to his Lelire von den 
Partikeln der griecldschen Sprache, Erlangen 1832. 



COMMENTARY ON GALATIANS. 



CHAPTER I. 

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

A 



2 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 

it is more distinctly stated : neque proplieta neque apostolus in 
hoc tempore speratus a vobis aliquis alius prceter nos. . . . Ipse 
cnim est annus Dei acceptus nos apostolos habens duodecim 
menses (iv. 35). Besides, Paul s official affinity with the Gentiles, 
and his characteristic assertion of their freedom their non- 
obligation to submit to the Mosaic law, excited suspicion and 
hostility against him on the part of all frXwrat rov vop.ov 
who held that it was to be rigidly enforced on heathen converts, 
who were to be permitted only through the gate of virtual prose- 
lytism to enter into full communion with the church. Perhaps 
this depreciation arose also from some false view of his connec 
tion with Barnabas, and of their relation to the prophets of the 
church at Antioch, by the laying on of whose hands both had 
been separated and designated to missionary work. The apostle 
therefore enters at once on self-vindication non superbe sed 
necessarie (Jerome) not because of the mere slander, 8ia/3o\^v 
(Theodoret), or because they held him cheap, e^vre\L^ov 
(CEcumenius) ; but because the slight cast upon him was not 
only a denial of Christ s authority to rule in His own church, 
and to choose and endow any one to serve in it, but was also 
a preliminary step to the promulgation and advocacy of a mass 
of errors, which detracted from the fulness of His atoning work 
by suspending Gentile salvation on the observance of Gentile 
Jewish ritual. True, indeed, he was not one of the original 
twelve, but he claims a parity of rank, as his call was as real as 
theirs though posterior to it : axnrepel ru> e/crpw^art w<j)0r) Ka^ol 
(1 Cor. xv. 8). The same Jesus who summoned the twelve 
by the Lake of Galilee, did, after being taken up into heaven, 
appear in glory " above the brightness of the sun," and make 
him " a minister and a witness," and send him to the Gentiles. 
He saw "that Just One, and heard the voice of His mouth," 
and therefore had a commission as divine, distinct, and inde 
pendent as any one of those whom he calls ol irpo epov avrocr- 
roXot. So that he opens by a sharp and resolute assertion of 
his full apostolic prerogative ; and the first verse contains, not 
exactly what Jowett calls " the text of the whole epistle," but 
an assertion of official dignity, which underlies the grand ques 
tion discussed in it. 

Ver. 1. JTaOXo?, aTrocrroXo? OVK a-n av0pa>7ra)V ov&e Si av9pu>- 
Paul, an apostle, not from men nor by man." There 



CHAP. I. 1. 



needs no participle to be inserted after aTnWoXo?, as Borger, 
Bloomfield, and others suppose, its relations being sufficiently 
marked and guarded by the following prepositions. In most of 
the other epistles the same assertion is made, though in quieter 
and more general terms. For its different forms, see on Phil, 
i. 1 ; and for the meaning of " apostle," see on Eph. iv. 11, and 
this epistle, i. 19, in the essay at the end of this chapter. But 
now, the reality of his apostleship being impugned, and that for a 
selfish purpose, he at once asserts its divinity with bold and un- 
mistakeable emphasis. Sometimes, when the opposition to him 
was not so fierce, he uses other arguments : " the seal of mine 
apostleship are ye in the Lord;". truly the signs of an apostle 
were wrought among you;" "I am not a whit behind the 
chiefest of the apostles ;" but the antagonism to him in Galatia 
demanded a more incisive vindication. The statement is made 
by a change of prepositions and a change of number. The use 
of two prepositions in successive clauses is indeed quite charac 
teristic of the apostle s style ; and cnro and Sid are not to be con 
founded, as if the whole meaning were, that in no sense did Paul 
receive his apostleship from a human source. On purpose he 
puts the fact very distinctly : he was an apostle, not from men, 
7ro, referring to remote or primary source ; nor by man, Sid 
referring to medium or nearer instrumental cause. Winer, 
47 ; Bernhardy, p. 222. Some expositors, as Koppe, Borger, 
TJsteri, and Gwynne, neglecting the change of preposition, lay 
the stress on the change of number. Gwynne denies the 
distinction between airo and Sid, but without foundation in 
any of the instances alleged by him. Nor does he see, in the 
case of OTTO, how the literal so naturally and necessarily passes 
into the ethical meaning of a particle, or how "remotion from" 
comes to signify origination. The ov8e implies a difference of 
relation in the second clause from the first. Aid may not 
always denote instrument in the strict sense, for means may be 
blended in conception with source, especially when God is spoken 
of, as in Kom. xi. 36 : " for of Him (e avrov) and by Plim 
(Si avrov) are all things," being His alike in origin and agency, 
Himself the worker of His own will or purpose one or both 
aspects of relationship being equally applicable to Him (com 
pare Heb. ii. 10 ; 1 Cor. i. 9, viii. 6). It is true that Sid is used 
with both^ouus in the following clause ; but here, as in contrast 



4 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 

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



CHAP. I. 1. 5 

But Christ had called him immediately, ovpavodev eicaXeaev OVK 
avQpwTTw xpycrdfjievos vTrovpya) (Theophylact) ; and he was not 
therefore like Silas or Timothy in his relation to Christ and 
the ruling powers in the churches. What the apostle asserts 
of his office, he afterwards as distinctly asserts of his doctrine 
(vers. 11, 12, etc.). Negatively, his apostleship was not from 
men as its causa principalis, nor by man as its causa medians ; 
but positively, 

A\\a Bia ^Ir/aov Xpiarov teal Qeov Trcnpos rov eyeipavros 
aurov etc vefcpwv " but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father 
who raised Him from the dead." Had the apostle consulted 
mere rhetorical fulness, he might have repeated airo before Qeov 
Trarpds. But both nouns are governed by the same preposition 
Sid, and are included under the same relation. For, to his 
mind, so much were Christ and God one in purpose and act, 
that the Bid not only implies the OTTO, but absorbs it, primary 
source in God being identified with mediate agency in the 
appearance and call of the Lord Jesus. The phrase is there 
fore placed first, as being nearest his thought at the moment, 
and as it was the relation expressed by Bid which formed the 
question in dispute. The apostleship might be admitted as 
being from God, and yet not by Him as its immediate agent ; 
aTTo does not of itself prove Bid, but Bid certainly implies airo. 
Aid is not used therefore for the sake of shortness, as Olshausen 
says, and as Ellicott partly allows ; but it points to the direct 
agency of God, manifested in raising His Son from the dead. 
By Jesus Christ was the apostle selected and directly called, 
and by God the Father acting in and through Him whom He 
had raised from the dead ; for it was the risen and glorified 
Saviour who bestowed the apostolate on him. See above on 
the prepositions, and Fritzsche on Kom. i. 5. In ver. 3, again, 
the usage is reversed, and airo is employed with both names. 
Both nouns here want the article, and @eo? iraTijp has all the 
force of a proper name (Gal. i. 3; Eph. vi. 23; Phil. ii. 11; 
1 Pet. i. 2). The genitive veicpwv wants the article, too, as 
usually when preceded by e/c (Winer, 19), the quotation in 
Eph. v. 14 being an exception, and there being in Col. ii. 12 
various readings with authorities almost balanced. God is called 
-ira-Trip, not generally as Father of all (De Wette, Alford), nor 
specially as our Father (Usteri and Wieseler), nor directly as 



6 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 

Christ s Father, as is the opinion of Meyer, Ellicott, and the 
rendering of the Syriac ; but the name is probably inclusive of 
all those relations. Because He sustains such a relation to Christ 
and Christ s, because of His foremost place in the gracious 
economy, and His fatherly manifestations in it and through it, 
may He not receive the characteristic and almost absolute name 
of Father ? The relation of Christ and believers to the Father 
is often indicated by a following genitive (i. 4 ; Eph. i. 2, 3 ; 
Col. i. 2, 3 ; 1 Thess. i. 3, iii. 11, etc.). 

The predicate is, TOV eyelpavros avrbv e/c ve/cpuiv. Why this 
addition, for it must have some connection with the apostle s 
self-vindication ? The addition is not a vague one, as if the 
act asserted had become an attribute of God (Jowett) ; nor 
is it the mere token of almighty power (Olshausen), nor an 
affirmation of His resurrection against Jews (Chrysostom), nor 
chiefly a refutation of the objection that he had not seen Christ 
(Semler, Morus), nor a passing historical notice that he had been 
called by the risen Saviour, nor a recognition of the Father as 
the Urheber, originator of Christ s redeeming work (De Wette, 
Usteri), nor only the historical confirmation of the ical Qeov 
Trar/30? (Meyer) ; nor is it principally to exhibit the resurrection 
as awaking faith in the Risen One and in God as our reconciled 
Father in Him (Wieseler) ; but it is the proof that Jesus who 
died could call him, though He had not called him at the period 
when the twelve were commissioned in the days of His flesh, 
and that the apostleship was one of the gifts which specially 
belonged to Him as the ascended Lord. Eph. iv. 11. It may 
be said generally, the Father raised Him from the dead, so 
that all His apostles could proclaim the truth of which His 
.resurrection was the primal evidence and a distinctive tenet 
(Rom. i. 4, iv. 24 ; Eph. i. 20 ; Phil. ii. 9) ; and specially, God 
the Father entrusted Paul with the apostleship, and did it 
through Jesus, whom He had raised from the dead : so that 
the risen Saviour invested with supreme authority, added, by 
a direct and personal act, one to the number of the twelve, 
with every element of qualification and prerogative which had 
been conferred upon them. There is no need to say, with 
Luther, that the clause condemns justitiam operum. It would 
l>e at the same time laying too great stress on the words, 
to suppose, with Augustine, Erasmus, Beza, and Calvin, that 



CHAP. I. 1. 7 

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

1 This phrase is guarded and explained in his Rctractationes, Opera, vol. 
i. p. 74, ed. Paris, 1836. 



EPISTLE TO THE GALATIAXS. 

of Antioch. Acts xx. 24, xxii. 14, 15, xxvi. 16-20. Was 
not the formal apostolic commission given in the hour of 
his conversion eOvwv, eh oi)? cjco ae cnrcxneXkwl See also 
Gal. i. 12, 15, 16, 22, 23; 1 Tim. i. 12, 13. The fasting, 
prayer, and imposition of hands were not, as Hammond, 
Wake, Wordsworth, and the Catholic commentators Bisping 
and Windischmann, 1 argue, a consecration to the apostleship, 
but a solemn designation of Saul and Barnabas to a special 
missionary work, which on their return is said to have been 
" fulfilled." Even Calvin speaks of the call of the apostle as 
being followed by the soUennis ritus ordinationis ; see under 
Eph. i. 1. But if ecclesiastical ordination was essential to full 
apostleship, what becomes of the ovSe t avOpunrov^. 

After this decided assertion of his apostleship an assertion 
necessary in the circumstances, at once for his own vindication, 
and the confirmation of the gospel which he preached, as also 
to give their due weight to the censure, counsels, warnings, and 
teachings which were to form the contents of the epistle he 
passes on to say 

Ver. 2. Kal ol avv e /zot Traces a$e\<jjol " and all the bre 
thren who are with me." This phrase, designating a number of 
persons beyond such names as Timothy, Sosthenes, and Silvanus, 
found in some of the other epistles, cannot refer exclusively, as 
Brown after Beza supposes, to official colleagues, nor generally, 
as Schott, Victorinus, Jatho, Schmoller, Jowett, take it, to 
the brethren or community in the place from which the epistle 
was written. It denotes an inner circle of friends, in special 
companionship with the apostle at one with him in opinion at 
the present moment ; Trdvres emphatic referring not so much 
to number, though it must include several, as to unanimity, 
no exception among them, all of them in the crisis sympathizing 
with the Galatian churches, and sharing his anxiety to deliver 
them from imminent jeopardy. In fact, in Phil. iv. 21, 22, 
the apostle distinguishes " the brethren with him" from " all 
the saints." The question as to who might be included in the 
irdvres is answered in various ways, according to the opinion 
adopted about the place where the epistle was written in 
Ephesus or Corinth. Wherever they were, they joined in the 
salutation ; but their position and unanimity added no authority 
1 Estius is an exception. 



CHAP. I. 3. 9 

to the epistle (Chrysostom, Luther, Calvin, Olshausen, Meyer, 
and De Wette, hold the opposite view), though probably they 
might strengthen its appeals, as showing how wide and warm 
an interest was felt in the Galatian defection. Tit. iii. 15. The 
authority of the epistle rests exclusively on the official preroga 
tive of Paul himself, singly and apart from the aSe\</>oi. For 
the association of other names with the apostle s own in his 
salutations, see under Phil. i. 1. 

The epistle is not sent to one community in a town, but 
Tais KK\r)(riat,s T?}9 PaXartW " to the churches of Galatia" 
the letter being therefore a circular. Acts xvi. 6, xviii. 23 ; 
1 Cor. xvi. 1 ; 1 Pet. i. 1. It has been often remarked, that 
eKK\t](ria^ occurs without any qualifying element or additional 
clause ; and it has been explained since the time of Chrysostom, 
that, on account of their defection, the apostle could not give 
them any title of honour or endearment. Usteri denies this, and 
appeals to both epistles to Thessalonica ; but there the words eV 
Oca} jrarpl are added. In both epistles to Corinth, TOV Qeov is 
annexed to eKK\r)(rla, passages strangely referred to also by Hof- 
mann and Sardinoux, as if proving that Paul had felt, in writing 
to these churches, as he did in writing to those of Galatia. It 
is quite baseless on the part of Theophylact, to find in the plural a 
reference to divisions evrel Be KOI Biea-racria^ov. For the places 
where those churches were probably situated, see Introduction. 
Ver. 3. Xdpis vfuv Kal eip-ijvr) ebro @eov Trarpos Kal Kvpiov 
f]fjio)V lya-ov Xpiarov " Grace be to you and peace from God 
the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ." The pronoun rjp&v is 
placed after Kvpiov on good authority, though A and N, with 
some of the Latin fathers, insert it after Trarpo?, as in other 
salutations. Rom. i. 7 ; 1 Cor. i. 3 ; 2 Cor. i. 2 ; Eph. i. 2, 
etc. As Bid in the first verse, so airo in this verse governs 
both the genitives, as both are sources of divine blessing, ac 
cording to the aspect in which each is viewed, primarily indeed 
from God and proximately from Jesus Christ. This con 
tiguous use of two prepositions, each of them in application 
both to the Father and to Christ, shows that to the apostle 
God and Christ were so much one in will and operation (" God 
in Christ"), that no sharp dogmatic distinction of origin and 
medium needed to be drawn between them in such a prayer 
offered for the churches. See under ver. 1. 



10 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 

For the meaning of the benediction, see under Eph. i. 2, 
and also the note of Wieseler. As the West embodied its wishes 
in %/w, and the East in DW elpr/wr), so the apostle, in 
catholic fulness, uses both terms in their profoundest Christian 
significance : no ordinary greeting, or " as the world giveth," 
but a prayer for all combined and fitting spiritual blessings. 

In connection with Christ, and as an unusual addition to his 
salutations, he now describes His distinctive work in its blessed 
purpose and in its harmony with the divine plan ; for the pass 
ing statement presents a truth in direct conflict with the errors 
prevailing in the Galatian churches. Thus the first arid fourth 
verses contain in brief the two themes of the epistle, a vindi 
cation of his apostleship and of the free and full salvation by 
faith without works of law, which he rejoiced to proclaim. 

Ver. 4. Tov ScWo? eavrov irepl rwv afJLaprLwv r/pwv " who 
gave Himself for our sins." The virep of the received text is 
found in B and K \ and some of the Greek fathers, but Trepi 
has the authority of A, D, F, K, X, several minuscules, and is 
apparently the preferable reading. The correction to vjrep 
might appear to be more in the apostle s manner (Meyer). 
The two prepositions, so similar in meaning, are often ex 
changed in New Testament MSS. Meyer holds that they are 
not different in meaning. 

The act here ascribed to Christ Himself is often ascribed to 
God, as in Rom. viii. 32 ; sometimes it assumes the form of a 
simple statement, as in Rom. iv. 25, v. 8; but here, as also in 
other places, especially in the pastoral epistles, it is regarded as 
the spontaneous act of the Self-offerer, as in John x. 18, 1 Tim. 
ii. 6, Tit. ii. 14, Eph. v. 2 where a compound verb is used. 
(Rom. v. 6, 8, etc.; 1 Mace. vi. 44.) Wetstein quotes in illustra 
tion from Xiphilinus, the abbreviator of Dio Cassius (in Othone, 
p. 193), the following clause : ocms OVK v/j,d<? virep eavrov, aXX 
eavrov VTrep V/AV SeS&j/ce. Meyer says, and so far correctly, that 
the idea of satisfaction lies not in the meaning of the preposition, 
but in the whole Sachverhdltniss ; quoting also Iliad, i. 444 : 



pi^oti vvsp Actvaav 6 <pp faetaofttaScc tx.vsnx.rci: 

Wesselius cites the versiculus notissimus of Cato : 

" Ipse nocens cum sis, moritur cur victima pro te ?" 
Hepi, as might be expected from the meaning of the words in 







CHAP. I. 4. 11 

such a connection, is often used with the thing, and vTrep with 
the persons : Trepl afiapTiciov, VTrep abi/ccov (1 Pet. iii. 18 ; Sirach 
xxix. 15). But the usage is not uniform, as Heb. v. 3, irepl 
rov Aao>, . . . Trepl eavrov, . . . VTrep ajJLapnwv ; and in the first 
verse also of the same chapter, virep a^apnwv. In 1 Cor. xv. 
3, vTrep is used with a/jiapTitov, but rjfiwv is a personal quali 
fication. In Matt. xxvi. 28 we have Trepl Tro\\a)v, but the 
personal design is introduced, et? afaviv a/jLapriaJv ; and in the 
parallel passages, Mark xiv. 24, Luke xxii. 19, VTrep occurs, 
and the personal explanatory clause is wanting. In 1 Thess. 
v. 10 the various reading is Trepl VTrep, and a personal purpose 
follows. The preposition vTrep denotes a closer relation "over," 
or "for the benefit of," "on behalf of," personal interest in, 
that interest being often an element of conscious recognition 
(Gal. ii. 20; 1 Cor. v. 20; Kom. xiv. 15), and has a meaning 
verging very close on that of avri, " in room of," as the con 
text occasionally indicates (chap. iii. 13 ; Eph. v. 2 ; Philem. 
13). See Fritzsche on Rom. v. 7, 8 ; Poppo on the phrase vTrep 
eaurov, which he renders suo loco, vrrep pro avri, Thucydides, 
part iii. vol. i. p. 704 ; Euripides, Alcestis, 690 ; Polybius, i. 
67, 7 ; Matthiae, 582 ; Host und Palm, sub voce. ILepi is 
more general in meaning, and may denote " on account of," "in 
connection with," bringing out the object or motive of the act : 
Jesus Christ gave Himself for our sins on account of them, 
or in such a connection with them that He might deliver 
us. See under Eph. vi. 19. The distinction between the two 
prepositions is often very faint, though frequently irepi ex 
presses only mentis circumspectionem, VTrep simul animi propen- 
sionem (Weber, Demosth. p. 130). See also Schaefer s full note 
on the phrase of Demosthenes, ov Trepl So^s ou8 VTrep /j,epov 9, 
Annot. vol. i. p. 189 ; and the remarks of Bremi, Demosthenes, 
Orat. p. 188. The two prepositions may, as commonly employed, 
characterize the atonement or self-oblation of Christ ; the first 
in its object generally, the second specially in its recipients, 
and the benefits conferred upon them. Christ gave Himself 
for us, on account of our sins, that expiation might be made, 
or on behalf of sinners, that by such expiation they might 
obtain forgiveness and life. See more fully under Eph. v. 2, 
25. AvTi is more precise, and, signifying "in room of," 
points out the substitutionary nature of Christ s death. Matt. 



12 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIAXS. 

v. 38; Luke xi. 11; 1 Cor. xi. 15; Jas. iv. 15; Matt. xvii. 

27, etc. 

The meaning is, that He gave Himself to death (not volenti 
diabolo, Ambrosiast.), or, as in other places, gave His life. 
Matt. xx. 28 ; Mark x. 45. Sometimes a predicate is added, as 
avrfavrpov, 1 Tim. ii. 6 ; Trpoatyopav, Eph. v. 2. Such a predi 
cate is here implied in the clause defined by Trepi, and in the 
purpose indicated by O7r&>9. The freeness of the self-gift is 
prominent, as well as its infinite value HIMSELF. We pause 
not over theological distinctions as to the two natures of the 
Mediatorial person in this act : He gave Himself a gift im 
possible without incarnation a gift valueless without a myste 
rious union with divinity, as is at least indicated by the common 
vinculum of 8i in the first verse, and of arro in the second 
verse. The ^^utv refers primarily to the apostle, the brethren 
with him and the persons addressed by him in Galatia, but 
does not by its use define in any way the extent of the atone 
ment, either as limiting it to " us" believers, as some have 
argued, or extending it to " us" " mankind sinners," as others 
contend. The doctrine taught is, that Jesus Christ did spon 
taneously offer Himself as the one propitiation, so that He is 
the source of grace and peace ; and the inference is, because 
He gave Himself, the oblation is perfect as also the deliverance 
secured by it, so that obedience to the Mosaic law as a means 
of salvation is quite incompatible with faith in Him. 

The self-oblation of Jesus is surely no mere Jewish image, 
as Jowett represents it, something now in relation to us like a 
husk out of which the kernel had fallen. True, as he says, 
" the image must have had a vividness in the days when sacri 
fices were offered that it may not have now;" but the truth 
imaged has not therefore faded out. Take away all that is 
Jewish in the presentation of that truth, yet you alter not its 
essence and purpose ; for through the death of Christ, and its 
relation to or influence on the divine government, God is just 
while He is justifying the ungodly. The teaching of Scripture 
is something more than that " Christ took upon Him human 
flesh, that He was put to death by sinful men, and raised men 
out of the state of sin in this sense taking their sins upon 
Him : " that is, in no true sense bearing our guilt. For not 
only expiation or propitiation, but reconciliation, justification, 



CHAP. I. 4. 13 

acceptance, redemption from the curse, are ascribed to His 
death. Men are raised out of a state of sin when their xruilt 

O 

is forgiven, and the power of sin is destroyed within them ; and 
both blessings are traced to the Self-sacrifice of the Son of God. 
The sinfulness of the men that put Him to death is not incom 
patible with the voluntariness and atoning merit of His death ; 
for it was more than a tragedy or a martyrdom, though it is 
not withoiU these aspects. The figures, as Jowett says, are 
varied ; but such variation does not prove them to be " figures 
only," and the truth underlying them has varying and connected 
phases of relation and result. " The believer is identified with 
the various stages of the life of Christ;" true, but his life 
springs from Christ s death, and is a life in union with the risen 
Lord. Gal. ii. 20. The definite doctrine of Scripture is, that in 
dying, Christ bore a representative or a substitution ary relation 
to sin and sinners, as is expressed by avrl, and implied in Trepi 
and virep. This teaching of Scripture in the age of the apostles 
is the truth still to us, even though its imagery may be dimmed. 
Moulded for one age, and given primarily to it, it is adapted to 
all time as a permanent and universal gospel. The palpable 
terms fashioned in Jewry ray light through the world. The 
apostolic theology, though bodied forth by Hebrew genius, and 
glowing with illustrations from Hebrew history and ritual, is 
all the more on that account adapted to us, for it speaks in no 
dull monotone, and it is no exhibition of such abstract and 
colourless formulas as would satisfy the scanty creed of modern 
spiritualism. The purpose of the self-sacrifice is 

"OTTOO? ee\rjTai ^a? e/c rov alwvos rov evecrr tiros irovrjpov 
" that He might deliver us out of the present world an evil 
one:" nequam, Vulg. ; malo, Clarom.; maligno, Aug. Perhaps 
this is the better reading, and it is supported by A, B, N 1 . The 
received text places eVecrToSro? before attoi/o?, omitting the article, 
and is also well supported by a large number of MSS., some ver 
sions and fathers. The verb, from its position, is emphatic, and 
Trovrjpov is virtually a tertiary predicate. "Iva is the apostle s 
favourite term, and the relative particle OTTOX? "in such manner 
that" is rarely used by him. In the New Testament it is con 
strued with the subjunctive, sometimes with av, but it is found 
with other moods in classical writers (Kriiger, 54, 8, etc. ; 
Klotz-Devarius, vol. ii. pp. 629, etc., 681, etc., in which sections 



14 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIAXS. 

iva and OTTW? are distinguished in meaning and use). The verb 
e^aipeicrOat, (eriperet, Vulgate) occurs only here in Paul s epistles. 
In other passages of the New Testament it has the sense of 
rescue from peril by an act of power, as of Joseph (Acts vii. 
10) ; of the Hebrews out of slavery (Acts vii. 34) ; of Peter 
from the hand of Herod (Acts xii. 11) ; of Paul from the mob 
in Jerusalem (Acts xxiii. 27) ; and it is the word used by the 
Divine Master to the apostle in reference to his frequent de 
liverances from danger (Acts xxvi. 17). Compare Gen. xxxii. 
11, Isa. xlii. 22, Ps. cxl. 1. The noun alwv connected with 
aei, Latin cevum, and the Saxon aye (" God shall endure for 
aye"), means "duration;" its adjunct determining whether 
that duration reach indefinitely backwards or forwards, as in 
air or K alwvos in the one case, and et9 rov alwva in the other. 
The latter is a common meaning both in the classics and in the 
New Testament : Ast, Lexicon Platon. sub voce. With a more 
restricted duration, it often means in the New Testament, the 
age or present course of time, with the underlying idea of 
corruption and sinfulness, though, as having a temporal sense in 
more or less prominence, it is not to be identified with #007409. 
Luke xvi. 8 ; Rom. xii. 2 ; Eph. i. 21, ii. 2. In rabbinical 
usage, there was the n-jn DPiy, the present or pre-Messianic 
age, and N2H D?iy, the coming age, or period after Messiah s 
advent. Allusions to such use would almost seem to be in 
Matt. xxiv. 3, Heb. vi. 5, ix. 26. The alwv //-e XA&w, however, 
of the New Testament is not so restricted as the corresponding 
rabbinical phrase, Matt. xii. 32, Mark x. 30, Luke xviii. 30, 
Eph. i. 21. The noun, in Christian use, and in both refer 
ences, acquires a deeper significance. The o vvv alwv of the 
pastoral epistles, 1 Tim. vi. 17, 2 Tim. iv. 10, Tit. ii. 12 6" ai&v 
euro?, Rom. xii. 2 has a pervading element of evil in it, in 
contrast to the o alwv /ze/VAajy, o alutv 6 ep%6[j,evos, which is 
characterized by purity and happiness (Mark x. 30; Luke 
xviii. 30). The alwv is this passing age this world as it now 
is fallen, guilty, and corrupt, in bondage to a " god " (2 Cor. 
iv. 4), and to ap-^ovre^ who are opposed to God (1 Cor. ii. 6 ; 
Eph. vi. 12). We often use the word "world" very similarly, as 
signifying a power opposed to Christ in its maxims, fashions, 
modes of thought, and objects of pursuit, and as continually 
tempting and often subduing His people ; the scene of trial 



CHAP. I. 4. 15 

and sorrow, where sense ever struggling for the mastery over 
faith, embarrasses and overpowers the children of God. See 
Cremer, Bibliscli-tlieolog. Worterb. sub voce, Gotha 1866. 

The participle evearcos has two meanings, either time pre 
sent actually, or present immediately time now, or time im 
pending. The first meaning is apparent in Rom. viii. 38, 
ovre evearwra ovre peXX-ovra, " nor things present, nor things 
to come" present and future in contrast. Similarly 1 Cor. 
iii. 22, vii. 26 ; Heb. ix. 9. Instances abound in the classics 
and Septuagint, Esdras v. 47, ix. 6, rov evearfara %eifia)va ; 
3 Mace. i. 16 ; frequently in Polybius, i. 60, 75, xviii. 38 ; 
Xen. Hellen. 2, 1, 6 ; Joseph. Antiq. xvi. 6, 2 ; Philo, de 
Plantat. JVoe, Opera, vol. iii. p. 136, Erlangse 1820. Phavo- 
rinus defines it by Trdpovra, and Hesychius gives it as 6 
-7-779 &>?79 %p6vo<$. The Syriac renders it " this age," and the 
Vulgate prcesenti seeculo. Sextus Empir. divides times into 
rov TrapqyfflfjLevov Kal rov evearwra teal rov fj,e\\ovra } Advers. 
Phys. ii. 192, p. 516, ed. Bekker. It is also the term used by 
grammarians for " the present tense;" thus evearwcra /xero^ 
the present participle. Theodore of Mopsuestia, in loc., defines 
the term by Trapwv, and explains it as the period stretching 
on to the second advent, ed. Fritzsche, p. 121. Compare 
Clement. Horn. ii. 40, Ignat. ad Epli. xi., Corpus Ignatianum, 
ed. Cureton, p. 29. While there may be a few passages in 
which it will bear the sense of impending (Polybius, i. 71- 
4), or ideally present, as good as come or seen as certainly 
coming, it is questioned whether it has such a meaning in 
the New Testament, even in 2 Thess. ii. 2, compared with 
2 Tim. iii. 1. See Schoettgen s Hortv on this place. But 
this view is taken by Meyer, Bisping, and Trana, the phrase 
denoting, according to them, impending time, the evil time 
predicted as coming and preceding the second advent. 2 Pet. 
iii. 3 ; 1 John ii. 18 ; Jude 18 ; 2 Tim. iii. 1. Matthias, a 
recent annotator (Cassel 1865), holds the same view, and would 
punctuate alwvos, Trovrjpov Kara that is, the evil is allowed 
by God to culminate just before the second advent, that it may 
be effectually and for ever put down. The first interpretation 
is preferable. It accords with the simple meaning of the pas 
sage, which states, without any occult or prophetic allusion, the 
immediate purpose of Christ s death ; and such is, in general, 



16 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 

the theme of the epistle. Nor does there seem to be anything in 
the context to suggest to the apostle s mind the idea of the last 
apostasy, or to deliverance from it as the design of the atone 
ment. His thoughts, so soon to find utterance, concern pre 
sent blessing through Christ, and Him alone ; the reception of 
such blessing being prevented by looking away from Him, and 
putting partial or complete trust in legal observances. 

The phrase " this present evil world " cannot therefore 
mean merely the Mosaical constitution (Locke, Krause), or the 
entire system of things defective and unsatisfactory connected 
with it (Carpzov, Gwynne), an exegesis too technical and nar 
row, and which comes far short of the meaning of the apostle s 
pregnant words. The meaning of the verse is, that the purpose 
of Christ s self-sacrifice was to rescue believers out of (e /c) a 
condition fraught with infinite peril to them the kingdom of 
darkness and bring them into a condition safe and blessed 
" the kingdom of His dear Son." This change is not, in the 
first instance, one of character, as so many assert, but one of 
state or relation having reference rather to justification than 
to sanctification, though change of relation most certainlv 

/ O O / 

implies or entails change of character (De Wette, Meyer, 
Hofmann). Believers are rescued out of " this present age," 
with all its evils of curse, corruption, sense, and selfishness, 
not by being removed from earth, but being translated into 
another " age " accepted, blessed, adopted, regenerated. John 
xvii. 15, 16. Not that redemption is confined in any sense 
to the present age, for its recipients are at length received 
up into that glory which lasts a <? TOU? alwva? rwv aluvuv. 
Chrysostom and Jerome are anxious to guard against the 
Manichsean heresy, that the age or world is essentially and 
in itself evil, for it is only made so by evil Trpoaipeae^ ; the 

latter dwelling; on the deliramenta of the Valentinians, and the 

i 

mystical meanings which they attached to the Hebrew DTiy, as 

written with or without the 1, and as meaning eternity in the first 
case, and the space reaching to the year of jubilee in the other. 
Kara TO 0eX?7/m rov Qeov KOI vrarpo? rjftwv " according 
to the will of God and our Father." Theophylact distinguishes 
6e\r]^a from eTriTayrf, and identifies it with evSoKia. (See under 
Eph. i. 11.) Is r)fj,(t)v connected only with Trarpd?, or is the proper 
rendering "our God and Father?" It is rather difficult to 



CHAP. I. 4. 17 

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

B 



EPISTLE TO THE GALATIAXS. 

Ver. 5. fl t] Soa et? rou? alwvas rwv atcavotv a^v " To 
whom be the glory for ever. Amen." Most probably the verb 
eH?) is understood (1 Pet. i. 2 ; 2 Pet. i. 2 ; Jude 2), not earl, 
which some editions and versions present (the Vulgate having 
cui est gloria\ and which is preferred by Lightfoot and Hof- 
mann ; nor ecrrtu, though it be found in 2 Chron. ix. 8. It is 
more natural to regard the verse as a wish than as an affirma 
tion, it being the devout aspiration suggested by the blessed 
and wonderful assertion of the previous verse, and quite in the 
apostle s style. Rom. ix. 5, xi. 36; 2 Cor. ix. 15 ; Eph. iii. 20. 
In such doxologies So^a usually has the article, when, as here, 
it stands alone. Rom. xi. 36, xvi. 27, Eph. iii. 21, Phil. iv. 
20, 2 Tim. iv. 18 ; but Luke ii. 14, xix. 38, are exceptions. 
Occasionally it wants the article when other substantives are 
added to it (Rom. ii. 10, which, however, is not a doxology ; 1 
Tim. i. 17; Jude 25); but it has the article in 1 Pet. iv. 11, 
Rev. i. 6, vii. 12. Ao%a, translated " praise" in the older 
English versions, does not here take the article, not as beinc; an 

O O 

abstract noun (Matthies ; Middleton, v. 1) ; but the meaning 
is, the glory which is His, or which characterizes Him and is 
especially His due. The doxology is based on the previous 
statement : To Him, for His gracious will that wrought out 
our deliverance through His Son s self-sacrifice, be the glory 
" to the ages of the ages." This last expression is not a pure 
Hebraism. Winer, 36, 2. See under Eph. iii. 21. These 
ages of ages still beginning, never ending are as if in con 
trast to " this present age, an evil one," out of which believers 
are rescued. And this blessed change is not of law or of works 
in any sense, but solely from His will as its source, and by the 
self-oblation of Christ as its intermediate and effective means 
means which have this rescue for their direct object volun- 
tas F d d Patris voluntatem implet (Jerome). 

The Hebrew iX ? " truly," is sometimes transferred in the 
Septuagint dfjujv, sometimes rendered by <yevoiro in praise and 
response, while Aquila translated it by TreTrto-Tw/ie^o)?. " So 
ought it to be, so let it be, so shall it be " (Brown). 

Ver. 6. avfjba^w, ori ovrco ra^eco? fjueTarideaOe airo rov 
KoXeaavTos v/j.a<? ev yapiTi Xptarov " I marvel that you are 
so soon turning away (are removing yourselves) from Him 
who called you in the grace of Christ." The apostle now 



CHAP. I. 6. 19 

rushes, sis one may say, on the main subject of the epistle, dis 
closing in a moment the feeling of disappointment which he 
could not repress or modify. By a sharp and sudden Oavfid^w 
he shows his surprise, not unmingled with anger and sorrow. 
The result had not been as he had fondly anticipated ; nay, it 
was so contrary to previous manifestations on which he seems 
to have trusted, that his censure and chagrin are expressed by 
his amazement. Rebuke lurks under his surprise. The verb 
often from the context gathers into itself the ethical notion of 
what is culpable surprise excited by what is object of censure. 
Mark vi. 6. Sometimes it is followed by et, when what is 
thought of is matter of doubt, and by ort, as here, when it is 
matter of fact. 1 John iii. 13. Sturz, Lex. Xen. sub voce. 

MerariOetrOe^ the present middle not the aorist will not 
bear the rendering, " ye are removed," nor, as Dr. Brown gives 
it, "ye have removed yourselves;" but, "ye are removing your 
selves." Gal. iv. 9, 11, v. 10. The falling off was in process, _. 
not completed, as Chrysostom says : OVK eiTre peredeade, aAAa, 
ouSeTrco TTtcrreuty ovSe rjyovfuu aTrijpricrf^evrjv elvat 
The verb cannot be aoristic in sense, for it is not 
a historical present (Matthies). Bernhardy, p. 372. Nor is it 
passive, as Beza, Erasmus, and others take it ut cidpam in 
pseudapostolos derivet. The Vulgate gives also trans ferimini. 
The verb signifies to transfer or put in another place locally, 
as Heb. xi. 5, Sept. Gen. v. 24 ; and then tropically, to put 
to another use, or to change place ideally. Jude 4. In the 
middle voice it signifies to change what belongs to one TO. 
elpijfj,eva, Xen. Mem. iv. 2, 18, or rrjv yvcap^v, Joseph. Vita, 
33, Herodotus, vii. 18 ; then to fall away from one party 
e or aTTo, 2 Mace. vii. 24 to another, ew or vrpo?, Polybius, 
iii. 118, 8, and often in the Sept. 1 Kings xxi. 25. Dionysius 
of Heraclea, who became an Epicurean from being a Stoic, 
rejoiced to be called Mera0fj,evos transpositus sive translatus 
(Jerome). Athena3us, vii. p. 25, vol. iii. ed. Schweighaiiser ; 
Host und Palm, sub voce. 

There was special surprise that this changing of sides was 
going on otmo ro^eo)?, " so quickly." These words have been 
taken either in a positive or a relative sense. In the first sense, 
or as referring to manner, they have been supposed to signify 
OVTW eutfoA.&)9 (Koppe), parum considerate (Schott, Chrysostom), 



20 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 

t( gewiss zu rasch" (Riickert), or "so readily," "so rashly" 
(Lightfoot, G wynne, and Hofmann). But relatively they 
have been taken as signifying " so soon " after 

1. The last visit of the apostle to them, as Bengel, Hilgen- 
feld, and Wieseler. No chronological inference can indeed be 
based on this exegesis, for it is untenable. The idea of his 

C 1 / 

own visit is not in his mind, so far as his language implies, for 
Ka\cravTos does not refer to him ; 

2. Or " so soon " after their conversion, as Usteri, Ols- 
hausen, Meyer, Alford, Trana, Bisping, Jatho. This is no 
doubt true ; but such a terminus does not seem directly in the 
apostle s eye. The points before his mind are : the one from 
which they are changing away "Him who called them;" 
and that into which they were sinking; "another o;ospel." His 

*/ O O 1 

mind turns at once to the false teachers, and their seductive 
influence ; and therefore the meaning may be, 

3. "So soon" after the intrusion of the false teachers amono; 

O 

them. Chrysostom describes it as e/c Trpomy? 7rpo<j/3oX?}9 (De 
Wette, and Ellicott). The apostle refers at once to these men, 
and to their disturbing and dangerous power. The Galatians 
had not the courage or constancy to resist the fascination of 
these unscrupulous Judaizers. But if the false teachers came 
among them after the apostle s recent visit (Acts xviii. 23), 
these two last opinions may so far coalesce. Their conversion, 
however, was a point further back, and connected with an 
earlier visit. But though, if one adopt the relative sense, the 
last opinion be preferable, yet probably the apostle had no 
precise point of time in his reference. The unexpectedness of 
the apostasy involving, it is true, some latent temporal refer 
ence appears to be his prominent element of rebuke. Taking 
in the whole crisis, so sudden and speedy, so contrary to 
earlier auspicious tokens, he might well say, without any 
distinct allusion to a precise date, ovrw ra^e &j?. While the 
remark of Jerome, Galatia translationem in nostra lingua sonat, 
is without basis, this fickleness was quite in keeping with the 
Gallic character. See Introduction. 

ATTO rov Ka\e<ravTo<? i//za9 ev %dpm XpiaTOv " from Him 
that called you in the grace of Christ." The words are not 
to be construed thus, cnro rov KaXecravTos Xpio-Toi) (" from 
Him that called you Christ"), as the Syriac, Jerome, Calvin, 



CHAP. I. 6. 21 

Bengel, a-Lapide, and Brown. As Meyer remarks, however, 
against Schott and Matthies, the absence of the article would 
be no objection to this exegesis. Rom. ix. 5 ; 1 Pet. i. 15. 
The calling of believers is uniformly represented as the work 
of the Father in the Pauline theology, Rom. viii. 30, ix. 24, 
1 Cor. i. 9, Gal. i. 15, 1 Thess. v. 24 ; and therefore TOV 
xa\. cannot be understood of the apostle, as Piscator, Balduin, 
Paulus, Bagge, Olearius, Gwynne, and even Doddridge. Their 
defection was all the more sinful, as the calling was from God. 
He alone effectually summons the soul to forgiveness and life, for 
He has access to it, and as His love yearns over it, His power is 
able to work the blessed change. God called them, and there is 
emphasis in the omission of Qeov ; as they needed not to be told 
who the Caller was, their defection was no sin of ignorance. 
It would be very strange if the apostle should in this place 
arrogate to himself what everywhere else he ascribes to God. 
Reuss, Theol. Chret. ii. 144. His own special work is thus 
characterized by him evrjyyeXiad/AeQa. 

^Ev %apm X. " in the grace of Christ." Xpia-rov is want 
ing in F, G, and in some of the Latin fathers, and is wrongly 
rejected by Griesbach. The phrase ev ^dptri is neither to be 
identified with 8ia ^aptro9, nor et? ^dpira; Vulgate, in gratiam, 
that is, "to a participation of that grace," as Borger and Riickert 
explain it. The preposition ev denotes the element that ele 
ment here viewed as possessing instrumental power. Eph. ii. 
13, vi. 14. It may thus be the instrumental adjunct (AYunder, 
Sophocles, Philoct. 60 ; Donaldson, 47, 6), but the instru 
mentality is here regarded as immanent. Jelf, 622. In some 
other passages with KaXew the preposition has its usual force. 
1 Cor. vii. 18; 1 Thess. iv. 7. It is only or chiefly after verbs of 
motion that ev as result combines the sense of efc (Winer, 50, 
5), though originally they were the same word, related to each 
other; as /ie/9, fiev Se/<?, Sev. Donaldson, New Cratylus, p. 318. 
They were called "in the grace of Christ;" for the call of God 
works only in that grace, never apart from it. Rom. v. 15. 
That call, sphering itself in Christ, and thus evincing its power, 
is on this account opposed to the w/u-o?, to the entire substance 
and spirit of the Judaizing doctrine. This grace of Christ, so 
rich and free, crowned in His atoning death and seen in all 
the blessings springing out of it, seems to be suggested by, or 



22 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIAKS. 

connected in the apostle s mind with, the phrase just used 
" o-ave Himself for our sins." But they are falling off 

O / O 

Eh erepov evayyeXiov " to a different gospel" the ruling 
element of which was not the grace of Christ, nor w r as its 
leading doctrine that " He gave Himself for our sins." No 
moral feature is expressed by the adjective, though it may be 
implied not corruptum et adulterinum, as Calvin has it. The 
adjective erepov marks distinction, a\Xo<? indicates addition. 
2 Cor. xi. 4. This signification of difference is seen in such 
compounds as eTepo7/Va>crcro<?, Ps. cxiii. 1; erepoyevrjs, Deut. xxii. 
11 ; erepo^iryo?, Lev. xix. 19. It represents the Hebrew ^ "! ( 7, 
" new," in Ex. i. 8, and X aliemts, in Ex. xxx. 9, " strange in 
cense." It is found with an ethical sense also, Ex. xxi. 2, Num. 
xiv. 24 ; often as applied to false divinities, Pan. vii. 5, 6, 8. 
The adjective thus generally denotes distinction of kind. Even 
in Matt. xi. 3, adduced by Ellicott to show that erepo? does not 
always keep its distinctive meaning, it may signify not simply 
another individual, but one different in position and function. 
But aXXo? is used in the parallel passage, Luke vii. 20. Titt- 
rnann, De Synon. p. 155. The Judaiziug gospel, for it might 
be named gospel by its preachers and receivers too, was of a 
totally different genus from that proclaimed by the apostle, dif 
fering from it as widely as z^oyu-o? and %dpis, ep<ya and irians, 
bondage and liberty, flesh and spirit. But the apostle at once 
checks himself, lest the phrase erepov evayy. should be misinter 
preted, on the plea that by its use he had admitted the possibility 
of another and different gospel. Therefore he abruptly adds, 

Ver. 7. "O OVK eariv aXXo, el ^ " which is not another, 
save that :" it is no new or additional gospel OVK, the negative 
being emphatic, there is only one gospel. The eva^/eXiov 
expressed after erepov stands vaguely and imperfectly, as the 
Judaizers might so name their system, but the evajj. implied 
after a\\o is used in its strict and proper sense. The connec 
tion with the following clause is variously understood. 

1. Schott, preceded by a-Lapide, connects el firj with Oav- 
/jtdfyjd, making the previous clause a parenthesis : " Mir or vos 
tain cito dcficere ad aliam doctrinam salutarem (quanquam luvc 
alia salutaris mdla est) nisi nonnulli sint." But such an 
utterance requires iQav^aCpv tiv : "I should have wondered" 
that you fell away so soon, unless there had been some troubling 



CHAP. I. 7. 23 

you. The sentence also becomes disjointed, and would make 
the apostle give only a hypothetical statement of the cause of 
his surprise. 

2. Some make the whole previous sentence the antecedent 
to o, such as Calvin, Grotius, Winer, Riickert, Olshausen: Your 
defection to another gospel is nothing else but this, or has no 
other source but this, that some are troubling you. But why 
should the apostle, after the censure implied in the last verse, 
really lift it by throwing the entire blame on the Judaizers ? 
It would be to blame them in one breath, and make an apology 
for them in the next ; and to refer Kokea-avros to Paul himself, 
as G wynne does, does not remove the difficulty. 

3. Others, again and this has been the prevailing opinion 
take evay<ye\t,ov as the antecedent: "which is no other gospel, 
because indeed there can be no other." So the Greek fathers, 
with Luther, Beza, Koppe, Borger, Usteri, De Wette, Hilgen- 

feld ; the Peschito, (7l_A_| j]j I,-.], "which does not exist;" 

1> i 7 

and the Genevan, "seeing there is no other." 1 But it seems 
plain that erepo? and aXXo?, occurring together, must be used 
with some distinctiveness, for the one sentence suddenly guards 
against a false interpretation of the other. 

4. The antecedent is, as Meyer, Hofmann, Wieseler, and 
others suppose, erepov evay. : which different kind of gospel is 
no additional or co-ordinate gospel. The apostle does not say, 
it is not gospel ; but it is not a second or other gospel, which 
may take a parallel or even subordinate rank with his. And 
he adds, 

El fir] " save that." By this phrase, not equivalent to a\\d, 
as Dr. Brown argues in support of his exegesis, an exception is 
indicated to a negative declaration preceding, and it signifies 
nisi, " unless," " except," even in Matt. xii. 4, 1 Cor. vii. 17. 
Klotz-Devar. ii. p. 524 ; Herodotus, iv. 94, a\\ov Qeov, el pij ; 
Xen. Cyrop. ii. 2, 11, ri S aXXo, el //-r); Aristoph. Eq. 615, rl 
8 aXXo; el ^; Poppo, Thucyd. vol. iii. P. 1, 216; Gayler, 
Partic. Neg. p. 97. The Vulgate has, quod non est aliud nisi. 
The meaning is, this gospel is another, only in so far as 

1 The Gothic of Ulfilas reads, " which is not another." Vornel trans 
lates, Welches anderartlge Evangelium in nichts andcrem IcsteJit a/x, 
Frankfurt 1865. 



24 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 



elcriv ol rapdo-aovres v/jids " there arj some who are 
troubling you." In this participial phrase, as Winer says, the 
substantivized participle is a definite predicate to an indefinite 
subject. A. Buttmann, p. 254. The apostle says of the rives, 
that it was their function or their characteristic to be disturb 
ing the Galatian converts. Luke xviii. 9 ; Col. ii. 8. Bern- 
hardy, p. 318. Tives neither marks insignificance, avdovvfioi 
(Sender), nor infelices (Bengel), nor yet paucity, pauci duntaxat 
sunt (Winer). Though not named, they were well known, 
but the apostle would not further characterize them. An 
extraordinary interpretation of rives is given by Wordsworth, 
who takes it as the predicate : " unless they who are troubling 
you are somebody," persons of some importance. The exe 
gesis is not sustained by any of the examples which he has 
adduced, for rives in them is marked by its position as a 
predicate, and the use of ri is not to the point. Nor would 
the clause so misunderstood bring out any self-consistent mean 
ing. The verb rapdaa-co, used physically (John v. 7), signifies 
to put in fear or alarm (Matt. ii. 3), then to disquiet (John 
xii. 27), to perplex (Acts xv. 24).- The apostle adds of those 
disturbers, what their desire or purpose was : 

Kal OeXovres fieracrrpe-^ai ro eva<yye\iov rov Xpio~rov 
" and desiring to subvert the gospel of Christ." The verb 
jAeraa-rpecfra) is to change, to change into the opposite (Acts 
ii. 20 ; Jas. iv. 9), or to change to the worse. Aristot. lihet. 
i. 15, p. 60, ed. Bekker ; Sept. 1 Sam. x. 8 ; Sirach xi. 31. 
The genitive rov Xpiarov may either mean the gospel which 
is Christ s as proclaimed by Him, or that which has Him for 
its object. One might say that the former is preferable, as 
then the different gospel preached by the Judaizers would 
stand in contrast to that proclaimed by Christ Himself. Still 
there would in the latter exegesis be this contrast, that as the 
gospel preached by them was conformity to the Mosaic ritual, 
it was in antagonism to that gospel which has Christ for its 
theme, for by its perversion it would render " Christ of none 
effect." Whatever would derogate from the sufficiency of 
Christ s gospel, or hamper its freeness, is a subversion of it, no 
matter what guise it may assume, or how insignificant the addi 
tion or subtraction may seem. Bengel s oft-quoted remark, Re 
ipsa non poterant, volebant tamen olnixe, is true in result. Yet 



CHAP. I. 8. 25 

they in their preaching revolutionized the gospel, and such is 
the apostle s charge against them. 

Ver. 8. AX\a /ecu eav riuels ?? ayyeXos e ovpavov evajye- 
XttyjTCU v/u,iv Trap o evrpyyeXiadfAeOa vpZv, dvdOefjia ecnut " But 
if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you any other 
gospel different from what we have preached to you, let him 
be accursed." There is some difference of reading. K, Theo- 
doret, CEcumenius, have evajye\L^eTat; while A, K, and others, 
have evayjeX.la-ijTai. There are also variations with regard to 
vfuv: F and K omit it; B, H, place it before the verb; the ma 
jority of MSS. place it after the verb; while D 1 has u/za?. "But" 
be the TIVG? who they may who seek to subvert the gospel, they 
incur an awful peril. The icai belongs to edv, " even if." The 
case put so strongly is one which may never have occurred ; 
but its possibility is assumed, though it may be very impro 
bable. Hermann, Opuscula, iv. p. 95 ; Hermann, Vigerus, vol. 
ii. 664, London 1824; Jelf, 861. On the difference of el 
/cat and KOI el } see under Phil. ii. 17 ; Kiilmer, 824; Har- 
tung, vol. i. pp. 139, etc. The 77/^19 not himself alone, the 
pronoun being expressed and emphatic may take in, though 
not necessarily, dSeXfol GVV epol of ver. 2, or perhaps Silvanus 
and Timothy, fellow-preachers (Hofmann). 1 He was speaking 
by divine commission when he preached, and he had no right 
to alter the message. If it should ever by any possibility hap 
pen that he did so, on him should fall the anathema. " We or 
an angel from heaven" no fallen spirit who might rejoice 
in falsehood, but one ef ovpavov ; the phrase being joined to 
77eXo9, and not to the verb (2 Cor. xi. 14), which agrees with 
1776X09. An angel from heaven is highest created authority, 
but it cannot exalt itself against a divine commission. An angel 
preaching a Judaizing gospel would be opposing that God 
who had " called them in the grace of Christ." Chrysostom 
supposes allusion to other apostles. The verb euc^yeX/^rafc 
is here followed by the dative of person: iv. 13; Luke 
iv. 18 ; Rom. i. 15 ; 1 Cor. xv. 1 ; 1 Pet. iv. 6. The variety 
of construction which it has in the New Testament it being 
found sometimes absolutely, sometimes with accusative or dative, 
often with accusative of thing and dative of person may have 

1 Against the view of Hofmann, see Laurent, Neutestam. Studien, p. 
120, Gotha 18G6. 



26 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 

originated the variations connected with vpZv, though Light- 
foot, from these variations, regards the word as doubtful. The 
spurious preaching is characterized as 

Hap o evayyeXicrd/jieOa vfuv " contrary to that which we 
preached to you" (Ellicott), or "beyond" it (Alford). The 
Trapd can bear either meaning. Bernhardy, p. 259. The 
Vulgate has prceterqyam, and some of the Greek fathers give 
the same sense, so Beza also ; while " against," contra, is the 
interpretation of Theodoret, Winer, Riickert, Matthies, De 
Wette, Jatho, Turner, Estius, Windischmann. Thus Rom. i. 
26, Trapa (frvcriv, Acts xviii. 13, Trapd VO/AOV, Xen. Mem. i. 1, 18. 
Examples may be found in Donaldson, 485. What is speci 
fically different from it, must in effect be contrary to it. Rom. 
xi. 24, xvi. 17. Usually Catholic interpreters take the sense 
of " contrary to" (Estius, Bisping) ; and Lutherans adopt that 
of " beyond," or " in addition to," as if in condemnation (aus 
blinder Polemik, Bisping) of the traditions on which the Romish 
Church lays such stress. But the apostle refers to oral teach 
ing only, and the preposition Trapd glancing back to erepo?, 
naturally signifies " beside," that is, in addition to, or different 
from, the gospel, or what is really another gospel. But the 
gospel is one, and can have no rival. 

"AvdOefJia ecrro) "let him be accursed" (v. 10). AvdOe/ma: 
the earlier classical form was am^/za, ^rrt/crco? (Moeris). 
Lobeck, PhrynicJius, p. 249. Thus errlOeaa, eTTtdrj/jia ; evpe^a, 
evprj/jta. 1 The general sense is, " laid up," set apart to God : 
TGI @eu> dvariOe/uevov (Suidas). The meaning of the word 
in the New Testament is derived through the Septuagint, 
where it represents the Hebrew D"}n, something so set apart to 
God as to be destroyed or consecrated to divine vengeance. The 
other form, avd0rj/^a, retained its original meaning, compre 
hending all gifts to the gods. Xen. Anal), v. 3, 5. Such gifts 
were often ornamental, and Hesychius defines it by 
but the other form, dvaOep-a, he identifies with 
The distinction begins to appear in the Septuagint, though 
differences of reading prevent it being fully traced and recog 
nised. In Lev. xxvii. 28, 29, the living thing devoted to God 
is to be surely put to death : TLav dvdOe^a d^iov dylatv eaTai 

1 TLxxTs; TTi^o^cyoi eTriQ-sifta x.y.1 etvuSyftet Xsyovovy. Cramer, Anecd. 
Grieca, vol. i. 165, Oxon. 1835. 



CHAP. I. 8. 27 

TW KvpiM . . . 6avdrw OavarcoOijcrerai : the city of Jericho, 
and all in it, was declared avaQe^a Kvpiw ^afiatoO. Josh. vi. 
16, 17. This consecration of Jericho to utter ruin was in 
obedience to the command, Dent. xiii. 14-16, avade^art, dva- 
OefjLaTielre avrrfv, and was a reproduction of an older scene 
(Num. xxi. 1-3), where a city Avas devoted, and then truly 
named i" 1 ^! 1 ?? dvaOepa. Comp. Josh. vii. 11. In the case of 
Jericho, portion of the spoil was set apart for the sacred trea 
sury, and part was to be utterly destroyed two modes of con 
secration to God, for divine blessing and for divine curse God 
glorified in it, or glorified on it. Trench, Syn. p. 17, 1st ser. 
In Ezek. xliv. 29, the offering of a dedicated thing given to the 
priests (the same Hebrew term) is rendered d^optcrpa in the 
Septuagint, but avddrjfia by Aquila, Symmachus, and Theo- 
dotion. Orig. Hex. torn. ii. p. 321, ed. Montfaucon. In the 
Apocrypha the distinction appears to be preserved: 2 Mace. ix. 
16, tca\\icrTois avadrj fiacre Kocrfirjcreiv , 3 Mace. iii. 14; Judith 
xvi. 19 ; also in Joseph. Antiq. xv. 11, 3, Bell. Jud. ii. 17, 3. 
So in the New Testament, Luke xxi. 5, the temple adorned 
with goodly stones, Kal avaQ^acn, " and gifts." But the other 
form, dvdOeaa, occurs six times, and in all of them it has the 
meaning of accursed. Acts xxiii. 14 ; Rom. ix. 3 ; 1 Cor. xii. 
3, xvi. 22 ; and Gal. i. 8, 9. Theodoret, on Rom. ix. 3, recog 
nises this Snr\rjv Sidvoiav, which he gives to avaQr^ia ; also on 
Isa. xiii., and on Zeph. i. See also Suidas, sub voce ; Chrysos- 
tom on Rom. ix. 3 ; and Suicer, sub voce. Among the ecclesi 
astical writers, dvd0e/j,a came to signify excommunication, the 
cursing and separation of one put out of communion. Bing- 
ham, Antiquities, Works, vol. v. p. 471, London 1844. Such a 
use of the word was natural. Council of Laodicea, Canon xxix. 
But to justify this use by any appeal to the New Testament is 
vain. Nowhere has it this meaning, but a darker and a more 
awful one. Nor does Bin in the Old Testament ever signify 
ecclesiastical separation ; it is synonymous with aTr&rXe/a, Isa. 
liv. 5; eo\odpevfj,a, 1 Sam. xv. 21; a</>cmoyia, Deut. vii. 2. On 
the various forms of the Jewish curse, see Selden, De, Syned. 
viii. ; Opera, vol. i. p. 883, etc. The idea of excommunication 
cannot be adopted here (Grotius, Semler, Flatt, Baumgarten- 
Crusius, Hammond, and Waterland) ; for it is contrary to the 
usage of the New Testament, and could not be applicable to 



28 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 

an " angel from heaven." Excommunication is described in 
very different terms, as in John ix. 22, xii. 42, xvi. 2, or Luke 
vi. 22, 1 Cor. v. 2, 13. Winer, sub voce. How tame Grotius, 
cum eo nihil vobis sit commercii ; or liosenmiiller, excludatur e 
ccetu vestro. The preacher of another gospel exposes himself 
to the divine indignation, and the awful penalty incurred by 
him is not inflicted by man : he falls " into the hands of the 
living God." See Wieseler s long note. 

Ver. 9. fls TrpoeiprjtcafAev " as we have said before." The 
reference implied in Trpo. is doubtful. By a great number 
including Chrysostom, Bengel, Winer, Neander the reference 
is supposed to be simply to the previous verse : "As we have just 
said, so I repeat it." 2 Cor. vii. 3 ; 2 Mace. iii. 7 ; and Winer, 
40. Others, as the Peschito, Borger, Usteri, Hilgenfeld, Meyer, 
Wieseler, suppose the allusion to be to a previous visit of the 
apostle. The use of the perfect, though not decisive, and the 
antithesis of cipri in the following clause, favour this view. The 
language would have been different had the apostle wished to say 
nothing more. See v. 21; 2 Cor. xiii. 2; 1 Thess. iv. 6. This 
opinion is confirmed by the sameness of tense of the two verbs, 
as if they referred to the same event. The re-asseveration in 
v. 2, 3 is no case in point to be adduced as an objection ; for 
it has no verb compounded with Trpo, and the statement in ver. 
3 is far from being a repetition of the second verse. Evajje- 
\iadfA60a, Trpoeipiitcaftev /cal aprt, mark a more distinct lapse of 
time than a recurrence to what had just been written, and the 
change from evayye\io-a/j,e6a to TrapeKa/Bere points to the same 
conclusion : As he had said when among them by way of 
affirmation and warning. 

O 

Kal aprt iraXiv \e<yco " and now again I say." The change 
from the plural TrpoeipijicafAev to the present ^670) is significant. 
The previous warning was uttered by the apostle and his 
fellow-labourers, but the following sentence is based on his sole 
apostolical authority. This is not, as lliickert makes it, part 
of the protasis or preceding sentence: "As I said before, I now 
say again." The meaning is : As we said before, so now I say 
again, 7ra\iv referring to repetition of the same sentiment, 
and aprt in contrast with Trpo. in composition with the verb. 
The first of these opinions preserves, as Ellicott says, the 
classical meaning of cfym, for it refers to a time just passed 



CHAP. I. 10. 29 

away. Matt. ix. 18. Tempus qnodqm proximum, apn et 
dpTi(i)s significant," Lobeck, Pliryn. pp. 18-20. But later 
writers use it as it is employed in this clause, " now," or in this 
next sentence. Matt. iii. 15 ; John ix. 19, 25, xiii. 7 ; 1 Cor. 
xiii. 12. The statement is : 

Ei rt? u/ia? evajfye\i^Tai Trap 1 o TrapeXdflere " If any man 
is preaching to you a gospel different from what ye received, 
let him be accursed." The Rheims version tries to preserve 
the original in both verses : " evangelize to you beside that 
which we have evangelized to you." The statement is now 
made merely conditional, or the fact is assumed by et with the 
indicative. The case is put as one that may be found real. 
Donaldson, 502. See also Tischendorf, Pro 3 /, p. Ivii. 7 ed. ; 
Klotz-Devarius, vol. ii. 455 ; Luke xiii. 9 ; Acts v. 38, 39. The 
verb evayy. is here followed by the accusative of person, u/za9, 
emphatic from its position. No other example occurs in the 
writings of the apostle. But we have the same construction in 
Luke Iii. 18, Acts viii. 25, 40, xiii. 32, xiv. 15, 21, xvi. 10, 
1 Pet. i. 12. Phrynichus, ed. Lobeck, 266, etc. ; "Winer, 32. 
For Trap o, see on previous verse. The verb 7rapa\a[i/3dva>, 
followed either by 0.77-0 or by Trapd, pointing to the source, is to 
receive, to take into the mind, what is given by instruction, and 
corresponds to the vplv of the preceding verse. In this verse the 
evangel, which is the theme of the verb, goes out on them as its 
direct objects u/Lta?; in the other it is given to them, or for their 
benefit vfuv and they received it. The change may have been 
intentionally suggestive. For dvd0e/jia ecrrw, see previous verse. 

Ver. 10. "Apn yap dv0pa>7rov^ Treidw, rj rov eov ; " For 
do I now conciliate men or God!" or, "Now, is it men I am 
conciliating, or God?" The emphatic apn of this verse must 
have the same sense as that of the preceding verse " now," at 
the present moment, or as I am writing. It cannot contrast 
vaguely the apostle s present with his previous unconverted 
Jewish state, as is held by Winer, Riickert, Matthies, Bisping, 
Olshausen, Neander, and Turner. For, grammatically, we can 
not well sever the second apn in meaning and reference from 
the first ; and historically, the favour of men was not a ruling 
motive with the apostle in his pharisaic state. Phil. iii. The 
connection is somewhat more difficult, as expressed by ydp. 
It might mean, "Well, now, am I pleasing men?" Klotz- 



30 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 

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



CHAP. I. 10. 31 

cator renders, " Do I persuade you to believe men or God ? " 
Utrum vobis suadeo ut hominibus credatis an ut Deo ? Luther, 
Erasmus, Vatablus, and others give, Num res liumanas suadeo 
an divinas ? But TreiOw governing a person is distinct in mean 
ing from ireiOw governing a thing or object; irelOetv riva being, 
as Meyer remarks, quite distinct from TreiOeiv n. The mean 
ing is more fully explained in the following clause, where the 
apostle adds more broadly : 

*H 77x0) av6pu)Trois apecrKeiv ; " or am I seeking to please 
men ?" the stress being on az^jOcoTrot?. To please men was not 
his .endeavour or pervading aim : it was no motive of his ; for 
he adds : 

El en av6pu>TTOi<s rjpeaicov, Xpiarov SoOXo? OVK av fj^v 
" If still men I were pleasing, Christ s servant I should not be." 
The leading nouns, avOpoyrroi^ and Xpicnov, are in emphatic 
contrast. The received text reads el <yap ert, after the slender 
authority, D 2 3 , E, K, L, the Syriac and Greek fathers; whereas 
A, B, D 1 , F, G, X, the Vulgate, and many Latin fathers want 
it. The asyndeton, however, is the more powerful. Tischen- 
dorf, indeed, says, a correctore alienissimum est; but the yap seems 
really to be a natural emendation, as if giving point to the argu 
ment by it as a connecting particle. There is no conatus in the 
imperfect, as Usteri, Schott, Bagge, and others hold. He says, 
not, "if I were studying to please;" but, "if," the study being suc 
cessful, " I were pleasing men." The result implies the previous 
effort. The particle ert, " still," gives intensity to the declara 
tion, and looks back to apri. Baumlein, Griecli. Part. p. 118. 
If, after all that has happened me, my devoted service to Christ, 
and the deadly hostility I have encountered, I were yet pleasing- 
men, if yet such a motive ruled me, Christ s servant I should 
not be. The form of the imperfect IJ/JLTJV is peculiar, being used 
E\\t]viKO)<;, according to Moeris. It occurs in the later writers, 
and is used by Xenophon, Gyro. vi. 1, 9, and Lysias, Areopay. 
p. 304, ed. Dobson. Its use is not confined to its occurrence 
with av. Lobeck, Phryniclms, p. 152. It is quite common in 
the New Testament : Matt. xxv. 35, John xi. 15, Acts x. 30, 
xi. 5, 17, 1 Cor. xiii. 11, all without av. After el with a 
past indicative in the protasis, av in the apodosis points out 
an impossible condition. Donaldson, 502. The apostle calls 
himself Soi)Xo9 in various places. Compare John xiii. 16, xv. 



32 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 

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



CHAP. I. 11. 33 

many." But while there was such wise and tender forbear 
ance in minor matters which were naturally left open ques 
tions among believers, many of whom could not rise to the 
realization of "the perfect law of liberty," his adherence to 
principle was -uniform and unyielding towards all classes, and 
on all occasions. These two modes of action are quite coales- 
cent in a mind so upright, and yet so considerate, so stern, 
and yet so unselfish, so elevated, and yet so very practical, as 
was that of the apostle of the Gentiles. 

The apostle in the first verse had asserted the reality and 
divine origin of his apostleship, that it came from the one 
highest source, Jesus Christ ; and then, in vers. 8, 9, he had 
maintained, in distinct and unmistakeable phrase, that the 
gospel preached by him was the one true gospel. He now 
takes up the apologetic part of the epistle, and proceeds to 
explain and defend his second position, for both were livingly 
connected. The gospel preached by him was in no sense human, 
as his apostleship rested in no sense on a human basis. He 
had not been one of the original twelve, and he had not com- 
panied with Christ ; and this posteriority had been apparently 
laid hold of to his disadvantage, as if his gospel were but 
secondary, and he had been indebted for it and his office to 
human teaching and authority. But the truth proclaimed by 
him and the office held by him, not only sprang from a pri 
mary relationship to Christ, but had even no human medium of 
conveyance. The apostle therefore argues this point, that his 
gospel had Christ for its immediate source, and revelation for 
its medium of disclosure to him ; that he was not indebted to 
the other apostles for it ; that he had held no consultation with 
them as his tutors or advisers, for his apostleship rested on a 
basis of its own but identical with theirs ; and that, in fine, 
they recognised it riot as a derived and dependent office, or as 
in any way holding of them, but as a distinct, collateral, and 
original commission. Therefore he says : 

Ver. 11. Tvwpifya Be vplv, aBeXfol "Now I declare unto 
you, brethren." Instead of Be, which is found in A, D 2 3 , 
K, L, K, Chrysostom and Theodore t, and in the Coptic and 
Syriac versions, yap is read in B, D l , F, X 1 , and by Jerome, 
the Vulgate, and Augustine. Tischendorf has yap in his second 
edition, but Be in his seventh ; and the reading is adopted by 

C 



34 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIAXS. 

Scholz, Griesbach, Lachmann, and the Textus Receptus. 
Authorities are thus nearly balanced. Possibly the apologetic 
nature of the section might suggest to a copyist to begin it 
with yap, argumentative ; whereas Se is only transitional to 
another topic, or to some additional illustration of it. It may, 
however, be replied, that the insertion of Be by copyists was in 
fluenced by its occurrence with this verb in 1 Cor. xv. 1, 2 Cor. 
viii. 1. The topic has been twice referred to, in 1 and 9 ; so 
that this verse does not spring by direct logical connection out 
of the last verses, but rather gathers up the pervading thought 
of the previous paragraph. Tvatpi^w is a term of emphatic 
solemnity with the apostle (1 Cor. xii. 3, xv. 1 ; 2 Cor. viii. 1), 
as if he were obliging himself to repeat, formally and fully, 
what had before been so explicitly made known. They are 
called a&e\<f)OL still dear to him, in spite of their begun aber 
ration, as in iii. 15, iv. 12, v. 13, vi. 1. What the apostle 
certified them of was : 

To eva<yye\iov TO evayyeXicrOev VTT efiov on OVK ecm Kara 
avOpwrrov "As to the gospel preached by me, that is not 
after man." This clause may characterize his gospel wherever 
preached, o K^pvcraw ev roi9 eOveo-i (ii. 2) ; but the pointed lan 
guage of vers. C-9 specializes it as the gospel preached by him in 
Galatia. The attraction here is a common one, especially after 
verbs of knowing and declaring, the principal clause attracting 
from the dependent one, as if by anticipation. 1 Cor. iii. 20, 
2 Cor. xii. 3 ; Winer, 66, 5 ; Krtiger, 61, 1. The noun 
and participle give a fulness and impressiveness to the state 
ment, as if referring back to vers. 8 and 9 (compare i. 16, 
ii. 2). The gospel preached by me is not Kara avQpwrrov 
" after man." The phrase does not express origin, as Augus 
tine, a-Lapide, and Estius assert, though it implies it. The 

Syriac renders ^-lo, " from," as it does UTTO in ver. 1 ? and 



Trapd in ver. 12. It means " after man s style." Winer, 49. 
Xen. Mem. iv. 4, tear civOpcoTrov voftoOerov ; Sophocles, Ajax, 
747, //,?) Kar avOpunrov (fipovel; CEdip. Col. 598, r) KO,T av0pa>- 
TTOV vocrels. For in form, quality, and contents, it was not 
human or manlike ; it was Godlike in its truths, and in their 
connection and symmetry. It was God s style of purpose and 
thought in no sense man s, and all about it, in disclosure and 



CHAP. I. 12. 37 

result, in adaptation and destiny, proves it to be " after" Him 
whose "ways are not our ways." Turner presses too much 
upon the phrase, when he gives as its meaning, " in character 
with human weakness and infirmity." 

Ver. 12. OvBe ydp eyco irapd dvOpwrrov 7rape\a/3ov avro 
" For neither did I receive it from man." Tap assigns the 
ground : The gospel I preach is not according to man, for 
man did not teach it to me. Through no human medium did 
I get it, not even from James, John, or Cephas, who are 
reckoned " pillars." I got it from the same source as they 
from the one Divine Teacher. I was no more man-taught 
than they were, for I had apocalyptic intercourse with the Lord 
as really as they had personal communications ; and I received 
what they received. This side-glance at the other apostles is 
plainly implied in the emphatic position or relation of the 
first three words, ovBe ydp eyco. OvBe ydp is different from 
the absolute ov ydp, and also from ovBe eyoo ydp, which 
might give a different turn to the thought. The pronoun 
expresses emphatic individuality, and ydp occupies its usual 
place. It is not ovBe for ov (Schirlitz, 59) ; nor is the 
meaning nam ne ego quidem (Winer), " not even I, who might 
have been expected to be man-taught." OvSe, as Hartung 
remarks, is in negative sentences parallel to ical ydp in positive 
sentences (vol. i. p. 211) ; Herodot. i. 3 ; ^Eschylus, Agam. 
1501. This implied reference in ovSe is common: ut aliquid 
extrinsecus adsumendum sit, cui id, quod per ovSe particulam 
infertur, opponatur. Klotz-Devar. ii. 707 ; Kiihner, Xen. Mem. 
p. 94 ; and Borneman, Xen. Conv. p. 200, says truly that ovBe 
ydp and ov ydp differ as neque enim and non enim. Lightfoot ob 
jects that this interpretation is riot reflected in the context; but 
surely the following paragraph plainly implies anxiety on the 
apostle s part to free himself from a charge of human tuition, 
and thus place himself in this matter on an equality with the 
twelve. Matt. xxi. 27; Luke xx. 8; John v. 22, viii. 11, 
42 ; Rom. viii. 7. The reference cannot be, as Riickert and 
Schott make it, to those taught by himself, quiuus ipse tradi- 
derit evangelium ; for that is in no sense the question in 
volved. 

The source denied is, Trapd dvdpcairov, " from man," with the 
notion of conveyance, irapd denoting a nearer source than a-; 



34 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 

It might have been UTTO X., and yet irapa dvOpanrov ultimately 
from Jesus, yet mediately to him from a human source. But 
man was not the nearer source of it, as some had apparently 
insinuated ; it was to him no TrapdSocrts. The distinctive mean 
ings of Trapd and diro for this verb may be used with either 
seem in some cases almost to blend. The apostle in a matter 
of revelation which excludes all human medium, may drop the 
less distinction of near or remote. He adds-: 

OvTe e&iSd xdrjv " nor was I taught it." The reading 
ovSe is found in A, D 1 , F, N, and is but ill supported, being 
probably an unconscious assimilation to the previous particle 
commencing the verse. The adverb ovre often occurs simi 
larly, and, as Winer says, divides the negation ( 55-6). The 
ovSe belongs only to the previous clause, and its connection 
with the foregoing verse. The ovre is not co-ordinate with 
ovSe, but subordinate. Hartung, vol. i. 201 ; A. Buttman, 315 ; 
Klotz-Devarius, ii. 709. The difference between the verbs in 
this denial is, that the first may refer to truth presented in an 
objective or historical form (1 Cor. xi. 23), while the other 
may refer to his subjective mastery of it in a doctrinal or sys 
tematic connection, the first verb being, as Bengel says, to learn 
sine labore, and the second to learn cum labore. The verbs do 
not differ, as Brown following Beza maintains, as if the first 

/ O / 

denoted reception of authority to preach, apostolatus onus Paulo 
impositum, and the other referred to instruction ; for avro goes 
back distinctly to evayye\i,ov. See Mark vii. 4 ; 1 Cor. xv. 1-3; 
Phil. iv. 9. 

A\\a Bt aTTo/caXu-^eco? Irjcrov Xpicrrov "but through 
revelation of Jesus Christ." A\\d is strongly adversative. 
The one medium was revelation, and that revelation came from 
Christ ; the genitive being that of author as in formal con 
trast to Trapd dv0pci)7rov } denoting origin. But one may say, 
that a revelation from Jesus Christ is also a revelation of 
Jesus Christ, Himself being theme as well as source ; and 
thus the phrase, though not grammatically, yet really and 
exegetically, includes a contrast also with Kara dvOpanrov, 
and virtually asserts of his teaching what he had declared of 
his apostleship, that it was OVK CLTT dvOp&Trwv ovSe Si dvOpw- 
TTOV (i. 1). See under ver. 16. 

The apostle now proceeds to give an autobiographical proof 



CHAP. I. 13. 37 

of his position : that his gospel came from direct communica 
tion with Christ; that it was as original and trustworthy as 
those of the others who were apostles before him ; that for a 
long period after his conversion he had no communication with 
any of them ; that three years elapsed before he saw one of 
the twelve, and then he saw Peter only for a fortnight ; and 
that fourteen years additional passed away ere he had any 
interview with the pillars of the church. His gospel was 
therefore in no sense dependent on them, nor had his first 
spheres of labour been either assigned or superintended by 
them. He had felt no dependence on them, and was con 
scious of no responsibility to them. Separate and supreme 
apostolical authority, therefore, belonged to him ; and it sealed 
and sanctioned the message which it was the work of his life 
to publish. 

Ver. 13. H/covcrare jap rrjv efj,rjv avacrrpo(f)r/v Trore ev ro) 
IovSa icr/Aq) " For ye heard of my manner of life in Judaism." 
Tap formally commences the historical proof, and the verb 
rjKovaare beginning the sentence has the stress upon it : Ye 
heard, not have heard, referring to an indefinite past time, 
it was matter of rumour and public notoriety. His mode 
of life or his conduct he calls avacrrpoffrr), literally and in 
Latin, conversatio, " conversation " in old English. He uses 
in Acts xxvi. 4, in reference to the same period of his life, rrjv 
Piwa-iv fMov. Comp. Eph. iv. 22, 1 Tim. iv. 12, Heb. xiii. 7, Jas. 
iii. 13, 2 Mace. ii. 21, viii. 1. The word in its ethical sense 
belongs to the later Greek. Polybius, iv. 82, 1. The position 
of TTore is peculiar, no article as rrjv is attached to it, and it 
occurs after the noun. It is used with the verb in Eph. ii. 3, 
and in Eph. iv. 22 the phrase occurs, Kara rrjv rrporepav ava- 
<rrpo(j)r)v. In the same way, words are sometimes separated 
which usually come in between the article and the substantive 
(Winer, 20). The apostle places Trore as he would if he had 
used the verb. Such is one explanation. Similarly Plato, De 
Leg. 685 D, ?? T?}? Tpo/a? aXcocrt? TO Beurepov, where Stallbaum 
says that ro Bevrepov is placed per synesin ob nornen verbale 
aXwa-is. Ojyera, vol. x. p. 290; Ellendt, Lex. Soplwc. sub voce. 
The entire phrase contains one complete idea, as the absence 
of the article seems to imply. Winer, 20, 2b. As the verb is 
followed by eV, denotive of element, in 2 Cor. i. 12, Eph. ii. 3, 



38 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 

so the noun is here closely connected with a similar ev ; and, 
according to Donaldson, the position of Trore is caused by the 
verb included in the noun. The element of his mode of life 
was 

Ev TO) lovSat oyico " in Judaism," not Mosaism, not ex 
actly the old and primitive Hebrew faith and worship, nor the 
modern or current theology, but rather ritualism and the mass 
of beliefs and traditions held by Pharisaism. The abstract noun 
is specialized by the article, and it occurs in 2 Mace. ii. 21, xiv. 
38, 4 Mace. iv. 26, and the correspondent verb meets us in Gal. 
ii. 14. Similarly he says, Acts xxvi. 5, T^? ^erepa? ^/^ovcaa?, 
this last noun being more special and referring to worship or 
ceremonial. Judaism is here the religious life of the Jews or 
Pharisees, in its varied spheres of nutriment and service. See 
under Phil. iii. The apostle now honestly adduces one charac 
teristic of his previous life in Judaism 

"On teat? V7T6p/3o\r)V e^iuncov rrjv eKKXr/crtav rov eov, KOI 
7ropdovv avrijv " how that beyond measure I was perse 
cuting the church of God, and was destroying it." The con 
junctive 6Vi, frequently used after atcovw without any inter 
vening sentence (Madvig, 159), introduces the first special 
point in the apostle s previous life in Judaism which he wishes 
to specify. The imperfects eStcoKov and eiropOovv are to be 
taken in the strict sense (Schmalfeld, 55). The second verb 
has been often rendered, " was endeavouring to destroy." So 
Chrysostom, Thcodoret, Theophylact, give it this sense aftea-ai 
eire^Lpei. The imperfects represent an action carried on during 
his state of Judaism, but left unfinished owing to his sudden 
conversion. He was in the very act of it when Jesus called 
him on the road to Damascus, and that mission to lay waste 
was not carried out. Nor is the meaning of the verb to be 
diluted, as is done by Beza, Winer, Schott, and Usteri, the 
last of \vhom says that Winer is right in denying that it 
means evertere, but only vastare. But Passow, Wahl, and 
Bretschneider give it the meaning which these expositors would 
soften. Examples are numerous. It occurs often in the 
strongest sense (Homer, //. iv. 308), is applied to men as well 
as cities (Lobeck, Soph. Ajax, p. 378, 3d ed.), and is some 
times associated with Kaieiv (Xen. Hellen. v. 5, 27). Com 
pare Wetstein, in loc. What the apostle says of himself is 



CHAP. I. H. 39 

abundantly confirmed. Saul, " he made havoc of the church," 
etc., Acts viii. 3 ; "yet breathing out threatenings and slaugh 
ter against the disciples of the Lord," ix. 1 ; his mission to 
Damascus was, "that if he found any of this way, whether 
they were men or women, he might bring them bound to 
Jerusalem," ix. 2 ; "is not this he that destroyed them which 
called on this name in Jerusalem?" ix. 21; "I persecuted 
this way unto the death," xxii. 4 ; "I imprisoned and beat 
in every synagogue them that believed on Thee," xxii. 19 ; 
" when they were put to death, I gave my voice against 
them, being exceeding mad against them," xxvi. 10, 11. No 
wonder, then, that he uses those two verbs, and prefixes to 
the first KaO v7rep/3o\7Jv, one of his favourite phrases. Horn, 
vii. 13 ; 1 Cor. xii. 31; 2 Cor. i. 8, iv. 17. It was no partial 
or spasmodic effort, either feeble in itself, or limited and inter 
mittent in operation. It was the outgrowth of a zeal which 
never slept, and of an energy which could do nothing by 
halves, which was as eager as it was resolute, and was noted 
for its perseverance no less than for its ardour. And he 
distinctly sets before his readers the heinousness of his pro 
cedure, for he declares the object of his persecution and fierce 
devastation to have been 

Trjv eKKkrfa-iav TOV &eov " the church of God." 1 Cor. 
xv. 9. The possessive genitive TOV Qeov points out strongly 
the sinfulness and audacity of his career. It may be added 
that the Vulgate reads expugnabam ; and F has eVoXe/iow. 
This Greek was probably fashioned from the Latin. The Vul 
gate has, Acts ix. 21, expugnabat for 6 7ropdr]<ras, without any 
various reading in Greek codices. The object of this statement 
is to show that the apostle, during his furious persecution of the 
church, could not be in the way of learning its theology from 
any human source ; its bloody and malignant enemy could not 
be consorting with the apostles as a pupil or colleague. 

Ver. 14. Kal irpoeKoirrov ev TO> louSaioyiw inrep TroXXou? 
avvrj X.iKKOTas ev TO> yevet (JLOV "and was making progress in 
Judaism beyond many my equals in my own nation." The 
tropical sense of the verb is, " to push forward," and intransi 
tively " to make advancement," followed by ev, and sometimes 
with a different reference by eVi or a simple dative, as in Luke 
ii. 52. His progress in Judaism was 



40 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 



7roAA.oL>? Gvvrj\iKi(t>Tas " beyond many contempo 
raries." Such compound terms as avvr)\iK., which the apostle 
uses only here, belong to the later age ; the simple noun suf 
ficing at an earlier and fresher stage. Diodor. Sic. i. 53, in 
which place, however, several codices have the simple term. 
So, too, Dionysius Halicar. x. 49. The persons referred to are 
those of similar age and standing, fellow-pupils, it may be, at 
the feet of Gamaliel. And they were his countrymen 

Ev TO) yevei /AOV. Compare Acts xviii. 2, 2 Cor. xi. 26, 
Phil. iii. 5. Numerous contemporaries of pure Jewish blood, 
and not simply Jews from Tarsus, were excelled by him. His 
zeal pervaded every sphere of his life and labour. He could 
not be lukewarm, either in persecution or in study. His 
whole soul was ever given to the matter in hand ; for he thus 
assigns the reason of his forwardness and success in the follow- 

<D 

ing clause : 

Hepia-aoTepws ??Xci>Tr/9 vTrup^cov ro)v TrarpiK&v JJLOV irapa- 
Boaecov " being more exceedingly a zealot for the traditions of 
my fathers." This participial clause may be modal, as Meyer 
and Ellicott take it (vTrdp^cov, " as being"), but it may be 
causal : He excelled his contemporaries, inasmuch as he was 
more exceedingly zealous than they were. In Trepiaaorepo)^ 
the comparison is not surely, as Usteri explains, mehr als 
gewohnlich, but more than those contemporaries to whom he 
lias just referred. Strange and unfounded is the notion of 
Gwynne, that the comparison in Trepcro-oTepco? is not between 
Paul and his contemporaries, but between " the precepts and 
ordinances of the law of Moses of which his appreciation was 
not so high, nor his zeal for them so fervid as for his ancestral 
traditions." Such a comparison comes not into view at all. The 
noun r/A&>T?; <? signifies one filled with zeal for what is contained 
in the following genitive rov 0eoO, Acts xxii. 3 ; rov vofjiov, 
Acts xxi. 20 ; irvev^arwv, 1 Cor. xiv. 12 ; aXwz> epyatv, Tit. 
ii. 14 : the genitive of person being sometimes preceded by 
inrip ; 2 Cor. vii. 7, Col. iv. 13. The noun is not here used in 
the fanatical sense attaching to the modern term zealot, though 
it came also to denote a fanatical party in the last days of the 
Jewish commonwealth. The object of his intense attachment 
was 

Tu>v Trarpi/cwv [JLOV Trapa&ocrewv " for the traditions of my 



CHAP. I. 14. 41 

fathers," the genitive being that of object, as in the places 
already quoted. The noun Trapa&oais, traditio, " giving over," 
is literally employed as with 7roXe&>9 (Thucydides, iii. 53 ; 
Josephus, De Bello Jud. i. 8, 6 ; Sept. Jer. xxxii. 4 ; Esdras 
vii. 26) ; then it signifies handing over or down an inheritance 
(Thucydides, i. 9), and by a natural trope it is used of narra 
tion. Josephus, contra Apion. i. 6. So it came to denote in 
structions delivered orally, as Hesychius defines it by aypdfov? 
SiSaa-KaXtas. It is used of apostolical mandate, 1 Cor. xi. 2, 
2 Thess. ii. 15, iii. 6 ; and especially of the Jewish tradition, 
Matt. xv. 2, 3, 6, rrjv Trapd&oaiv rwv TrpeaftvTepwv, rrjv Trapd- 
&O<TLV VJJLWV, in opposition to the written divine law. Mark vii. 
3, 9, 13 ; Col. ii. 8. So in Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 10, 6, and 16, 
2. Thus the term seems to denote not the Mosaic law itself, 
but the accretions which in course of ages had grown around it, 
and of which the Mishna is an example. Luther and Calvin 
think that the term denotes the Mosaic law ipsam Dei legem, 
as the latter says ; and many suppose that the law is included, 
as Estius, Winer, Usteri, Schott, Hilgenfeld, Olshausen, and 
Brown. The law may be included, in the sense that a com 
mentary includes the text, or that a legal exposition implies a 
statute. But the terms, from their nature, cannot primarily 
refer to it or formally comprehend it, for the law written with 
such care, and the sacred parchment kept with such scrupulosity, 
could not well be called traditions. In Acts xxii. 3 the phrase 
is TOV Trarptoov vopov " the law of my fathers" and refers 
to traditionary pharisaic interpretation ; but the traditions are 
here called irarpiKai [j,ov. The adjectives irdrpio^, TrarpiKOf, 
Trar/aoSo?, generically the same in meaning, are supposed to 
have been used with specific difference, though what the pre 
cise difference was has been disputed. Ellendt, Lex. Soph, sub 
voce ; Kiihner, Xen. Anab. iii. 2, 17; also Schoemann, Isaeus, 
p. 201 ; and Hermann, Opuscula, vol. iii. 195. The apostle, 
however, uses in these two places the two adjectives TrarpiKos 
and Trarptoo? with much the same reference. We cannot 
agree with Meyer, followed by Alford, Ellicott, and others, in 
saying that the adjective and pronoun limit these traditions to 
the sect of the Pharisees, Paul being fyapia-alos, vlos fyapia-aiov, 
" a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee." We rather think, with 
Wieseler, that the reference must be as wide as in the phrase ev 



42 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIAXS. 

T&> yevei, ; that the traditions described as handed down from 
his fathers are viewed as national and not as sectarian ; and 
that though in effect they were pharisaic, still, as the Pharisees 
were the mass of the nation, they are regarded as having cha 
racterized the people to whom Paul belonged. It cannot 
therefore be supposed that the apostle would be learning Chris 
tianity during the period when his progress in Judaism was so 
marked, when his zeal for patristic traditions so far outran that 
of his contemporaries, a zeal in utter and burning antagonism 
to the new religion. He had kept from all contact with it, 
save the contact of ferocity witli the victim which it immo 
lates. Luther touchingly applies this verse to his own previous 
history. 

Ver. 15. "Ore Se evSoKrjcrev 6 @eo?, o afyopicras ytie e/c Koi\ias 
fj,r)rpo<> pov " But when God was pleased, who set me apart 
from my mother s womb." The 6 @eo? of the received text has 
for it, D, K, L, N ; but B, F, G, omit it. The Greek fathers 
are doubtful, but the Vulgate and Jerome have it not. The 
words are left out by Tischendorf and Alford; but if they are a 
gloss, they are an old one. Ellicott refers to 0. preceded and 
followed by f O, as the probable source of omission. One may 
say, on the other hand, that the supposed demands of syntax 
might seem to warrant the insertion of the words ; yet the 
phraseology of the following clauses is so precise, God s desti 
nation and call of the apostle, the revelation of His Son in him 
with his commission to preach to the Gentiles, that though in 
the hurry and glow of thought the nominative was omitted, 
nobody could doubt what it was. " I persecuted the church of 
God, yet HE was pleased to select me," all the more solemn 
from the omission of the name. Comp. i. 6, ii. 8 ; Rom. viii. 11 ; 
Phil. i. 6. Pie, provoked as He might have been, euSoKrjaev 
"was pleased" of His own sovereign grace. The verb is, as usual 
with Paul, followed by an infinitive, though it is found in other 
constructions with a simple accusative. Heb. x. 6. It occurs 
with an accusative and et? in 2 Pet. i. 17 ; and with ev and a 
dative in Matt. iii. 17, and probably in 2 Thess. ii. 12. 

The verb afyopia-as is not used here in a mere physical 
sense (Aquinas, Cajetan, Paulus), as if e/e were local, but is 
ethically " to set apart," and is followed by et9, pointing to 
the end, as in Acts xiii. 2, Horn. i. 1. Instead, however, of 



CHAP. I 1C. 43 

being followed here by et9, the construction leads on to an 
infinitive of purpose, but connected with the previous verb. The 
etc points out the time from which his destination is to be 
reckoned (Winer), and the phrase is an imitation of open 
Hebrew speech. Judg. xvi. 17 ; Ps. xxii. 11, Ixx. 6 ; Isa. xliv. 
2, xlix. 1, 5 ; Matt. xix. 12 ; Acts iii. 2, xiv. 8. It is equiva 
lent in sense to e/c yeverfjs, John ix. 1, and does not glance in 
any way at pharisaic separatism (Wessel). The apostle means 
to say that God destined him from his birth to his vocation, 
no matter how wayward and unlikely had been the career of 
his youth. The words do not mean from eternity (Beza), 
though, indeed, every act of God is but the realization of an 
eternal purpose ; nor do they mean, before he was born. To 
support this sense, advocated by Jerome, Grotius, Semler, 
Rilckert, "VYieseler, and Hofmann, reference is made to Jer. 
i. 5 ; but there the language is different, rrpo rov /-te rrKaaai <re 
ev K0i\la. It is therefore only an inference, but not the sense, 
to say, If he was chosen from the womb, he was chosen in it. 
His being set apart from his birth was of God s sovereign 
good pleasure. The phrase may imply also, in an undertone, 
that his education had been, under God, adapted to his high 
function. Not only from his birth was he a designated apostle ; 
but he adds : 

Kal KaXecras Bia rr}? ^dpiro 1 ? avrov "and called me by His 
grace." Designation was not enough : he brings out another 
essential link that of vocation as a second step in his pro 
gress. The participles are closely connected, no article being 
before the second one the designation showed itself in the 
K\rja-i<;. The Sid is instrumental by means of His grace 
(1 Cor. xv. 10) ; and the call came to him near Damascus. 
This is the plain historical sense and allusion. The apostle 
refers to the period of his conversion, and to its medium, as 
not of merit but of grace. Now he proceeds to show how his 
call to the apostolate was connected with qualification for it. 

Ver. 16. ArroKaXvfyai rov Tlov avrov ev epol "to re 
veal His Son in me." The infinitive is not connected with one 
or both of the participles, but with evSo/crja-ev, arid its aorist 
form denotes the past and completed act. The phrase ev epoi 
is " in me," in my soul, in my inner self. It cannot mean 
" to me ; " nor is it to be taken for the simple dative (Calvin, 



44 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIAXS. 

Rosenmiiller, Koppe, and Flatt), for what then should be the 
force of the preposition! In Matt. xi. 27, 1 Cor. ii. 10, Eph. 
iii. 5, Phil. iii. 16, the simple dative following the verb has a 
different meaning. Winer, 31, 8, 48a ; Bernhardy, p. 213. 
As little can the phrase mean "through me/ as Jerome, Pela- 
gius, Grotius, Estius, Lightfoot, and Bagge. Nor can it mean 
coram me (Peile), or "on me" (P. Lombard, Seb. Schmidt), 
as if it were a manifest token of divine power. 1 (Ecumenius 
says, ev efjuol Se et?re Sel^at 6e\wv ov \oyco ^JLOVQV paOovra avrov 
aXka teal vw real tcapBia. Lightfoot s objection to the natural 
meaning is only a hasty anticipation of the following clause, 
which tells the purpose of the revelation. 

The object of this divine revelation was " His Son ;" not the 
truth about Him, or His work, or His death, or His glory, but 
Himself Himself including all. His person is the sum of the 
gospel. See, for some remarks on " Son," under Eph. i. 3, 17. 
This revelation may have been in some sense subsequent to 
the direct call, or it may refer also to the appearance of the 
Redeemer near Damascus qualifying him for the apostleship. 
1 Cor. ix. 1. It gave him full and glowing views of the Re 
deemer s person, including His various relations to God and 
to man, such views as fixed the apostle s faith upon Him, 
centred his love in Him, and enabled him to hold Him out in 
his preaching as the one living and glorified Saviour. It was 
by no process of reasoning that he came to such conclusions, 
by no elaborate and sustained series of demonstrations that he 
wrought out his Christology. God revealed His Son in him, 
divine light was flashed in upon him, so that he saw what he 
had not seen before, fully, suddenly, and by a higher than 
intuitive suggestion. He had not been taught, and he did not 
need to be taught, by any of the apostles. The purpose of this 
revelation is then stated : 

"Iva evayyeX.l^a)/j,ai avrov ev roi? eOveaiv "in order that 1 
should preach Him among the Gentiles." The Son of God 
was the living theme of his preaching, and the good news about 
Him was what is stated in the fourth verse that " He gave 
Himself for our sins " the theme which the apostle elsewhere 
characterizes thus, " We preach Christ crucified." The en 
lightenment of the apostle w T as not for his own individual 
1 Even Blomfield says, \v yplv pro tig yps vd ijpJi/. Agamemnon, 1425. 



CHAP. I. 16. 45 

luxury ; it was to fit him to make known what had been so 
conveyed to him. Acts xxii. 1 5, 21, xxvi. 17-19. The iva points 
out the purpose, and the present tense of the verb describes 
the work of evangelization as no passing or isolated act, but an 
enduring function. And the sphere of his labours is distinctly 
avowed " among the heathen." Rom. i. 5, 13, xi. 13, xv. 16 ; 
Eph. iii. 8 ; 1 Tim. ii. 7. The verb evayye\%ay has already 
been used with the simple dative, ver. 8, and with the accu 
sative, ver. 9 ; here it is followed by ev among the heathen 
peoples or all other races beyond the chosen seed. He forgot 
not his own people they were ever dear to him ; but his 
characteristic work to which he had been set apart, called, 
qualified was to be the apostle of the Gentiles ; and this, so 
specially his own office, he magnified. 

Eevelation is opposed to knowledge gained by prolonged 
and patient thought. It is unlike the common process by 
which an intellectual conclusion is reached, the inference of 
one syllogism forming but the premiss of another, till by a 
series of connected links, primary or abstract truth is reached. 
For it is sudden and perfect illumination, lifting the receptive 
power into intensest susceptibility, and so lighting up the whole 
theme disclosed, that it is immediately and fully apprehended 
in its evidence and reality. We know not, indeed, what the 
process is, what the waking up of the higher intuition is, or 
what the ecstasy which throws into momentary abeyance all 
the lower faculties. It may resemble that new sphere of vision 
in which genius enjoys gleams of unutterable beauty, or that 
" demonstration of the Spirit" which gives the truth new 
aspects of richness and grandeur to the sanctified soul in some 
mood of rapt meditation. But still it is different and higher 
far both in matter and purpose. It was God s revelation of 
His Son, not glimpses of the truth about Him, but Himself ; 
not merely summoning his attention to His paramount claims, 
so as to elicit an acknowledgment of them, not simply pre 
senting Him to his intellectual perception to be studied and 
comprehended, nor even shrining an image of Him in his 
heart to be loved and cherished, but His Son unveiled in 
living reality; and in him in his inner self, not in any distinct 
and separate realm of his being, with the conscious possession 
of all this infallible and communicable knowledge which was 



46 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 

given perhaps first in clear and vivid outline 
and then filled in surely and gradually eSiBd^Orjv. 

Ev0ea><> ov Trpoaavede^v aapKl KCU al^an " immediately 
I conferred not with flesh and blood;" " I communed not of 
the matter with flesh and blood" (Tyndale). It would almost 
seem that the apostle meant to write evdews . . . u7r^\0ov el$ 
Apafilav I went at once into Arabia ; but other explanations 
of a negative kind struggle first for utterance (Jowett). Still 
evOews, standing emphatically, may qualify the whole para 
graph, as Chrysostom hints. What he describes happened imme 
diately after his conversion, non-conference, non-visitation of 
Jerusalem, departure for Arabia, all told in the same breath. 
The construction is close ; for the intermediate negative state 
ment, " neither did I go off to Jerusalem," is connected by 
ouBe as a denied alternative with the first clause, and then by 
the directly adversative uXkd with the last clause, evOecos 
underlying all of them but specially pointing to, " I went off 
to Arabia." Kiickert, after Jerome, against all MSS., would 
join evOecos to the previous clause, and so Credner, Einleit. 
p. 303. The adverb might stand at the end of the clause. 
See some examples not wholly analogous in Stallbaum s note, 
Phaedrus, p. 25G E, or vol. iv. p. 134. The phrase o-dpj; teal 
al^a, cn] Tw Iij here denotes human nature, or man generally, 
not specially in contrast with higher powers, as in Eph. vi. 12 ; 
nor in his more earthly nature, as in 1 Cor. xv. 50 ; but man 
as in contrast with divine agency, the contrast suggesting, how 
ever, the idea of inferiority, Matt. xvi. 17. The verb Trpoaave- 
Oe/jLyv is classically "to add a burden to," or "on one s own self;" 
and then, as here, " to make address to," or " hold communion 
with." The non acquievi of the Vulgate is not the correct 
rendering, though it may be so far according to the sense. In 
the double compound, the first preposition indicates " direction 
towards" (Meyer), and not addition, prceterea (Beza, Bengel). 
" I did not address myself to," or " did not take counsel with," 
two successive phases of the one idea, " I did not consult." 
Diodorus Sic. xvii. 116; ^fl Zev . . . e/xol TrpocravdOov, Lucian, 
Jup. Tragced. i. Opera, vol. vi. p. 223, ed. Bipont. ; Suidas, 
sub voce. The phrase " flesh and blood" does not refer to the 
other apostles (Chrysostom), nor is it a contemptuous allusion 
to them, as Porphyry insinuated; nor does the apostle mean 



CHAP. I. 17. 47 

himself (Koppe, Gwynne), for the verb would not be in har 
mony ; nor does it include the apostle and the others, with 
whom conference is denied (Schott, Winer, Matthies). The 
reference, as is held by the majority of expositors, is simply to 
others, as the spirit of the context also shows, his object being 
to prove that he was in no sense dvOpcoTroSiBaKTos. The apostle 
is not alluding to any self-denial or any victory over his own 
desires and preferences, but is only stating the fact that, after 
his conversion, he had studiously shunned all human conference. 
The non acquievi has been unduly pressed. Tertullian speaks of 
some who held that flesh and blood meant Judaism, and that 
the apostle is to be thus understood : " Statim non retulerit ad 
carnem et sanguinem, id est, ad circumcisionem, id est ad Juda- 
ismum, sicut ad Galatas scribit." De Resurr. Carnis, cap. i. 
p. 534 ; Opera, vol. ii. ed. Oehler. Primasius writes, " Con- 
tinuo non acquievi, continue non fui incredulus coelesti visioni 
quia non carnis et sanguinis voces audivi." 

Ver. 17. OvSe a7rfj\0ov et? Jepocro/Vu/za Trpos T0i9 irpo e/zo) 
ttTTocTToXoi^ "Neither did I go away to Jerusalem to them 
who were apostles before me." The dvfj\.dov of the received 
text is very well supported, having in its favour A, K, L, X, 
Chrysostom, and the Latin, both Vulg. and Clarom.; while 
airff^Oov is found in B, D, F, the Syriac, and in Basil. The 
form avfj\6ov is the one usually employed, going up to Jerusa 
lem, not only as the capital city, but as one built on high land, 
and may be fairly supposed to be a correction of the more 
general airrf^Oov. It may be indeed replied, as by Tischen- 
dorf, that it is improbable that Paul should have written 
airr)\0ov twice consecutively; but we find e Xa/Sere . . . eXa/Sere 
in Rom. viii. 15; Heb. ii. 16. There was no temptation to 
change dv. into UTT., but to change dir. into av., so as to har 
monize it with general usage. Acts ii. 15, xxi. 15, xxv. 1. 
In the ovSe there is reference to the previous negation, while 
another more definite is added, so that there is something 
more than the fortuities concursus given by Klotz-Devar. ii. 
707, and acquiesced in by Ellicott. Generally he held con 
ference with nobody, with no members of the church in Damas 
cus ; and specially, as the contrary might have been expected 
or insinuated, he did not go off to Jerusalem, and consult 
the elder apostles. Horn. xvi. 7. He did not rehearse his 



48 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 

experience to them, or receive either authority or instruc 
tion from them. In fact, he carefully kept aloof from them ; 
and so far from journeying to Jerusalem, and to the leaders 
in the mother church, he went away in quite a different 
direction 

^.XV aTTYJXOov et? ApafSiav " but I went away into 
Arabia." The a\\d is found in its full form in A, B, D, F, 
L, and X ; and as introducing an affirmative after a negative 
statement, it lias its strong adversative force. Arabia may 
mean Arabia Deserta, a portion of which comes so near Damas 
cus. 1 Not to speak of wider geographical descriptions of the 
name, as in Herod, ii. 12, Xen. Anab. i. 5, Plin. Hist. Nat. 
vi. 32, Justin Martyr says, AafJiacrKo^ TT}<? ApafliKfjs 7/79 fy 
real eanv. Dial. c. Trypli. Op. vol. ii. p. 268, ed. Otto, 
1843 ; and Tertullian repeats the account, Ado. Marcion. iii. 
13, Adv. Jud. 9. Or if Arabia be used more strictly, as in 
iv. 25, then, as some have fancied, he may have visited, like 
Elijah, the grand scene of the old legislation. But probably, 
had he done so, there would be some allusion to such a pil 
grimage of honour in a letter in which he unfolds the rela 
tions of a law which he was accused of rashly undervaluing 
and setting aside. 2 The point cannot be determined ; and in 
the brief narrative of the Acts the journey is omitted. Nor 
can the definite motive of the apostle be ascertained. It does 
not seem to have been to preach the gospel (Meyer, Wieseler, 
Ewald), though he would not decline such work if oppor 
tunity offered, but rather to prepare himself for his coming 
labour. Jerome thus allegorizes the matter: "The Itus ac 
reditus mean nothing in themselves ; but Arabia, the country 
of the bond slave, is the Old Testament, and there he found 
Christ ; reperto illo, he returned to Damascus, ad sanguinem 
et passionem Cliristi" a play upon the Hebrew meaning of 
the first syllable ; and " so strengthened, he went up to Jeru 
salem, locum visionis et pads" an allusion again to the sig 
nification of the name. At all events, the journey to Arabia 
is here adduced, not as an illustration of his early preaching 
of Christ among the heathen, but as a proof that he had 

1 Conybeare and Howson, vol. i. 104. 

2 There was at that time a large and flourishing kingdom of Jews in 
Arabia Felix. Milman, History of the Jeics, vol. iii. p. 85, 4th ed. 1866. 



CHAP. I. 18. 49 

held no consultation with flesh and blood ; so that probably 
he retired to enjoy solitary thought and preparation, sounding 
the depth of his convictions, forecasting possibilities, receiving 
revelations and lessons, truth presented inviting him to earnest 
study, divine communications viewed on all sides and in all 
lights, till they were mastered in sum and detail, and became 
a portion of himself ; a lifetime in awfulness and intensity of 
thought and feeling crowded into a few months. He in this 
way followed the Master, who, after enjoying the divine mani 
festation at His baptism, was led of the Spirit into the wilder 
ness. It is not likely that Paul s object was to find safety 
from Jewish persecution under king Aretas in some part of 
Arabia (Thiersch). 

Kai TraX.iv vTrearpe-^ra ets Aa^acrKov " and again returned 
to Damascus." The phrase implies through irakiv that he had 
been in Damascus before he went into Arabia. His work on 
his return to Damascus, was " proving that this is very Christ ;" 
and he " confounded " the Jews by his arguments, antici 
pating every objection, removing every scruple ; remembering 
how himself had felt and reasoned, and diffusing that new 
light which had been poured into his soul. A conspiracy was 
formed against him, but he escaped by night and by a peculiar 
stratagem, as himself tells, 2 Cor. xi. 33. Thus early did he 
begin to realize what was said to Ananias, " I will show him 
how great things he must suffer for my name s sake." 

Ver. 18. "ETreira p,era err] rpia dvfjXdov et? lepocroXvfta 
" Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem." What 
must have been his emotions as he passed the scene of his con 
version, or if he entered the holy city by the gate through which 
he had left it ? The adverb eVetra, " then " after his return 
to Damascus is a connecting link in his narrative. The point 
from which the three years are to be computed is fixed by some 
at the return from Arabia (Borger, Riickert, Jatho). The majo 
rity, however, date them from his conversion. That event had 
just been referred to by him, in its origin, nature, and design. 
God had set him apart, called him and qualified him, and 
this event of events to him stood out so prominently in its soli 
tary grace and grandeur, that he reckons from it without any 
formal reference. The o @eo? euSo/o?crez/ dominates the whole 
paragraph. How much of this time was spent in Arabia, and 

D 



50 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 

how much in the two sojourns at Damascus, is a question for 
the solution of which we have no proper data. The first stay 
seems to be indicated by the words r^epai rives, and the second 
by &)<? Be e7r\rjpovvro rj^epm i/cavai, in Acts ix. 19, 23. This 
last phrase is indefinite, but coupled with the verb seems to 
denote a considerable space. Eichhorn, Ilowson, Anger, sup 
pose the three years to have been wholly spent in Arabia. The 
fjiera err) rpia are in contrast with the evdews of ver. 16, and 
dvrjXdov refers back to the previous a7rrj\6ov. The object of 
the visit to Jerusalem was 

Icrropijaai Ki](f)dv " to make the acquaintance of Cephas." 
The reading Herpov of the received text is well sustained, 
having in its favour 1), F, K, L, K 3 , the Vulgate, and many 
of the fathers ; while Krjtydv has A, B, K 1 , three MSS., Syriac, 
Coptic, and JEthiopic. The rarer name is to be preferred. 
The verb laTopfjcrat, occurring only here, has sometimes in 
earlier Greek the sense of knowing through inquiry, or of 
asking ; Hesychius defines it by epcordv. In later Greek 
it denotes " to visit " as applied to places or things, and to 
persons in the sense of making the acquaintance of coram 
cognoscere- It differs from ISeiv in that it implies that what 
is to be seen is worthy of a visit of inspection. See Kypke, in 
loc., and so Chrysostom illustrates it. Thus taroprjcrai .EXea- 
crapov, Josephus, Antiq. viii. 25 ; similarly, Bell. Jud. vi. 1, 8, 
he says of Julian the Bithynian centurion, ov e<yu> la-roprfcra; 
and often in the Clementines, as adduced by Hilgenfeld : 
ffomilice, i. 14, ix. 22, ix. 6, etc. But these instances, as 
usual, refer to things, not persons. 

Paul did not go to consult Cephas, or get any information 
essential to the validity of his office and work, but to visit him 
as a noted apostle, one whom it would be gratifying to know 
through private and confidential intercourse. 

But even this first visit to Jerusalem, three years after his 
conversion, was a very brief one : 

Kal eTre/j,eiva Trpos avrov rjftepas SetcaTrevre " and I abode 
with him fifteen days." IIpos so used does not differ in mean 
ing from Trapd with a dative. Matt. xxvi. 55; John i. 1; 1 Cor. 
xvi. 6, 7-10. A similar construction is often quoted from 
JEschyl. Prom. 351 ; Eurip. Ion, 916. Fritzsche on Mark vi. 3 
warns, however, that there are many cases in which, though 



CHAP. I. 19. 51 

somewhat similar, irpos cannot have this meaning quce ali- 
quam motus significationem habeant, cases which even Wahl 
has not distinguished satis feliciter. Luke xvi. 20, xxii. 56 ; 
Acts v. 10, xiii. 31. 

It is needless to lay special stress on the eirl in eTrefietva, 
for it seems to be neither distinctly local nor intensive. It may 
denote rest (Ellicott), and thus give a fuller meaning to the 
compound verb than the simple one would have borne. The 
verb is followed in the New Testament by eV/, Acts xxviii. 14 ; 
by ev, Phil. i. 24; by Trpos, 1 Cor. xvi. 7; and by a simple dative, 
Rom. vi. 1, xi. 22, 23, Col. i. 23, 1 Tim. iv. 16. In the latter 
case there is a difference of meaning, qui in aliqua re manet 
et perseverat. Winer, De verborum eutn prcep. compos, ii. 11. 
The form BeKairevre is for the more classical and the fuller 
TrevTetca&eKa. Kiihner, 353. The later form occurs often 
at an earlier period, as in the Tabulce Heracleenses (Light- 
foot). Jerome, finding a hidden meaning in the number 
fifteen, supposes it to mean here plena scientia. Why the visit 
was so brief is told in Acts ix. 29. The Hellenists with whom 
he had been disputing " went about to slay him," and the 
brethren, on becoming aware of the conspiracy, " brought him 
down to Cassarea, and sent him forth to Tarsus." A simul 
taneous reason is assigned by himself. He was praying in the 
temple, and fell into a trance, identified on slight grounds by 
Schrader and Wieseler as the rapture described in 2 Cor. xii. 2, 
and the Master appeared and said to him, " Make haste, and 
get thee quickly out of Jerusalem, for they will not receive thy 
testimony concerning me." He pleads now for Jerusalem as a 
field of labour, because his history was so well known to the 
Hellenists whose prejudices he understood from experience. 
The excuse is not listened to : not Hellenism but heathenism 
was again formally assigned to him as his field of labour. 
" Begone," was the reply, " I will send thee far hence unto the 
Gentiles." Acts xxii. 17-21. 

Ver. 19. "Erepov Be rwv aTrovroKtoV OVK el8ov, el f^rj Ia/y- 
(3ov rov aoe\(f)ov TOV Kvpiov " And another of the apostles I 
did not see, except James the Lord s brother;" or, "None 
other of the apostles did I see, save James the Lord s brother." 

The adjective erepov is simply numerical, not qualitative. 
Two different meanings have been assigned to the verse. 



52 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 

Victorinus, Grotius, Fritzsche (on Matt. xiii. 55), Bleek, and 
Winer supply simply elbov after el pr) " none other of the 
apostles did I see, except that, or but, I saw James the Lord s 
brother;" the inference being, that this James was not an 
apostle. In this case el /Arj still retains its exceptive force, 
which is, however, confined to the verb. Thus in Matt. xii. 4 
it is rendered "but only;" Luke iv. 26, 27, "save," "saving;" 
Rev. xxi. 27, " but." Others more naturally supply rov 
aTToaroXov " none other of the apostles did I see, except the 
Apostle James, the Lord s brother;" or, "none other of the 
apostles saw I, save James the Lord s brother ;" the inference 
plainly being, that the Lord s brother was an apostle. Thus 
1 Cor. i. 14, ovSeva VJAWV e/3a7m<ra, el pr] KpLcnrov KCU Taiov 
" none of you I baptized, save Crispus and Gaius :" I baptized 
them, and they were V/AWV " of you." The el ptj being sug 
gested by erepov, thus refers to the whole clause. See under 
i. 7, ii. 16. 1 

Ver. 20. \4 8e ypdtya) VJMV " but as to the things which I 
am writing to you," the reference being to the assertions just 
made his visit to Jerusalem, and his brief residence with Peter, 
and that during that fortnight he saw only him and the Lord s 
brother. Some, as Calvin, Winer, Matthies, refer the decla 
ration to the whole paragraph from ver. 12, or from ver. 15 
(Estius and Hofmann), some of the elements of which were 
not, however, matter of dispute. The apostle becomes fervent 
in his affirmation, and calls God to witness : 

ISov eva)7riov TOV &eov on ov i/reuSo/xat " behold before 
God that I lie not." The construction is broken. Schott 
denies it, ypdffrw being supplied qua> vobis scribo, ecce coram 
Deo scribo, siquidem non mentior. So generally Jerome and 
Ambrose. The ellipse is striking, and ISov evanriov r. 0. is a 
virtual oath. ISou, as Lightfoot remarks, is never used as a 
verb, so that here it cannot govern on. The word to be sup 
plied to resolve the ellipse has been variously taken : ypdtyw by 
Meyer; Xeyw by De Wette, Olshausen, and Bisping; o^vv^i 
by Usteri ; fjuaprvpS) by Ililgenfeld ; and earl by Riickert and 
Bengel i.e. it is before God that I lie not. In 2 Cor. xi. 31 
we have o 0eo? . . . olSev . . . OTI ov ^euSo/Aai. In 1 Tim. v. 21, 
occurs with eva>7riov r. &. ; ^la^aprvpo/jbevo^ with 
1 See note at end of chapter. 



CHAP. I. 21. 53 

rov Kvpiov in 2 Tim. ii. 14 ; similarly 2 Tim. iv. 2. 
This verb might therefore be the most natural supplement, if any 
supplement be really necessary. But the ellipse, abrupt, terse, 
and idiomatic, needs not to be so diluted, and probably no sup 
plementary term was in the apostle s mind at all as it suddenly 
threw out this solemn adjuration. Besides, a similar construc 
tion occurs in the Sept. : t Se OTL ras ezmAa? aov T^yaTTT/cra, Ps. 
cxix. 159 ; t Se Kvpie OTL &\i^op,ai, Lam. i. 20. " Behold before 
God " is equivalent to saying, I call God to witness that, on 
(Lightfoot). There might be no human proof, but there was 
divine attestation. Augustine, in loc. } enters into the question 
of the lawfulness of swearing. One can scarcely suppose that 
the apostle would have used this solemn adjuration, unless the 
statement had been liable to be questioned, or a different 
account of his early Christian history had been in circulation. 
It would seem that a totally different account of his visits to 
Jerusalem after his conversion, and of the relation he sustained 
to the elder apostles, had been in use among the Judaists, to 
undermine his independent authority and neutralize his teach 
ing. And because what he now tells would contradict received 
opinion as to his earlier actings and journeys, he confirms what 
he says by a virtual oath, though the phrase as in Hebrew, 
njn^pBpj is not formally always used of oaths. 

Ver. 21. "ETTGira rjKQov et? ra K^ifiara T?}<? Hvplas fcal rrj<? 
KiXiKlas " afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and 
Cilicia." The noun /cXt/iara, found also in Rom. xv. 23, 2 Cor. 
xi. 10, originally means inclination or declivity, such as that 
of a hill ; then a space of the sky, so named from the inclina 
tion of the heaven to the poles /cXi/io, ^ear^^pLvov, Dion. H. 
Ant. i. 9; fiopewv, Aristot. De Mund. Opera, vol. iii. p. 133, ed. 
Bekker, Oxford 1837 ; 7*79 pepos ^ /cXt/ia ovpavov, Herodian, ii. 
11, 8 ; then a tract of earth, so called in reference to its incli 
nation towards the pole rot9 717309 pear] p/Bp lav /c\i//,a<rt, Polyb. 
v. 44 ; rovro TO K\lpa . . . T7/9 IraXia?, ib. x. 1 ; and then, as 
in Joseph. De Bell Jud. iii. 7, 12, approaching the modern sense 
of climate. Thus Athenasus, evSaipovtav TOV o-vfATravros TOVTOV 
K\//iaT09, referring to Siris in the south of Italy, lib. xii. p. 445, 
vol. iv. p. 444, ed. Schweighauser. Lobeck (Parallp. 418) 
shows that the true accentuation is /cXi/wi, a properispomenon 
like Kplfjia which is long in ^Eschylus, Supp. 397 ; Lipsius, 



54 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 

Gramm. Untersucli. liber die Bill. Grcecitdf, pp. 40, 41, Leipzig 
1863. Codices A, L, have K\ijfj-ara. Syria is naturally Syria 
proper, which he reached from Coesarea, not Csesarea Philippi 
(Eichhorn, Olshausen), and not the country formerly called 
Phoenicia (TJsteri, Schott) : the supposition of such a near vici 
nity is not in harmony with the apostle s argument. Cilicia was 
his native province ; and Barnabas soon after found him in 
Tarsus, and brouo;ht him to Antioch. According to the narra- 

/ o o 

tive in Acts, he seems to have sailed from Csesarea to Tarsus. 
Cilicia was more allied to Syria than Asia Minor, and both 
countries are collocated vaguely by the ra Kki^ara. The apostle 
is not stating his tour with geographical precision, but is merely 
showing how far he travelled away from all Judsean influence 
and recognition. 

O 

Ver. 22. "H^v Se a>yvoov/jivo<> ry TT poo-wiry rals e/c/cA^crtai? 
Trjs lotiSa/a? rat? eV Xpiary " and I was unknown by face 
to the churches of Judoea which are in Christ." The first 
words are a strong form of the imperfect, equivalent to " I 
remained unknown." Jelf, 375, 4. The ry Tr/oocrcoTrw is the 
dative of reference, carrying in it that of limitation or the defin 
ing or qualifying element which characterizes this case. Winer, 
31, 6 ; Bernhardy, p. 82 ; Donaldson, 459. The apostle 
was known to these churches in many aspects, but he was un 
known in this one thing in person or face. The churches in 
Judaea did not know him personally, and they are thus distin 
guished from the churches in Jerusalem, many of whom had a 
knowledge of his person, and could recognise him if they saw 
him, for he had been " going in and out" among them, "speak 
ing boldly and disputing," having sojourned fifteen days with 
Peter. Acts ix. 28. The object of Hilgenfeld, following Baur 
and others of the same school, in maintaining that the church 
in Jerusalem is here included, is to bring the statement into 
conflict with the Acts, so as to ruin the credibility of the nar 
rative. But compare John ii. 23 with John iii. 22, Acts i. 8, 
x. 39, xxvi. 20 ; and for an analogous foreign example, Acts 
xv. 23. The churches in Judrea are characterized as rai<? eV 
Xpiary, " that are in Christ," in Him as united to Him, the 
Source of life and power, and having fellowship with Him, so 
included in Him as the members are organically united to the 
head. It is not certain that this definition is added because 



CHAP. I. 23. 55 

unconverted Jewish communities might be called churches of 
God (Lightfoot). Is there any example in the New Testa 
ment ? The apostle was hurried away to Csesarea, where he 
took shipping for Tarsus, and thus had no opportunity of be 
coming acquainted with the Juda3an churches ; nor had they, 
for the same reason, any opportunity of gaining a personal 
knowledge of him. He is not showing that he could not 
learn the gospel from Judaean Christians, as CEcumenius and 
Olshausen suppose, nor, as Chrysostom thinks, that he had 
not taught circumcision in Judnca. For these are not topics in 
dispute. The apostle means to affirm, that so little intercourse 
had he with the apostles, that the church in Judaea, having 
constant correspondence with those apostles, did not know him, 
so wholly was he away from their home sphere of labour. The 
notion of Michaelis is out of the question, that the church of 
Jerusalem is included among those that did not know him per 
sonally, because, though known to a few individuals of them, 
he was not known to them as a body, since his labours were 
principally among his unconverted brethren. 

Ver. 23. Movov 8e aKovovres r]aav not audierant (Estius), 
nor "they had heard" (Luther, Brown), "only they were 
hearing," they continued hearing : fresh and pregnant reports 
were brought from time to time. The Se contrasts this clause 
with the previous r)/j,r)v d<yvoovf*,evo<>. Atcouovres, not the 
KK\T]ariai formally, but the members of them. Such con 
structions Kara avveaiv are not uncommon. Winer, 21, 
58, 67; A. Buttmann, p. 113. The "resolved imperfect" 
conveys the idea of duration more fully than the simple tense. 
The usage is found in classic writers (Kiihner, 416, 4; 
Winer, 45, 5), but with a closer connection with the subject 
than in the freer style of the New Testament, which may in 
this case be influenced by Aramaic usage. In the Sept. it is 
chiefly employed in clauses which in Hebrew have a special 
significance, ubi etiam in Hebraico non sine vi sua adhibita erat, 
as Gen. iv. 17, Ex. iii. 1, where the Hebrew has the same con 
struction of substantive verb and participle, or where there is 
only a participle, Gen. xviii. 22. The periphrasis occurs often 
with the future. Thiersch, de Pent. Vers. p. 163. What they 
were hearing was startling to them : 

"O-ri o Bt(OK(ov rjnas TTOTC " that he who once persecuted 



56 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 

us," that is, our former persecutor, the participle with the 
article bearing its temporal significance and becoming a sub 
stantive. Schmalfeld, 222 ; Winer, 45, 7 ; Schirlitz, 47. 
The participle &IU>KWV is not for St&>fa<? (Grotius, Riickert), nor 
is on superfluous (Koppe). The Trore is out of its usual place. 
According to Schott, Matthies, Hilgenfeld, and Trana, the OTL 
is recitative ; and it might be so if the following clause be re 
garded as a quotation. They might say one to another, "that 
our former persecutor is now become a preacher." This use 
of ori is limited in Paul to quotations from the Old Testament: 
iii. 8, Rom. iv. 17, viii. 36, ix. 17; somewhat differently, 2 
Thess. iii. 10. The address here passes in rj/jias from the 
oblique introduced by or i, to the direct form in the pronoun, 
as in Acts xiv. 22, xxiii. 22, 1 Cor. xiv. 23, 25. Kriiger, 65, 
11, Anm. 8, gives examples from classical writers, so that the 
diction here is neither so lax nor inaccurate as Gwynne sup 
poses it. It seems a mere refinement on the part of Meyer to 
deny the passing of the indirect to the direct form, by alleging 
that Paul might now as a Christian include himself among the 
?7yLta9, and call himself " our former persecutor." He 

Nvv evajyeXl^erai rrjv TTLO-TLV r)v Trore eTropOet " is now 
preaching the faith which he once was destroying." Some 
MSS., the It., and Vulg., with many of the Latin fathers, have 
eVo/Ve/iet. The present and the imperfect are to be taken in 
their full and proper meaning. 

ITicrTi9 has an objective reference, but not in the later 
ecclesiastical sense. It was the distinctive pervading element 
of the new evangel, and soon gave its name to it. Its facts 
and truths claim faith ; its blessings are suspended on faith ; 
its graces are wrought by faith ; its Lord and Saviour is the 
object of faith ; and its disciples are called faith-ful believers. 
In the New Testament, the word seems always to carry in it 
reference to the inner principle, the governing power in the 
soul, for "we walk by faith." On eTropOei, see ver. 13. 

The result of their knowledge of this momentous and noto 
rious change was 

Ver. 24. Kal eSo^a^ov ev e/j,ol rov &eov " And they glori 
fied God in me." The ev epol is not & e /^e (Photius), " on 
account of me " (Brown), as if it were "O for ^y (Beza), or de 
me, vel propter me (Estius). The preposition marks the sphere 



NOTE ON CHAP. I. 19. 57 

in which the action takes place. Winer, 48, 2, a ; Bernhardy, 
210; Ex. xiv. 4, eVSo^ao-^cro/zai ev $apaa); Isa. xlix. 3, ical ev 
aol Sot;ao-0)j(roijLcu. To glorify God is a favourite Pauline 
phrase: Acts xi. 18, xxi. 20; Rom. i. 21, xv. 9 ; 1 Cor. vi. 20; 
2 Cor. ix. 13. " In him " and the change wrought within 
him, with its marvellous and enduring effects they glorified 
God. Not only did his conversion give them occasion to glo 
rify God, but they glorified God working in him, and in him 
changing their malignant and resolute persecutor into a bold 
enthusiastic preacher. They were thankful not simply because 
persecution had ceased, but they rejoiced that he who did the 
havoc was openly building up the cause which he had laboured 
to overthrow. On hearing of a change in so prominent and 
terrible an adversary a change not leading merely to a momen 
tary check or a longer neutral pause, but passing into unwearied 
activity, self-denial, and apostolical pre-eminence they glorified 
God in him, for in him God s gracious power had wrought with 
unexpected and unexampled might and result. They did not 
exalt the man, though they could not but have a special interest 
in him ; but they knew that by the grace of God he was what 
he was. If the churches even in Judea were so grateful to God 
for His work in Paul, were they not a rebuke to the Judaizers, 
who now questioned his apostleship and impugned his teaching ? 
Eph. iii. 7, 8 ; 1 Tim. i. 16. Chrysostom adds, he does not say 
on eOavpa^ov pe, iiryvow /*e, e^eifKriT-rovro, a\\a TO irav -7-779 
v 6v. . . . 



NOTE ON CHAP. i. 19. 
i<kco/3oi/ TOV aSfA$6i> rov Kvpiov " James the Lord s brother." 

What, then, is meant by the phrase, " the Lord s brother !" 
If, as here implied, he was one of the apostles, was he one of 
the twelve James, son of Alphseus ? or if he did not belong 
to the twelve, why is he ranked among the apostles ? 

First of all, who are these dSeX</><H, brothers of our Lord, 
to whom this James belonged I One may surely discuss this 
theme without incurring the censure of Calvin : Certe nemo 



58 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 

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

1 Strange is the view of Guericke " with His brethren," i.e. with His 
other three brothers, besides James that had just been named. EM. 
p. 156. 



THE LORD S BROTHERS. 59 

brothers appear always in connection with Mary, save in John 
vii. the scene and expression of their unbelief, and she could 
not be entangled in that unbelief ; and she is always found in 
company with them, save in Luke ii. 42, Joseph being then 
alive, and in John xix. 25, where she was commended to John 
and not to one of them. Four times is she a widow probably 
by this time connected with them as their parental head. 3. As 
a family they are once named as consisting of four brothers 
" James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon " and of at least 
two sisters, as the word " all " (iraa-ai a&e\(f)al) would seem to 
imply. 4. We have in the verse before us " James the Lord s 
brother," not to distinguish him from the son of Zebedee, as 

/ O 

Plug supposes, for then his patronymic Alphsei would have been 
quite sufficient. He was therefore one of these dSeA^oi. 

Now, had there been no theological intervention, no pecu 
liar views as to the perpetual virginity of Mary, or at least no 
impression that the womb chosen for the divine infant was so 
sacred so set apart in solitary honour and dedication, that it 
could have no other or subsequent tenant, the natural or 
usual domestic meaning would have been the only one given 
to the previous quotations, and Jesus, His brothers, and His 
sisters would have been regarded as forming one household 
having the common relationship of children to Mary their 
mother. The employment of the anomalous double plural 
" brethren," l instead of " brothers," in all these places of the 
Authorized Version, lessens or diverts the impression on the 
English reader ; for " brethren " now never denotes sons of the 
same parents, but is official, national, functional, or congrega 
tional in its use. But the simple and natural meaning of aSe\- 
</>oi has not been usually adopted, and two rival explanatory 
theories have had a wide and lasting prominence. 

The theory so commonly held among ourselves is, that the 
brothers of our Lord were His cousins either children of the 
Virgin s sister, wife of Clopas, or children of Clopas, Joseph s 
brother. 2 The first hypothesis is real cousinhood ; the second 

1 Bruder, Briider (Brither, Breether, Scottice), " -en " belonging to 
another plural form, as in ox, oxen. Latham calls these last forms 
" collectives," rather than true plurals. English Language, p. 503. 

2 Clopas, not Cleophas, is the proper reading of John xix. 25, and is 
so given in the margin. Cleopas is the name in Luke xxiv. 18. 



60 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 

is only legal and unreal in reference to Him who was not 
Joseph s son. 

Jerome, who is identified with the theory of cousinhood, as 
being the first who gave it an elaborated form, refers (under 
Gal. i. 19) to his Adversus Helvidium de perpetua Virginitate 
Beatce Marice, written about 382, an essay which he wrote, as 
he says, dum Roma , essem, impulsu fratrum. Now, to hold, 
according to the title of this tract, the perpetual virginity of 
Mary, forecloses the discussion as to the question of full and 
natural brotherhood ; and Jerome s avowed and primary object 
was to show that no theory about the aSe\(f>oi was permissible 
which brought the perpetual virginity under suspicion or 
denial. But the dogma has no scriptural support, so that it 
cannot demand acceptance as an article of faith. For, 

I. What does TT^COTOTO/CO? imply ? We read, Matt. i. 25, 
KOI OVK eyiWovcef avTi]V e&)9 ov ere/ce rbv vlov avrris rbv Trpa)- 
TOTOKOV u and knew her not till she brought forth her first 
born son." Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Tregelles exclude 
TrpwTOTOKov, but only on the authority of B, Z, and X, and on 
the suspicion that the phrase was taken from Luke ii. 7. It 
may be replied, however, that this intense belief in the per 
petual virginity formed a strong temptation to leave out the 
epithet ; for from it, as Jerome bitterly asserts, some men 
perversissime suspected that Mary had other and subsequent 
children. The epithet, however, occurs in Luke ii. 7, where 
there is no difference of reading. Now, in ordinary language, 
" first-born" implies that others are born afterward ; and Jesus 
could have been as easily called her only as her first-born son. 
The force of this argument is somewhat neutralized by the 
opinion, that the word "first-born" may have had a technical 
sense, since in the Mosaic law it might be applied to the first 
child, though none were born after it, " the firstling of man 

J O -* O 

and beast being devoted to God." Ex. xiii. 2 ; Luke ii. 23. 
Thus Lightfoot says : " The word is to be understood here 
according to the propriety and phrase of the law," and he 
instances 1 Chron. ii. 50, where " Ilur is called the first-born 
of Ephrath, and yet no mention made of any child that she 
had after." 1 But " first-born " occurs generally in these 
genealogical lists in its relative sense ; and as sons are usually 
1 Works, vol. iv. 194, ed. Pitman. 



MEANING OF FIRST-BORN. 61 

registered only, might not Ephrath have had daughters ? The 
Hebrew law, as originally ordained, was a present enactment 
with a prospective reference as regards the first child or son, 
whether an only child or not, and the statute was easily inter 
preted. The same principle is applicable to the term " first 
born " as belonging to the Egyptian families that suffered 
under the divine judgment, and to Jerome s objection that the 
law of redemption applying to the first-born would, if the 
word be taken in its relative sense, be held in suspense till the 
birth of a second child. But Jerome s definition is true only 
in a legal sense : Primogenitus est non tantum post quern alii, 
sed ante quern nulhis. 1 For the diction of law and history are 
different. The law ordained the dedication of that child by 
the birth of which a woman became a mother, and called it 
the firstling or first-born irrespective of any subsequent chil 
dren, and at its birth the redemption must be made. But in 
writing the history of an individual many years after his time, 
it would be strange to call him a first-born son, or to say of his 
mother that she brought forth her first-born son, if there were 
in that family no subsequent births. A biographer would in 
that case most naturally call him an only son. Epiphanius 
must have been greatly at a loss for an argument to prove 
" first-born " to be the same as " only," when he bases it on 
the position of ai/r% in Matt. i. 25 : TOV vibv avrr/s . . . KOI OVK 
etTre TOV TrpwTOTOKOv avrrj<? . . . dX\,a rrpajTOTOKOv fjiovovf as if 
avrfjs did not belong to both words. 

Besides, the epithet " first-born " is used by an evangelist 
who in subsequent chapters speaks of brothers and sisters of 
Jesus ; and what could he suppose would be the natural infer 
ence of his readers when they brought rrpwTOTOKos vt o? and ?} 
p^rr^p fcal ol dSeXfal avrov together, there being no hint or 
explanation that the relations indicated are other than the 
ordinary and natural one of blood ? The epithet, too, does 
not seem to have an absolute sense as used in the New Testa 
ment : TrpcoroTOKov ev TroXXols aSeXc^ot?, Rom. viii. 29. Com 
pare Col. i. 15, 18; Heb. xi. 28; Rev. i. 5. The inference 
of Eunomius is a natural one : el TrpwroVo/co? OVKGTI fjiovoyevijs. 
Helvidius, who, as is well known, holds the natural kinship, 

1 Opera, vol. ii. p. 214, ed. Vallars. 

2 Panaria, vol. ii. pp. 431-2, ed. (Ehler, Berlin 1861. 



62 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 

and against whom Jerome fulminated in the tract already re 
ferred to, argues, as might be supposed, in the same way ; and 
Lucian says : el pev Trpcoro?, ov /JLOVOS, el 8e [LOVOS ov Trpcoro?. 1 

II. No definite argument can be based on the particle e&>9 
in the same verse, for it does not always mean that what is 
asserted or denied up to a certain point of time is reversed 
after it. In 2 Sam. vi. 23, where it is said " she (Michal) had 
no child till the day of her death," the meaning cannot be mis 
taken. But the sense must be determined by the context, whether 
what is asserted as far as e&>9 ceased or continued after it. 2 See 
Fritzsche on Matt, xxviii. 20 ; Meyer on Matt. i. 25. 

This verse undoubtedly affirms the virginity of Mary up to 
the birth of Jesus, and this prior virginity is the principal 
fact ; but it as plainly implies, that after that event Mary lived 
with Joseph as his wife. Even prior to the birth she is called 
" Mary thy wife," and her virginity is stated as if it had been 
a parenthesis in her wifehood. Basil himself, while asserting 
that her virginity before the birth was necessary, and that the 
lovers of Christ cannot bear to hear that she, rj OeoroKos, ever 
ceased to be a virgin, admits that the phrase eco? ov ereKev 
creates a suspicion, VTTOVOICIV, that afterwards this prenuptial 
condition ceased : TO. vevo^ta-f^eva rov ydpov epja //.j) airapvri- 
o-afj,evr)s T?}? Maplas* The theory of Jerome, on the other 
hand, was intended, in fact, to conserve the perpetual virginity 
both of Joseph and Mary. It is beside the point, and a mere 
assumption, to say, with Olshausen on Matt. i. 25, Joseph 
might justly think that his marriage with Mary had another 
purpose than that of begetting children. " It seems," he adds, 
" in the order of nature, that the last female descendant of 

1 Demonax, 29 ; Opera, vol. v. p. 245, ed. Bipont. 

2 Isidore the Pelusiot, repeated by Suidas, says : TO tas w h ha.x.i; X.KI 
SKI rov t>iYivtx.uz Iv ry 6(tef, ypaipy fiipfoxofttv x.itptvov. Theophylact, on 
Matt. i. 25, gives as the result, otii von uvr^u tyva. Strauss quotes from 
Diogenes Laertius, iii. 1, 2 (p. 195, vol. i. ed. Huebner), the case of Plato s 
father, of whom it is said, in consequence of a vision of Apollo, Zdtu 
xctdotpitv ytzpov (pv^^xt fa; T% otvroxutiarsus, and Plato had brothers. But 
when Strauss says of Mary, that she had children younger than Jesus 
jungere und vielleich aucli altere, " younger, and perhaps older also " the 
audacious assertion makes the TrparoTox-ov a falsehood. Das Lelen Jesu, 
vol. i. p. 246. 

3 Opera, vol. ii. p. 854, ed. Gaurne, Paris 1835. 



JAMES THE LITTLE. 63 

David, in the family of which the Messiah was born, closed 
her family with this last and eternal scion." This is only 
sentiment without any proof, though I confess that one natu 
rally clings to such a belief. The perpetual virginity cannot, 
however, be conclusively proved out of Scripture ; but an 
inference decidedly against it may be maintained from both 
the terms TrpwroroKo^ and ecu? in Matt. i. 25. 

If the dSe\.(f)OL were only cousins, the perpetual virginity 
becomes at least possible. Jerome s first argument on behalf 
of cousinhood is, that in Gal. i. 19, James is recognised as an 
apostle, and must therefore be James son of Alphteus, one of 
the twelve. If not, he reasons that there must have been 
three Jameses, the son of Zebedee, the son of Alphaeus or 
James the Less, and this third one ; but the epithet rov piKpov 
given to the one James implies that there were only two ; so 
that the imagined third James is identical with the son of 
Alphaeus. Mark xv. 40. But in reply, first, James the Lord s 
brother was not, in our view, one of the twelve, so that such 
an argument forms no objection ; and, secondly, the compara 
tive minor, " the Less," is not the proper rendering of the 
positive o /j,iicp6<> ; and though it were the true rendering, it 
might still be given to James the Lord s brother, to distin 
guish him from James the son of Alphaeus. Probably the 
epithet is absolute, and alludes to stature and not to age; 1 at 
all events, the other James is never called James the Great. 
Gregory of Nyssa, indeed, gives him that title because he was 
among the apostles; the Lord s brother, on the other hand, 
being called "Little" as not being among them, a conjecture 
on a par with that of Lange, that James was named " the 
Less" from his later entrance into the apostolic college in 
comparison with the other James. It is highly probable, too, 
that " the Little " was not the epithet he bore at the period of 
the resurrection, but was his individualizing epithet when the 
Gospel was written. 

1 Aristophanes, Ranas 709, names the bathkeeper Kleigenes, o pixpo;, 
having just styled him W^xo?, an ape ; pix.x.6$ y pxxos olrof are used 
similarly, Acharn. 909. In Xenophon, Mem. i. 4, 2, we have the phrase 
x-po; Apm-o S^oi/ rov Mixpov kKixaKovfttvov ; and the meaning is apparent, 
for the diminutive atheist is called opix-pos in Plato, Symp. 173 B, vol. i. p. 
8, ed. Stallbaum. 



64 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 

2. The other steps of Jerome s argument are : Alphseus 
father of James, was married to Mary sister of the Virgin ; 
so that James was the Lord s cousin, and might be called 
His brother according to Jewish usage. That is, Mary 
the mother of James the Little is asserted to be wife of 
Alphoeus his father, it being assumed, first, that James the 
Little is the same with the son of Alphseus ; secondly, that 
this Mary is the wife of Clopas and the Virgin s sister ; and 
thirdly, that Alphscus and Clopas are the same person. Yet 
Jerome says in his very tract against Helvidius that he does 
not contend earnestly for the identity of Mary of Clopas with 
Mary mother of James and Joses, though one should say that 
it was the key to his whole argument. Nay, in his epistle to 
Hedibia he writes : Quatuor autem fuisse Marias, in Evangeliis 
legimus, unam matrem Domini Salvatoris, alterant materteram 
ejus quce appellata est Maria Cleoplia } , tertiam Mariam matrem 
Jacobi et Jose, quartam Mariam Magdalenam. Licet alii 
matrem Jacoli et Jose materteram ejus fuisse contendimt. 1 

But Clopas and Alphseus cannot be identified with cer 
tainty. The names are not so like as some contend. In Matt, 
x. 3, Mark iii. 18, Luke vi. 15, Acts i. 13, we have James the 
son of Alphasus, and in Mark ii. 14 we have Levi the son of 
Alphseus ; but whether these two Alphscuses are the same or 
different, it is impossible to decide. 2 Then we have KXw?ra9 
(Clopas) in John xix. 23, and KXeovra? (Cleopas) in Luke 
xxiv. 18, the proper spelling of the two names in the Greek 
text. The original Syro-Chaldaic form, as given in the Syriac 

version, is n . <*\*^ Chalphai, 3 and is found in the five places 

.7 . 

where A\<f)aio$ occurs, but it gives \>n \O for the two 
names Clopas and Cleopas in John and Luke. The names are 

1 Ep. cxx., Opera, vol. i. p. 826. 

2 The Greek Church has a feast for St. James the Just, October 23d : 
and another on the 9th of the same month for St. James son of Alphseus, 
" and brother of Matthew the publican and evangelist." The Syrian and 
Coptic Churches observe the same festivals. Chrysostom also makes 
Matthew and James brothers : on Matt. x. 3. 

3 The name Xa*<p/ occurs in 1 Mace. xi. 70, and represents, perhaps, 
such a Hebrew form, 



MARY OF KLOPAS. G5 

thus evidently regarded as quite different by the author or 
authors of this oldest version. Clopas therefore is not, as is 
often affirmed, the Aramaic form of Alphajus ; and to assert 
that Alphaeus and Clopas are varying names is opposed to 
philological analogy. The Syriac Cheth may pass into the 
Greek A with the spiritus lenis, as in \4X(/>ato9, for the 
Hebrew n is so treated by the Seventy, rnn becoming Eva, 
though often it is represented by the Greek X or K. But 
would A have any alliance with the consonantal Kuph in 
Clopas or Klopas ? At least the Hebrew Koph seems never 
to be represented by a vowel in the Septuagint, but by K, X, 
or F. Frankel, Vorstudien, etc., p. 112. In fine, it cannot be 
safely held that by James the Little must be meant the son of 
Alphseus, for, as Hegesippus says, " there were many Jameses." 
Nor can any solid assistance for this theory of cousinhood 
be got from John xix. 25, for it cannot be proved that the 
words " His mother s sister" are in apposition with "Mary the 
wife of Clopas." The punctuation of the verse is, probably, 
not TOV Irfcrov rj fjLr)Trjp avTOv, KOL <TJ a8e\(f>rj TT}? /jirjTpos avrov 
Mapla TJ TOV KXwTra "Mary His mother, and His mother s 
sister Mary wife of Clopas ; " but there should be a comma 
after ^rpo^ avrov, so that Mary of Clopas becomes a third 
and different person, the " sister s " name not being given : 
" His mother and His mother s sister, Mary wife of Clopas and 
Mary Magdalene." The Peschito inserts "and" before Mapia 

7 

and in the Greek the four clauses are arraned in 



couplets, as in Matt. x. 2-4. This punctuation is preferable, 
for it is not very likely that two sisters in one family should 
have the same name, and there is no parallel case in Scrip 
ture; for the name of Herod, an example adduced by Mill, 
comes not, as being a royal name repeated in the family, 
into comparison. But again, there is no certainty that r/ TOV 
K\oj7Ta is " wife of Clopas ;" for it may be either wife, mother, 
or daughter of Clopas, as the context may determine. Thus 
a Mary is called mother of James and Joses in Matt, xxvii. 
56, Mapla rj TOV la/ceo/Sou KOL ^laxrrj (MJTr/p ; but in Mark 
(xv. 47) she is named simply Mapla luxrtj, and in Luke (xxiv. 
10), Mapia la/cai/Sov. Why may not these two last places 
guide us to interpret Mapia 17 TOV Rk&ira as " Mary mother of 

E 



6G EPISTLE TO THE GALATIAXS. 

Clopas ? " It cannot, then, be demonstrated, either that Alphseus 
and Clopas are the same person, or that Mary of Clopas is 
necessarily his wife, and to be identified with Mary mother of 
James and Joses. But it has been triumphantly asked, If a 
Mary, not the Virgin, is called for distinction s sake " mother 
of James," what James can be meant but the most famous of 
the name James of Alphseus called the Lord s brother, and 
in the early church James the Little, and therefore the cousin 
of our Lord ? But be James the Little who he may, his position 
does not seem of sufficient prominence to distinguish his mother, 

A O / 

for the name of another son, Joses, is added, as if for such a 
purpose, in Mark xv. 40. The combination of both names was 
apparently required to point out the mother, so that it is natural 
to infer that this James, like his brother Joses, was of small 
note in the church, and could not therefore be the son of 
Alphaeus. And to show what confusion reigns on this point, 
it may be added that not a few identify Mary mother of James 
with Mary mother of our Lord. This is virtually done in the 
apocryphal gospel Historia Josepld, cap. iv., by Gregory of 
Kyssa, by Chrysostom, by Theophylact, by Ilelvidius, by 
Fritzsche, and by Cave who makes Alphaaus another name of 
Joseph. The James and Joses who had this Mary as their 
mother could not, therefore, be the brethren of our Lord, as the 
four would most likely have been mentioned together ; and it is 
not possible either that "mother" should have a vague signi 
ficance, or that her maternal relation should be ignored, and 
two other sons or step-sons placed in the room of her First-born. 
Again, if the brothers were merely cousins, sons of Alphssus, 
how could they be called again and again aSeX^ot? Jerome 
replies, Quatuor modis f nitres did, natura, gente, cognatione 
affectu natura, Esau, Jacob; gente qua omnes Juda i inter se 
fratres vacant ; . . . cognatione qui sunt de una familia, id est 
patria, Abraham, Lot, Laban, Jacob ; affectu . . . Christiani 
fratres, etc. Then he asks, Were these cousins fratres juxta 
naturam ? non ; juxta gentem ? absurdum ; juxta affectum ? rerum 
si sic, qui magis fratres quam apostoli? . . . Restat igitur fratres 
eos intelligas appellatos cognatione. 1 But in these examples re- 



1 Theophylact also says, fiunsy i; -/patyy TOV; awyysvti; 
fAiiQiv. Monod s reference to Matt. i. 11, in defence of the same opinion, 
caonot be sustained. 



NATURAL MEANING OF BROTHER. 67 

ferrecl to, the context prevents any confusion of sense. Lot is 
called a brother of Abraham, and Jacob of Laban, they being 
only nephews, and specially beloved for the original fraternal 
relation. These indefinite terms of relation are found in the 
oldest book of Scripture ; but there is no instance of this laxity 
in the New Testament found with aSeAx/io? in reference to kin 
ship, nor with dSek^rj unless it is used tropically, Rom. xvi. 1. 
The New Testament has special terms, as avyyeveis, ave-^no^ : 
Mark vi. 4 ; Luke i. 36, ii. 44 ; Col. iv. 10. Even in the old 
books of the Old Testament, when relation is to be marked, 
there is perfect definiteness in the use of ns ? as in Gen. xxxvii. 
10, 1. 8, Lev. xxi. 2, Num. vi. 7, Josh. ii. 13. When it is em 
ployed along with father, mother, or sister, it evidently bears 
its own proper meaning. In the same way, in those clauses of 
the New Testament already referred to, aSeX^o? is used along 
with fMijr Tjp CIVTOV ; and it would be strange if in such a con 
nection, where the maternal relation is indicated, the fraternal 
should not correspond, if along with "mother" in its true mean 
ing, " brother" should be found in a vague and unusual sense. 
Do not the phrases, " His mother and His brothers," " thy 
mother and thy brothers," suggest that Mary stood in a common 
maternal relation to Him and to them ? And if these brothers 
were only first cousins, sons of Mary s sister and Alphasus, why 
are they always in the evangelical history associated with the 
mother of Jesus, but never with their own mother, while they 
are uniformly called His brothers ? 

It is also held by many, though not by Jerome, that along 
with James Alphaei there were among the twelve two other 
brothers, a louSa? Ia/ca>/3oi;, " Jude brother of James," and a 
Simon called the Zealot ; the proof being that in the lists of 
Luke and Acts, James is placed between these two, as if he 
had belonged to the same family. See Matt. xiii. 55, Luke 
vi. 16, and Jude 1. That is, His "brothers" are James, 
Joses, Simon, and Judas ; and these being cousins, three of 
them are found among the primary apostles. But if in the 
same list Ia/D/3o9 A\(f)aiov be James son of Alpha?us, why 
should Iov8a<; Ja/cco/3ou not mean Jude son and not brother of 
James, especially as brotherhood is marked by d$eX<f>o<; in a 
previous part of the catalogue in Luke vi. 16? Son is the 
more natural supplement, as in the Peschito, and the opinion is 



68 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 

adopted by Luther, Herder, Jessien, Dahl, and Wieseler. As 
Lightfoot has remarked, " Had brotherhood been intended, the 
clause would have run as in other cases, such as that of the 
sons of Zebedee, James the son of Alphseus, and Jude his 
brother, or James and Jude, sons of Alphseus. " Simon Zelotes 
is never called brother of James ; and Jude is termed Lebbseus 
whose surname was Thaddasus in Matt. x. 3, in Mark iii. 18 
simply Thaddasus, and Judas not Iscariot in John xiv. 22. It 
is likewise passing strange, that if three out of the four 
brothers were apostles, not one of them should be ever desig 
nated by that honourable appellation. Nor is there any proba 
bility at all that Jude and Simon are two of the four ; nor is 
the case different with James and Joses, for if Joses be not one 
of the so-called brethren, neither was his brother James. One of 
the Lord s brothers is called by the Nazarenes, in Matt. xiii. 55, 
lata-rfcf) (Joseph), according to the best reading ; but the son 
of a Mary is called I&xr?)? (Joses), making a genitive Iwo^ro?, 
in Matt, xxvii. 56, according to the highest authorities. These 
Greek words may represent different Syro-Chaldaic forms, and 

7 71 7 

the Syriac has for Joses ]TDQ_J, the other form being _LCCQJ. 

But no great stress can be laid on such variations, unless we 
had faith in the minute exactness of copyists. Schneckenburger s 
identification of Joses with Joseph Barsabas surnamed Justus 
in Acts i. 23, is for many reasons quite a gratuitous conjec 
ture. Levi (Matthew) is called "of Alphscus," Mark ii. 14: 
was he another son of Alphssus, or is the father of Matthew 
a different person of the same name? 

But further, after this disposal of the names individually, 
we may ask, If three out of the four of Christ s "brothers" 
were among His called and consecrated, how could they come 
with His mother desiring to speak with Him ; how could they 
as a party be always named as distinct from the apostles ; 
and especially, how could it be said of them at a period so 
far advanced in our Lord s ministry, that they did not 
believe on Him ? For it is declared of them : ouSe <yap ol 
dSe\(f)ol avrov eiriarevov ei9 ainov, " for neither were His 
brothers believing on Him." John vii. 5. They certainly 
could not be His apostles and yet be unbelievers in Himself 
or in His divine mission. Jerome indeed holds that James was 



UNBELIEF OF BROTHERS. 69 

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



70 EHSTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 

Messiahship of Jesus ; but of that want of trust, compliance, 
and obedience, which made it difficult for His disciples, apostles, 
and even also His mother, to find themselves reconciled to His 
life of suffering and to His concealment of Himself." Now 
the phrase introducing the statement is ovSe yap, " for neither 
did His brethren believe on Him," the relative ovSe bringing 
a previous party into view, that is, the Jews, who sought to 
slay Him, the w T orst form of unbelief ; or if ouSe be taken 
absolutely, " not even," it still brings out a very strong asser 
tion of unbelief. The unbelief ascribed to Peter and Thomas, 
on the occasions to which Lange refer?, was a momentary 
starrier, the first at the idea of the Master endurino; the 

oo / o 

sufferings which Himself had predicted, and the other was 
a refusal to admit without proof the identity of the appari 
tion which the ten had seen with Him who had been crucified. 
The phrase Tna-reveiv els avrov has but one meaning in the 
narrative portion of John, as in ii. 11, 23, iv. 39, vii. 31, 39, 
ix. 36, x. 42, etc. ; and that simple and natural meaning does 
not bear out the ingenious exegesis by which Ellicott and 
Lange would exculpate the Lord s brethren. Nay more, the 
evangelist records the saying in vi. 69, " We believe and are 
sure that Thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God," 
and this is said of the apostles as a body ; but when he says a 
few verses farther on, vii. 5, " Neither did His brothers believe 
on Him," the contrast is surely one of full significance. In 
fine, the de\<j)oi distinctly, and one would almost say taunt 
ingly, exclude themselves from the wider party when they 
name them oi fj,aOrjrai crov. They went up to the feast sepa 
rately from Jesus and the apostles. Other shifts have been 
resorted to in order to take its natural significance of fraternal 

O 

unbelief from the passage. While Chrysostom (on John vii. 5) 
distinctly places James among the brethren the James of Gal. 
i. 19 ; Grotius and Paulus imagine that the same persons are 
not always represented by the aSeX<oi, some of whom believed, 
and some did not. Pott and Gabler conjecture more wildly 
that the aSeX</>oi were brothers of James who was only a 
cousin, and not comprehended therefore in this position of un 
belief. But why should James the "Lord s brother" be put 
into a different category from the Lord s brothers, one of 
whom is called James? It may be added in a word, that the 



TRACTATE OF JEROME. 71 

unbelief of the Lord s brothers so incidentally stated, becomes 
a proof of the veracity of the evangelists. They hesitate not to 
say that His nearest kindred opposed Him, and they did not 
deem the unlikely fact to be derogatory to His character. Their 
unbelief proves, at the same time, that there was no inner 
compact, no domestic league, to help forward His claims. He 
did not first win over His family, so as to enjoy their interested 
assistance as agitators and heralds. The result then is, that the 
theory which holds that these brothers of our Lord were His 
first cousins seems very untenable, as is shown by this array 
of objections viewed singly and in their reciprocal connection. 

The tractate of Jerome, who first argued out at length the 
hypothesis of cousinhood, and of the identity of James the 
Lord s brother with James son of Alphaeos, was an earnest 
vindication against Helvidius of the aeL-TrapOevla of the blessed 
Virgin as a dogma not to be questioned without presumption 
or impugned without " blasphemy." So much is his soul 
stirred by the daring outrage, that he begins with invoking 
the assistance of the Holy Spirit ; and of the Son that His 
mother may be defended ab omni concubitus suspicione; and of 
the Father, too, that the mother of His Son may be shown to 
be virgo post partum quce fuit mater antequam nupta. What he 
defended was to him a momentous article, the virginity of 
Mary after the Lord s birth being as surely held and revered 
as her virginity prior to it. He professes to be guided solely 
by Scripture : Non campum rhetorici desideramus eloquii, non 
dialecticoruin tendiculas, nee Aristotelis spineta conquirimus. He 
shows no little ingenuity in his interpretation of various phrases; 
is especially exultant on the meaning of donee or usque in the 
clause donee peperit filium, and of primogenitus in connection 
with the Hebrew priesthood 1 and the destruction of the first 
born in Egypt ; cries out on Helvidius, who thought that Mary 
the mother of Jesus is she who is called mother of James 
and Joses among the women at the cross; 2 then develops 
his theory of cousins-brothers, and thinks that he has obtained 

1 He pictures a Hebrew as saying to himself, Nihil debeo sacerdoti nisi 
et ille fuerit procreatus per quern is qui ante natus est, incipiat esse primo 
genitus. Advers. Helvid. p. 215, vol. ii. ed. Vallars. 

2 Yet, as we have said, Gregory of Nyssa, Chrysostora, Fritzsche, and 
Cave, hold the same view. 



72 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIAXS. 

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

1 Chrysostom, on Matt. i. 25, gives the same opinion. He asks, How 
are James and the others called His brothers ? and his reply is, uairep x.x.1 
OIVTO; fyofiisro eivijp TJJ$ Mxpt ct; 6 laaqfy 



THE PERPETUAL VIRGINITY. 73 

astical writers before him, quotes no one in his favour, appeals 
to no father of an earlier century, even while he admits that 
Tertullian held his opponent s views, and curtly dismisses him 
as not belonging to the church. 

The general purpose of his treatise was to prove the per 
petual virginity, and to root up and scatter to the winds the 
argument against it, that Mary had other sons besides her 
"First-born." Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenasus, Justin Martyr, 
and "many other apostolic and eloquent men," are appealed 
to by him as holding the general opinion, hcec eadem sentientes ; 
but he does not aver that they held his special hypothesis that 
the brothers were cousins, though certainly he does not inti 
mate that he and they differed on the point. Jerome refers to 
this treatise ten years afterwards in an epistle to Pammachius, 
and vindicates the doctrine of virgo perpetua mater et virgo, 
by bringing such strange analogies in proof as Christ s sepul 
chre "wherein was never man yet laid;" His entrance into the 
chamber, "the doors being shut ;" and the prophetic utterance 
about the gate, " No man shall enter in by it, because the Lord 
the God of Israel hath entered in by it ; therefore it shall be 
shut." 1 Ezek. xliv. 2. 

Now, Jerome s object being to prove Mary virgin post as 
well as ante partum, it was quite enough for his purpose to 
show that the brethren of Joseph were not her true and 
proper sons. Ambrose, ten years afterwards, contents himself 
with this simpler declaration : Potuerunt autem fratres esse ex 
Joseph non ex Maria. Quod quidem si quis diligentius prose- 
quatur inveniet. Nos ea persequenda non putavimus, quoniam 
fraternum nomen liquet pluribus esse commune. 2 Jerome, how 
ever, in his zeal, and from the impulses of an ardent and 
impetuous temperament, deliberately preferred a theory in 
conflict with the well-known tradition on the subject, which 
he scouted as being taken from the deliramenta Apocryphorum. 
He was thus well aware of the alternative ; for in his note on 
Matt. xii. 49, he says : quidam fratres Domini de alia uxore 
Joseph filios suspicantur ; again, in De Viris Illustrious : 
Jacobus qui appellatur frater Domini, ut nonulli existimant, 
Joseph ex alia uxore, ut autem mihi videtur, Maria; sororis 

1 Ep. xlviii. vol. i. p. 234. 

2 De Institut. Virg. vi. Opera, vol. ii. p. 317, ed. Migne. 



74 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIAXS. 

matris Domini cujus Joannes in libra suo meminit, filius. 1 
So Pelagius and Isidore Hispalensis, who says, Jacobus Alplicei 
sororis matris Domini filius. Tom. v. p. 153, ed. Migne. The 
view of Jerome, which was a comparative novelty among the 
Western churches, was not at first adopted by his great contem 
porary Augustine. In his note on Gal. i. 19, he says : Jacobus 
Domini frater vel ex Jiliis Joseph de alia uxore rel ex coynatione 
Marice matris ejus debet intelligi. These words indicate no 
fixed opinion ; but otherwise he appears to maintain a view not 
unlike that of Jerome. Thus, in a spiritualistic interpretation 
of the second verse of Ps. cxxvii., he describes the brethren 
as cognati ccnsanguinitate. 2 Again, Non mirum est dictos esse 
fratres Domini ex materno genere quoscumque cognatos, cum 
etiam ex cognatione Joseph did potuerint fratres ejus ab illis qui 
ilium patrem Domini esse arbitrantur? Further : Unde fratres 
Domini? Nwn enim Maria iterum peperit? Absit. Inde ccepit 
dignitas virginum. Cognati Marice fratres Domini, de quolibet 
gradu cognati? lie does not in these places call them cousins, 
though he repeats in some of them the stock argument about 
the brotherhood of Abraham and Lot, Laban and Jacob. He is 
content with the more general terms, consanguinei et cognati, 
their cognatio, however, being derived through Mary, not through 
Joseph. The same opinion had, however, some few advocates 
in the Eastern church. Chrysostom, on Gal. i. 19, calls James 
son of Clopas oirep ical 6 euayyeTucrr?)? e\eyev, thus identifying 
Clopas with Alphasus and regarding James as an apostle. But 
Chrysostom is far from being consistent with himself ; since, as 
he identifies Mapla laKcaftov (on Matt, xxvii. 25) with the Lord s 
mother, he must have held either that James was full brother, or 
at least step-brother. In other places he does not place James 
among the twelve at all, as on 1 Cor. xv. 7, but calls him an 
unbeliever with the rest of the Lord s brethren, and says that 
they bore this name as Joseph was the reputed husband of 
Mary (on Matt. i. 25). Theodoret says explicitly that James 
was brother, not, however, ovre f^rjv w<? rti- e? uTretX^acrt rou 
vios ervy^avev, wv e /c Trporepwv yd/^cov yevo/^evos, 

1 Tom. ii. p. 829. 

2 Opera, vol. iv. p. 2058, Paris 1835. 

3 On Matt, xii. 55, Opera, vol. iii. p. 1669. 

4 II. i. pp. 1793, 1998 ; Opera, vol. viii. 594, and v. 934. 



BROTHERS-COUSINS. 75 

Toy Rkwrra pev TJV vios, TOV Be Kvplov dvetytos (on Gal. i. 19). 
But this view did not obtain wide currency in the East. 

The theory of mere cousinhood thus won its way into the 
Western churches, and became the common one among our 
selves. Professor Liglitfoot has said that Jerome " did not 
hold his theory staunchly and consistently," and that in his 
comment on this verse he speaks like " one who has committed 
himself to a theory of which he has misgivings." Certainly 
Jerome did not hold his view at a future period so tenaciously, 
or with so keen and impatient an opposition to others, as he 
did at its first promulgation. Thus in the Epistle to Hedibia 
he says : " There are four Maries : the mother of our Lord ; 
another her aunt, Mary of Clopas ; a third, the mother of James 
and Joses; and a fourth, Mary Magdalene; though others con 
tend that Mary mother of James and Joses was the Virgin s 
aunt." (See Latin on p. 64.) Again, on this verse, he refers 
to his treatise written when he was a young man, and then, 
curtly dismissing it, advances a new argument, that James was 
called the Lord s brother proper egregios mores et incomparabilem 
fidem sapientiamque non mediam, and that for the same reason 
the other apostles also were called fratres Domini. But where 
do they get this distinctive appellation ? The first of these 
quotations is virtually an abandonment of his whole theory, at 
least of its principal proof, and the second is the occupation 
of entirely new ground ; but there is no preference indi 
cated for the other hypothesis, that of step-brothers, as Pro 
fessor Lightfoot would infer. Lastly, in his commentary 
on Isa. xvii. 6, Jerome formally admits fourteen apostles : 
duodecim qui electi sunt et tertium decimum Jacobum qul appel- 
latur frater Domini et Paulum. . . . 

This theory of Jerome, whose adherence to it did not grow 
with his years, does not however appear to be the absolute novelty 
which some would assert it to be. The opinion of Clement is 
somewhat doubtful, and we can only guess at it from extracts, 
some of which may not be genuine. Cassiodorus quotes from 
his Hypotyposds thus : " Jude, who wrote the catholic epistle, 
being one of the sons of Joseph and the Lord s brother, a man 
of deep piety, though he knew his relationship to the Lord, yet 
did not say he was His brother ; for this is true, he was His 
i Vol. iv. p. 19-i. 



76 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIAXS. 

brother, being Joseph s son." It is hard to say whether the 
last explanatory words are those of Clement, or are inserted 
by the Ostrogothic statesman Cassiodorus, his Latin translator, 
who may not have held the theory of Jerome. 

But Eusebius, speaking of the Lord s brother, gives other 
extracts from Clement of quite a different character : "Peter, 
James, and John, after the ascension of the Saviour, were not 
ambitious of honour ; ... but chose James the Just Bishop 
of Jerusalem." 1 James the Just was therefore a different 
person from the three apostolical electors ; and if the first 
James is the son of Zebedee, the last is James son of Alphseus. 
For the historian adds another illustrative quotation: " The Lord 
after the resurrection imparted the gnosis to James the Just, 
and John, and Peter. These delivered it to the rest of the 
apostles, and the rest of the apostles to the seventy, of whom 
Barnabas w r as one. Now there were two Jameses one the 
Just, who was thrown from a battlement of the temple, and 
the other who was beheaded." These extracts from Clement 
favour the theory of Jerome ; for James the Just, as seen in 
this statement, which admits two persons only of the name of 
James, cannot be a son of Joseph, but must be the son of 
Alphajus, and not a half-brother, though he may be a cousin. 
There is no room to doubt the genuineness of the epithet rut 
AIKCLLW in the beginning of the second excerpt, in order to 
make the triad the same in the first and second quotations ; for 
it is in connection with James the Just that the second quota 
tion is made, and it is introduced by the words en fcal raura 
Trepl avrov tfyqcriv. 

Nor, on the other hand, was the opinion of Helvidius so 
great a novelty as Jerome represents it. Victorinus of Petavium 
is said to have taken the word " brethren " in its natural sense, 
but Jerome denies it. Tertullian, who was claimed by Helvidius, 
is rudely thrown out of court by Jerome because he did not 



1 Tlsrpov yap <?*)(/< x,ctl Idxcufiov x,oti \uot,vv/jv fAtT 

"SuTqpOg ... IX.U/3oi/ TO!/ A.IX.O.IOV i7riaJC07?OV \00<S(t hV[6tj) 

2 Ix.uj3u TU AIX.O.IU x.oc.1 luxvu fi x.xi Ilirpu {Aira. rqv ct.vxarM.aiv "7ra.fi- 
oax,t TVJV yvuaiv o Ki>pio; . . . Avo Be /lycivxciy Ixxufioi, ti; 6 Ai x,oiio; 6 X.O.TIX. 
rw irrspv/tov /3A/i0(j . . . ertpo; ^s zMpxTcipridii;. These extracts from the 
sixth and eighth books of Clement s Hypotyposeis are found in Euseb. Hist. 
Eccks. lib. ii. 1, vol. i. pp. 93, 94, ed. Heinichen. 



TEKTULLIAN S STATEMENTS. 77 

belong to the catholic church. In discussing the reality of the 
incarnation, Tertullian seems to employ mater et fratres in their 
ordinary sense, evidently regarding that sense as essential to his 
argument : Et Christum quidam virgo enixa est, semel nup- 
turapost partum, ut uterque titulus sanctitatis in Christi censu 
dispungeretur, per matrem et virginem et univiram. 1 Again, in 
his treatise against Marcion, and on the assertion, inquiunt, 
ipse (Chri&tus) contestatur se non esse natum, dicendo quce mild 
mater et qui mihi fratres ? among other elements of reply, he 
asks : Die mihi, omnibus natis mater adivit ? omnibus natis ad- 
generantur et fratres ? non licet patres magis et sorores habere vel 
et neminem ? . . . et vere mater et fratres ejus foris stabant, si 
ergo matrem et fratres eos fecit qui non erant, quomodo negavit eos 
qui erant? 2 Tertullian thus took mater and fratres in their 
natural sense, and the opinion is strengthened by Jerome s 
treatment of him. Helvidius had quoted Tertullian as being in 
his favour, and Jerome does not deny it, but tartly says : nihil 
amplius dico quam ecclesice hominem non fuisse. Now Ter 
tullian does not regard his view as an uncommon one, and the 
likelihood is that it was widely held ; for if so pronounced an 
ascetic as he was did espouse it, it must have been by the com 
pulsion of undeniable evidence. Still we do not find any ex 
press testimonies on the subject in other quarters ; nor do we 
know any sufficient grounds for Neander s assertion, that many 
teachers of the church had in the preceding period maintained, 
that by the brothers of Jesus mentioned in the New Testament 
were to be understood the later-born sons of Mary spdter 
geborne Sohne der Maria. Vol. iii. p. 458, Engl. Trans. 

The other theory which Jerome scouted, maintains equally 
with his that the aSeX^ot were not relations in near blood or 
uterine brothers, but were children of Joseph by a former 
marriage. This hypothesis seems to have been, if not origi 
nated, yet perpetuated by the grammatical necessity of giving 
aSeX(o<? its natural meaning on the one hand, and the theo 
logical necessity, on the other hand, of maintaining the post 
nuptial virginity of Mary. Cousinhood would suffice for the 
dogma, but not for the philology. " Brothers," in the position 
which they repeatedly occupy in the Gospels, could not well be 

1 De Monogam. viii. Opera, vol. i. p. 772, ed. (Ehler. 

2 Advers. Marcion. xix. Opera, vol. ii. pp. 20G-7. 



78 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 

relatives so distant as cousins ; but they might be earlier chil 
dren of Joseph, yet related in no degree of blood to Jesus as 
the son of Mary. Indeed, had they been the children of Mary 
herself, they were only through her related to Jesus, who in 
fatherhood was separated by an infinite distance from them. 
This view is presented by Theophylact in a peculiar form 
to wit, that they were the children of Joseph by a levirate 
marriage with the widow of his brother Clopas who had died 
childless. 1 But was Joseph husband of the widow of Clopas 
and of Mary mother of Jesus at one and the same time ? and 
if this widow were the Mary wife of Clopas supposed by so 
many to be the sister of the Virgin, what then would be the 
nature of such a marital connection ? Or was Mary widow 
of Clopas dead before he espoused the Virgin Mary ? Or are 
the two women, unrelated in blood, called sisters because 
married to two brothers ? There is no proof that such a con 
nection would warrant a designation of sisterhood. 

Now, first for the theory of step-brotherhood, there is no 
explicit evidence in Scripture no hint or allusion as to 
Joseph s age or previous history- Nor arc the aSeX^ot ever 
called the sons of Joseph, as if to identify them more parti 
cularly with him ; nor are they ever associated with him, 
save remotely in the exclamation of the Nazarenes. Nor, 
indeed, are they called the children of Mary, through her 
they are always associated with Jesus. Dr. Mill, however, 
says that the theory " imparts a meaning to the Nazarenes 
wondering enumeration of those (now elder) brethren, which 
on the other supposition is senseless." This is mere hypo 
thesis. No question of comparative age has anything to do 
with the sceptical amazement at Nazareth. The ground of 
wonder was, how one member of a family still among them 
selves, and with whom they were or had been so familiar, 
could start into such sudden pre-eminence, displaying such 
wisdom and putting forth such unearthly power. As for the 

1 His words are : doihfov; xst.i ao&tyoc.; t?%sv 6 Kvptog TW; rov laa;](f} 
Trtx. ioa,; ov; irticev tx, r^g TW o<A<po:/ a,inw KAwra yvua.ix.ci ,. TOV "/dp 
Khuvci oivxtoo; rt htviqaa.vTog 6 lav/itf) tha-fa x.rx rov voftov TT,V yvvoCix-y. 
CIVTOV, the sequel being, that he begat by her six children four sons and 
two daughters, one of whom was Mary called daughter of Clopas accord 
ing to the law, and the other Salome. On Gal. i. 19. 



JOSEPH S CHILDREN. 79 

" tone of authority " ascribed by Dr. Mill to the d&e\(f)oi, we 
find it not ; the phrases, " desiring to speak with Him," and 
in a spirit of unbelief urging Him to go up to the feast, 
are certainly no proof either of it or of superior age on 
which they might presume, For any appeal on this point 
to Mark iii. 21 cannot be sustained : /cal dKovaavres ol Trap 
avrov ef)\6ov Kparijaai avrov e\e<yov yap, Ori, e^eartj. 
Now the persons called here ol Trap avrov, ol oiKeloi, (diffe 
rent, certainly, from ol irepl avrov (Mark iv. 10)), who wished 
to seize Him under the impression that He was " beside 
Himself," could not be exclusively the a8eX(/>ot who are 
formally mentioned in a subsequent part of the same chap 
ter, Mark iii. 31. Meyer, indeed, and many others identify 
them. Nor can the phrase mean, " those sent by Him," or 
the apostles ; nor can it denote the Pharisees ; a most absurd 
conjecture. Nor does it characterize a wider circle of disciples 
(Lichtenstein, Lebens-geschich. d. Herrn. p. 216). Least of 
all were they guest-friends who were with Him in some house 
of entertainment (Strauss). Nor is it necessary, with Lange, 
to include among them the apostles. The persons called ol 
irap avTov were relations of Jesus, either of near or remote 
kinship. Bernhardy, p. 256 ; Susann. v. 33 ; Fritzsche, in loc. 
The phrase ol Trap avrov is plainly the nominative to IXeyoz/, 
and 0^X09 cannot be the nominative to e^earr), as if they had 
told Him that the multitude was mad against Him. The argu 
ment of Hilary and Epiphanius, that if the brothers had been 
sons of Mary herself, her dying son would have commended 
her to one of them rather than to John, is just as strong 
against the supposition that the brothers, though not her own 
children, were Joseph s. Lange s theory, that Joseph had 
undertaken the charge of his brother Clopas children after 
their father s death, so that the " brothers " were only foster- 
brethren, is no less a hypothesis unsupported in Scripture than 
the opposite one of Schneckenburger, that Joseph dying at 
an early period, Mary became domiciled in the house of her 
sister, wife of Clopas or Alphasus, so that his children, brought 
up under the same roof with Jesus, might be called His 
brothers. Quite as baseless is the statement of Ores well, that 
while the brothers were full brothers, the sisters of our Lord 
were probably only His cousins, because they are said to be 



80 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 

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



APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS. 81 

record, nay, none earlier than the second century. One class 
of documents very minute and circumstantial in detail as to 
the family of Nazareth is utterly unworthy of credit, and 
many of them were composed in defence of serious error. 
The Clementine Homilies and Recognitions dating somewhere 
in the second century support a peculiar form of Ebionitism : 
the "Gospel according to Peter" 1 was Doketic in its doctrines 
and aims, so much so, that Serapion was obliged to denounce 
it ; the Protevangelium of James is a semi-Gnostic travesty of 
many parts of the sacred narrative, and might be almost pressed 
into the service of the immaculate conception of Mary ; the 
" Gospel of St. Thomas " was Doketic also in its tendencies, 
filled with silly prodigies done by the boy Jesus from His 
very cradle ; the " Gospel according to the Hebrews," or " the 
Twelve Apostles," was translated into Greek and Latin by 
Jerome : some fragments, however, which have been preserved 
show that it has little connection with our canonical Matthew, 
but was the work of early Jewish converts, manufactured from 
some older narrative perhaps from one of the products of the 
many, TroXXot, who, according to Luke, had " taken in hand to 
set forth in order a declaration of the things most surely be 
lieved." If the tradition be uniform on any point, it deserves 
attention, though one must still inquire whether any impres 
sions or opinions might help to create and sustain such a be 
lief, and what is its real value and authority ; for its authors, 
instead of being independent witnesses, may be all of them 
only repeating and copying without investigation what a pre 
decessor had originated and diffused. Besides, if we find the 

O 

" brothers " called simply sons of Joseph, it is open for us to 
question who their mother was. Might not the phrase, sons of 
Joseph, mean children by her who is so familiarly known as 
his wife in the sacred narrative? We should maintain this 
inference in any other case, if no other mother be distinctly 
stated; and the canonical Gospels are silent as to any earlier 
conjugal relation of Joseph. 

We may observe in passing, that it is remarkable that in 
the genuine Gospels Joseph is not mentioned by name as father 

1 Evangelia Apocrypha, ed. Tischendorf, 1853. See also the Testi- 
monia et Censurx prefixed to each of the books by Fabricius in his Cotkx 
ApocrypTius Novi Test. 1763 

F 



82 EPISTLE TO THE GALAT1AXS. 

of Jesus, though it must have been the current belief on the 
part of all who were ignorant of the supernatural conception, 
or did not credit it. Mary indeed says, "Thy father and I;" 
but how else could she have alluded to the relation ? The con 
temptuous exclamation was, " Is not this the carpenter s son ? " 
or, " Is not this the carpenter ? " and then His mother Mary is 
named in the same connection. Probably Joseph was dead by 
that time, though his age cannot be certainly inferred from any 
period assigned to his death. The sinister purpose of Strauss 
is apparent in his explanation : " Joseph had either died early, 
or had nothing to do with the subsequent ministry of his son. 
But it is not improbable that, on dogmatic grounds, the person 
who was not to be supposed to be the real father of Jesus was 
removed from the traditions about him." Yet we cannot but be 
struck with the fact, that while the inspired Gospels have so 
little about Joseph, many of the apocryphal Gospels are full of 
him, and give him a primary place, in the same way as they 
abound with romance about the unrecorded infancy and early 
years of Jesus. Such legends must be discarded : and though 

* O O 

they are so closely interwoven, it is hard to discover in them 
any thread or basis of genuine tradition. To proceed : 

Origen is quite explicit in his belief that the brethren were 
children of Joseph by a former wife. In his note on Matt. 
xiii. 55, he states this opinion, says it was held by some 
though not by all, and adopts it as his own. 1 " And I think it 
reasonable, that as Jesus was the first-fruit of purity and chas 
tity among men, so Mary was among women ; for it is not 
seemly to ascribe the first-fruit of virginity to any other woman 
than her." Again, on John ii. 12, "They were," he says, 
" Joseph s children etc TrpoTeOvrjtcvLas yvvaifcos, by a predeceased 
wife." In the first quotation he ascribes this opinion to some 
only, fyaa-i Tii e?, a minority perhaps is naturally designated 
by the term. But what opinion was in that case held by the 
majority ? Was it not very probably that of uterine brother 
hood rather than that of cousinhood ? for the last upheld 



1 K.l oif^di "hoyov t &i J oiuopuv fttu xadctpoT /jro; TSJJ Iv xyvsict oiir a,p-/, /i j 
ysyo jivctt TOV l>jroSy, yvvctix.uy ds TYIV M.otpix(6. . . . See Commcntarii, vol. 
i. p. 223, ed. Huet. No small amount of this kind of traditional lore 
may be found in Hofmaun s Das Lebcn Je.su nacli den Apocnjphen, etc., 
Leipzig 1851. 



THE PASTOKAL OF EPIPHANIUS. 83 

the perpetual virginity equally with the view which Origen 
espoused. If he took the same side, chiefly or solely, as he says 
the persons referred to did, " to preserve the honour of Marv 
in virginity throughout," and because of his own belief in the 
same dogma, is it rash to infer that the other opinion, because 
it denied it or set it aside, was rejected by him ? Origen traces 
the opinion held by the "some," and advocated by himself, 
only to the " Gospel of Peter, as it is called," or " the book of 
James," 1 and does not claim for it a clear uninterrupted tradi 
tion. He could have no great respect for those uncanonical 
books, and he does not allude to any remoter relationship. Nor 
does he hold his opinion consistently or firmly, for in one place 
he assigns a wholly different reason, and in another place he 
affirms that James was called the Lord s brother not so much 



r 7rpo9 cufiaTO<s crf77ez/9, as ia TO r]os KOI TOV 
" " not so much on account of blood-relationship as on 
account of his character and discourse." Contra Celsum, i. 35, 
ed. Spencer. Origen had plainly made no investigation into the 
matter, perhaps shrunk from it on account of his belief in the 
perpetual virginity, and was ready to adopt any opinion of the 
origin of the name that did not come into conflict with this belief. 
Epiphanius wrote a treatise on the subject against the 
Antidikomarianites, who, as their name implies, refused certain 
honours to the blessed Virgin, a sect, he says, " who from 
hatred to the Virgin or desire to obscure her glory, or from 
being blinded with envy or ignorance, and wishing to defile the 
minds of others, dared to say that the holy Virgin, after the 
birth of Christ, cohabited with her husband Joseph." At one 
point of the treatise he incorporates an address which he had 
formerly written against the sect, and dedicated o/LtoTTicrrot? 
op0oSoot<?. The pastoral abounds in wailings, censures, and 
expressions of astonishment at the audacity, profanity, and 
ignorance of these heretics. " Who ever," he exclaims, " used 
the name of the holy Mary, and, when asked, did not imme 
diately add, the virgin?" But we still use the same epithet, 
though with reference specially to the miraculous conception. 
James, he adds, is called the Lord s brother, ov%i KUTO, fyvcriv 
a\\a Kara xapiv, and Mary only appeared as the wife of 
Joseph, fjLT] e^ovaa irpbs CIVTOV O-W/JLUTOOV avvdfaiav. Joseph, 
1 Tot/ tKi /iypxpipsyov X.XTM, Tlirpov svct y/t hiov zi rijj /3//3XW letxufiov. 



84 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIAXS. 

he goes on to say, was fourscore or upwards when the Virgin 
was espoused to him, his son James being then about fifty ; and 
his other sons were Simon, Joses, and Jude, and his daughters, 
Mary and Salome, these two names, lie strangely avers, 
being warranted by Scripture rj ypa(f)ij. In the Histona 
Josepld they are called Asia and Lydia. His conclusion is : 
ov yap crvvifyOri eri TrapBevos, p,rj yevoiro. He then resorts to 
another style of argument taken from (frvcrioXo yiwv cr^ecrei? ; 
one of them being, that as the queenly lioness, after a gestation 
of six-and-twenty months, produces a perfect animal which by its 
birth makes physically impossible that of any second cub, so 
the mother of the Lion of Judah could be a mother only once. 
Joseph was old Trpecrftvrov Kal vTrepfidvTOs rov ^povov 1 at 
the birth of Jesus with all its prodigies ; and though he had 
been younger, he would not have dared to approach his wife 
afterwards evvflp^eiv awfia ayiov ev to KaruiKiaOr] @eo9. 2 His 
argument in a word is virtually this, that the cohabitation of 
Joseph with Mary was on his part a physical and ethical im 
possibility. Besides, he maintains that as Jesus was Trpcoro- 
TOK09 of the Father in the highest sense, avw Trpo irdcr^ /crt crew?, 
and really alone in this relation fAovoyevifc ; so it was and 
must have been also on earth between Him and His mother. 
And not to dwell upon it, the good father thought that he was 
holding an even balance when he proceeds in his next section 
to oppose the Collyridians, a sect which offered to the Virgin 
divine honours and such kind of meat-offering as was often 
presented to Ceres. The theory of Epiphanius is quite clear 
in its premises, but he finds difficulty in defending it out of the 
simple evangelical narrative, and is obliged to guard it by proofs 
taken from apocryphal legend and ascetic theology. Nay, he 
has doubts of the Virgin s death; 3 such is his extravagant 
opinion of her glorification. 

Hilary of Poitiers holds a similar view; 4 and so does Hilarv 

1 Panaria, vol. ii. p. 428. etc. 

2 E/ f /a.o x.ot,l Trpocreoox.oiTO q Trapdivo; ry \uayQ it; avudfttxv <v; oi/ bs t-jrs- 
O^STO Otoe. TO y/ipcthiov. . . Again, -TTU; ciacc lroh[*ot avvu,(p6qva.i TYI ToactvrYi x.ot.1 
- jictvTfi ayta, Trapdivu ~M.xpiet. . . Ib. 

1/5 Qv y\s>/a ori a.6<x. ja.-og tfieiviv, AA OVTI Oiafofiotiovftcii tl Ti6 jr,xtv.ll>. 

4 Verum homines pravissimi Mnc presnmunt opinionis suie auctoritatem 

quod plures Dominum nostrum fratres haluisse sit traditum, and argues that 



PROTEVANGELIUM OF JAMES. 85 

the deacon or Ambrosiaster, on Gal. i. 19, one of his argu 
ments being, that if these were His true brothers, Joseph was 
His true father si enim hi viri fratres ejus, et Joseph erit verus 
pater ; while those who hold the opposite view, that is, of their 
being veri fratres, are branded with insanity and impiety. 
Gregory of Nyssa, brother of Basil the Great, also maintained 
that Mary is called the mother of James and Joses as being 
only their step-mother. 

Now, as all these fathers held the perpetual virginity, they 
were therefore shut up to deny the obvious sense of oSeX^ot . 1 
The theory of Joseph s previous marriage suited their views, 
and they adopted it. It was already in existence, and they 
cannot be accused of originating it to serve their purpose. 
The theory of cousinhood was equally valid to their argument, 
but they make no reference to it. Either they did not know 
it, or they rejected it as not fitting in to the sacred narrative, 
or as not coming up to what they felt must be the sense of the 
term aSeX^o?. 

The apocryphal sources of these beliefs are well known. 
The Protevangelium of James 2 enters fully into the matter : 
recounts the prodigies attending the Virgin s birth, she being 
the predicted daughter of Joachim and Anna ; describes the 
wonders of her infancy, she being brought up in the temple 
and fed by an angel ; tells how, when she was twelve years of 
age, all the widowers among the people were called together 
by the advice of an angel, each to bring a rod in his hand, 
that Joseph, throwing his hatchet down as soon as he heard 
the proclamation, snatched up his rod, that the rods were 

they are children of Joseph ex priore conjugio, because Jesus on the cross 
commended His mother to John and not to one of them. On Matt. i. 
Opera, vol. i. p. 922, ed. Migne. 

1 Origen says explicitly : ol & rxurx htyovrs; TO elfciaftot ry; M&pis * > 
xetpQfi/tep rnpe iv f*-ex,pi T&OVS ftov^ovrsti. Comment, vol. i. p. 223, ed. Huet. 
See Basil. Opera, vol. ii. p. 854, Paris 1839. 

2 An old Syriac version of several of these documents may now be 
thankfully read in the excellent edition of Dr. Wright, London 1865 ; and 
see also, for another recension of some of them, in the Journal of Sacred 
Literature, 1865. Ewald, in reviewing Dr. Wright s work, characterizes the 
tract called Transitus Marise, or Assumption of the Virgin, as the source 
derfeste Grundfur alle die unselige Marienverehrung und hundert aberglan- 
Usche Dinge. . . . Der game Mariencidtus der Papstlicher Kirche beruhet 



8G EPISTLE TO THE GALATIAXS. 

received by the high priest, who, having gone into the temple 
and prayed over them, returned them to their owners, that 
on the reception of his rod by Joseph a dove flew out of it and 
alighted on his head, and that by this gracious omen he was 
pointed out as the husband of Mary. But Joseph refused, 
"saying, I am an old man with children;" and he was also 
ashamed from so great disparity of years to have Mary regis 
tered as his wife. 1 The other incidents need not be recounted. 
The pseudo-Matthew s Gospel is very similar, mentioning in 
chap, xxiii. Joseph s four sons and his two daughters. In Codex 
13, Tischendorfs edition, p. 104, Anna, mother of the Virgin, 
is said on Joseph s death to have married Cleophas, by whom 
she had a second daughter, named also Mary, who became the 
wife of Alphaous, and was mother of James and Philip, and 
who on the decease of Cleophas married a third time, her 
husband being Salome, by whom she had a third daughter, 
named also Mary, who was espoused to Zebedee, and became 
mother of James and John. It is needless to refer to the 
other legends, unequalled in absurdity and puerility. 

The Apostolical Constitutions do not give a decided testi 
mony ; but they uniformly assert that the brother of our Lord 
was not James the apostle, and reckon, with the addition of 
Paul, fourteen apostles. James is severed alike from apostles, 
deacons, and the seventy disciples. They speak in one place 
of the mother of our Lord and His sisters (iii. 6) ; James 
more than once calls himself Ka^co Idtcwftos aSeX^o? /JLGV Kara 
crap/co, rov Xpicrrov. viii. 35, etc. Constitut. Apostolicce, pp. 65, 
79, 228, ed. Ueltzen. As the perpetual virginity is not in 
sisted on in these writings, perhaps these extracts favour the 

an/ diesem Buclte. . . . Gotting. rjelehrte Anzeigen, 18G5. This statement is 
true, though Pope Gelasius would not admit the document among the 
canonical writings ; but the further truth is, that the appearance of this 
tract, probably during the second half of the fourth century, shows that 
the worship of Mary already existed. It did not originate the Marien- 
cultm, but it is an index of that state of feeling out of which it had grown, 
and by means of which it attained a rapid development, the worship TJJ; 
zat.yat,ytct; IVQO^W diorox-ov xml ti 7rxp6fyav "Hxpix;. A Greek edition of the 
same tract, Ko/^tj(r/ff ry; QIOTOMI/, is now also printed in Tischendorfs 
Apocalypse* Apocryphal, p. 95, Lipsise 18GG. 

1 An excellent edition of several of these Gospels may be found in 
Hilgenfeld s Novum Testamentum extra Canonem receptum, Lipsise 18G6. 



TESTIMONY OF HEGESIPPUS. 87 

idea that sisters and brothers are taken in their natural and 
obvious meaning. The Clementine Homilies and Recognitions 
give James the chief place among the apostles, as 6 Xe^#ei<? 
SeX(o9 TOV Kvplov (Horn. xi. 35) ; which may either mean, one 
who ordinarily went by that appellation, or one so called without 
any natural right to the name, called a brother as he was one, 
or called a brother though hot really one. As James, however, 
was universally known by the title, the clause may be thought 
to express real brotherhood. Recoynit. i. 66, etc. 

The testimony of Hegesippus has been variously under 
stood. One excerpt preserved by Eusebius runs thus : " There 
were yet living of the family of our Lord the grandchildren of 
Jude called the brother of the Lord according to the flesh." 1 

O 

Eusebius calls this same Jude " the brother of our Saviour 
according to the flesh, as being of the family of David." The 
participle \e<y6/m,evos is doubtful in meaning ; it may refer to a 
reputed brotherhood, or it may mean simply that such was the 
common and real designation. Whatever be the meaning of 
a8eX</>o<? real or reputed brother it cannot mean cousin. 
Hegesippus supplies no hint that he did not believe the brother 
hood to be a full and not simply a step-brotherhood. Again, 
Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. ii. 23) inserts a long extract from 
Hegesippus which gives a graphic account of James death, 
and in which he says " the church was committed, along with 
the apostles, to James the brother of the Lord, who, as there 
were many of the name, was surnamed the Just by all from 
the Lord s time to our own." 2 In a subsequent excerpt from 
Josephus, the same appellation is given to James, " the brother 
of him who is called Christ." The meaning of another extract 

1 "Er/ cis 7rspiqGoe.v ol TTO ytvov; tw Kvpiov virjvoi lovdct TMI x.f aK.px.ix, 
htyoftevov etvrtjv A<po. Hist. Eccles. iii. 19, 20. 

2 A/5s;T/ ryv kx.x. K-fttjia.v ftiTix, ruu otTroaro Awv, 6 x.tit hQo; TQV Kvptou 
Icixuflo; 6 ovof4.ct.adti/; VTITO Trcty-rcav Aixeiio; oivo tuv rw KvplOV xpovav fttjCP 1 

x.tx.1 qpun. Jerome s translation of (tira. by post, in the phrase p.tr* TU 
K.KOUT faun, is wrong ; but Stier adopts it, as he holds that James Alphaei is 
referred to in Gal. ii. 9-12, and that he was the first head of the church 
in Jerusalem, James the Lord s brother being his successor. Lange s 
interpretation of pir* -ruv diroarfauv (in his article in Herzog) is quite 
fallacious. The phrase plainly implies that James was not a primary 
apostle ; but Lange argues that he was an apostle, and that only in hold 
ing episcopal office was he distinct from the other apostles. The state- 



EPISTLE TO THE GALATIAXS. 

from Hegesippus has been keenly disputed. He says : " After 
James the Just had been martyred, as also the Lord was on 
the same charge (or for the same doctrine), his uncle s son, 
Symeon son of Clopas, is next appointed bishop, whom all 
put forward as second, being a cousin of the Lord." 1 The 
meaning is, not that Symeon was another son of his uncle, or 
another cousin in addition to James, as Mill and others con 
tend, but that the second bishop was Symeon, son of Christ s 
or James paternal uncle Clopas ; that is, James is brother, but 
Symeon is only cousin of the Lord. Hegesippus in another 
place calls him 6 etc Oeiov rov Kvplov 6 



K\w7ra. Euseb. Hist. EccL iii. 32. Hug, Schnecken- 
burger, and Lange suppose him to be the Apostle Simon the 
Canaanite, who in the two lists of Luke is mentioned imme 
diately after James Alphasi. See Bleek, Einleit. p. 544. 
Hegesippus thus calls Symeon second bishop and cousin of 
the Lord, and he carefully distinguishes between the rela 
tionship of Symeon and James ; for though Symeon was a 
cousin, he never calls him the Lord s brother. Eusebius him 
self does not speak distinctly on the subject when he says, 
James called the Lord s brother, because also He (OUTO?) was 
called the son of Joseph, Joseph being thus regarded as the 
father of Christ." 2 He does not seem to mean that James 
was called the son of Joseph, but that Jesus was so called. 
There is, however, another reading, and the words do not 
clearly assert what James natural connection with Christ was. 
If he was Christ s brother as Joseph was His father, then 
there was no relationship in blood, and he might only be a 
cousin ; or if ovros refer to James, then James was a real as 

ment that the superintendence of the church was committed to him along 
with the apostles, excludes him from the number ; but Lange draws an 
opposite inference, quoting in support of his exegesis, 6 TLtrpo; zxl 0,7^60- 
roAo/, Acts v. 29, which is a very different form of phrase. See Alford s 
Prolegomena to the Epistle of James. 

1 ^lerx ro (j.aprvp /jaa.i \cc,x.ufioy rov &t%,ioy, u; xxl o Kvpto; ~i ru vry 
~f.o"/u, TrciKtii o IK rov dttov vrov ^Lvy.iuv 6 rov K^UTTX KaQiararxt S7ri <rxo??oz : 
o j Trpot&si/ro 7?/x. jTZ$ Q jTct oivs^ toy Tbv K.vpi fjv osvTSoov. Hist. Ecclcs. iv. 22, 
p. 382, vol. i. 

2 Tore (JijTas x.ot.1 Ixxtufiov rov rov Kvpiov ^.f/o^svov dothipoy, on O /i x,xl 
oi/ro; rw luar$ uvoftetaro KXI;, rov o; \piar.oi> irasrvjp o \bHsyQ. Hist. EccL 
ii. 1. 



OBJECTIONS. 89 

Jesus was a reputed son of Joseph ; and if a real son of Joseph, 
why not by Mary? Eusebius (Comment, on Isaiah, xvii. 6), 
in a mystical interpretation of the "gleaning of grapes" and 
" shaking of the olive-tree," " two, three berries left on the top 
of the uppermost bough, four, five on the outmost branches," 
makes out from the addition of those numbers that James was a 
supplementary apostle as Paul was, counting fourteen apostles in 
all. 1 But the apocryphal theory of step-brotherhood was current 
in that age, and Eusebius may be supposed to have held it, as 
he does not formally disavow it. Cyril of Jerusalem distin 
guishes James from the apostles, calls him rm eavrov a8eX0<w, 
and the first bishop r% TrapoiKias ravr^ " of this diocese." 
Catechesis, xiv. 11, p. 199 ; Opera, ed. Milles, Oxon. 1703. 
Hippolytus may be passed over ; and the Papias who is some 
times referred to, is, as Prof. Lightfoot has shown, not the 
bishop of Hierapolis. The extract sometimes taken from this 
Papias of the eleventh century may be found in Routh s Reliq. 
Sac. vol. i. p. 16. 

If, then, the theory of step-brethren or cousins be sur 
rounded with difficulties, and rest on many unproved hypo 
theses ; if the one theory can be made the means of impugning 
the other ; if the first has its origin in apocryphal books filled 
with silly legend and fable, and the second has no true basis 
in the evangelical narrative ; if both have been held from the 

o y 

earliest times avowedly to conserve the ecclesiastical dogma of 
the perpetual virginity ; and if there be nothing in Scripture 
or sound theology to upset the belief that gives our Lord s 
"brothers" the natural relationship which the epithet implies, 
what should hinder us from takin aSeXot in the same sense 



as 

There are indeed objections, but none of them are of any 
serious moment. One objection that weighs with many is thus 
stated by Jeremy Taylor : " Jesus came into the world without 
doing violence to the virginal and pure body of His mother ; 
He did also leave her virginity entire, to be as a seal that none 
might open the gate of that sanctuary." Life of Christ, 3. 
Bishop Bull also asserts, " It cannot with decency be imagined 
that the most holy vessel which was thus once consecrated to 

1 Similarly also Jerome, as before quoted. Compare also what he sayp, 
Opera, vol. iv. p. 280. 



90 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 

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

Of O 

purpose in its own way, and the child of the Virgin was a 
" holy thing." The supernatural origin of the babe did not 
depend for its reality on her virginity, but very much for its 
visible proof and manifestation. A second-born child might, 
for anything we know, be born by immediate divine power, 



GLORIES OF THE VIRGIN. 91 

but the absence of human intervention would not so palpably 
present itself. Jesus, virgin-born, was thus set apart in unique 
and awful solemnity from all mankind, as born pure, not 
purified, divine, not deified, " the second Adam, the Lord 
from heaven." 

That the Virgin had no other children is the impression of 
many who do not believe in the perpetual virginity. Thus 
Lange says : " We must not forget that Mary was the wife of 
Joseph. She was according to a ratified engagement depend 
ent upon her husband s will. ... As a wife, Mary was subject 
to wifely obligations ; but as a mother, she had fulfilled her 
destiny with the birth of Christ. . . . And even for the very- 
sake of nature s refinement, we cannot but imagine that this 
organism which had born the Prince of the new ./Eon would 
be too proudly or too sacredly disposed to lend itself, after 
bringing forth the life of Christ, to the production of mere 
common births for the sphere of the old JEon." Life of Christ, 
vol. i. 425, English Trans. But the theory of natural brother 
hood throws no shadow over the glories of Mary, ever blessed 
and pre-eminent in honour. It does not in any way lessen the 
dignity of her who was so " highly favoured of the Lord" and 
" blessed among women." For though one may shrink from 
calling her OeoroKos Deipara* an unwarranted epithet that 
draws after it veneration and worship, yet her glories, which 
are without parallel and beyond imagination, and which are hers 
and hers alone, are never to be veiled. For she was the elected 
mother of a child whose Father was God, her son " the only- 
begotten of the Father;" through her parthenic maternity the 
mystery of mysteries realized " God manifest in flesh ;" her 
offspring the normal Man, and the Redeemer of a fallen race 
by His atoning blood, the Man of Sorrows and the Lord 
of all worlds, crowned with thorns, and now wearing on His 
brow the diadem of universal dominion, the object of praise to 
saints, to angels, and to the universe; for of that universe He 
is the Head, in that very nature of which, through and in Mary 
the mother-maid, He became a partaker. 

It is therefore unfair on the part of Mill to allege against 

the natural and obvious interpretation of the term aSeX(/>o/, 

that it " aims at no less than the error of the grosser section of 

1 James has also been called o 



92 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIAXS. 

the Ebionites, who held that Jesus was in the same manner 
her son as all the rest are supposed to have been." The two 
beliefs have no natural alliance. Equally futile is it in the 
same author to tell us that Ilelvidius was the disciple of an 
Arian Auxentius, and that Bonosus is said to have impugned 
the Divine Sonship. Mythical Interpretation of the Gospels, 
pp. 22 1, 274. For whatever errors may have been held along 
with the theory of natural relationship, and whatever the cha 
racter of such as may have espoused it, it stands out from all 
such adventitious elements of connection. One may hold it 
and hold at the same time the supreme divinity of the Lord 
Jesus Christ with most perfect consistency. It does not con 
cern the cardinal doctrine of His divinity, nor the equally pre 
cious doctrine of His true and sinless humanity. It impugns 
not His immaculate conception, or His supernatural birth, He 
being in a sense peculiar to Himself the seed of the woman, 
the child of a virgin Immanuel, " God with us." It refers 
only to possibilities after the incarnation which do not in any 
way affect its divineness and reality. It leaves her first-born in 
the solitary glory of the God-man. Jesus indeed passed among 
the Jews as the ordinary son of Joseph and Mary, yet this 
belief was very erroneous ; but the ground of the error does 
not apply to this theory. The first chapter of Matthew tells 
the mystery of the incarnation, and the event is at once taken 
out of the category of all ordinary births ; but if Mary had 
other children, no such wonder surrounded them, and no mis 
take could be made about them. The Jewish misconception as 
to the parentage of Jesus could not be made regarding subse 
quent members of His family, whose birth neither enhances 
nor lessens the honour and the mystery of His primogeniture. 
It was a human nature which He assumed ; they were persons 
born into the world. Neither, then, in theology nor in piety, 
in creed nor in worship, can this obvious theory of natural 
relationship be charged with pernicious consequences. It is 
vain to ask, Why, if there were births subsequent to that 
of Jesus, are they not recorded ? The inspired narrative 
keeps steadily to its one primary object and theme the life 
of the blessed Saviour, first-born son of Mary and the Son of 
God. 

Another objection against the natural interpretation of tiSeX- 



" STABAT MATER." 93 

$09 is the repetition of names in the family of Mary and in 
the company of the apostles; James, Joses, Simon, and Judas, 
brothers, and two Jameses, two Simons, two Judes, among the 
apostles. Or, identifying Clopas and Alphseus, there would be 
James and Joses as cousins ; and if the JovSa? latcwftov, Luke 
vi. 16, Acts i. 13, be rendered " Jude brother of James," there 
would be two sets of four brothers having the same names. It 
is not necessary, however, to render the Greek phrase by 
" brother of James," and the sons of Alphseus are only James 
and Joses. But surely the same names are found among 
cousins every day, and would be more frequent in a country 
where a few favourite names are continually repeated. There 
are in the New Testament nine Simons, four Judes, four or 
five Josephs; and in " Joseplms there are twenty-one Simons, 
seventeen named Joses, and sixteen Judes." Smith s Diet. 
Bible Antiq., art. " Brother." 

A crowning objection against the view we favour is, that 
Jesus upon the cross commended His mother to the care of 
the beloved disciple. This objection, says Lightfoot, " has 
been hurled at the Helvidian view with great force, and, as it 
seems to me, with fatal effect ;" and Mill has also put it in a 
very strong form. Hilary adopts the same argument, as also 
Ambrose, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, and Jerome. That is to 
say, if Mary had children or sons of her own, her first-born 
would not have handed her over to a stranger. The objection 
has never appeared to us to be of very great force ; for we 
know nothing of the circumstances of the brothers, and there 
may have been personal and domestic reasons why they could 
not receive the beloved charge. They might not, for a variety 
of reasons, be able to give Mary such a home as John could 
provide for her. As we cannot tell, it is useless to argue. We 
are wholly ignorant also of their peculiar temperament, and 
their want or their possession of those elements of character 
which would fit them to tend their aged and widowed parent. 
Especially do we know, however, that up to a recent period 
they were unbelievers in her divine first-born ; and though He 
who did not forget His mother in His dying moments fore 
knew all that was to happen, still their unbelief might dis 
qualify them for giving her the comfort and spiritual nursing 
which she required, to heal the wounds inflicted by that "sword" 



94 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 

which was piercing her heart as she contemplated the shame 
and agony of the adored Sufferer 011 the cross. Every atten 
tion was needed for His mother at that very moment, and Pie 
seized that very moment to commend her to John, who had 
been to Him more than a brother, and would on that account 
be to her more than a son. John was " standing by," and so 
was His mother ; so that perhaps his ministrations to her had 
already commenced. The close vicinity of the two persons 
whom He most loved on earth suggested the words, " Woman, 
behold thy son," who will supply, as far as possible, my place ; 
"Son, behold thy mother:" be what I have been to her. 
" And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home." 
The brothers might not be there, or might be unfitted, as poor 
and unbelieving Galileans, for doing what John did, for 
immediate obedience to such a command. Nay, if the com 
mendation of His mother to John in the words, " Behold thy 
mother," be a proof that Jesus had no brothers, might it not 
prove, on the other hand, that John had no mother ? Besides, 
if James were either a cousin or half-brother, and therefore a 
blood-relation, why in that case pass over him ? So that the 
objection would tell against the theory of cousinhood, though 
not so strongly as against that of brotherhood. Wieseler, 1 
indeed, contends that Salome was a sister of Mary, so that the 
sons of Zebedee were cousins of our Lord, and that as Salome 
was present at the crucifixion, John might designate her as the 
" sister of Mary," just as he calls himself " the disciple whom 
Jesus loved." No conclusive argument can thus be drawn from 
this last scene of Christ s life as to the relation of the aSeX</>oi 
to Himself. Far from us, at the same time, be the thought of 
Strauss, that the esoteric tendency of the fourth Gospel sets 
aside the real brothers of Jesus as unbelieving, " in order to 
enable the writer to transfer under the very cross the place of 
the true son of Mary, the spiritual brother of Jesus, to the 
favourite disciple." 2 

Nor has Kenan s opinion anything in its favour. He ima 
gines that the Virgin s sister, named Mary also, was wife of 
AlphjEus ; that her children, cousins-german of Jesus, espoused 

1 Die Sohne Zebedai Vettern des Hcrrn. Studicn und Kritiken, 1840, 
p. 648. 

2 Neu Lclen Jesit, 31. 



APOSTLES BEYOXD THE TWELVE. 95 

His cause, while His own brothers opposed Him ; and that the 
evangelist, hearing the four sons of Clopas called brethren of 
the Lord, has placed their names by mistake in Matt. xiii. 55, 
Mark vi. 3, instead of the names of the real brothers who have 
always remained obscure. Vie de Jesus, p. 25, llth ed. The 
statement is only a piece of gratuitous wildness, devoid even 
of critical ingenuity. It has no basis, is but a malignant 
dream. 

But apart from these theories as to relationship, it seems 
plain, for many reasons, that James the Lord s brother was 
not one of the twelve, though he is virtually called an apostle 
according to our exegesis of the verse. The name apostle was 
given by Jesus specially to the twelve, Luke vi. 13 ; but it is 
not confined to them. In 2 Cor. viii. 23 certain persons are 
called aTTocrroXot e/c/cX^o-iw^, and in Phil. ii. 25 Epaphroditus 
is called v^&v aTroa-roXov. In these instances the word is used 
in its original or common signification, and is not implicated in 
the present discussion. But the title (see under i. 1) is given 
to Barnabas, though Acts xiii. 2, 3 is not an account of his 
consecration to the office, but of his solemn designation to 
certain missionary work. In Acts xiv. 4, 14, he is called an 
apostle, in the first instance more generally : crvv rot? aTrocr- 
roXot?, that is, Paul and Barnabas ; and in the second, the 
words are ol airocno\oi, Bapvd/Bas KOI ITauXo?. Compare 
1 Cor. iv. 9, ix. 5 ; Gal. ii. 9. Besides, why should it be said 
in 1 Cor. xv. 5, 7 that Jesus appeared " to the twelve," and 
then " to all the apostles," if the two are quite identical in 
number? Paul also vindicates himself and his fellow- 
labourers, " though we might have been burdensome to you ct><? 
Xpia-rov aTrooToXoi," 1 Thess. ii. 6 Silas being in all proba 
bility the person so referred to by the honourable appellation 
(Acts xvii. 4). In none of these cases, however, is any person 
like Barnabas or Silas called an apostle directly and by him 
self, but only in connection with one or other of the avowed 
apostles. Again, in Rom. xvi. 7 Andronicus and Junia are 
thus characterized : omye<? elcnv hrimjpoi ev rot9 aTroo-ro- 
Xot?, rendered in our version, " who are of note among the 
apostles." The meaning may either be, " highly esteemed in 
the apostolic circle" (Reiche, Meyer, Fritzsche, De Wette), 
or, " highly esteemed among the apostles," reckoned in some 



96 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIAXS. 

way as belonging to them. Such is the more natural view, 
and it is taken by the Greek fathers, by Calvin, Tholuck, 
Olshausen, Alford. On the stricter meaning of the term ajrocr- 

t O 

ro\o9, see under Eph. iv. 11. We cannot, however, agree with 
Chrysostom, that the phrase " all the apostles," in 1 Cor. xv. 
5-7, included such persons as the seventy disciples ; nor with 
Calvin, that it comprehends discipulos etiam quibus evangelii 
prcedicandi inunus injunxerat ; since some distinction is appa 
rently preserved between ordinary preachers and those who 
in a secondary sense only are named apostles. For, as it is 
pointed out by Professor Lightfoot, Timothy and Apollos are 
excluded from the rank of apostles, and the others not of the 
twelve so named may have seen the risen Saviour. Eusebius 
speaks of very many apostles TrXe/o-rcoi . 1 The Lord s brother, 
then, was not of the primary twelve. He is placed, 1 Cor. 
xv. 7, by himself as having seen Christ ; or rather, Cephas 
is mentioned, and then " the twelve," of which Cephas was 
one; James is mentioned, and then "all the apostles," of 
which James was one. One cannot omit the beautiful legend 
founded apparently on this appearance : " The Lord after His 
resurrection went to James and appeared to him, for James 
had sworn that he would not eat bread from that hour in 
which he had drunk the cup of the Lord until he had seen 
Him risen from the dead. Then He said, Bring hither a 
table and bread. Then He took bread, and blessed it, and 
brake it, and gave it to James the Just, and said to him, My 
brother, eat thy bread, for the Son of man has risen from 
the dead." This scene is taken by Jerome from the Gospel 
according to the Hebrews, which he translated into Greek and 
Latin. De Viris lllustr. ii. Some for Liberal calicem Domini 
read Dominus, and render " before the Lord drank the cup," 
or suffered. The Greek has Tre-Trco/ce/, TO Trorrfpiov 6 



which is also the more difficult reading. The other reading, 
Domini, would imply that the Lord s brother had been present 
at the Lord s Supper. The writer of the legend did not, how 
ever, regard him as one of the twelve. 

James appears as the head of the church in Jerusalem, 
and is called simply James in Acts xii. 17 and in Acts xv. 13. 
Such was his influence, that his opinion was adopted and em- 
1 Hist. Eccles. i. 12, p. 77, ed. Ileinichen. 



OBJECTIONS OF LANGE. 97 

bodied in the circular sent to " the churches in Antioch, and 
Syria, and Cilicia." Acts xv. 13. Paul, on going up to the 
capital to visit Peter, saw James also, as we are told in Gal. 
i. 19; and on his arrival at Jerusalem many years afterwards, 
he at once "went in with us unto James" 77/309 Id/cwftov, 
a formal interview. Acts xxi. 18. In Gal. ii. 9, too, we read, 
" James, and Cephas, and John, who were reputed to be 
pillars," most naturally the same James, the Lord s brother, 
referred to in the first chapter ; and again in the same chapter 
reference is thus made " certain came from James." James 
was thus an apostle, though not one of the twelve. 

The original apostles were, according to their commis 
sion, under the necessity of itinerating ; but the continuous 
residence of James in the metropolis must have helped to 
advance him to his high position. Lange, indeed, objects, 
that " on such a supposition the real apostles vanish from the 
field," and quite correctly so far as the book of Acts is con 
cerned. For the assertion is true of the majority, or of eight 
of them; and a new apostle like James he of Tarsus fills the 
scene. Another of Lange s objections is, " the utter unten- 
ableness of an apocryphal apostolate by the side of that insti 
tuted by Christ." 1 But his further inference, that the elevation 
of James to a quasi-apostolate lifts Jude and Simon, too, to a 
similar position, is without foundation as to the last. The 
apostleship of Paul, however, is so far of the same class ; only 
he became through his formal call equal to the twelve in rank, 
his grand argument in that paragraph of the epistle out of 
one statement of which the previous pages have sprung. Jude 
and James were not regarded as primary apostles, and could not 
claim such a standing, though they received the general name. 
True, the book of Acts is silent about James Alphsei, and in 
troduces without any explanation another James. But if this 
James had been the son of Alphoeus, he would probably have 
been so designated, as, indeed, he is everywhere else. One 
may reply, indeed, that the paternal epithet is omitted because 
by this time James son of Zebedee had been slain, and there 
remained but one of the name. Still, it would be strange that 
he is not formally called an apostle, when there is nothing said 

1 Die vollige Unhaltbarkeit eines apokryphisclien Apostelstandes nelen 
dem von Christus r/estlfteten Apostolat. 

G 



98 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 

to identify him. A James unidentified is naturally taken to be 
a different person from one who is always marked by a patro 
nymic. And to how few of the apostles is there any reference 
made at all in the Acts ! Luke s habit is not to identify for 
mally or distinguish persons in the course of his narrative. It 
is therefore worse than useless on the part of De Wette to 
insinuate that Luke has exchanged the two Jameses in the 
course of his history, or forgotten to distinguish them. The 
apostles at the period of Paul s visit were probably absent from 
Jerusalem on missionary work. Peter and John happened to 
be there ; but James was the recognised or stationary head. 
The difficulty, too, is lessened, if, with Stier, 1 Wieseler, 2 and 
Davidson, 3 we take the James whose opinion prevailed in the 
council, and who is mentioned in Gal. ii. 9, to be the apostle, 
son of Alphreus ; but the view does not harmonize with the 
uniform patristic tradition. 

The relation which James bore to Christ must also have 
invested him with peculiar honour in the eyes of the Jewish 
church. Nor was his character less awful and impressive; he was 
surnamed " the Just." According to Hegesippus, he was holy 
from his mother s womb, and lived the life of a Nazarite, 
neither shaved, nor bathed, nor anointed himself ; wore linen 
garments ; was permitted once a year to enter the holy of 
holies ; and was so given to prayer, that his knees had become 
callous like a camel s. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. ii. 23. Much of 
this, of course, is mere legend. Yet, though he was a believer, 
he was zealous of the law, a representative of Jewish piety, 
and of that peculiar type of it which naturally prevailed in 
the mother church in Jerusalem, still the scene of the temple 
service, and the centre of all sacred Jewish associations. In 
his epistle the same elements of character are exhibited. The 
new dispensation is to him vo/j,os, but 1/0/^09 rf)s e\evdepias. 
He was a stranger to all the practical difficulties which had 
met Paul and Peter who had to go arid form churches among 
the uncircumcised ; for his circle was either of Jews or cir 
cumcised proselytes. He was the natural head of the " many 
thousands of Jews who believed, and who were all zealous of 

1 Andeutungen, i. 412. 

2 Ueler die Briider des Herrn. Studien und Kritih-n, 1st Heft, 184:2. 

3 Introduction to New Testament, vol. iii. p. 310. 



JAMES THE JUST. 99 

the law " (Acts xxi. 20) ; and he was able to guide the extreme 
party, for they had confidence in his own fervent observance 
of " the customs." 1 

Such was his great influence even in distant places, that 
when "certain came" from him to Antioch, Peter dissembled, 
and even Barnabas succumbed. His shadow overawed them 
into a momentary relapse and inconsistency. His martyrdom, 
recorded by Hegesippus, and by Josephus in a paragraph the 
genuineness of which has been questioned, was supposed by 
many 2 to have brought on the siege of Vespasian as a judg 
ment on the city. St. James is glorified in the Clementines as 
" lord, and bishop of bishops." 3 In the Chronicon Paschale he 
is called apostle and patriarch of Jerusalem, and is said to have 
been enthroned by Peter on his departure for Rome (vol. i. 
460, ed. Dindorf). So strangely do opinions grow into ex 
tremes, that Victorinus the Rhetorician, a man mentioned 
cautiously by Jerome, 4 but extolled by Augustine, 5 denies 
James to be an apostle, affirms him to be in hceresi, and 
reckons him the author of those Judaistic errors which had 
crept into the Galatian churches. His interpretation is : "I 
saw James the Lord s brother (habitus secundum carnem) ; as 
if Paul meant thereby to affirm, You cannot now say, " Thou 
deniest James, and therefore rejectest the doctrine we follow, 
because thou hast not seen him." But I did see him, the first 
promulgate! of your opinions ita nihil apud me valuit " " The 
Symmachians make James," he adds, "a supernumerary apostle, 
quasi duodecimum, and all who add the observance of Judaism 
to the doctrine of our Lord Jesus Christ follow him as master."" 

On a question so difficult, critics, as may be supposed, are 
much divided. Against the theory put forward in the pre 
vious pages are Baronius, Semler, Pott, Schneckenburger, 



1 What the name n/SA/aj, given him by Hegesippus, means, it is im 
possible to say, for no solution is satisfactory. See Heinichen s note, 
Kouth s Reliquiae Sacrx, vol. i. p. 233, 2d ed. ; Fuller s Miscellanea Sacra, 
lib. iii. cap. i. ; Suicer, sub voce ; Schaff, Kirchcng. 35. 

2 As Hegesippus, in Euseb. Hist. Eccl. ii. 23. 

3 Ta xvptu x.oc.1 i ziax.ci xav ETT/o-JieVu, ^iiTrovn (>e TVJV Ispouact hYip dyixv 
Rfipxiuv lx,x.~fi.r,aiu.v. Homilix, p. 10, ed. Dressel. 

4 De Viris Illust. cap. 101. 

5 Confessionum, lib. viii. cap. 2, vol. i. p. 252, Paris 1836. 

6 Mai, Script. Vet. Nova Collectio, vol. iii. 



100 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIAXS. 

Guericke, Steiger, Olshausen, Lange, Hug, Friedlieb, Lich- 
tenstein, and Arnaud ; on the other side are De Wette, Rothe, 
Herder, Xeander, Stier, Niedner, Winer, Meyer, Ewald, 
Gresswell, Wieseler in a paper Veler die JBrilder des Herrn, 
Stud, und Kritik. 1 Heft, 1842 ; Blom, Disputatio de rot? 
<i8eX<oi9 real rcu? aSeXc^ai? TOV Kvpfov, Lugduni Batav. 1839; 
Schaff, das Verhtiltniss des Jacobus Bruders des Herrns zu 
Jacobus Alplicei auf Neue exegetiscli und historisch untersucht, 
Berlin 1843. In a later work (Church History, 95, 1854), 
Dr. Schaff has modified his view of some of the proofs adduced 
by him, saying that he had made rather too little of the dog 
matic argument against the supposition that Mary had other 
children, and of the old theory that the brothers were sons of 
Joseph by a former marriage (vol. ii. p. 35, English transl.). 
See also an essay of Laurent, Die Brilder Jesu } in his Neu- 
testamentliche Studien, Gotha 1866. 



CHAPTER II. 1-10. 

AFTER his conversion, the apostle had held no consulta 
tion as to his course or the themes of his preaching 
with the other apostles ; and in proof he still continues his 
narrative. He had been in Jerusalem once, and had seen Peter 
and James, but he had stayed only for a brief period. The 
apostles whom he met did not question his standing, neither 
did they sanction his commission nor add to his authority. He 
now in his historical argument refers to another visit to Jeru 
salem, when he saw the chief of the apostles ; but met them 
as an equal, on the same platform of official status, and took 
counsel with them as one of the same rank and prerogative. 
Nay more, at a subsequent period he confronted the eldest, 
boldest, and most highly honoured of them, when he was in 
error ; did not privately warn him or humbly remonstrate with 
him as an inferior with a superior, but solemnly and publicly, 
as one invested with the same authority, rebuked Cephas, the 
apostle of the circumcision. 

Ver. 1. "Ejreira 8ia SeKarea-crdpwv eV<wi> 7rd\iv ave/Sijv elf 
lepoaoiXv/jba fjiera Bapvdfta, crvfj,7rapa\a/3(i)v Kal Tirov " Then 
after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barna 
bas, having taken along with me also Titus." "Erreira marks 
another step in the historical argument, as in vers. 18 and 21 of 
the previous chapter, another epoch in his travels and life. 
The period is specified by 8i<z BeKarea-a-dpcuv erwv "after four 
teen years." It is vain to disturb the reading, as if it might be 
read rea-crdpwv (Bia tS erwv changed into Sia % eVwv), as is 
maintained by Semler, Capell, Guericke, Rinck, Winer, Reiche, 
and Ulrich in Stud. u. Kritik. 1836. The Chronicon Paschale, 
sometimes adduced, is no authority, nay, very probably it also 
read fourteen years, as it computes them from the ascension 
TTO TTJS dva\,tj^reo)<;. Vol. i. p. 436, ed. Dindorf. Sec Anger, 

101 



102 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 

Wieseler, and the reply of Fritzsche, Fritz schiorum Opuscukt, 
p. 1GO, etc. 

The phrase Bia BefcaTeo-o-dpwv ITWV is rightly rendered 
" after fourteen years," Bed denoting through the whole period, 
and thus emphatically beyond it or at the end of it ; post in 
the Vulgate, Acts xxiv. 17, Mark ii. 1, 4 Mace. xiii. 21, Deut. 
ix. 11 ; Xen. i. 4, 28 ; Winer, 47 ; Bernhardy, p. 235. Thus 
BIM xpovov, " after a time," Sophocles, Pliiloct. 285, wrongly 
rendered by Ellen dt " slowly," nor is the translation of 
Wunder and Ast more satisfactory ; Bia %povov, Xen. Mem. ii. 
8, 1, and Kiihner s note ; Si erovs, in contrast with e/ttyufi/oy?, 
Lucian, Paras. 15, vol. vii. p. 118, ed. Bipont. Hermann, ad 
Viger. 377, remarks, Bia %p6vovest interjecto tempore. Schaefer, 
Bos, Ellips. p. 249, ed. London 1825. In Deut. ix. 11, the 
unmistakeable Hebrew phrase fip.p, "at the end of" forty days, 
etc., is rendered by the Sept. Bia rea-a-apaKOvra rjfiepwv. Others 
give Bid a different sense, the sense of intra: at some point 
within the fourteen years, in which I have been a Christian. 
CEder, Rambach, Theile, Schott, and Paulus take this view. 
The preposition apparently may bear such a sense, though 
Meyer denies it, Acts v. 19, xvi. 9. But with such a meaning, 
we should have expected the article or the demonstrative pro 
noun. Nor would the expression with such a sense have any 
definite meaning, as it would afford no distinct date to give 
strength and proof to the apostle s statement of self-depen 
dence. But the main question is, From what point does the 
apostle reckon the fourteen years ? 

1. Many date it from the journey mentioned in i. 18, as 
Jerome, Usher, Bengel, Winer, Meyer, Usteri, Kiickert, Trana, 
Eeiche, Jatho, Bisping, Hofmann, Prof. Lightfoot, Kamp- 
hausen in Bunsen s Ztibelwerk, and Burton, Works, vol. iv. p. 45. 

2. Some date it from his conversion, as Estius, Olshausen, 
Fritzsehe, Ililgenfeld, Windischmann, Wieseler, Meyer, Ebrard; 
also in former times, Baronius, Spanheim, Pearson, and Light- 
foot. 

3. Others date it from the ascension, as the Chronicle re 
ferred to, Peter Lombard, and Paulus. This last opinion may 
be discarded, and the difficulty lies between the previous two. 

It does seem at first sight in favour of the first view, that 
the apostle has just spoken of a previous journey; and now when 



CHAP. II. 1. 103 



he writes e-rretra . . . TraXiv, you may naturally infer that he 
counts from it. And then, as it is part of his argument for his 
independent apostolate to show how long a time he acted by 
himself and in no concert with the other apostles, the dating of 
the time from his first journey adds so much more weight to 
his declaration, so much longer an interval having elapsed ; and 
he also places 8ia Setcarea-o-dpwv in the position of emphasis. 

Yet the second opinion is the more probable. The grand 
moment of his life was his conversion, and it became the point 
from which dates were unconsciously measured, all before it 
fading away as old and legal, all after it standing out in new 
and spiritual prominence. His conversion divided his life, and 
supplied a point of chronological reference. As he looked 
back, it faced him as a terminus from which he naturally 
counted. Not only so, but in the commencement of this vindica 
tion he recurs to his conversion and its results, for it severed his 
former from his present self, and it was not till three years after 
it that he went up to Jerusalem. He lays stress on the lapse 
of so long a time, wishing it to be noted that he speaks of 
years, and so he writes pera errj rpia, the emphasis on errj ; 
but now, the idea of years having been so emphatically ex 
pressed, when he refers again to them, their number becomes 
prominent, and he writes, as if still reckoning from his conver 
sion, Sid SeKaTea-adpcvv erwv. Had this verse occurred imme 
diately after i. 18, we might have said that the fourteen years 
dated from the first visit to Jerusalem ; but a paragraph inter 
venes which obscures the reference, and describes some time 
spent and some journeys made in various places. It is natural, 
therefore, to suppose, that after a digressive insertion, the 
apostle recurs to the original point of calculation his conver 
sion. The second eirevra of this verse thus refers to the same 
terminus a quo as the first in i. 18, and he now uses 8id } not a 
second yttera, as if to prevent mistake. 

TlaXiv dveftrjv " I again went up." On the question, with 
which of the visits of the apostle to Jerusalem recorded in the 
Acts of the Apostles this visit is to be identified, see remarks 
at the end of this section, after ver. 10. The Trd\iv does not 
qualify perd Bapvdfia, as if, according to Lange, a previous 
journey with Barnabas had been alluded to. Paul on this 
journey was the principal person, Barnabas being in a subordi- 



104 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 

nate, and Titus in a still inferior relation. Acts xv. 2. There 
had, indeed, been an intermediate visit (Acts xi. 29, 30) ; but 
the apostle makes no allusion to it, either because he was sent 
up on a special errand of beneficence, or because, as under the 
Herodian persecution the apostles might be absent, he did not 
see any of them (Spanheirn). The record of this visit was not, 
on that account, essential to his present argument, and the mere 
use of TrdXiv will not prove that this second visit is the one 
intended. Compare John xxi. 1, 14. 

^vfJLjrapaXalBwv teal Tirov " having taken with me also 
Titus : " " also," as he is going to speak of him immediately, 
and he is thus singled out from the nvas aX\ov ? of Acts xv. 
2. Compare Job i. 4. The precise circumstances attending 
this visit are minutely dwelt on, as corroborating his statement 
that he was an accredited apostle, working and travelling under 
a parallel commission with the others for a lengthened period. 
Therefore he adds 

Ver. 2. Aveftrjv Se Kara airoicaXvfyiv " But I went up by 
revelation." Jerusalem stood on a high plateau ; but to " go 
up " refers, as with us, to it as the capital. 1 Kings xii. 28 ; 
Matt, xx. 17, 18; Mark iii. 22; Acts xv. 2, etc. "See C. B. 
Michaelis, Dissertatio Chorographica notiones superi et inferi 
evolvens, etc., 37, in vol. v. of Essays edited by Velthusen, 
Kuinoel, and Ruperti. Lest the visit should be misunderstood, 
the avefiijv is repeated and put in emphasis, while the iterative 
and explanatory 8e at once carries on the argument, and has a 
sub-adversative force : I went up, as I have said, " but I went 
up according to revelation." Klotz-Devarius, ii. 361 ; Har- 
tung, i. 168. The nature- of that divine revelation we know 
not. The apostle was no stranger to such divine promptings. 
He had received the gospel by revelation, and in the same way 
had often enjoyed those divine suggestions and counsels which 
shaped his missionary tours. Acts xvi. 6, 7, 9. The apostles 
did not summon him to account, asking why he had assumed 
the name and professed to do the work which so specially be 
longed to them. Granville Penn renders Kara cnroKaXv^nv 
" openly," palam, as if opposed to /car IBiav, privately, a use 
less departure from usage. 1 Schrader, Schulz, and Hermann 
render the same phrase in the words of the latter : essplicationis 
1 Morehead proposes to put a comma after XQX.K><.V$>IV : " I went up 



CHAP. II. 2. 105 

causa, ut patefieret inter ipsos, quce vera esset Jesu doctrina. 
The preposition itself may bear such a meaning (Winer, 49), 
but this phrase cannot ; for it would be contrary to the New 
Testament use of the noun, and would be in the face of the 
apostle s very argument for his independent position. Nor is 
Kara riva UTTOK. required for the common interpretation. See 
Eph. iii. 3 ; also, Gal. i. 12, 16. The apostle does not specify 
the individual revelation, but affirms absolutely that it was under 
revelation that he went up, and not under human suggestion 
or control. He went up " by revelation," not by a particular 
revelation. Yet the turn given to the words by Whitby is 
inadmissible : " according to the tenor of my revelation, which 
made me an apostle of the Gentiles." What happened in 
Jerusalem is next told : 

Kal aveQepyv avTols TO evayyeXiov o K^pvcrcrco ev rot? eOvecri 
" And I communicated to them the gospel which I preach 
among the Gentiles." 

AveOe/arjv is rendered in the Vulgate contuli cum eis. Com 
pare Acts xxv. 14 ; 2 Mace. iii. 9 ; and Wetstein in loc. It 
does not exactly mean, "to leave in the hands of" (Green, 
Gr. Gram. p. 82), but to tell with a view to confer about it. 
Jerome adds : inter conferentes cequalitas est. The noun im 
plied in avrois is to be found in the term lepocro Xu/ia no un 
common form of antecedent. Matt. iv. 23, ix. 35, xi. 1, xii. 9 ; 
Luke v. 14 ; Acts viii. 5 ; Winer, 22, 3, a ; Bernhardy, p. 288. 
The avrols are the Christians in Jerusalem, not the elders, as 
is held by Winer hesitatingly, and by Matthies decidedly 
auf die Vorsteher und Aeltesten in der Gemeinde ; nor yet the 
;ipostles (Calvin, Schott, and Olshausen), a view which would 
not only make a distinction among the apostles, but also a dif 
ference in the mode and extent of the communication, as if he 
had told as much as he chose to the apostolic college, but 
opened himself more fully and unreservedly to a select com 
mittee of them. The gospel propounded by him was 

<V O Kripvcrcrto ev rot? edve<rtv the present indicating its 
continuous identity and his enduring work ; that conference 
made no change upon it. The gospel so characterized was, 
indeed, the great scheme of mercy, but especially in the free 

and communicated according to revelation," or, according to his own full 
light, his gospel to them. Explanation of Passages, etc., Edin. 1843. 



106 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 

form in which he presented it, unhampered by legal or Mosaic 
restrictions, unconditioned by any distinctions of race or blood 
TO ^pls 7re/)tTo/i?79, as Chrysostom describes it its charac 
teristic tenet being justification without works of law. Though 
lie was speaking in the heart of Judaism, and among Jewish 
believers who were zealous of the law, he did not modify his 
vocation in describing it, or present it as his exceptional work. 
Where it was most suspected and opposed, where it was sure 
to provoke antipathy, he gloried in it. But, as if correcting 
himself, he suddenly adds 

Kar ISiav 8e rot? SOKOIKTIV "but privately to them of 
reputation." These words seem to qualify the avTols and to 
confine them to a very particular class, though to state the 
persons communicated with, first so broadly and then with 
pointed restriction, seems peculiar. Some therefore suppose 
that there were two conferences a first and more public one, 
and a second and more select one. Such is the view of De 
Wette, Meyer, Windischmann, Ellicott, Bisping, and many 
others. But why should the apostle first to all appearance 
proclaim his gospel publicly, and then afterward privately first 
to the mass, and then to a coterie? The doctrine of reserve 
propounded by the Catholic Estius is not to be admitted. We 
prefer the view of Chrysostom who admits only one confer 
ence ; and he is followed by Calovius, by Alford apparently, 
and Webster and Wilkinson. There is no occasion, however, 
to mark the clause with brackets, as is done by Knapp. Going 
up under revelation, the apostle made known his gospel "to those 
in Jerusalem, privately, however, to them who were of repu 
tation." The reason, as given by Theodoret, is, that so many 
were zealous for the law vjrep rov vo^ov %rj\ov e%ovres. That 
there was a public meeting and discussion is true, as recorded 
in Acts xv. ; but the apostle does not allude to it here in defi 
nite terms. He seems to state the general result first, and 
then, as if referring to the revelation under which he acted, he 
suddenly checks himself, and says he communicated with them 
of reputation. Thus he may have distinguished his general 
mission, which is perhaps alluded to in Acts xv. 4, from the 
special course of conduct which his revelation suggested. The 
church at Antioch deputed the apostle in consequence of the 
Judaizers ; the Judaizers in Jerusalem thought their cause 



CHAP. II. 2. 107 

betrayed by the favourable reception given to Paul, and their 
agitation in the metropolis seems to have necessitated the pub 
lic conference. But "the revelation" may have referred more 
to the matters which were treated of in confidence with the 
noted brethren. 

The phrase KO.T IBiav is " privately." Matt. xvii. 19, xx. 
17, xxiv. 3; Mark iv. 34. It does not mean "especially" 
(Baur), or " preferably," as Olshausen and Usteri give it. 
The margin of the common version has " severally," and the 
Genevan reads " particularly ; " but the Syriac correctly, 

^001X0 - . i . *"\ " between me and them." It corresponds to 

IBia in the classics as opposed to icoivfj or BTJ^OCTLO,. The pecu 
liar phrase TO?? Bo/covcri is rightly rendered, " to them which 
are of reputation" eirtarffjun? (Theodoret), or, as Hesychius 
defines it, ol evSo^oi. There needs no supplied insertion of ri 
after the participle, as Bagge supposes. Thus ^Elian says 
of Aristotle, <ro<o9 avrjp KOI <av Kal elvat BOKWV, Hist. Var. 
xiv. ; a8o^ouvratv is in contrast with BOKOVVTMV, in reference 
to the weight of their word or opinions. Euripides, Hecuba, 
294, 295. Pflugk in his note refers to Pindar, Nem. vii. 30, 
aSoKijTOv ev Kal SofceovTa ; to Eurip. Troad. 608, and Heracl. 
795. See Pindar, OL xiii. 56, and Dissen s note. Borger quotes 
from Porphyry a clause in which ra 7r\tjdr) is in contrast to ol 
SoKovvres. Similarly the Hebrew 2KTI. See Fiirst, Lex. sub voce. 
Wycliffe s version is wrong in rendering "to those that semeden 
to be summewhat." And there is no ground for the supposition 
of Cameron, Eiickert, Schott, and Olshausen, that the phrase 
was chosen as one often in the mouths of the party who pre 
ferred them as leaders. Nor is there any irony in it, for the 
apostle is making a simple historical reference rot? tcopvffratois 
(CEcumenius) to his intercourse with them and its results, all 
as confirmatory of his own separate and independent commission. 
Mr) 7T&)? et9 Kevov rpe^co r/ eBpa^ov " lest I might be run 
ning or have run in vain." The figure of the two verbs is a 
common one. Phil. ii. 16 ; 2 Tim. iv. 7 ; Gal. v. 7 ; and also 
1 Cor. ix. 24, Heb. xii. 1. The meaning of et? Kevov, "in 
vain," may be seen, 2 Cor. vi. 1, Phil. ii. 16, 1 Thess. iii. 5, 
Sept. Isa. Ixv. 23 ; Kypke, in loc. It is surely prosaic in 
Jowett to refer e&pa/j.ov to the journey to Jerusalem, which he 



108 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 

had already accomplished. Homberg, Gabler, Paulus, and 
Matthies connect this clause with rot? SOKOVO-W qui putabant 
num forte in vanum currerem. Wieseler says that he mentions 
this connection simply as a philologische Antiquitdt. 

Allied to this view is one originally held by Fritzsche (Con- 
jectanea), by Green, and similarly by Wieseler, that y^ TTCO? 
may mean num forte. In such a case the verb is in the present 
indicative. Green renders it thus : " I laid my gospel before 
them, that they might judge whether I was running or had 
run in vain" (Gr. Gram. pp. 80-83). But prf 7r&>9 is ne forte, 
and is dependent on avede/^rjv. Hofmann also regards the clause 
as a direct question to which a negative answer is anticipated ; 
but the question in such a case would, as Meyer says, be made 
by i TT&)?. QEcumenius proposes also to take it tear epcorrjcnv, 
but as containing a confirmatory result, that he had not run in 
vain. Gwynne, finding that all his predecessors have mistaken 
the real meaning, thus puts it : "I submitted the gospel which 
I preach among the Gentiles, so that I run not now, nor was 
then running in vain ; " but it is simply ungrammatical to 
make ftrf 7ra>9 signify adeo non, and his doctrinal arguments 
rest on a misconception. At the same time the inference of 
Augustine is too strong, that if Paul has not conferred with 
the apostles, ecclesia illi omnino non crederet. Contra Faust. 
lib. 28. The verb rpe-^w is subjunctive, 1 Thess. iii. 5, and 
eSpapov indicative. Stallbaum, Plato, Phced. p. 84, E, vol. i. 
127-8. It does not require that the first should be indica 
tive because the second is, for the use of the mode depends 
on the conception of the writer. Kriiger, 54, 8, 9. The 
first verb in the present subjunctive, where perhaps an opta 
tive might have been expected, describes Paul s activity as still 
lasting; and the past eBpapovis regarded by Fritzsche in a hypo 
thetical sense proposui . . . ne forte frustra cucurrissem, that 
is to say, which might perchance have been the case if I had 
not held this conference at Jerusalem. Or the change of mood, 
causing also change of tense, may mark that the event appre 
hended had taken place. Winer, 56, 2, and examples in 
Gayler, Partic. Negat. p. 327 ; A. Buttmann, p. 303. There was 
fear in the apostle s mind of something disastrous, and that 
generally is expressed : " whether I be running or had run in 
vain," the idea of apprehension being wrapt up in the idiom. 



CHAP. II. 2. 109 

Matt. xxv. 9 ; Rom. xi. 21. But to what does or can the apostle 
refer ? 

1. The ei? tcevov cannot refer to his commission, the validity 
of which depended not on human suffrage, and of which he 
never could have any doubt, nay, which he was employed at 
that moment in justifying. 

2. Nor can the phrase refer to the matter of his preaching. 
He had received it by revelation, and its truth was independent 
altogether of the results of any conference or the decisions of 
any body of men. Chrysostom asks, " Who would be so sense 
less as to preach for so many years without being sure that his 
preaching was true?" Some Catholic expositors hold, however, 
that his preaching needed the sanction of the other apostles or 
of the church. See Corn. a-Lapide, in loc., who stoutly con 
tends against all Novantes or Reformers who do not act like 
Paul, and consult mother church. 

3. Nor can the words mean that he doubted the efficacy 
or success of his labours. So many sermons preached, so many 
sinners converted, so many saints blessed and revived, so many 
churches founded, so many baptisms administered by himself 
or in connection with his apostleship and followed so often by 
the visible or palpable descent of the Divine Spirit, were surely 
manifold and unmistakeable tokens that he had not run in vain. 
And these realities were unaffected by the opinions of any parties 
in Jerusalem. Tertullian is bold enough in hitting Marcion 
to barb his weapon by the supposition, that the apostle was in 
doubt as to his system, that he wished auctoritas antecessorum et 

fidei et prcedicationi suce. Adver. Marcion. iv. 2, vol. ii. p. 163, 
Opera, ed. QEhler. 

4. Nor probably can we regard the whole matter as merely 
subjective, with Chrysostom, Beza, Borger, Winer, Riickert, 
Meyer, and Ellicott, that is, lest in the opinion of others I be 
running or had run in vain; or as Theodoret plainly puts it, ov 
irepl eavrov reOeiicev a\\a irepl rwv aXXcav. This, we apprehend, 
is only the truth partially, not wholly. It was not the mere 
opinion others might form of the gospel which he preached 
among the Gentiles, but more the mistaken action to which it 
might lead. He was now under a commission to ask advice 
on a certain point, the point which characterized his gospel 
among the Gentiles. This private conference enabled him 



110 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 

to state what his views were on this very question ; and his 
apprehension was, that if it should be misunderstood, all his 
labour would be lost, if his free and unhampered mode of offer 
ing Christ to poor heathens were disallowed. Should the church, 
in defiance of his arguments, experience, and appeals, insist on 
compliance with circumcision as essential to admission to the 
church, then on this point which signalized his preaching as 
the apostle of the Gentiles, his labour would be so far in vain, 
and the Gentile churches would be in danger of losing their 
precious freedom. No man who had laboured so long and so 
hard to maintain a gospel unrestricted by any ceremonial con 
ditions would wish his labour to be in vain, or so in vain as to 
be authoritatively interfered with, and frustrated as far as pos 
sible by being disowned. And the question involved so much, 
that to enjoin it was to introduce another gospel. No wonder 
that in connection with so momentous a matter fraught with 
such interest to all the Gentile churches, the apostle of the 
Gentiles went up by revelation. But he gained his point, and 
that point was the non-circumcision of Gentile converts, as the 
next verse shows. We do not suppose, with Thiersch, that the 
reality of his apostleship was the matter laid before the private 
conference after the public settlement of the controversy, so 
that thus the " faithful at large were spared the trial of a ques 
tion for which they were not prepared, the recognition of Paul s 
apostleship being much more difficult than the rights of the 
Gentiles." History of the Christian Churchy. 121, Eng. trans. 
But it was his gospel, not his office, which he set before them. 
Winer s view is as remote from the point : Ut ne, si his vide- 
retur paribus eastigandus, publica expostulation ipsius auctoritas 
infringeretur. He had not run in vain 

Ver. .3. .4XA. ouSe TITO? 6 crvv e /zot, "EXXyv wv, ^vajKacrO rj 
7TpiT{j,r)0f]vaL " Ilowbeit not even Titus, who was with me, 
though he was a Greek, was forced to be circumcised." The 
reference is not to what had happened at Antioch prior to the 
visit (Hofmann, Keiche), but to what took place at Jerusalem 
during the visit. The aX\.d is strongly adversative. So far from 
my having run in vain ; in the very headquarters of Jewish 
influence or Judaistic leaning, my Greek companion Titus, 
heathen though he was, had not circumcision forced upon him. 
The apostle s position was tested in the case of Titus, and was 



CHAP. II. 3. Ill 

not overthrown. A\\ ov&e is a climactic phrase at ne quidem; 
"neuerthelesse nother" (Coverdale). Luke xxiii. 15 ; Acts 
xix. 2. Titus is the emphatic word : his was a ruling case, 
"a strong and pertinent instance," as Locke calls it. For various 
reasons that might have been deemed expedient at the moment 
and in the place, his circumcision might have been demanded, 
and yet the tenor of the apostle s preaching among the Gen 
tiles not disallowed. But not even Titus 

"E\\vv wv " Greek though" or " as he was," Kairoi, 
Theodoret, the participle declaring the reason by stating the 
fact. Ponaldson, 493. Titus was a Greek, or of Greek 
extraction, and circumcision might on that account have been 
exacted from him as also my companion ; but on the very same 
account it was resisted. " Greek" is equivalent to being of 
heathen extraction. Mark vii. 26. 

The verb rjvcvyKdaQr}, the opposite of Treldfiv, is a strong ex 
pression, denoting to compel even by torture, to force by threats, 
more mildly by authority (Acts xxvi. 1 1) ; then to constrain by 
argument : Matt. xiv. 22 ; Mark vi. 45. See under ver. 14. 

Two wrong and extreme inferences have been drawn from 
the word : 

1. The Greek fathers, Winer, De Wette, Usteri, Matthies, 
and Schott go to one extreme, and give this meaning, that the 
circumcision of Titus, as a Greek and Paul s companion, was 
not insisted on, so much did Paul find himself at one with the 
leading authorities in the mother church. But this hypothesis 
does not harmonize with the strong expression ^vajtcda-drj, nor 
with the well-known state of opinion and feeling in the church 
at Jerusalem. Such a statement at this point, too, would be a 
forestalling of the argument as based on the results of the con 
ference. The apostle is showing that he had not laboured in 
vain, that the very point which characterized his gospel was 
gained, that point being the free admission of uncircumcised 
Gentiles into the church ; for even in Jerusalem the circum 
cision of Titus was successfully resisted, the enemy was 
worsted even in his citadel. Titus was " with me," and my 
authority in the matter was equipollent with that of the other 
apostles. 

2. Some have gone to another extreme, and have drawn 
this inference from the language, that Titus was not forced to 



112 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 

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



CHAP. II 4. 113 



Ver. 4. A La Be rou9 Trapeiad/cTovs fyevBaBe X.fovs "now it 
was because of the false brethren stealthily introduced." The 
difficulty of this connection lies in the Be, and the Greek fathers, 
expounding their own language, were puzzled with it: 6 Se 
(rvv8ecr[i,o<; TrepiTros (Theodore t). The statement is repeated 
by Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Theophylact transforms it into 
ovSe. Jerome says, Sciendum vero quod autem superflua sit, et 
si legatur non kabeat quod ei respondeat. But Be gives an ex 
planation which virtually contains a reason. Klotz-Devarius, 
ii. 362. Rom. iii. 22 (Alford, in loc.}, Phil. ii. 8, are similar, 
but somewhat different. The connection is not, Titus was not 
forced to be circumcised, which, if it had happened, would 
have happened on account of the false brethren ; but rather, 
Titus was not forced to be circumcised, and the reason was, 
because of the false brethren, either they pressed it, or would 
have made a handle of it, and divided the council on that point 
and others allied to it. 1 Nor is Be adversative, and Trepierfji^drj 
to be supplied " but he was circumcised on account of false 
brethren" (Pelagius, Riickert, Elwert, Schmoller), nor is rjvay- 
Kaadrf to be simply repeated. The construction is probably of a 
more general nature, and apparently refers to some unexpressed 
connection between the expected and the actual result of the 
conference with the apostles, the difference being caused by 
the efforts of the false brethren. The clause has also a sort of 
double connection, one suggested by Be with the verse before 
it, and one carried on by ot? with the verse after it. The con 
nection is thus peculiar. The suppositions of an anakolouthon 
Bia T. tyevB. ... 049 ovBe, ver. 5 or of a blending of two con 
structions, the ofc of ver. 5 being redundant or resumptive 
(Winer, Wieseler, Hilgenfeld, Windischmann, Rinck, and Hof- 
mann), need not be detailed. The apostle s words, though loose 
in connection, may be otherwise unravelled, though not perhaps 
to one s complete satisfaction. There is, as Lightfoot says, 
some " shipwreck of grammar. He must maintain his own 
independence, and not compromise the position of the twelve. 
There is need of plain speaking, and there is need of reserve." 
Yet one may say with Luther, Condonandum est Spiritui Sancto 

1 Augustine says, Nam et Titum circumcideret, cum hoc urgerent Judxi 
nisi subintroducti falso fratres idem vellent, etc. De Mendacio, 8, p. 718, 
vol. vi. 

H 



114 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 

in Paulo loquenti si peccet aliquando in grammaticam. Ipse 
mag no ardore loquitur. Qui vero ardet, non potest exacte in 
dicendo observare regulas grammaticas et prcecepta rhetorica. 

It is an unnatural and far-fetched connection given by 
Storr, Borger, Rosenmiiller, S troth, Olshausen, Hermann, and 
Gwynne, to connect this verse with avefiqv. or with dvedefirjv 
(Turner). Nor was it necessary to write, " Titus w r as not al 
lowed to be circumcised, yea not; on account of false brethren." 
The preposition Sid assigns the reason propter. Matt. xxiv. 
22; Acts xvi. 3; Rom. viii. 20. The more abstruse meaning 
assigned by Wieseler is not in point, at least is not necessary. 
The 8id gives the ground for the preceding statement as a 
whole, but specially for the non-circumcision of Titus. 

Who the -v/reuSaSeX^ot in Jerusalem, not Antioch (Fritzsche), 
precisely were and the article gives them a known promi 
nence we know not. 2 Cor. xi. 26. The apostles certainly did 
not coincide with them ; and they must have been Judaizers, 
though all Judaizers might not be called " false brethren, 
for many were no doubt sincere Christians, though zealous of 
the law. But this faction who clamoured for circumcision were 
Christians only by profession, owning the Messiahship so 
far as to secure admission to the church, but still Jews in their 
slavish attachment to the old economy and its ritual, and in 
their belief of its permanent and universal obligation. Epi- 
phanius affirms that they were Cerinthus and his party : Hceres. 
xxviii. 4. Their mode of introduction showed what they were 
TOU? TrapeiaaKTOvs. The word occurs only here; the verb 
is used in 2 Pet. ii. 1, and the term is also found in the pro 
logue to the son of Sirach. It appears to be sometimes used 
simply for a stranger, and is rendered by Hesychius and Suidas 
ttXXorpto?, and it is found with the same meaning in Polybius 
more than once ; but the additional sense of surreptitious (sul>- 
introductitios, Tertullian) was in course of time attached to it, 
as its verb here implies. Or may not the term mean that their 
falsehood lay in their surreptitious introduction to the company 
of the apostles, not their admission into the church, that they 
were false in professing to be brethren, while yet they were 
only spies, not from curiosity, but from an earnest and insidious 
longing to enslave the Gentile converts ? Further are they 
characterized : 



CHAP. II. 4. 115 

Omz/es Trapei<rri\6ov " who came in stealthily." Omi/e?, 
"as being a class of men who." Jelf, 816 ; Ellendt, Lex. 
Soph, sub voce significatio non tarn causalis, quam explicativa ; 
Bornemann, Scholia in Luc. p. 135, comp. Jude 4. The verb 
is applied to Simon Magus in the Clementine Homilies, ii. 23. 
Their first object was 

KaTacrK07rrj(T(u rrjv I\ev0eplav THJLWV T)V e^opev ev Xpicrrw 
Irja-ov " to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ 
Jesus." Josh. ii. 2, 3 ; 2 Sam. x. 3, 1 Chron. xix. 3, where it 
stands for the Hebrew ?J"| ; Xen. Mem. ii. 1, 22 ; Polybius, 
v. 20, 2; Eurip. Hel. 1607. Their work was that of spies- 
inspection for a sinister purpose. The aorist may refer to the 
act as done before they were detected ; or they had no sooner 
done with spying out our liberty, than their design became 
apparent. The liberty referred to in the clause is not spiritual 
liberty in general, nor independence of human authority 
(Kohler), but freedom in the sphere where it was menaced 
and threatened to be curtailed. It was freedom from the 
Mosaic ritual, but not in and by itself ; for that freedom con 
tained in it at the same time justification by faith without deeds 
of law. This liberty is precious 

v JEf v e^ofjiev ei> Xpiaro} I^croO " which we have in Christ 
Jesus." It is ours, rj/jiwv, for we are having it in Christ Jesus. 
It is our present, our asserted possession. See Eph. i. 7. Its 
element of being is " in Christ Jesus," not by Him (Fritzsche, 
Brown), though He did secure it, but in Him through living 
faith, and in Him by fellowship with Him. By Him it was 
secured to us, but in Him we possess it. Their purpose was 
"Iva 97/ia? KaTa?)ov\(i)(Tov<riv " in order that they might 
bring us into utter bondage." The ^/m? are not all Christians, 
or the apostle and the heathen Christians (Usteri, Meyer, 
Wieseler, Hofmann), but as in contrast with vpds it is more 
distinctive, and is restricted at the moment to the apostle, Titus, 
and Barnabas, with perhaps the deputation from Antioch re 
presenting the freer party in the church. Still, what was true 
of the ^yLtet? at that moment as a representative party holds true 
of all believers. F, G read iva fjuj. The Textus Receptus 
has KdTaSovXttHTcovTai, vindicated by Reiche, with K and the 
Greek fathers who virtually use the middle; but the other 
reading has in its favour A, B 1 , C, D, K, and it is received 



116 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 

by Lachmann and Tischendorf. B 2 , F, G have the subjunctive 
Kara^ovXfoa-coo-Lv. The future is the most probable as the rarest 
form of construction, for the future indicative is very uncommon 
after iva, though found in John xvii. 2 (Lect. Var."), Rev. iii. 9, 
viii. 3, xxii. 14. Winer, 41. The change to the subjunctive 
is thus easily accounted for. There is no reason whatever for 
Bloomfield s assertion, that the received reading was altered on 
account of ignorance of the proper force of the middle voice, 
for the middle voice would be inappropriate here, since the 
subjection is not to themselves, but to the law; or for Fritzsche s 
opinion, that the future is only the subjunctive aorist depra- 
vatum. The term iva points to the final cause, and the /card 
in composition deepens the meaning of the verb. The con 
nection with the future is rare, though O7r&>9 is so employed. 
Gayler, Part. Neg. p. 169, says that it is used sensu improprio 
finem spectante. Horn. 77. vii. 353, xxi. 314. In connection 
with O7r&)9 /^, see Schasfer, Annot. in Demostli. 01. III. vol. i. p. 
277. According to Winer, 41, the future expresses duration, 
or a continued state ; according to others, confident anticipa 
tions of the result ; or, as Alford gives it, " certain sequence in 
the view of the agent ;" or as Meyer puts it, they expected the 
result as certain and enduring als gewiss und fortdauernd. 
Schmalfeld, 142 ; Klotz-Devarius, p. 683. It probably indi 
cates purpose realized in the view of the false teachers. 

Ver. 5. Ol? ov8e irpos wpav eta/iei> rfj viroTcvyfj " To 
whom not even for an hour did we yield in subjection." The 
reading ol? ovBe has preponderant authority. The words are 
found in all Greek uncial codices except D at first hand, and 
in almost all the cursives, in a host of versions and originally 
in the Vulgate. Many of the Greek and Latin fathers so read 
also. Ambrosiaster refers to the reading, and so does Jerome : 
quibus neque. But some of the Latin fathers omitted the nega 
tive. Tertullian justifies the omission, reading nee ad horam, 
and accuses Marcion of vitiatio Scripturce, for Paul did some 
times yield, ad tempus. The omission thus arose from the 
grammatical difficulty, and the desire to preserve the con 
sistency of the apostle who had circumcised Timothy. The 
verb occurs only here, and by the aorist refers to the historic 
past. The dative vTroTa<yfj is that of manner, the article rfj 
before the abstract noun specifying it as the obedience which 



CHAP. II. 6. 117 

was demanded or expected, not " the submission we were 
taunted with," in the circumcision of Titus (Lightfoot). The 
noun does not signify obedience to Christ Jesu obsequio (Her 
mann), but refers to the ot<?, the false brethren in Jerusalem, 
on account of whom and whose conduct Titus was not com 
pelled to be circumcised. The vTrorajfj claimed was a specimen 
of the tcaTaBovXwa-is designed against them. Its resolution by 
Winer and Usteri into ei? rrjv vTrorayrjv, or by Bloomfield into 
7rpo9 T. VTTOT., is not to be thought of; nor can it mean, as with 
the older interpreters, Bi vTrorayris, per subjectionem (Calvin), 
nor is it in apposition with 0*9 (Matthies). The subjection 
was not yielded for the briefest space, ovBe 7rpo9 &pav " not 
even for an hour." 2 Cor. vii. 8 ; Philem. 15. This natural 
interpretation of the clause goes directly against those who, 
thinking that Paul voluntarily circumcised Titus, are obliged 
to strain the meaning thus : obsequium se prcestitisse Paulus 
profitetur, sed non ita prcestitisse ut illis se victum donet vel de 
jure suo aliquid cederet. See Elwert. And the purpose was 
"Iva T) a\,i]deia rov eva<yyeXlov Bcaf^elvr, 7rpo9 vfias " that 
the truth of the gospel might continue with you." " The truth 
of the gospel" is not simply the true gospel, but truth as a 
distinctive element of the gospel, opposed to the false views of 
its cardinal doctrine which the reactionary Judaists propounded. 
That truth was, in its negative aspect, the non-obligation of 
the Mosaic law on Gentile believers, in its positive aspect, 
justification by faith. The long theological note of Matthies 
is foreign to the point and the context. The Sid in the verb 
is intensive "might endure," ad jinem usque. Heb. i. 11 ; 
2 Pet. iii. 4 ; Wilke, sub roce. The phrase Trpbs v/ma<; means, 
with you you Galatians, the readers of the epistle. It is an 
instance, as Alford remarks, " in which we apply home to the 
particular, what, as matter of fact, it only shares as included 
in the general." The apostle s motive in resistance was pure 
and noble, and the Galatians should have highly appreciated it. 
Ver. 6. Airo Be TWV Boxouvrcov elvai ri " But from those 
high in reputation." The construction is plainly broken and 
involved. It is evident from this clause that the first inten 
tion was to end the sentence with ovBev TrpoaeXaftofArjv ; or, 
judging from the words actually employed, it might or would 
have been efiol ovBev TrpoaaveTedrj "but from those high 



118 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 

in reputation nothing was added to me ;" instead of which he 
writes : " From them who are high in reputation to me these 
persons high in reputation added nothing." The construction 
begins with a?ro, and passively, then two parenthetical clauses 
intervene, and the parenthesis is not formally terminated, but 
passes into the connected active clause, e^ol yap. Winer, 
63. The apostle is still asserting his apostolic independence. 
First, generally, he went into conference with the ol So/co{We<?, 
and he got nothing from them no additional element of in 
formation or authority. His commission did not receive any 
needed imprimatur from them. But. secondly, the apostle, on 
referring to the ol So/coiWe?, and while such a result as we 
have just given is before his mind, is anxious that his relation 
to them should be distinctly apprehended that he met them 
on a perfect equality ; and so he interjects, " Whatsoever they 
were, it maketh no matter to me." Then, thirdly, to show that 
this declaration was no disparagement of them on any personal 
ground, he subjoins, as if in defence or explanation, " God ac- 
cepteth no man s person." And, lastly, going back to his in 
tended statement, but with an emphatic change of construction, 
he concludes, " To me, it is true, those who are high in reputa 
tion added nothing." The anakolouthon is the result of mental 
hurry, the main thought and subordinate ideas struggling for 
all but simultaneous utterance, his anxiety to be distinctly 
understood in a matter of such high moment as the indepen 
dency of his apostleship and teaching, leads him to commence 
with a statement, then to guard it, and then to explain the very 
guard. This throng of ideas throws him off from his construc 
tion which he does not formally resume, but ends with a dif 
ferent and decided declaration. Such, generally, is, we think, 
the structure of these clauses of terse outspokenness. 

More particularly: UTTO 8e rwv &OKOVVTWV elvat rt "But from 
them who were esteemed something," literally, "who were" or 
"are in high estimation;" qui videbantur, Yulgate; " which seme 
to be great," Tyndale. The &e is resumptive of the thought 
first alluded to in ver. 2, but going off from the previous state 
ment. The phrase is not to be taken subjectively, or as mean 
ing " who thought themselves to be something." Examples 
of similar language are : VTTO TroXX&iy teal SOKOVVTCW elvai n, 
Plato, Gorg. p. 472, A ; eav So/cwcrl n elvai yu-^Sey oWe?, Apolog. 



CHAP. II. 6. 119 

41, E. See also Wetstein, in loc. There is apparently a slight 
element of depreciation in these quotations, but not in the 
clause before us. If those in whose estimation they stood so 
high were the Judaizing faction, such an inference might be 
legitimate, and Bengel and Wieseler adopt it ; but if the per 
sons who held them in honour were the church and such seems 
the case from ver. 9 then the words simply indicate the hio-h 

i v O 

position of the individuals referred to. See under ver. 2. The 
next clause is explanatory 

O-TToioi Trore r)aav, ovBev /JLOI Siaffrepei " whatsoever they 
were, it matters nothing to me ;" quales aliquando fiterint, Vul 
gate. Some give Trore the sense of olim, and understand the 
reference to be to the apostles and their past connection with 
Christ during His public ministry (Luther, Beza, Hilgenfeld, 
Olshausen) ; while others refer it to the life of the apostles prior 
to their call by Christ " Whatever they had been " sinners 
(Estius after Augustine); or but unlearned and ignorant fisher 
men (Ambrosiaster, Thomas Aquinas, Anselm, Cajetan, and 
a-Lapide). Others suppose a reference to previous opinions sub 
versive of the gospel held by them (Gwynne), or to the past time, 
when they were apostles, but himself was alienus a fide Christi 
(Calvin). Hofmann and Usteri make it "whether apostles or 
not." The first of these views is not without plausibility, for 
the prevailing sense of Trore in the New Testament is temporal; 
but it is too pointed to be contained in these simple words, and 
the reference is one not employed by the apostle usually when he 
maintains his equality. He says that he had what they had as 
in 1 Cor. ix. 1, xv. 10, but does not refer to their personal con 
nection with Christ as giving them any official advantage over 
him, for he was not a " whit behind the very chief est apostles " 
rwv vrrep\iav arrocrro\u>v. 2 Cor. xi. 5. The apostle speaks 
simply of their position in the church when he conferred with 
them, or rather, of the honour they were held in at the period 
of his writing. The Trore, therefore, may be used in an inten 
sive sense cunque as often in interrogations. 

OvSev fioi Siatyepei " nothing to me it matters :" the 
stress on ov8ev utter indifference. The present Siafyepei does 
not express his present view of the case, but his view at the 
time, vividly recalled, or assuming the present. Phrynichus 
says, p. 394, Xeye ovv rl Sia^epet, quoting Demosthenes against 



120 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 

the use of the dative rtW, as poi here. Lobeck, however, quotes 
in correction from Aristotle, TIVI Bia^epet, ra appeva, De Part. 
Animal, viii. 555 ; Xenophon, Hier. 1, 7, OVK olff ei nvi oia- 
(f>epei. Plato uses both dative and accusative, Alcibiades, i. 
109 B ; and ./Elian also has ^ei/yo? yap r\ TLVI YI ovoev Sta<})pet f 
Hist. Animal, xiv. 26, vol. i. p. 327, ed. Jacobs. Chrysostom 
writes too strongly in saying that " he presses hard on the 
apostles for the sake of the weak." Theophylact, on the other 
hand, says, OVK e^ovOev<ov rou? dyiovs " not vilipending those 
holy men." It matters nothing to me, and the reason is 

TIpocrwTrov @eo? dvOpcaTrov ov \a/ji(3dvei " God accepteth 
no man s person." The asyndeton, or want of any connecting 
particle, gives point to the statement (Winer, 60), and by the 
peculiar order of the words the emphatic <9eo9 is placed next 
the contrasted dvdpwTrov. The phrase Trpoawrrov \a^dvei is 
a Hebraism, a translation of O^D KEO, which means " to favour, 
to show favour," used first of all in a good sense of God in 
Gen. xix. 21: Gen. xxxii. 20; 1 Sam. xxv. 35; 2 Kings iii. 
14 ; Job xlii. 8 ; then specially in a bad sense to show undue 
favour to, Lev. xix. 15; Deut. x. 17; Ps, Ixxxii. 2; Prov. xviii. 
5 ; Siracli iv. 27. But in the New Testament the phrase is 
invariably used in a bad sense : Matt. xxii. 16 ; Mark xii. 14 ; 
Luke xx. 21, etc.; to favour one for mere face or appearance, 
Jas. ii. 17. Hence the nouns 7rpocr&)7ro/V?? \|ria, TrpoacoTro- 
A^TTT???, and the corresponding verb. God is impartial in the 
bestowment of His gifts and in the selection of His instruments. 
The apostle takes God for his model, and he judges and acts 
accordingly. " I acted," as if he had said, " in my estimate of 
these men, and in my conference with them, without regard to 
such external elements as often influence human judgments 
and occasionally warp them." He showed no undue leaning 
on them, though they justly stood so high in the esteem and 
confidence of the mother church in Jerusalem. Koppe s con 
jecture, that the apostle might be thinking of his mean bodily 
appearance, is really bathos. Chrysostom gives another turn 
to the thought : " Although they allow circumcision, they shall 
render an account to God ; for God will not accept their per 
sons because they are great in rank and station." But this 
future and judicial reference is not in the context, which is 
describing present feeling and events. 



CHAP. II. 6. 121 

The resumed statement is : 

^Ep,ol yap ol SoKovvres ov8ev TrpoaaveOevro " to me in fact 
those in repute communicated nothing," e/W emphatic. If <ydp 
assign a reason, it may be connected with ovSev, /JLOI Siatjiepei 
"it matters nothing to me, for they added nothing to me;" or it 
may be joined to the preceding clause, TrpoawTrov 6eos dvdpw- 
nrov ov \a^dvei God is impartial, for lie has put me on the 
same level (auf so gleiche Linie, Meyer) with the persons so 
high in reputation. Both connections appear unnatural, linking 
what is the main thought to a clause subordinate and virtually 
parenthetical. Nor will e/iot <ydp bear to be translated mihi 
inquam (Peile, Scholefield). But yap may be regarded rather 
as explicative. Donaldson, 618, says yap is often placed first 
with an explanatory clause. Composed of 76, verily, com 
bined with apa, " therefore," it signifies " the fact is," " in 
fact, as the case stands." Klotz-Devarius, ii. 233 ; Kiihner, 
324, 2. 

The verb irpoffavaT&hjfU is to impart, to communicate ; in 
the middle voice " on their part." This is the real significa 
tion of the verb, though the idea of " additional" or new be 
found in it by Beza, Erasmus, Bengel, Winer, Usteri, Wieseler, 
Hilgenfeld, and others ; but Trpocr- in composition will not sig 
nify insuper. Though, however, the signification of the verb be 
simply " they imparted," the sense or inference plainly is, they 
imparted nothing new, as Meyer has it, um mich zu beleliren. 
The men of note, ol So/covvres, imparted nothing nothing which 
was so unknown, that he felt himself instructed in his preach 
ing or strengthened in his commission. The least that can be 
said is, they did not interfere with him, and they felt that they 
could not. Chrysostom is therefore too strong when he explains 
it, TouTecm, /za#(We9 TO. epa ovSev TrpoaeOrjKai , ov&ev StcopOco- 
<rav. In a word, the apostle makes this statement in no spirit 
of vainglory, but simply narrates the naked facts. 

Other forms of exegesis have been tried. 1. Some render 
the first clause, as Gomarus, Borger, Bagge, quod attinet ad as 
regards the persons high in repute, thus giving avro the sense 
of irepi, and rendering the next clause, as Theophylact, ouSe/zta 
fj,oi (frpovrw, or as Olshausen paraphrases, " I do not trouble 
myself about the distinguished apostles in the matter." 2. 
Homberg in his Parerga, p. 275, thus renders : ab illis vero, 



122 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 

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



CHAP. II. 7. 123 

habit of adding marginal notes to his epistles after he had 
dictated them, and that ver. 6 is one of these notes : Neutest. 
Studien, p. 29, Gotha 1866. 12. Hofmann contrives to con 
strue without any anakolouthon, making the parenthesis begin 
with oVoioij-and ending it with aXXa rovvavriov, which words 
he dissevers from ver. 7 for this purpose, a clever but quite 
unnatural mode of sequence. All these forms of exegesis, more 
or less ingenious, are out of harmony with the context and the 
plain significance of the terms employed, in such broken and 
hurried statements. 

They not only gave me no instructions, as if my course had 
been disapproved by them, " but on the contrary" aXXa rov- 
vavrlov their conduct was the very opposite ; neither jealousy, 
nor disparagement of me far from it, " but on the contrary, 
they gave me the right hand of fellowship." 

Ver. 7. A\Xa rovvavrlov, ISovres on TTCTT la-reveal TO evay- 
ye\iov r?7<? d/cpo fiver (as, tcaOax; TTerpo? T>}? 7repiTo/j,fjs " But on 
the contrary, seeing that I have been entrusted with the gospel 
of the uncircumcision, even as Peter was with that of the cir 
cumcision." The passive verb governs the accusative of the 
thing, the active combining a dative with it. Rom. iii. 2, 1 Cor. 
ix. 17, 1 Tim. i. 11; Winer, 32, 5 ; Polybius, xxxi. 26, 7. 
Other examples may be found in Fischer, ad Weller. Gram. 
Grcec. vol. iii. p. 437. The perfect passive, emphatic by 
position, denotes the duration of the trust, or that he still held 
it. The resolution of the more idiomatic TreTrla-rev/j-ai TO evayy. 
into TreTricrTeuTai pot TO euay. is found in F, G. 

The noun aKpo/Bva-rlas, " of the uncircumcision," is equiva 
lent to TWV aKpo/Bvarwv, Rom. ii. 26, iii. 30, the gospel as 
addressed to them or belonging to them, the gospel as it was 
preached by him among the Gentiles. Of course, the gospel 
of the circumcision is that belonging to Jews, as specially 
preached to them by Peter Kadws. It is plain that this agree 
ment was the result of the apostle s frank disclosures. They 
had confidence in his statements, and seeing that his was a 
divine stewardship for a special sphere of labour, they could 
not, they durst not, oppose it. It might not be in all points to 
their perfect liking, it might not quite tally with their ideas of 
becomingness ; but they could not set themselves against it. 
They now did more than allow Paul " to fight his own battle" 



124 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 

(Jowett) : not only did they leave him undisturbed in the field, 
but the council, after a characteristic address by Peter, the 
apostle of the circumcision, and on the motion of James, sent 
out an edict which must have smoothed away some prejudices 
and confirmed the success of the apostle among the Gentiles. 
One should like so much to know what the beloved disciple 
said at the private conference, or what he who lay in the 
Master s bosom addressed to the public assembly. 

The verse implies that Peter was a representative of the 
other apostles who laboured among the circumcision. Yet 
he had been the first to evangelize and baptize the heathen 
(Acts x. xi.) ; and on being challenged for his conduct, he 
had made a pointed and successful vindication. It is not 
implied by this language that there were two gospels, or even 
two distinct types of one gospel. But circumcision formed 
the point of difference. The Jew might practise it, for it was 
a national rite ; but it was not to be enforced on the Gentile. 
The first Epistle of Peter shows the accordance of his theo 
logy with that of Paul. In Peter there are Jewish imagery 
and allusions, but no Judaistic spirit. The relation of the 
old economy to Gentile converts is not once glanced at. He 
does not refer to its overthrow, for to him the old Israel had 
passed into the spiritual Israel which had burst the national 
barriers. He does not write of Judaism and Christianity as 
rival faiths, or of the one supplanting the other ; but to him 
Judaism had reached a predicted spirituality and fulness of 
blessing in the Messiah, by "the sprinkling of the blood of Him" 
who was the "Lamb without spot." So that, as Tertullian 
tersely puts it, this arrangement was only distributio officii, not 
separatio evangelii, nee ut aliud alter sed ut aliis alter prcedicarent. 
De Prescript. Ilccret. xxiii. vol. ii. p. 22, ed. GEhler. 

Ver. 8. This parenthetical verse gives the ground of the 
preceding statement. The same God who wrought effectually 
for Peter wrought effectually for Paul too ; therefore the mis 
sion of Paul, divine in its source and sustentation, could not 
but be recognised. 

o 
O <yap evep<yrjcra$ Herpw et? airocrro\r]V Tr)s Treptro/ir}?, 

evripyrjcre Kal e /iol et? ra Wvt] " For He who wrought for 
Peter toward the apostleship of the circumcision, the same 
wrought for me also towards the Gentiles." This he adds, 



CHAP. II. 9. 125 

Jerome says, ne quis eum putaret detrahere Petro. The datives 
ITeTpw and pot, as Meyer observes, are not governed by eV in 
the verb which is not a pure compound, as eV could not stand 
independently. They are therefore dativi commodi. The 
purpose of the divine inworking is expressed fully in the first 
portion, et9 aTrocrro^v " with a view to the apostleship," for 
its successful discharge ; at least such is the sense implied, 
2 Cor. ii. 12, Col. i. 29. The last clause, fully expressed, as 
in the Syriac version, would have been et? aTrocrroXrjv TWV 
eOvwv ; but the curter form is used by the apostle (comparatio 
compendiaria). Winer, 66, /. The inworker is God, and 
that inworking comprehends every element of commission and 
qualification outpouring of the Spirit, working of miracles, 
and all the various endowments and adaptations which fitted 
both men so fully for their respective spheres. Acts xv. 12. 

Ver. 9. Kal yvovres rrjv tfapiv rrjv SoOeicrdv fj,oi " And 
coming to the knowledge of the grace which was given to me, 
James and Cephas and John, who are reputed pillars, gave to 
me and Barnabas right hands of fellowship ; that we should go 
or preach to the Gentiles, but they to the circumcision." First, 
Ibovres, perceiving, that is, probably struck by Paul s repre 
sentation of his work as the apostle of the Gentiles, a phrase 
parallel to Kal yvovres, " and learning," from the details com 
municated to them. The %api? here is not barely the apostolic 
office (Piscator, Estius), nor yet the success of his labours 
potissimum de successu (Winer, Fritzsche), but all that divine 
gift embodied as well in the apostolate as in all the freely 
bestowed qualifications for the successful discharge of its duties. 
See under Eph. iii. 8. They came to a knowledge of the divine 
gift enjoyed by Paul, implying that they had not distinctly 
understood it before. If they added nothing to Paul, he cer 
tainly added something to them. Horn. i. 5, xii. 3. 

Ta/c&)/3o<? Kal K^as Kal Iwdvvrjs "James and Cephas 
and John." The order of the names differs. A omits KOI 
Kr)(j)as ; D, F, G, and the Itala read JTer/ao? Kal laKw/Sos, 
followed by few supporters ; while the reading as we have 
given it is found in B, C, K, L, N, and versions and fathers. 
The placing of Ki)(f)a$ first is a natural correction from the 
mention of Peter in the previous verse ; but James is first, 
from his immediate official status, and he must have had 



126 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIAXS. 

great influence at the consultation. So much did he become 
the central figure, that Irenseus characterizes the other apostles 
as Id autem qui circa Jacobum apostoli. Advers. Hceres. 
iii. 12, vol. i. p. 494, ed. Stieren. See Essay at the end of 
previous chapter. There is no good reason for supposing that 
the James of this verse is other than the Lord s brother, i. 19, 
who according; to all tradition was head of the church in Jerti- 

O 

salem. Stier, Wieseler, and Davidson, however, take the 
James of this verse for the Apostle James, son of Alpheeus. 
But is it not likely that some clause or epithet would have been 
given to the James of the second chapter, if he were different 
from the James of the first ? or how were his readers to be 
guided to make the necessary distinction ? See p. 98. The 
two participles have these proper names as substantives. Of 
them the apostle adds 

Ol So/cowre? arv\ot elvai " who have the reputation of 
being pillars," not, as in Authorized Version, " who seemed to 
be," either in tense or signification. The Genevan has, "which 
are taken to be pyllers." There is no pleonasm in SoKovvres. 
Mark x. 42; Luke xxii. 24; Josephus, Antiq. xix. 6, 3; Winer, 
65-7. The figure in the term o"rv\ot, is a common and 
natural one. It represents the Hebrew "NBy in Ex. xiii. 21, 22, 
xiv. 24, referring to the pillar of fire, and it occurs often in a 
literal sense in the description of the tabernacle. Its tropical 
use may be seen in the New Testament, 1 Tim. iii. 15, Rev. 
iii. 12. It is employed often by rabbinical writers as an epithet 
of great teachers and saints. See Schoettgen, i. 728, 9 ; com 
pare Prov. ix. 1. It occurs in a personal sense in the Epistle 
of the Church at Lyons crruXou? ebpaiovs, Euseb. Hist. EccL 
v. 1 ; in the first Epistle of Clement, i. 5, Peter and Paul are 
ol fjieyicrTOL Kal Si/catoTaroi aTV\ot eStcoy^cray. See Horn. 
Clement, xviii. 14, eTrra arvXovs /cooyiw. Many examples from 
the Greek and Latin fathers will be found in Suicer, Thes. 
sub voce. The figure is found also in the classics : aTv\oi <yap 
OLKWV elal 7roiSe9 apaeves, Euripides, Ipli. Aid. 57 ; u-v/r^X?}? 
(7x67775 CTTV\.OV TroBrjp T], yEschylus, Agam. 897 ; also, stantem 
columnam, Horace, Od. i. 35. The accent of cmXo9 is doubt 
ful, though probably evidence preponderates for crrOXo? 
perhaps the old xEolic form : Lipsius, p. 43, Leipzig 1863. 
Ellicott and Tischendorf print it crruXot, and the v is invariably 



CHAP. II. 9. 127 

long in poetry, though it is short in the Latin stylus. Rost und 
Palm, sub voce. These three men were esteemed as " pillars," 
and deservedly so, as they supported and graced the Christian 
edifice which is not necessarily imaged here as a temple, 
zealous, gifted, mighty, and successful labourers, able to look 
beyond the narrow and national boundary within which some 
would confine the gospel, and qualified to guide the church in 
any crisis with enlightened and generous advice; for they 
solemnly and formally recognised Paul on this occasion. 

Je|ta? e&wfcav e /nol teal Bapvdfta tcoivcwtas " gave to me 
and Barnabas right hands of fellowship." The first noun is 
far removed from the genitive which it governs. Such a sepa 
ration when the genitive follows sometimes happens from the 
sudden intervention of some emphatic or explanatory phrase. 
John xii. 11; Eom. ix. 21; 1 Cor. viii. 7; Phil. ii. 10; 1 
Thess. ii. 13 ; 1 Tim. iii. 6 ; Winer, 30, 3, note 2. One may 
say in this case that Seta<? e&toKav stand first, referring to the 
visible hearty pledge of recognition; and that efiol Kol Bapvdfia 
follow, from their close relation to eScoKav and icoivwvias, which 
are put in immediate connection with the explanation. Both 
nouns are anarthrous. The first noun with this verb is often used 
without the article, the second wants it by correlation. Middle- 
ton, pp. 36, 49, ed. Kose ; Apollonius, de Synt, p. 90 ; 1 Mace, 
xi. 50, 62, xiii. 50. Compare, however, Gersdorf s Beitrage, 
pp. 314-334. For tcoivcavta, see under Phil. i. 5. The giving 
of the right hand was a common pledge of friendship or cove 
nant then as now. While the Hebrew T jri3 means " to sur 
render," as in 2 Chron. xxx. 8, Lam. v. 6, it denotes also to 
pledge, 2 Kings x. 15, Ezra x. 19. Compare Ezek. xvii. 18, 
Prov. xi. 21, Lev. vi. 2; Diodor. Sic. 16, 43; Xen. Anab. ii. 3, 
11; Aristoph. Nub. 81 ; Euripides, Medea, 91, and Person s note. 
This giving of right hands was the pledge of fellowship, the 
recognition of Paul and Barnabas as fellow-labourers. Chry- 
sostom exclaims, */2 crvvea-ea)? vvrep/SoXr/ fcal <rv[Mfxov(a$ d?roSetf t? 
avavrip priTos. " It was no such parting as when Luther in 
the castle of Marburg refused the hand of Zuingle, or when 
James Andrea? refused that of Theodore Beza at Montbeliard" 
(Thiersch). The purpose was 

"Iva T^et? 69 TCL e&vq " in order that we unto the heathen." 
The particle /j,ev is found after T^CI? in A, C, D, K, many cur- 



128 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 

sives, and several of the fathers ; but the simple pronoun is 
read in B, F, H, K, L, K 1 , Vulgate and Clarom. and Gothic 
version, in Origen, Theophylact, CEcumenius, and in most of 
the Latin fathers. Griesbach marks it as probable, Tischen- 
dorf omits it, Lachmann and Meyer accept it ; but Wieseler, 
Ellicott, Alford, and Lightfoot rightly reject it. It seems 
to have been inserted to produce a correspondence with the 
following Se. The clause wants a verb, and is all the more 
emphatic, as if no verb of sufficient fulness and distinction had 
presented itself readily or at the moment to his mind. The 
words " we to the Gentiles " say all that is needful. His 
readers could easily divine what the phrase implied. Compare 
Rom. iv. 16, 1 Cor. i. 31, 2 Cor. viii. 13, iva being similarly 
placed in all these quotations. 

Avrol &e el$ Trjv TT^ITO^V " and they unto the circum 
cision," the abstract used as in ver. 7 for the concrete. Are 
not the Jews so named here on purpose, as if the reference were 
not only to the covenant rite, but also to what had been the 
theme of dissension at Antioch and the subject of present con 
sultation in Jerusalem I while Wvr) is used in its broad sense, 
of all the nations beyond Palestine, as nations in want of a free 
and unclogged offer of the gospel. Some would supply evay- 
ye\ia)fjie0a COVTCU, as Winer and others ; but et? with a per 
sonal reference is not used by Paul after this verb. Yet we 
have a very similar connection in 2 Cor. x. 16, and this prepo 
sition follows the corresponding noun, 1 Thess. ii. 9; see 1 Pet. 
i. 25. Meyer in his last edition drops his objection to evayye\. 
as the supplement, which he had stated in his third edition. 
Others propose TropevOwjjLev Qwcnv, as Bengel and Fritzsche ; 
but the apostle s idea implies both these verbs ; Erasmus and 
Schott fill in by apostolatu fungeremur. Though this agreement 
referred generally to spheres of labours, it cannot strictly be 
called a geographical division ; nor was it a minute mapping out 
of future travels. Thousands of Jews were in " the dispersion," 
among whom the three apostles might labour ; and Paul, " as 
his custom was," went first to the Jews : Acts xvii. 2, 10, xviii. 
5, xix. 8. He speaks in his imprisonment of some of his com 
panions "who are of the circumcision," Col. iv. 11 ; and Peter 
and John travelled into heathen countries. Peter is found in 
Paul s way at Antioch ; but Paul " would not build on another 



CHAP. II. 10. 129 

man s foundation " " would not boast in another man s line 
of things made ready to our hand." 

Ver. 10. Movov TWV TTTW^WV iva fj,vr]fj,ovev(i)/nev, o /cal 
aa avro TOVTO Troifjaai " Only they asked us that 
we should remember the poor, which very thing I also was 
forward to do." The adverb belongs to the previous clause 
beginning with iva. There is no formal ellipse, and no verb 
like alrovvres or Trpoa-KaXovvres needs to be supplied (Borger, 
Winer, Riickert, Usteri) : vi. 12 ; 2 Thess. ii. 7. The clause 
is scarcely a limitation of the compact, but is rather an under 
standing, so slight as not to contradict what the apostle has just 
said " they communicated nothing to me." They gave us the 
right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles; only 
we were to remember the poor of the circumcision. Horn. xv. 
26, 27 ; 1 Cor. xvi. 3. The order of the words is peculiar, and 
fiovov iva TWV TTTCO-^MV in D, F, etc., is an evident emendation. 
The position of rwv TTTW^WV is emphatic, John xiii. 29, 2 Thess. 
ii. 7 ; and this irregular position occurs in a different form in 
the previous verse. Winer, 61, 3. For a similar position of 
iW, see 1 Cor. vii. 29, 2 Cor. ii. 4. The emphasis is thus on 
" the poor," the understanding being that Paul and Barnabas 
were to remember them. The subjective verb fiv^fjiovevw governs 
here the genitive, though occasionally it is followed by the 
accusative, indicating a different aspect of idea. Matthiae, 
347 ; Winer, 30, 10, c. Many believers in Juda3a were 
poor, and the victims of persecution. It would be wrong to 
limit the poor to the city of Jerusalem (Piscator and Estius). 
In the contract that thev should go to the Gentiles to make 

/ O 

them the special field of labour, they were, however, to take 
with them this understanding, that they were to remember the 
Jewish poor believers. To "remember the poor" is a quiet 
Christian way of expressing generous pecuniary benefaction, 
not the idle and cheap well-wishing reprobated by the Apostle 
James. The apostle now adds this brief explanation for him 
self ; for he and Barnabas soon after parted : 

V O fcal ecTTTovoacra avTo TOVTO Troiijaai, " which very thing 
I was also forward to do." The repetition of avro TOVTO after 
the relative is no direct imitation of a well-known Hebraism. 
Nordheimer, ffeb. Gram. 897, 898. In such cases ayro? is 
the pronoun most commonly employed in the Septuagint. 

I 



130 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 

Thiersch, De Pcntat. Alex. p. 123, lias noted some examples 
in the Seventy, as Gen. xxiv. 37, xxviii. 13, xlviii. 15; Ex. 
xxx. 6 ; Num. xiii. 20 : and also in the New Testament, as 
Eev. vii. 2, xii. 14. Ellicott adds Mark i. 7, vii. 25. The 
idiom before us is thus no Hebraism (Ixiickert, Baumgarten- 
Crusius) ; nor are avro TOVTO redundant, as Piscator and 
many of the older interpreters affirm. The idiom is well 
known. Kuhner, ii. p. 527 ; Winer, 21, 3, 2, 22, 4 ; Stall- 
baum, Plato, Goryias, p. 285 (509 E.) ; Sophocles, Pldloctet. 
315, and there Hermann s note in reply to Person s conjecture 
in his Adversaria, p. 199. See under Phil. i. 6. The emphasis 
is on the verb the apostle was forward to do it, and needed not 
any such recommendation. The past tense of the verb needs not 
have either a perfect (Conybeare) or a pluperfect signification, 
as denoting time past with reference to the conference, that is, 
before it (Jatho, Webster and Wilkinson) ; but it signifies, that 
at that past period now referred to, he was forward to remem 
ber the poor " also," Kai as forward to do it as they were 
to stipulate for it. Probably the Galatians did not need to be 
told this, for he informs the Corinthians, 1 Cor. xvi. 1, " Now 
concerning the collection for the saints, as I have mven order 

O / O 

to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye." Compare Horn, 
xv. 26, where Macedonia and Achaia are said to make a col 
lection et9 TOU? 7TTftnOi>9 ro)V dylcov rwv ev Iepovcra\i]/A, and 
the argument which follows in ver. 27. Such benevolence 
shows the unity of the church amidst this apparent diversity of 
procedure. The special spiritual obligations under which the 
Gentiles lay to the Jews, were partially and cheerfully fulfilled 
in those temporal charities which the Jews did not hesitate to 
receive from their Gentile brethren. But the sending of this 

O 

money was no tribute, no token of their dependence on the 
mother church (Olshausen) : Acts xxi. 17, xxiv. 17, and Acts 
xi. 29 at an earlier period ; 2 Cor. viii. and ix. To take 6 for 
Si o, a conjecture hazarded by Schott, is vague and inadmis 
sible here, though it may occur in poetry. Allied to this is 
another meaning, den deshalb, "for that very reason :" 2 Pet. 
i. 5 ; Xen. Anab. 1, 9, 21 ; Plato, Protag. 310 E ; Winer, 21, 
3, 2 ; Matthiae, 470. Such a mode of construction is here 
quite unnecessary. Nor can the reference be that which Usteri 
quotes from his friend Studer, " even this," that is, " nothing 



CHAP. II. 10. 131 

more did the apostles communicate ;" nor can it be " which also, 
that same, trifling and inconsiderable as it was" (Gwynne). It 
simply refers to the fact that the very thing stipulated was the 
very thing the apostle was forward to do, and independently al 
together of the stipulation. It is needless to ascribe the poverty 
of the believers in Jerusalem to any such remote cause as the 
free table established after Pentecost, and which was furnished 
by a kind of voluntary communism ; for we know not how long 
the experiment lasted, or to what extent it was supported. Nor 
need we think of any abuse of the doctrine of the second advent 
as being near at hand (Jowett), an error in the Thessalonian 
church which apparently unhinged its social relations. We 
have but to remember " the spoiling of your goods" in the 
Epistle to the Hebrews, and what the apostle says to the Thes- 
salonians, 1 Thess. ii. 14, 15, " For ye, brethren, became fol 
lowers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ 
Jesus : for ye also have suffered like things of your own coun 
trymen, even as they have of the Jews ; who both killed the 
Lord Jesus and their own prophets, and have persecuted us ; 
and they please not God, and are contrary to all men." 

The three apostles here referred to, whatever their prepos 
sessions, yield to the force of Paul s statements. Peter also 
at the council called the imposition of the law on Gentile con 
verts an intolerable yoke, for the Gentile was saved by the 
same grace as the Jew. Peter appealed only to the great facts 
which had met him unexpectedly in his own experience ; but 
James, in the old theocratic spirit, connected the outburst of 
Christianity with ancient prophecy as its fulfilment. In his 
thought, God takes out of the Gentiles a people for His name, 
and by an election as real as when He separated Israel of old 
from all the nations. The prophecy quoted by him describes 
the rebuilding of the tabernacle of David, not by restoring his 
throne in Jerusalem over Jews, and over heathen who as a test 
of their loyalty become proselytes, but by the reconstitution 
of the theocracy in a more spiritual form, and over myriads 
of new subjects "all the Gentiles" without a hint of their 
conformity to any element of the Mosaic ritual. This expan 
sion of the old economy had been foreseen ; it was no out 
growth unexpected or unprovided for. Believers were not to 
be surprised at it, or to grudge that their national supremacy 



132 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 

should disappear amidst the Gentile crowds, who in doing 
homage to David s Son, their Messiah, should raise " the 
tabernacle of David" to a grandeur which it had never at 
tained, and could never attain so long as it was confined to 
the territory of Judaea. The Jewish mind must have been 
impressed by this reasoning this application of their own 
oracles to the present crisis. So far from being perplexed by 
it, they ought to have been prepared for it ; so far from being 
repelled by it, they ought to have anticipated it, prayed for 
it, and welcomed its faintest foregleams, as in the preaching 
of Philip in Samaria, and of Peter to Cornelius. Paul and 
Barnabas, in addressing the multitude " the church, the 
apostles and elders" did not launch into a discussion of the 
general question, or attempt to demonstrate abstract principles. 
First, in passing through Phenice and Samaria, they "de 
clared the conversion of the Gentiles;" and secondly, at the 
convention theirs was a simple tale which they allowed to work 
its own impression they " declared what miracles and wonders 
God had wrought among the Gentiles by them." The logic 
of their facts was irresistible, for they could not be gainsaid. 
Let their audience account for it as they chose, and endeavour to 
square it with their own opinions and beliefs as best they might, 
God was working numerous and undeniable conversions among 
the Gentiles as visibly and gloriously as among themselves. 

The haughty exclusiveness of the later Judaism made it 
impossible for the church to extend without some rupture and 
misunderstanding of this nature. That exclusiveness was 
nursed by many associations. For them and them alone was 
the temple built, the hierarchy consecrated, and the victim slain. 
Their history had enshrined the legislation of Moses, the priest 
hood of Aaron, the throne of David, and the glory of Solomon. 
The manna had been rained upon their fathers, and the bright 
Presence had led them. Waters had been divided and enemies 
subdued. Sinai had been lighted up, and had trembled under 
the majesty and voice of Jehovah. Their land was hallowed 
by the only church of God on earth, and each of them was a 
member of it by birth. His one temple was on Mount 
Moriah, and they gloried in the pride of being its sole pos 
sessors. The archives of their nation were at the same time 
the records of their faith. Nothing was so opposed to their 



CHAP. II. 10. 133 

daily prepossessions as the idea of a universal religion. Or if 
the boundaries of the covenanted territory were to be widened, 
Zion was still to be the centre. Foreign peoples were to have 
no separate and independent worship ; all nations were to flow 
to the " mountain of the Lord s house, established in the top of 
the mountains, and exalted above the hills." It is impossible for 
us to realize the intensity of Jewish feeling on these points, as 
it was ever influencing Hebrew believers to relapse into their 
former creed, and leading others into the self-deceptive and 
pernicious middle course of Judaizers. In such circumstances, 
the work of the Apostle Paul naturally excited uneasiness 
and suspicion in the best of them, for it was so unlike their 
own sphere of service. But the elder apostles were at this 
period brought to acquiesce in it, and they virtually sanctioned 
it, though there might not be entire appreciation of it in all its 
extent and certain consequences. 

There is no ground, therefore, for supposing that there was 
any hostility between Paul and these elder apostles, or any de 
cided theological difference, as many strenuously contend for. 
They all held the same cardinal truths, as is manifest from the 
Gospel and Epistles of John, and from the Epistles of Peter. 
There are varying types of thought arising from mental pecu 
liarity and spiritual temperament, accidental differences show 
ing more strongly the close inner unity. Nor is the Epistle 
of James in conflict with the Pauline theology. It was in 
all probability written before these Judaistic disputes arose ; 
for, though addressed to Jews, it makes no mention of them. 

/ O w 

Its object among other things was to prove that a justifying 
faith must be in its nature a sanctifying faith ; that a dead 
faith is no faith, and is without all power to save ; and that 
from this point of view a man is justified by works the pro 
ducts of faith being identified with itself, their one living 
source. 

Nor can we say that there were, even after the convention, 
no misunderstandings between Paul and the other apostles. 
While they were at one with him in thought, they seem not to 
have had the same freedom to act out their convictions. There 
was no opposition on any points of vital doctrine ; but though 
they held that his success justified him, they did not feel at 
liberty, or had not sufficient intrepidity, to follow his example. 



1 34 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 

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

1 The words of Polycrates are, o; iyiv/;6r, hpivg TO verx^ov 7r^opr,x,u;. 
Euseb. Hist. Ecclcs. v. 24. The word Trirx^ov is rendered by Jerome (De 
Viris Illus. 4, 5), aurea lamina the plate on the high priest s mitre. 
Epiphauius records the same thing also of James the Just, Hseres. 39, 2. 



NOTE ON CHAP. II. 1. 135 

ance, " I will give Thee for a light to the Gentiles, that Thou 
mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth." Truer by 
far was he to the old covenant, and those numerous fore-show 
ings of a better and broader dispensation, than they "which were 
scattered abroad upon the persecution that rose about Stephen, 
and who travelled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, 
preaching the word to none, but unto the Jews only" and than 
those who, by insisting on the circumcision of Gentile converts, 
were barring the way while they professed to open it, and clog 
ging the gift in their mode of presenting it with conditions 
which robbed it of its value by hampering its freeness. 

The power of early association, w r hich grows with one s 
growth, is very difficult to subdue; for it may suddenly reassert 
its supremacy at some unguarded moment, and expose inherent 
weakness and indecision. He who, on being instructed by a 
vision, had preached to Cornelius and admitted him by baptism 
into the church, and who, when " they of the circumcision 
contended with him," had nobly vindicated his procedure, and 
rested his concluding argument on the remembered words of 
the Master, who had spoken so boldly in the synod, and 
joined in the apostolic circular, sunk at Antioch so far beneath 
himself and these former experiences, that Paul was obliged to 
withstand him to the face. 



NOTE ON CHAP. n. 1. 
Ai/e ^i/ els lepod6Xvfj.a " I went up agaiu to Jerusalem." 

Five visits of the apostle to Jerusalem are mentioned in the 
Acts, and the question is, which of them can be identified with 
the visit so referred to in the first verse of this chapter, or is 
that visit one not mentioned in the Acts at all? 

These visits are : 1. That recorded in Acts ix. 26, and re 
ferred to already in Gal. i. 18. See p. 50. 

2. The second visit is described in Acts xi. 27-30, and the 
return from it in Acts xii. 25. In consequence of a famine, 
" which came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar," Bar 
nabas and Saul carried up from Antioch " relief to the brethren 



136 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 

which dwelt in Judaea ;" and their mission being accomplished, 
they " returned from Jerusalem." 

3. The third visit is told in Acts xv. In consequence of 
Judaistic agitation in the church at Antioch, it was resolved 
" that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should 
go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders about this ques 
tion." The agitation was renewed in Jerusalem, and after the 

O t 

deputies had been " received of the church," a council was 
held, and a letter was written. Then Paul and Barnabas re 
turned to Antioch, accompanied by Silas and Judas Barsabas, 
who carried the epistle, and had it also in charge to expound 
its contents " to tell the same things by mouth." 

4. The fourth visit is inferred from Acts xviii. 21, where 
the apostle says, " I must by all means keep this feast that 
cometh in Jerusalem," followed by the announcement, that 
" when he had landed at Caasarea, and gone up and saluted the 
church, he went down to Antioch." 

5. The fifth visit is given at length in Acts xxi. 1-17, etc. 
The apostle sailed from Philippi " after the days of unleavened 
bread;" and he would not spend any time in Asia, for "he 
hasted if it were possible for him to be at Jerusalem the day of 
Pentecost," 

Now the first and last visits may be at once set aside. He sets 
aside the first himself by affirming that the one under discus 
sion was a subsequent visit to it eVetra; and he did not return 
to Antioch after his last visit, but he went down to it after 
this visit, as is implied in ii. 11. Nor is it likely that his visit 
to Jerusalem as a delegate from Antioch on a theological con- 

O O 

troversy was the fourth visit, for its only asserted purpose was 
to keep a Jewish feast. Whiston, Van Til, Credner, and 
Blickert virtually, with Kohler, Hess, Huther (on 1 Pet. p. 8), 
and Lutterbeck, adopt this view, which has been strenuously con 
tended for by Wieseler in his Chronologie d. apostol. Zeitalters, 
p. 179, and in a Chronologischer Excurs appended to his com 
mentary on this epistle. Wieseler, struck by Paul s circumcision 
of Timothy after the visit referred to in this epistle, and by some 
objections adduced by Baur, tries to escape from the difficulty 
by adopting this hypothesis. But in this visit of the Galatian 
epistle, the apostle describes his interview with the apostles as a 
novelty ; while the entire narrative implies that they met for the 



THE FOURTH VISIT. 137 

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



138 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 

but at such a crisis as that which necessitated the third visit, 
Titus, a person so deeply interested that in his person the 
question was virtually tested, is very naturally found along with 
the champion of Gentile freedom in the Jewish metropolis. 
Wieseler indeed attempts to find Titus in Acts xviii. 7, where 
the common reading lovarov is found in some MSS. as Tirov 

O 

lovcrrov or TLTLOV a reading rejected by Lachmann and 
Tischendorf, and probably a traditional emendation. lie again 
argues that the clause, ii. 5, u that the truth of the gospel 
might remain with you," implies that Paul had been in Galatia 
before he could so write of any purpose of his at the conven 
tion. But the apostle merely identifies, as well he might, a 
more proximate with a more future purpose. See on the verse. 
Another of Wieseler s proofs that the visit must be the fourth 
one is, because it allows unrestricted freedom to the Gentile 
converts, whereas at the third visit the circular issued and car 
ried down to Antioch laid them under certain restrictions. 
But in making this affirmation he travels beyond the record in 
Gal. ii. 1-10, which speaks only of the apostolic concordat, and 
says not a syllable about the general standing of the Gentile 
converts. There is thus a certainty that his fourth visit is not 
the one referred to by the apostle in the words, " Then fourteen 
years after I went up to Jerusalem." 

Nor in all probability was it the second visit, when he went 
up with funds to relieve the poor. This opinion is given in the 
Chronicon Paschale, 1 and held by Calvin, Keil, Kuchler, Gabler, 
Heinrichs, Kuinoel, Koppe, Bottger, Fritzsche, and by Browne, 
Ordo Sccclorum, p. 97. The prophecy of Agabus could not be 
the "revelation" by which he went up; and this visit could not 
have been so long as fourteen years after his conversion. On such 
a theory, too, he must have spent nearly all the intermediate and 
unrecorded time at Tarsus. But, according to Acts, no period 
of such duration can be assigned to his sojourn in his native 
city, for w T e find him very soon afterwards at Antioch. Prior to 
the visit of this chapter, Paul and Barnabas were noted as mis 
sionaries among the heathen ; the elder apostles saw that Paul 
had been entrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision, for 
he described to them the gospel which he was in the habit of 

1 Ketl o ilTre Trdhiv, ^yhovoTi tripa iaTiv Kvfiu.iji$ UVTYI. Vol. i. p. 436, 
ed. Dindorf, Bonn 1832. 



THE SECOND VISIT. 139 

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



140 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIAXS. 

was sent "by the hands of Barnabas and Saul;" "Barnabas 
and Saul returned from Jerusalem." Acts xi. 30, xii. 25. If 
one object that the visit under review could not be the second 
visit, because Peter, on being released from prison, had left 
Jerusalem (Acts xii. 17), and could not therefore come into 
conference with Paul and Barnabas, Fritzsche replies, perperam 
aflrmes, for Paul and Barnabas had finished their stewardship 
prior to the martyrdom of James and the arrest of Peter. But 
to sustain his view, he breaks up the natural coherence and 
sequence of the narrative. 

The probabilities are therefore in favour of its being the 
third visit recorded in Acts xv., when Paul and Barnabas went 
up as deputies from the church at Antioch on the embarrass 
ing question about the circumcision of Gentile converts. The 
large majority of critics adhere to this view ; and among 
authors not usually referred to in this volume may be named, 
Baronius, Pearson, Hemsen, Lekebusch, Ussher, Schnecken- 
burger, Thiersch, Lechler, Baumgarten, Kitschl, Lange, 
Schaff, Anger, de Temporum in Actis ratione, iv. ; and Trip, 
in his Paulus nach der Apostelgeschichte, Leiden 1866. Baur, 
Schwegler, Zeller, and Hilgeufeld hold the same opinion, 
only for the sinister purpose of showing that the discrepancies 
between Acts and Galatiaus in reference to the same event 
are so great and insoluble, that Acts must be given up as 
wholly wanting historical basis and credit. But in Acts, Paul 
and Barnabas were commissioned, and "certain others;" in 
the epistle, Titus is mentioned as being with the two leaders. 
The question at Antioch was virtually the same as that dis 
cussed in the public conference at Jerusalem ; and as a 
testing case, the circumcision of Titus was refused, after it 
had been apparently insisted on with a pressure that is called 
compulsion. At this visit Paul stood out in the specific 
character and functions of an apostle of the Gentiles ; the 
other apostles acquiesced in his work, not as a novel sphere 
of labour, but one which he had been filling with signal suc 
cess. True, he says, "I went up by revelation;" but the 
statement is not inconsistent with the record in Acts, that 
he was sent as a deputy. Commission and revelation are not 
necessarily in antagonism. The revelation might be made 
either to the church to select him, or to himself to accept the 



THE THIRD VISIT. 141 

call. Or it might open up to him the true mode of doing the 
work, and of securing Gentile liberty. Or it might take up 
the more personal question of his own standing ; and he chiefly 
refers to this point in the epistle, for it concerned the argu 
ment which he was conducting, and closely touched the more 
public theme of disputation. The first form of revelation is 
found in the history of the same church, Acts xiii., but the 
case is not analogous to the one before us. Quite a parallel 
case, however, is related by the historian, and told by Paul 
himself : the efforts of the brethren to save his life were co 
incident with a vision vouchsafed to himself. Acts ix. 30, 31, 
xxii. 17-21. 1 As the iraXw of ver. 1 does not make it of 
necessity a second visit, so the history of the third visit in Acts 
xv. is not in opposition to the paragraph of the epistle before 
us. The historian, looking at the mission in its more public 
aspects, describes the assembly at Jerusalem to which Paul 
and Barnabas were deputed ; but the apostle, looking at it 
from his own line of defence, selects what was personal to him 
self and germane to his argument his intercourse with the 
three " pillars," and their recognition of his independent apostle- 
ship. It is vain for Baur and his school to insist on any noto 
rious discrepancy; for private communication is not inconsistent 
with, but may be preparatory to a public convention, or may 
spring out of it. It is true that John is not mentioned in 
Acts as being present at the assembly, as he might have taken 
no prominent part in the consultation, though he is spoken of 
as being at the interview in Galatians. It is further argued, 
as by Wieseler, that the third visit to Jerusalem and its convo 
cation cannot be the one referred to in this epistle, because in 
the epistle no notice is taken of the decrees of the council. 
This silence about these local and temporary decrees, which were 
simply " articles of peace," as Prof. Lightfoot calls them, is 
one of Baur s curious arguments for denying that such a docu 
ment was ever issued at all. The abstinence enjoined in them 
was to produce conformity in three things to the Jewish ritual; 
and the moral veto refers probably not to incest or marriage 
within the Levitical degrees, but to the orgies so often con- 

1 Biley, however, without any good ground, places this vision at the 
second visit, during the Herodian persecution. Supplement to I aley s 
Horse, Paulinas, p. 6. 



142 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIAXS. 

nected with heathen worship, and to indulgence in which the 
heathen converts, from custom and a conscience long seared as 
to the virtue of chastity, and not yet fully awake to its neces 
sity, might be most easily tempted. 1 But the apostle never 
refers to the decrees at any time, when he might have made 
naturally some allusion to them, as in 1 Cor. x. and in Ixom. 
xiv. Nay, in the first of these places, he virtually sets aside 
one of the articles of the apostolic letter. It forbade the eat 
ing of "meats offered to idols;" but lie represents it to the 
Corinthians as a matter of indifference or of liberty, the ques 
tion of eating or of abstinence depending on the degree of 
enlightenment one may have, and on the respect he ought to 
show to a brother s scruples. In the Epistle to the Romans he 
takes similar ground, not that it is wronj in itself to eat certain 

~ O 

meats " I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that 
there is nothing unclean of itself;" but the law laid down is, 
that no one in the exercise of his just liberty is to put a stum 
bling-block in his brother s way. The apostle probably did not 
regard the decrees as having any force beyond the churches 
for which they were originally enacted and designed " the 
brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch, and Syria, and 
Cilicia." The apostolic circular, which was a species of com 
promise in a peculiar and vexing crisis, was not meant for the 
churches in Galatia which at the time had no existence. The 
circumstances, too, were different. The Gentile section of the 
church at Antioch wanted to guard itself against Judaistic 
tyranny, and there is no proof that any of its members had 
succumbed. But many in Galatia had become willing cap 
tives, and the enactment of the council had therefore no 
special adaptation to them. The churches in Antioch, Syria, 
and Cilicia were exhorted to conform on some points to Jewish 
observances, with the guarantee that no further exactions 
should be demanded ; while many in the Galatian churches 
were willing to observe, as far as possible, the entire Hebrew 
ritual. 

It is sometimes alleged, as by Keil, that Paul after the 
council became more lax in his treatment of Jews, for he cir 
cumcised Timothy ; so that this controverted visit must be one 

1 See in Deyling specimens of an attempt to show that the " decrees " 
were meant to comprise the so-called Xoachic precepts, vol. ii. p. 409. 



VACILLATION OF PETEK. 143 

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



144 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 

transgression of the decrees. They did not distinctly touch the 
point on which he slipped ; for while they enjoined certain 
compliances, they said not a word as to the general social rela 
tions of the Gentile to the Jewish brethren. This question 
was neither discussed nor settled at the council. So that 
Peter cannot be accused of violating rules in the enactment 
of which he had borne a principal share, and the objection 
based on his alleged and speedy disobedience falls to the 
ground. See under the llth and 12th verses. 

Some of the objections against the identity of the third 
visit with the one referred to in Galatians, disposed Paley to 
the notion that the Galatian visit is one not recorded in Acts 
at all. Some of these objections he certainly solves himself 
with his usual sagacity, particularly that based on the omission 
of all notice of the decrees in the epistle. He says that " it is 
not the apostle s manner to resort or defer much to the authority 
of the other apostles ;" that the epistle " argues the point upon 
principle;" and Paul s silence about the decrees "is not more to 
be wondered at, than it would be that in a discourse designed 
to prove the moral and religious duty of keeping the Sabbath, 
the writer should not quote the thirteenth canon." Works, vol. 
ii. p. 350, ed. London 1830. Still, as he is inclined to think 
that the journey was a different one from the third, he puts it 
after Acts xiv. 28 ; and he is followed by his annotator, Canon 
Tate, in his Continuous History of St. Paul, pp. 141, etc., Lon 
don 1840. Beza held a similar opinion ; and Schrader would 
insert the journey after the 20th verse of Acts xix., that is, 
the visit was made during the apostle s long sojourn at Ephesus, 
and is thus placed between the fourth and fifth visits. Der 
Apostel Paulus, vol. ii. pp. 299, etc. But while there are diffi 
culties in spite of all explanations, there seems great proba 
bility at least that the visit recorded in the epistle is the same 
as that told in Acts xv. -the third recorded visit of the apostle 
to Jerusalem. The remarks of Hofmann on the harmony 
between Acts and Galatians on the point before us may be 
read with advantage. 

Approximate chronology reckoning, according to ordinary 
Jewish computation, a fragment of a year as a whole one, 
leads to the same result. His first journey to Jerusalem was 
probably in A.D. 41, his conversion having happened three 



DATES OF THE VARIOUS VISITS. 145 

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



K 



CHAPTER II. 11-21. 

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

Antioch, a large and magnificent city, had communication 
by the Orontes and its port of Seleucia with all the territories 



CHAP. II. 11-21. 147 

bordering on the Mediterranean, and it was connected by an 
overland route with Arabia and the countries on and be 
yond the Euphrates. Men of all nations easily found their 
way into it for business or pleasure ; and into this capital 
named after his father, Seleucus had introduced a large colony 
of Jews who lived under their own ethnarch. From being 
the metropolis of Greek sovereigns, it became through the 
fortune of war the residence of Roman proconsuls. The 
gospel had been brought to it at an early period. Persons 
who had fled on the martyrdom of Stephen travelled as far as 
Antioch, " preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only," 
acting according to their light and their national prepossessions. 
But a section of these itinerating preachers, " men of Cyprus 
and Gyrene," had larger hearts and freer views, and they at 
Antioch " spake unto the Grecians, preaching the Lord Jesus." 
Great results followed these ministrations. Tidings of the 

O 

immense success were carried to the church in Jerusalem, 
which at once, and probably from a combination of motives, 
sent Barnabas to visit the Syrian capital. The earnest and 
self-denying Cypriot at once undertook the work, and rejoiced 
in the spectacle which he witnessed ; but he felt the labours so 
augmenting, that he went and fetched Saul to be his colleague. 
Their joint ministry among the mixed people that thronged 
the streets and colonnades of this Rome in miniature lasted a 
year ; and such were its numerous converts, that the native 
population were, for the sake of distinction, obliged to coin a 
name for the new and rising party, and they called them 
Christians. Antioch thus became the metropolis of Gen 
tile Christianity, and Jerusalem looked with jealousy on its 
northern rival. In it originated the first formal Christian 
mission, and Paul made it his headquarters, starting from it 
on his three great evangelistic journeys. The peace of this 
society, however, was soon disturbed by Jewish zealots from 
Jerusalem, and Paul and Barnabas went up to the mother 
church "about this question." Gal. ii. 1. A council was held, 
the decrees were issued and sent down, and the two deputies 
returned to Antioch and resumed their old work " teaching 
and preaching the word of the Lord." At some period after 
this, Peter happened to come down to Antioch, and ths 
scene here described took place. Just as from attachment 



148 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIAXS. 

to Jesus he followed " into the palace of the high priest, 
and found himself in almost the only circle where he could be 
tempted to deny his Lord ; so now he had travelled to almost 
the only city which presented that strange variety of circum 
stances by which, from his peculiar temperament, he could be 
snared into this momentary cowardice and dissimulation. 

Yer. 11. "Ore Se r/\9ev K??(/>a? ei<? ^Avno^eiav " But when 
Cephas came to Antioch." K^fyas is found in A, B, C, II, 
N, in the Vulgate, Syriac, and Coptic versions ; but Ilerpo^ 
has in its favour D, F, K, L, and the Greek fathers. The 
Hebrew name was more likely, however, to be altered than the 
usual Greek one. By Se he passes to another and different 
argument. Paul and Barnabas went down after the council, 
and Peter seems to have followed them, though his visit is not 
recorded in Acts. Augustine, Hug, and Schneckenburger 
refer the visit to an earlier epoch, yet the apostle appears to 
follow the order of time ; while Neander, Sardinoux, Baum- 
garten, Lange, and AVieseler of course, assign it to a later 
year. But Barnabas had separated from Paul before the 
time alluded to in Acts xviii. 22, and they were together in 
Jerusalem at the period of the council. There is no authority 
for saying either, with Schrader, that Peter had accompanied 
Paul and Barnabas from Jerusalem, or with Thiersch, that it 
was his first visit to the metropolis of Gentile Christianity. 

Kara TrpoawjTOV ai>Tu> avrecrT^v, on KaTeyvwcrfAevos TJV " I 
withstood him to the face, because he had been condemned." 

The Syriac reads <TLO oooi . \ n / ? AVn> ^.^SD, " because they 

~~ 7 

were stumbled by him." The last clause sets out the reason 
of the conflict, and then it is historically stated. The 
verb KarajL yvuxrKco, generally followed by the genitive of the 
person and accusative of the thing, means to know or note 
something against one, next to lay this to his charge, and then 
naturally to condemn him accusation followed by the passing 
of sentence. The perfect participle passive with rjv has its 
natural meaning, " because he had been condemned," not 
simply accused, but condemned. Compare 1 Cor. xi. 5, Heb. 
v. 14, x. 22. The Vulgate reads doubly wrong, in sense and 
in syntax, guia reprehensibilis erat; and so Calvin, reprehensione 
diymis. And this rendering is followed by many, as Beza, 



CHAP. II. 11. 149 

a-Lapide, Kiittner, Borger, Matthies, Brown, and the English 
Version. Others, as Winer, Schott, De Wette after Luther, 
and Jowett, take the milder meaning, which is, however, 
grammatically correct, quia reprehensus erat " because he was 
blamed." But the phrase " I withstood to the face " necessi 
tates the full signification of the participle. The instances 
commonly adduced in behalf of the adjectival meaning will 
not bear it out. It is true that in Hebrew, from its want of 
verbal adjectives, the passive participle may occasionally bear 
the sense of one ending in bills, or a participle ending in ndus. 
Gesenius, Lelirgeb. 213 ; Nordheimer, 1034, 3, b. The 
idiom is based on the notion that what is praised is praisable, 
that what is loved is lovable or deserves to be loved. Thus 
one passes easily from the idea of incorrupt to that of incor 
ruptible, from that of seen to that of visible, from that of 
touched to that of touchable or palpable. But it is difficult to 
say in regard to the Hebrew idiom when and how far the one 
notion is expanded into the other, and there is no reason why 
this usao;e should be transferred into Greek. The common 

O 

proofs taken from the classics TereXeo-^ei o?, Iliad, i. 388, and 
Lucian, de Saltatione, p. 173 (vol. v. ed. Bipont.), where the 
same word occurs as in the passage before us will not bear 
it out, and those quoted from the New Testament are also 
defective. For the aorist participle etcpi&Bevra in Jude 12 
has its regular meaning, "rooted out;" the perfect participle 
e/SSeXiry/iei/oi? in Rev. xxi. 8 is not "abominable," but "covered 
with pollutions," or abominated ; and the present participle in 
Heb. xii. 18, ^Xa^co/jeww, has its literal meaning of being 
touched. See Alford, Delitzsch, and Bleek, in loc. ; Winer, 
45, 1. So that the strong term used by the apostle leads 
us to infer that the condemnation was not simply self-con 
demnation or conscious inconsistency (Bengel, Bagge, Win- 
dischmann, Hofmann), but condemnation pronounced in no 
measured terms by those who were aggrieved by Peter s hypo 
critical conduct. Tergiversation on the part of such a man 
could not but produce deep and wide sensation in such a church 
as Antioch ; and the outraged feelings of the Gentile portion 
of it so suddenly shunned, and to all appearance so decidedly 
disparaged, must have condemned the apostle. They had but 
to compare himself, not with his former self, as he had cham- 



150 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIAXS. 

pionecl them twice over in Jerusalem, but with his recent self 
on his arrival in their city. The hollowness of his withdrawal 
from them carried with it at the same time its own condem 
nation. 

Peter therefore being signalized as a condemned man, Paul 
was obliged to interfere on behalf of honesty, consistency, and 
spiritual freedom 

Kara irpoaMirov avroj avreaTrjv " to the face I withstood 
him" not simply coram omnibus (Erasmus, Beza, Matthias, 
and Conybeare), for the preposition retains its sub-local mean 
ing, as may be inferred also from the attitude described in the 
verb avreaTrjv. Acts iii. 13, xxv. 16. Comp. 2 Cor. x. 1, 7 ; 
Sept. Dent. vii. 24, ix. 2 ; 2 Chron. xiii. 7, 8 ; Kara TrpoaceTrov 
Ta|a?, Polyb. iii. 65, 6 ; similarly xi. 14, 6. This meaning is 
not very distinctly brought out in Winer, 4-9. The antago 
nistic sense of the verb may be seen in Eph. vi. 13, 2 Tim. iii. 8. 
These two words TrpocrcoTrov, ui recrTrjv have the emphatic 
position as an index to the fidelity of the argument. Private 
remonstrance, written correspondence, appeals against Peter 
or crimination of him in his absence, would not have proved 
Paul s conscious equality of status so truly as a face-to-face 
rebuke, and that publicly, of the apostle of the circumcision. 
The iniquitous gloss Kara cr^tta " in appearance only" as 
if the whole scene had been got up between the apostles, is as 
little to be thought of as the assertion that this condemned Peter 
was not the well-known apostle, but another individual of the 
same name. See the history of that controversy at the end of 
this chapter. 

Ver. 12. Tlpo rov yap e\0elv nvas CLTTO IaKa>/3ov " for 
before that certain from James came." What is the connec 
tion of the word e\0eiv with rivas UTTO la/cco/Sou? 

1. The preposition seems to be used in no vague sense, as 
if they only came from James locality, or from Jerusalem, for 
they came from himself. Augustine, Beza, Olshausen, Schaff, 
Baumgarten-Crusius, and Brown incline to this view. But 
why name James, if locality only be alluded to ? As easy, 
since UTTO has so often a local meaning, would it have been to 
write at once, from Jerusalem airo Iepoa-o\v/jLa>v. 

2. Usteri, Winer, and Zeller connect rivas with UTTO Ja/cw- 
/3ov certain dependants or followers of James, as in the phrase 



CHAP. II. 12. 151 

Bernhardy, p. 222. Winer s explanation 
of this conjecture is loose qui Jacobi auctoritate utrum jure an 
secus usi fuerint. But this idiom is specially connected with 
names of places and abstract nouns (Ellicott), and James never 
appears as the head of a party. His name never seems to have 
been used as the watchword of any faction of Jacobites, like that 
of Paul, Cephas, and Apollos ; and this probably because he 
was resident in Jerusalem where the church thought and felt 
so much at one with himself, whereas Peter must have con 
stantly come into contact with persons of opposite sentiments, 
and preached to communities of divided opinion. 

3. The inference seems to be well grounded that they were 
persons sent from James (De Wette, Meyer, Trana). Matt. 
xxvi. 47 ; Mark v. 35 ; Mark xiv. 43 ; KOI apri, air etcelvov 
epXpfMij Plato, Protag. 309u. It may, on the one hand, be 
too strong to affirm that they were formally sent by James on 
an express mission, though it may be fairly inferred that he 
knew of their coming, and that they appeared in Antioch with 
at least his sanction ; but, on the other hand, it unduly softens 
the phrase to give it the meaning of persons who " gave out 
themselves as from James" (Winer, Eilicott). There is no war 
rant for Prof. Lightfoot s supposition, that they came " invested 
with some powers from James, wldcli they abused" For there 
is no hint that they were the same very extreme party described 
in Acts xv. 24, a party which Peter would rather have resisted 
than succumbed to. Who those men were, or what their 
mission was, we know not. The narrative of Acts says nothing 
of the occurrence. But from the result one may infer, that 
they were sent to see as to the obedience of the church to the 
decrees. These decrees respected the Gentiles, and indeed 
they originated in a reference regarding their position. No 
additional burden was to be placed on them ; but the believing 
Jews were expected to keep "the customs," and not to mix 
freely with the Gentiles. Acts xv. 19. It may, therefore, 
have been suspected at Jerusalem that the Jewish believers, 
through intercourse with Gentile brethren, were relaxing, and 
were doing what Peter had begun to do at Antioch with in- 

o o 

creasing freedom; so that the business of this deputation may 
have been, to see that the circumcision did not presume on any 
licence in consequence of the opinion of the council. See 



152 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 

Alford. Other purposes have been imagined for these " certain 
from James," without any foundation. At all events, they could 
not be the false brethren already mentioned by Paul, nor those 
disowned by James in his address before the council, and in 
the apostolic circular. Nor could they be the bearers of the 
decrees, as Eitschl (AltJcath. Kirche, p. 128) supposes, for these 
documents had been sent down at an earlier period. Before 
these certain came from James, we are told of Peter 

Mera ra>v IQvwv avv^aOiev "he was eating with the Gen 
tiles." As he had done before (Acts x.), and had defended 
the act at Jerusalem so nobly and conclusively, as is told in 
the following chapter (Acts xi.). The charge at that time was 
Kal avvetyayes aurofc, himself admitting to Cornelius that by 
Jewish ordinance such intercourse was dOe/Jurov. Compare 
Luke xv. 1 ; 1 Cor. v. 11. Some, as Olshausen and Matthies, 
widen the meaning of the phrase too much, as if it signified 
general social intercourse ; and others, as Thiersch and Hilgen- 
feld, emphasize it too much, and refer it not to ordinary diet, 
but also to communion in the love-feasts and eucharist. Peter 
then had been acting according to conviction, and as the vision 

O O 

had long ago instructed him. But on the question of eating 
with Gentiles the council had said nothing, it only forbade cer 
tain articles of food; and the circular did not settle the general 
relation of converted Gentiles to the law, for it only spoke out 
against the necessity of circumcising them. But this last enact 
ment releasing them from circumcision virtually declared them 
no longer common or unclean; and for a time at Antioch Peter 
thus understood it, so that his tergiversation was a violation in 
spirit at least of the " decrees." There is no ground for 
Wieseler s assumption, which is based on the late date which 
he assigns to this meeting at Antioch, that Peter s conduct had 
reference simply to the articles of food forbidden by these 
" decrees " which in lapse of years had fallen into comparative 
desuetude, and that, in withdrawing from social intercourse 

77 O 

with the Gentiles, he only obeyed them. The reproof of Paul 
on such a supposition would have been uncalled for and unjust; 
and for such a withdrawal, hypocrisy could not be laid to 
Peter s charge. The "certain from James" seem to have in 
sisted that the decision of the council was to be limited entirely 
to the points specified in it, and that it did not warrant such 



CHAP. II. 13. 153 

free intercourse with believing Gentiles as Peter had been 
practising. The believing Gentiles were, on that view, to be 
an inferior caste in the church. 

"Ore 8e r]\6ov, V7recrr\\ev Kal afjxapi^ev eavrov " but when 
they came, he withdrew and separated himself." The reading 
r)\6ev has B, D 1 , F, X, two other MSS., and the Itala in its 
favour ; but the plural form has preponderant authority. The 
singular rj\Qev, accepted by Lachmann, may have come from 
the following verse, from some reminiscence of the previous 
eXOeiv in ver. 11, or from some odd meaning attached to rives 

O 

arro IaKo>(3ov ; for Origen has ekdovros la/cwfiov irpos avrov, 
as if James himself had followed his rives. Contra Celsum, ii. 
1, p. 56, ed. Spencer. The two connected verbs represent 
Peter first as withdrawing himself, and then, as the fear grew, 
ultimately and formally separating himself. The imperfects 
show that not one act only, but the course which he was 
following is depicted as if placed before one s eyes. Jelf, 
401, 3. 

^oj3ovfjievos rovs e/c rrepirofJbYjs " fearing," or " inasmuch 
as he feared them of the circumcision" that is, Jews in blood, 
but Christians in creed, called lov&alcov rwv irema-revKorwv in 
Acts xxi. 20; Tit. i. 10, 11. The participle has a causal sense. 
Schmalfeld, 207, 3. Before the rives who had arrived at 
Antioch he quailed; and they certainly represented, though not 
by any formal commission, the creed and practice of the mother 
church (Wieseler). Peter might imagine that his position 
as the apostle of the circumcision was endangered. It would 
thus appear, that though he was the apostle of the circum 
cision, and might naturally be regarded as the head of that 
section of the church, there was an influence in it hio;her than 

O 

his, and a power resident in Jerusalem of which he stood in 
awe. Chrysostom is anxious to show that his fear had no con 
nection with himself, but was only anxiety about the disciples, 
his fear being parallel to that expressed by Paul in iv. 11 ; and 
Theophylact adds, that he was condemned wrongfully by men 
who did not know his motive. Somewhat similar opinions are 
held by Erasmus, Piscator, Grotius, and Dr. Brown, and most 
naturally by Baronius and Bellarmine. 

Ver. 13. Kal avvvTreKpld^arav avraj teal 01 \onrol lovSaioi 
" and the other Jews also dissembled with him." The com- 



154 EPISTLE TO THE GALATIAXS. 

pound verb the aorist passive with a deponent sense (Polyb. 
iii. 31, 7) means " to act a part along with," " to play the 
hypocrite in company with." The rest of the believing Jews 
in Antioch acted as Peter did withdrew themselves, and 
shunned all social intercourse, of the kind at least referred to, 
with their fellow-believers of the Gentiles. Now this secession 
was hypocrisy, for Peter and these other Jewish converts trans 
gressed against their better convictions. They concealed their 
real views, or acted as if they thought that it was really wrong 
to eat with Gentiles. Probably they felt as if they had gone 
beyond the understood compact, in enjoying such familiar 
intercourse with their Gentile brethren; and on account of the 
party which came from James, they suddenly and decisively 
asserted their rigid Judaism, and acted as if they had been 
convinced that their salvation depended on complete ritual 
conformity. This hypocrisy involved a denial of one of the 
primary truths of the gospel, for it had a tendency to lead the 
Gentiles to believe that they too must observe the law in order 
to justification and life. It is added, in fine, to show the mar 
vellous strength of the current 

flare /cal Bapvd/3a<$ avvaTrifyOri avrwv ry inroKpiaei, " so 
that even Barnabas was carried along with them by their dis 
simulation." The Kai is ascensive " even." Winer, 53, 3, e. 
The verb is used only tropically in the New Testament, but 
not always in malam partem : Rom. xii. 16 with the dative of 
thing. The particle ware is usually joined with the infinitive, 
that mood, according to grammarians, being used when the 
result is a matter of necessity ; but the indicative, as here, is 
employ